|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 ACCESS MANAGEMENT AS A MEANS OF ACCOMMODATING ACCESS, ACCESSIBILITY, AND MOBILITY ON AN SIS FACILITY: THE CASE STUDY OF STATE ROAD 26 THROUGH NEWBERRY, FLORIDA By CHAD JUSTIN RIDING A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009
2 2009 Chad Justin Riding
3 To mom, dad, and N ewberry
4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank all those at the City of Newberry who helped me complete this thesis. I must thank Lowell Garrett for being patient and kind enough to explain the finer details of transportation planning in Florida His years of experience proved invaluable in unraveling the enigma that is access management. Further more Wendy Kinser, Greg Ferrone, Marsha Lee, and Jim Lindahl all provided moral support through the long process that is writing a thesis. Finally, a ll other employees of the City of Newberry have created a warm, friendly environment in which to work. I will truly miss them all when my time to leave comes. I must thank the professors at the University of Florida and planners throughout the state. Dr Ruth Steiner imparted her wisdom and encouragement on how to write the thesis. Dr. ZhongRen Peng was always willing to meet with me to discuss this topic and impart his knowledge. Dr. Scott Washburn has also been extremely generous with his time and has been vital in acquiring the NCHRP 3 79 methodology and in developing the alternative spreadsheet methodology Thanks also go out to Kristine Williams, Dr. James Bonneson, Gary Sokolow, Martin Guttenplan, Jonathan Paul, and Nick Lepp. Christopher Brimo, Angelo Rao, and the kind people at Volkert Engineering must be thanked for their use of the JAMAR boards. I must also thank my fellow students at the University of Florida. Allison Fischman, Jessica Mackey, and Lee Hendricks performed a valuable servic e when they collected turning data. Benito Perez must also be thanked for his willingness to explain the complicated aspects of transportation plannin g, particularly signal timing. Last of all, I must thank my family for their love, kindness, support, and gentle prodding. None of this would have been possible without them.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ 8 LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. 9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................. 10 ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................ 12 CHA PTER 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 14 Problem Statement ...................................................................................................................... 15 Professional Significance of the Problem .................................................................................. 15 Methodology................................................................................................................................ 16 Organization of Thesis ................................................................................................................ 17 2 LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................................ 18 Formal Definitions of Accessibility and Mobility .................................................................... 18 Accessibility Issues ..................................................................................................................... 21 Land Use and Accessibility ........................................................................................................ 23 Mobility Issues ............................................................................................................................ 25 The Tradeoff of Accessibility and Mobility ............................................................................... 26 Access Management ................................................................................................................... 30 Features of Access Management ......................................................................................... 31 Goals of Access Management ............................................................................................. 32 Access, Accessibility, and Mobility .................................................................................... 34 Policy Framework of Access and Mobility ............................................................................... 35 3 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 37 Instruments and Materials Used ................................................................................................. 38 Characteristics of Dr. Bonnesons Spreadsheet Methodology .......................................... 38 Basic Assumptions of Dr. Bonnesons Methodology ........................................................ 39 Alternative Methodology .................................................................................................... 39 Assumptions of the Alternative Methodology ................................................................... 41 Measuring Access Management: Variables ........................................................................ 42 Procedures Followed ................................................................................................................... 43 Pedestrian Travel Data ......................................................................................................... 43 Data Collection .................................................................................................................... 44
6 Access Management Treatments and Scenarios ................................................................ 47 Sensitivity Analysis for the Alternative Methodology ...................................................... 51 4 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................... 72 The Researcher as Goldilocks: The Process of Developing a Methodology .......................... 72 Problems in Floridas Modeling Process ............................................................................ 73 The (Potentially False) Dichotomy of Planning and Engineering .................................... 75 An Overview of Newberry ......................................................................................................... 77 Newberry CBD and Its Surro undings ................................................................................. 77 Railroad ................................................................................................................................ 78 Research Site and Context .................................................................................................. 79 Pedestrian O bservations and Counts .......................................................................................... 80 Newberry Lights Festival ........................................................................................................... 82 Results of Dr. Bonneson's Spreadsheet Methodology .............................................................. 84 Results of the Alternative Spreadsheet Methodology ............................................................... 85 Results for the Westbound Direction .................................................................................. 85 Results for the Eastbound Direction ................................................................................... 86 Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................................................................. 87 5 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 91 General Findings on Access Management and LOS ................................................................. 91 Access, Mobility, and Access Management .............................................................................. 93 Results of th e Alternative Methodology and Access, Mobility, and Access Management ..................................................................................................................... 93 Results of Pedestrian Observations and Access, Mobility, and Access Management ..... 94 Testing the Claims of Access Management ....................................................................... 96 Accessibility, Mobility, and Access Management ..................................................................... 96 Access M anagement, Automobility, and Accessibility ..................................................... 97 Access Management, Pedestrian Accessibility, and Mobility ........................................... 98 Bridging the Gaps thr ough Holistic Transportation Planning .................................................. 99 SR 26 as an SIS Facility and Access Management ................................................................. 102 6 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... 105 Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................ 105 Recommendations for Future Studies ...................................................................................... 106 Recommendations for Planners ................................................................................................ 108 Limitations of This Study ......................................................................................................... 109 Areas of Future Research .......................................................................................................... 110 APPENDIX A VARIABLES IN DR BONNESONS METHODOLOGY .................................................... 111 B EQUATIONS USED IN THE ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGY .................................... 116
7 C RESU LTS FROM THE ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGY .............................................. 118 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 128 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........................................................................................................... 132
8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Variables in the Methodology. ............................................................................................... 53 3 2 Conversion Chart from the Speed Ratio to LOS. Adapted from Bonneson, et al., 2008, p. 30 .............................................................................................................................. 54 3 4 Values in Sensitivity Analysis for Delay Due to Other Sources. ........................................ 56 C1 Results from the alternative methodology for sensitivity analysis scenario 1 in the eastbound direction. ............................................................................................................. 118 C2 Results from the alternative methodology for sensitivity analysis scenario 1 in the westbound direction ............................................................................................................. 119 C3 Results from the alternative methodology for sensitivity analysis scenario 2 in the eastbound direction. ............................................................................................................. 120 C4 Results from the alternative methodology for sensitivity analysis scenario 2 in the westbound direction. ............................................................................................................ 121 C5 Results from the alternative methodology for sensitivity analysis scenario 3 for the eastbound direction. ............................................................................................................. 122 C5 Results from the alternative methodology for sensitivity analysis scenario 3 for the eastbound direction. ............................................................................................................. 122 C6 Results from the alternative methodology for sensitivity analysis scenario 3 for the westbound direction. ............................................................................................................ 123 C7 Results from the alternative methodology for sensitivity analysis scenario 4 for the eastbound direction. ............................................................................................................. 124 C8 Results from the alternative methodology for sensitivity analysis scenario 4 for the westbound direction. ............................................................................................................ 125 C9 Results from the alternative methodology for sensitivity analysis scenario 5 for the eastbound direction. ............................................................................................................. 126 C10 Results from the alternative methodology for sensitivity analysis scenario 5 for the westbound direction. ............................................................................................................ 127
9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 Lo cation of Newberry and SR 26 in Florida and Alachua County. .................................... 57 3 2 Map of intersections in Newberry with aerial photography and roads shown ................... 58 3 3 Map of Newberry Zoning with Subject Intersections Highlighted. .................................... 59 3 4 Map of Data Collection Locations and Major Attractors in Newberry. .............................. 60 3 5 Existing Medians in Newberry. ............................................................................................. 61 3 6 Proposed Median Treatment 1. .............................................................................................. 62 3 7 Median Treatment 2. .............................................................................................................. 63 3 8 Median Treatment 3 ............................................................................................................... 64 3 9 Median Treatment 4. .............................................................................................................. 65 3 10 Pro posed driveway closures and consolidations. ................................................................. 66 3 11 Proposed Parallel Collectors and Gainesville Destinations. ................................................ 67 3 12 TAZs in N ewberry. ................................................................................................................. 68 3 13 Sample Data Analysis Chart .................................................................................................. 69 3 14 Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT) Counts and Projections for the Segment Wes t of SR 45. ................................................................................................................................. 70 3 15 Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT) Counts and Projections for the Segment East of SR 45 ....................................................................................................................................... 71 4 1 Results of the alternative spreadsheet methodology for the eastbound direction. ............. 88 4 2 Results of the alternative spreadsheet methodology for the westbound direction. ......... 89 4 3 Pedestrian counts at intersections standardized for 2008 pm peak hour counts. ............... 90 5 1 Venn Diagram of the relationship between access, accessibility, mobility and access ma nagement. ........................................................................................................................ 104
10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AADT: Annualized Average Daily Trips BEBR: Bureau of Economic and Business Research BRT: Bus Rapi d Transit CAM: Committee on Access Management CBD: Central Business District CR: County Road CUTR: Center for Urban Transportation Research DOT: Department of Transportation FDOT: Florida Department of Transportation FHWA: Federal Highway Admi nistration FSUTMS: Florida Standard Urban Transportation Modeling Structure HCM: Highway Capacity Manual HOT: High Occupancy/ Toll LOS: Level of Service LRT: Light Rail Transit MPO: Metropolitan Planning Organization MTPO: Metropolitan Transpor tation Planning Organization NCHRP: National Cooperative Highway Research Project OECD: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development POV: Privately Owned Vehicle SR: State Road TAZ: Traffic Analysis Zones TDC: Traffic Data Collector TO D: Transit Oriented Development
11 VHT: Vehicle Hours Traveled VMT: Vehicle Miles Traveled WWII: World War II
12 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning ACCESS MANAGEMENT AS A MEANS OF ACCOMMODATING ACCESS, ACCESSIBILITY, AND MOBILITY ON AN SIS FACILITY: THE CASE STUDY OF STATE ROAD 26 THROUGH NEWBERRY, FLORIDA By Chad Justin Riding May 2009 Chair: Ruth Steiner Cochair: Zhongren Peng Major: Urban and Regional Planning Many claims are made about the ability of access management or th e practice of adding medians, driveway consolidation, access spacing, and other techniques to a transportation facility to improve the throughput and multimodal possibilities of a road network. Although numerous before and after studies exist that show th roughput improvements, there is currently no simplified methodology available that demonstrate s prospective improvements to throughput and multimodal travel from access management. This thesis tests the claims of access management to improve throughput an d multimodal travel, and thereby accommodate access, accessibility, and mobility in the case study of State Road (SR) 26 through Newberry, Florida, part of Floridas Strategic Intermodal System, a regional transporation system deemed vital for Floridas ec onomy. This project investigates the claims of access management in two ways: through a computer analysis of roadway performance, and through observations of pedestrian travel T he computer analysis uses an existing version of Highway Capacity Software and a draft version of the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM ) with a theoretical implementation of the access
13 management treatments mentioned above for both 2008 traffic counts and 2025 projections. The pedestrian observations include counts of pedestrians, observations of pedestrian behavior, and a special event that took place in December 2008. The research shows mixed results. The computer analysis showed only minor improvement s to mobility from the access management treatments. These results indicate either that the HCM does not adequately treat driveways or that Newberrys mobility problems are not caused by access problems and would not be solved through access management The pedestrian observations show that the targeted application of access management, such as medians at busy pedestrian crosswalks, consolidation of excess driveways, and parallel collectors, could improve pedestrian accessibility and mobility. The continued existence of high traffic volumes and vehicle speeds still poses a barrier to a vibrant downtown, but there are many things that the community can do to lessen these effects. The results indicate that the claims of access management are true for mul timodal travel but are still undetermined for improvements in facility throughput Although access management can accommodate access, accessibility, and mobility to a significant degree, it is still limited in its abilities. The SIS system places great e mphasis on maintaining regional mobility, or high volume of traffic on SR 26, and this emphasis poses a continued problem to local accessibility by all modes. The problem, though, lies with poor planning on all levels. Even if the SIS policies did not exist, SR 26 would still serve as the choice route for commuters heading to regional employment centers in Gainesville. What is needed are higher densities, a diverse housing stock, a fine mixing of land uses, and an interconnected transportation network that accommodates all modes. Indeed, this regional problem needs a regional solution, acting with local partners.
14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Traffic congestion is a serious problem for our nations transportation system. It imposes numerous costs on society, such as wasted fuel, increased air pollution, lost work hours, and less leisure time. In California, for example, roads suffered extensive congestion because miles traveled increased from 1982 to 1997 far beyond demand due to population growth (Giuliano, 2004). Unfortunately, congestion is not confined to large metropolises. Even small towns, particularly those close to large employment centers, can experience traffic delay when commuters clog roadways designed for much smaller volumes. Access management is one potential solution to congestion problems. It is the addition of medians, driveway closures and consolidation, spacing of access to roads, and a functional hierarchy in the road network. Access management practitioners believe its application to a transportation facility c an improve both the flow of automobile traffic and multimodal travel. Practitioners have found through before and after studies that throughput can improve by upwards of 30%. They also state that access management can improve pedestrians and bicyclists travel by creating a safer environment. It is unknown how to predict future changes in throughput on a facility from access management. The claims of access management must be tested on its ability to deliver prospective improvements in automobile and m ultimodal transportation. This study investigates the case study of Newberry, Florida a community in North Central Florida with similar problems of small -town congestion that may be helped through access management. This thesis uses cutting -edge transport ation modeling software to test the claims of access management and its promise of improving traffic flow by providing a better balance of access and mobility. State Road (SR) 26 through Newberry experiences large traffic
15 volumes as it bisects the downtow n and provides a case study for access management as very few access management treatments currently exist on the facility. Problem Statement The City of Newberry reaps substantial benefits from the SR 26 connection to Gainesville. SR 26 is a part of Flor idas Strategic Intermodal System (SIS), the state transportation network deemed vital for emergency preparedness and everyday commerce. Unfortunately for the City, Florida statute protects SIS facilities in an effort to preserve regional mobility. This policy essentially limits the Citys ability to connect local roads to the main transportation facility, SR 26, and severely constrains local roadway access. As the Level of Service (LOS) on SR 26 degrades due to new development and trips generated, this problem is growing more acute. The City is therefore left with few alternatives to provide for local accessibility while maintaining the regional mobility that the State mandates. Access management is therefore one of very few options that the City can i mpose to improve travel on SR 26. This project involves both a research objective and a research question. The research objective of this project is to examine the feasibility of access management strategies in achieving local accessibility in the Citys context of a rural community with an SIS facility. In other words, the aim is to develop an access management plan that will allow growth to occur in the city while maintaining LOS standards on SR 26 and providing for regional accessibility. The research question then becomes: how will different access management strategies affect Newberrys transportation network? And how will these access management strategies affect mobility and accessibility on SR 26 through Newberry? Corollary to this is the questi on: does current planning in Florida allow such an access management system? Professional Significance of the Problem This study has professional significance because of its contributions to planning for SIS
16 facilities and its general findings on access ma nagement. The objective of the research is to determine the impact of access management strategies on SR 26 in Newberry. The goal is to examine which access management strategies Newberry can use to preserve or even enhance capacity on SR 26 and allow lo cal accessibility to existing and future development. The study establishes the appropriate access management strategies for Newberry and uses a draft of the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM ) and existing Highway Capacity Software (HCS) to evaluate which strategies contribute to the above goals. In measurable terms, it explores the LOS impacts on SR 26 from access management strategies, improved traffic flow and accessibility in the City, and permitted access management policies on an SIS facility. Thes e objectives relate directly to the research question of whether access management can effectively provide for both mobility and accessibility on an SIS facility. Using this information, the City of Newberry and the State of Florida can better design its transportation network and potentially improve both accessibility and mobility. Methodology There are numerous steps in the research process that require a sound methodology. First, a review of access management is conducted. Accepted treatments, such a s those found in the Access Management Manual and other publications, are selected for evaluation in the transportation model. Second, data on Newberry is collected and used in analysis and projections for future growth in the City. These data are useful in determining what kind of traffic comes through the city and where it moves. The draft HCM and the existing HCS largely determine what data is collected. In addition, major intersections are analyzed and access connections to SR 26 identified a nd then studied for use in the modeling process. The Florida Department of Transportation provides the historic transportation data for the HCM Other government agencies and commercial sources provide important GIS, traffic, and other data.
17 These data, along with turning movements, are then put in a form usable by the software. Third, access management scenarios of traffic levels and turning counts in 2025 are projected using trends in past traffic counts. Fourth, the data, combined with the access ma nagement treatments and traffic scenarios, are modeled and evaluated for their impact on LOS in Newberry. The results from the draft HCM and HCS are evaluated and used to determine the optimal access management strategies in the city. Fifth, observations of pedestrian travel in strategic locations are made. Finally, the access management strategies are reviewed to establish whether access management can provide for both access and mobility on an SIS facility. Organization of Thesis This thesis focuses o n Newberry as an analytical case study for the use of access management on SIS facilities. The six chapters are organized around this topic. In Chapter Two the relevant literature is reviewed with an emphasis on the nature of accessibility and mobility, the tradeoff between accessibility and mobility, and the most commonly accepted access management strategies. In Chapter Three, the methodology is explained, focusing on the access management treatments and scenarios used in the draft HCM and the existing HCS. The results and findings are presented in Chapter Four, along with explanatory charts, graphs, and maps. Chapter Five consists of a discussion of the results, an analysis of the results as they apply to the Newberry case study, and recommendations for policy changes. Finally, in Chapter Six the thesis concludes with a review of the research questions and findings, limitations of the study, and suggestions for future research.
18 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter contains a review of the liter ature pertaining to the theory and implications of accessibility and mobility in transportation as they pertain to the Newberry case study. The chapter begins with the formal definition of accessibility and mobility. It then focuses specifically on the t wo broad topics of accessibility and mobility. In particular, this chapter explores the trade -off between accessibility and mobility in land use and transportation. The chapter then provides an overview of access management in transportation. Finally, t his chapter ends with a brief review of Floridas SIS policies, particularly as they relate to Newberry. Formal Definitions of Accessibility and Mobility Although many people are familiar with the concepts of accessibility and mobility, their prec ise defi nition and measurement are important in analyzing the literature. The definition of both concepts aids in operationalizing the variables and analyzing the different methodologies in each study. In addition, accessibility and mobility refer to similar con cepts at times where the distinction between the two concepts is not so apparent. Accessibility generally refers to the possibility for activity. As Hanson (2004) writes, accessibility refers to the number of opportunities, also called activity sites, available within a certain distance or travel time (p. 4). Perspective is important in this definition. Accessibility can be either from a location or to a destination. Further clarification is necessary in each case because distance, travel time, and activities vary. Moreover, Hansons definition reflects the fact that both time and distance are involved and that one may trade off between the two. Although the concept of accessibility may be clear, its actual measurement may be quite complicated and change according to ones needs and abilities. Handy and Niemeier (1997) present a review of various accessibility measures and their
19 implications for transportation. The main criteria for determining accessibility are: the spatial distribution of pote ntial destinations, the ease of reaching each destination, and the magnitude, quality, and character of the activities found there (Handy and Niemeier, 1997, p. 1175). The criteria above discuss distance, impediments, and attraction, respectively, from a nd to each site in a network. There are two main elements in these criteria, transportation (ease of travel) and activity (attractiveness) (Handy and Niemeier, 1997, p. 1176). Handy and Niemeier (1997) also identify the two main methods of measuring accessibility: cumulative opportunities measures (based on the number of opportunities within a given distance), and gravity-based measures (based on the pull of particular destinations). While neither measure is suitable for all needs, both aid in measur ing accessibility for specific purposes. The cumulative opportunities measure contributes to studies of walkability and urban design, while the gravity based measure describes activity patterns. Finally, accessibility measures must answer the question o f from where and to where accessibility will be measured (Handy and Niemeier, 1997, 1179). Researchers must make absolutely clear whether their measures use the point of origin or destination. They must also take trip impedance, chaining, and relative a ttractiveness into account (Handy and Niemeier, 1997, 1179). Qualitative issues should also factor into definitions and measures of accessibility. A 2002 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report states that while no one definit ion covers all aspects of accessibility, an acceptable definition should include particular aspects. The OECD (2002) report states that definitions should include the fact that travel patterns are linked to travel times and impediments to travel, such as congestion. The OECD (2002) report indicates that accessibility must also focus on types of transport and travel purposes (p. 35). That is to say, accessibility is closely related to mode choice and purpose.
20 Some activities are only accessible by auto mobile, while some may be easily accessible by nonmotorized forms. Additionally, trip purpose affects travel because individuals view impediments to commute far differently than impediments to a recreational activity. In the final analysis, no one access ibility measure or definition can cover all aspects, but they can certainly include sufficient detail for an operational definition. Mobility, on the other hand, more easily lends itself to definition and analysis. Hanson (2004) provides a rather straigh tforward definition of mobility: the ability to move between different activity sites (e.g., from home to grocery store) (p. 4). In other words, mobility focuses on the means of, and potential to, travel, while accessibility is concerned with trip origi n and destination. Moreover, Hansons definition does not mention mode, which is the means by which one travels, i.e. commuter rail, bus, automobile, or bike. Not all modes are equal at facilitating accessibility. Rail, for example, offers high speed be tween two points along a fixed route, while walking allows slow, somewhat hazardous travel that only physical injuries or buildings constrain. As a result, it is important to clarify what is meant by mobility because mode substantially changes the speed, range, and quality of travel. Most post -World War II (WWII) urban planning considers automobility, or mobility by private automobile, as the pre -eminent form of transportation. Indeed, most Americans consider a valid drivers license as a token of adulth ood. Nevertheless, almost all major cities offer transit services. Transit systems are expanding and, in particular, building light rail transit (LRT). Issues of cost, access, and equity come to the fore as cities use public funds on these projects. Ac cording to many analysts, buses are used by the poor and receive less in subsidy than rail, which highincome users patronize in disproportionate numbers (Deka, 2004). Mode choice has wide reaching implications beyond considerations of accessibility and m obility.
21 The distinction between accessibility and mobility is not clear in every case. The two concepts form two sides of the same issue: How does one arrange and manage an effective transportation system? One cannot reach a destination without being m obile, and one is rarely mobile without a predetermined destination. It is assumed, then, that one is mobile to access an activity. Planners also assume that people use vehicles in mobility. Planners and developers thus base their decisions on accessibi lity to parcels. There develops a strong connection between mode and accessibility. As Hanson (2004) writes: As the distances between activity sites have become longer (because of lower density settlement patterns), accessibility has come to depend more and more on mobility, particularly in privately owned vehicles (POVs) (p. 4). According to Hansons statement, accessibility and mobility are in positive feedback, where improvements in mobility facilitate a decrease in the time or money costs associate d with travel. This decrease allows individuals to travel further to work and live further from daily activities, thus decreasing accessibility. Appropriate planning intervention is necessary to stop environmental degradation and bring the transportation system into balance. Accessibility Issues The scholarly literature is replete with studies on the numerous issues of accessibility. One of the major themes in the literature is scale. Accessibility differs in theory and practice on the regional, city -w ide, neighborhood, and even block scale. Further, accessibility issues vary according to mode. One activity, for example, will be easily accessible by automobile but not by bicycle. Finally, different groups will face dissimilar accessibility issues. C hildren, the disabled, minorities, and women confront different impediments to travel. Harris (2001) reveals several pertinent issues in accessibility. In particular, Harris emphasizes distance impediments and the regional context of accessibility, or th e situation (p. 16). Harris develops a weighted accessibility measure for businesses based on the percentage of
22 customers within a certain distance of the subject property. In this measure, accessibility changes by location and type of destination or a ctivity, because different activities attract somewhat dissimilar trip patterns. In so doing, Harris notes that accessibility varies in relation to other activities or competing uses. Harris (2001) does err in his assessment that: accessibility is a qua lity of places that varies from place to place independent of any local conditions except connections with the rest of the region (p. 29). The problem is, local conditions vary with demographics. In a diverse society, businesses attract a different clie ntele. For example, a liquor store will attract different patrons than an organic food market. These different patrons will have different transportation needs and preferences than other groups. In spite of this flaw, Harris (2001) gives an acceptable m easure for accessibility, which future researchers can modify. Handy and Clifton (2001) take the neighborhood approach for evaluating accessibility. In particular, the researchers review academic literature to investigate the relationship between accessi bility and services, especially on the pedestrian level. They seek to determine the inputs into neighborhood accessibility so that planners can measure neighborhood accessibility. Further, Handy and Clifton identify land use, transportation, and activity patterns as the primary inputs. The researchers find that four factors influence pedestrians walkability: ease of street crossing, sidewalk continuity, local street connectivity, and topography (Handy and Clifton, 2001, p. 72). Handy and Clifton suggest that researchers develop pedestrian LOS standards so that pedestrian environments can be analyzed and improved. The ease of travel by walking mode influences individuals choice to walk and therefore improves neighborhood accessibility. The scholarly literature also recognizes that there is a close relationship between regional and local accessibility. Handy (1993) writes of this dual characterization of accessibility at both scales (p. 58). Handy distinguishes between the two namely in the size, type of activity, and
23 individuals willingness to travel. Her study analyzes transportation data in the San Francisco Bay Area from the early 1980s, dividing the area into zones and regions (Handy, 1993). Handy finds that regional accessibility, measured by access to regional retail centers, does not vary b etween regions in the Bay Area because high -speed highways connect regions to each other Local accessibility, measured by within -zone activity distribution, varies considerably, with the least ac cessibility in suburban zones. Interestingly, Handy finds that people travel a certain number of times regardless of accessibility. The logical conclusion, then, is that increases in accessibility will reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Further studies are necessary to determine whether this conclusion holds true outside the San Francisco area, a large metropolitan region. It is possible that in small towns, such as Newberry, that the reductions in vehicle miles traveled appear when population and hence retail square footage reaches a certain threshold. Land Use and Accessibility There is a strong linkage between land use and accessibility. As stated above, accessibility affects land values, which in turn influence the types of uses in a location. C omplex issues are also involved in land use that may confound the accessibilityland use relationship, such as land use category and density. The interaction between government regulation and the land market affects the accessibility -land use relationship when regulations cause developments to locate other than where the market would determine. Further, the theoretical basis for this relationship stems from Hansens (1959) article. In it, Hansen uses 1948 and 1955 transportation data from the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area to calculateaccessibility measurements (p. 74). Hansen investigates vacant land and recently developed land and determines that the difference between the two lies in accessibility. This short article serves as a jumping point for continued research, and future studies refer to Hansens seminal work. Handy (2005) presents a critical review of research to investigate the claims of Smart
24 Growth in regards to transportation. The author analyzes the major claims of Smart Growth, n amely that smart transportation investments will spur local economic growth. As Handy (2005) writes, highway building thus appears to contribute to sprawl not by increasing the rate of growth but by influencing where in the region development occurs and by influencing the character of the development that occurs (p. 152). In other words, transportation investments influence the location of development, but they do not create any new economic activity. Transportation improvements primarily redistribute relative accessibility in the region. For example, a new highway interchange on a formerly agriculture site will provide greater accessibility vis -vis other sites in the region. Handys study convincingly demonstrates the relationship between accessibi lity and land use, but the study does suffer from natural limitations. Accessibility is only one of the numerous forces affecting land use, and it is difficult to disaggregate these forces because they are often interrelated. Halden (2002 ) analyzes land use in the Edinburgh, Scotland region to determine how accessibility changes in a variety of proposed growth scenarios. These five scenarios consist of development in the CBD, expansion of the city center, building in the green belt, growth in farther ou t communities, and the construction of new communities. Halden then models the effects of those growth patterns on accessibility. He concludes that the CBD areas with large amounts of retail use have higher accessibility than non -CBD areas. The CBD also has the greatest levels of accessibility for all modes of travel, especially non automobile travel, which increases in accessibility when road pricing is introduced. Halden finds that green belt development increases accessibility the most. T his conclusion may result from the easy accessibility gains from building in areas with very little accessibility before. Further, Halden finds evidence of the accessibility-mobility trade off in central Edinburgh, where greater levels
25 of accessibility le ad to increased congestion. In this case, improving accessibility comes at the price of mobility. Mobility Issues Mobility is essential in transportation as it is individuals ability to reach their destinations. Generally speaking, people use either mo torized or non-motorized transportation, and they get about in either public or private means of travel. Regardless of travel mode, managing mobility proves difficult for transportation planners, who must manage a road system inadequate for the demand. I n other words, congestion can significantly decrease the efficiency, or throughput of the transportation network. Fortunately, a variety of policy options exist that increase mobility and manage system demand. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2008) publishes a guidebook on increasing mobility through congestion management, which it defines as maintaining mobility. The guidebook recommends a systems -management approach to determine where capacity is available in the system. Data management, i t states, is important in tracking where capacity improvements are possible. Further, the FHWA emphasizes non-motorized transportation to achieve the most efficiency gains. Here, the FHWAs recommendations advocate better land use and transportation poli cies that will also improve accessibility because non -motorized travel is primarily successful in areas of high accessibility. In addition, the FHWA (2008) promotes transit as a vital element of congestion management. The efficiencies of transit allow fo r greater throughput in the system because one bus can transport dozens of individuals, as opposed to the single occupant private automobile. Finally, the FHWA (2008) guidebook notes that congestion management, especially involving transit, should emphasi ze the transportation -land use connection. Supportive land development regulations are necessary to ensure that
26 complimentary land uses provide the customer base and accessibility required for successful transit. Vuchic (1999) suggests a new measurement of mobility that combines both traffic flow and area. His new unit of measurement is calculated using the space a car occupies (parking space and lane space) multiplied by time, and then dividing that by the average number of people per trip (Vuchic, 1999, p. 53). The unit for measurement is in m2-hour per person -trip (Vuchic, 1999). This unit measures time and area while traditional throughput measures do not (Vuchic, 1999). Vuchic (1999) asserts that his measure is superior because travel imposes a burden on flow and land area. Using this measure, Vuchic (1999) determines that a private automobile consumes twenty -five times more time area than a bus and sixty times more time area than a rapid transit vehicle (p. 55). To provide for automobiles, cit ies must plan for automobiles and wider roads, so that the character of the area changes and trips become longer, further exacerbating the problem of the large areas assigned to transportation (Vuchic, 1999, p. 59). Moreover, this impact of automobility on land use is substantial. As Vuchic (1999) writes, cities that are entirely auto -based have a ceiling on the diversity and density of activities that can be served in major activity centers (p. 60). In other words, as more land is converted to tran sportation related uses, different land uses become more spread out, and face impediments to agglomeration at activity centers. Thus accessibility decreases sharply as mobility increases. The Tradeoff of Accessibility and Mobility The acade mic literature is replete with examples of the complex relationship between accessibility and mobility. The tradeoff between mobility and accessibility is essentially this: as new transportation infrastructure allows individuals to travel faster, activiti es locate further from each other, which decreases the number of activities within a certain distance. In addition, as activities locate near each other to take advantage of agglomeration, traffic flow becomes
27 interrupted and speeds decrease. In reality, the relationship is much more complicated. Accessibility and mobility differ by mode, by age, and by income. The tradeoff between the two is not absolute, as one needs accessible locations and a means to get there. The transportation network must there fore accommodate the conflicting nature of accessibility and mobility. Levine and Garb (2002) explore the tradeoff between accessibility and mobility in congestion pricing. The researchers state that transportation planning has accessibility as its ultima te goal. They write: That is, enhanced mobility in general, and enhanced automobility in particular are valued in policy terms only to the extent that these increase accessibility over the long run; the derived demand framework implies that mobility gains that translate into accessibility losses represent failures of transportation policy. (Levine and Garb, 2002, 180). In other words, mobility improves the transportation system only when it also enhances accessibility. The researchers thus claim that the tradeoff between accessibility and mobility is not complete. Mobility and accessibility are inherent components of any transportation system, so mobility and accessibility cannot exist without each other. Levine and Garbs (2002) study investigates cong estion pricing and conclude that how funds are spent determines the policys impact on mobility and accessibility. In other words, government can improve accessibility by improving transit, building affordable housing, and enacting for supportive land use policies (Levine and Garb, 2002). Cities must therefore decide which mix of accessibility and mobility they desire. Forkenbrock, Mathur, and Schweitzer (2001) explain the impact of transportation network design on the tradeoff of accessibility and mobil ity. The researchers state that the supply of transportation is measured in the ability to provide access (Forkenbrock, et al., 2001). Demand is then measured in the need for access to activities as well as the ability to pay for land at a certain loca tion given the level of accessibility (Forkenbrock, et al., 2001, 41). In addition, road
28 categories form a hierarchy, with the most limited access roads at the top (Forkenbrock, et al., 2001). In other words, cars on roads with little access are able to travel the fastest because the flow is unimpeded. Roads with much access have little throughput because the flow is constantly interrupted. Each road category thus has certain characteristics in relation to accessibility and mobility that make that categ ory suitable for either one or the other. As accessibility on a road category increases, mobility decreases. Freeways possess high mobility but low accessibility (Forkenbrock, et al., 2001). Arterials and expressways allow more access at the expense of mobility (Forkenbrock, et al., 2001). Connector roads provide even more accessibility to activities but less mobility (Forkenbrock, et al., 2001). Finally, local roads give maximum accessibility but very little mobility (Forkenbrock, et al., 2001). Tran sportation networks need the full range of road categories to maintain balance between needed accessibility and m o bility. The academic literature reveals that transportation systems must accommodate both accessibility and mobility. Without accessibility land would have no value, and without mobility, economic activity could not occur. While a transportation system must provide both, an emphasis on accessibility generally comes at the expense of mobility. A strict emphasis on mobility widely disperses activity sites and thus greatly decreases accessibility. It seems apparent, then, that a balance between accessibility and mobility will maintain the most efficient transportation system. Access management is one popular method of planning for the effici ent balance between accessibility and mobility. Bypasses and Small Towns : Conflict between accessibility and mobility is exceptionally clear with bypasses around small towns. Bypasses are best described as follows: originally, the main highway runs through a community. As congestion grows, government officials become
29 concerned and have a limited access route built around the city. The completed road changes regional accessibility. It increases individuals ability to travel at the regional scale. Mob ility is also improved in the small town and at the regional scale. The research question lies in local accessibility, or the number of activities inside the small community. Theoretically, certain land uses will be relatively unaffected because the use serves a local clientele. Examples are grocery stores and other local services that respond to the demand within the community and are less affected by regional accessibility changes. Those businesses with a regional customer base, such as an agri cultural supply store, could suffer from a decrease in accessibility. The question is whether these assumptions about bypasses and accessibility hold true under real life circumstances. Studies on bypasses of rural communities present conflicting evidenc e about their effects. Rogers and Marshment (2001) study small towns in Oklahoma and note that safety improvements from bypasses are well known but the economic impact remains largely undetermined. They investigate cities smaller than 2,500 through the local option sales tax. The case study is Stonewall, Oklahoma, which has a bypass built about one -half mile from the main commercial strip. The authors use regression analysis on the data to compare actual growth in several communities to the counterfactual growth that would have occurred without the bypass. As Rogers and Marshment (2001) write: We find no evidence that the bypass impeded retail sales growth in the bypass community (pp. 251). The authors interviews demonstrate some decli ne for traffic related businesses, but this decline corresponds to national trends in such businesses (Rogers and Marshment, 2001). These results confirm the prevailing theory about what the accessibility effects of bypasses are.
30 Other studies paint a m ore complicated picture of the economic impacts of bypasses. Srinivasan and Kockelman (2002), for example, investigate sales data for four classes: retail sales, gas stations, restaurants, and services. The authors note that industry is conspicuously abs ent from their study of cities in Texas between 2,500 and 50,000 inhabitants. Srinivasan and Kockelman (2002) find that communities with bypasses fare worse in sales than those without. The authors note that these bypassed cities had better economies tha n the control group before bypass construction, so declines in sales only bring them down to the level of other communities. Srinivasan and Kockelman (2002) suggest to future researchers that studies should focus on identifying the causes of this decline and on reducing the influence of confounding variables. Falleth (1999) researches the effect of bypass construction on suburban growth in small Norwegian towns. Approximately 70% of communities surveyed (thirty two out of forty five) experience suburban growth along the bypass route. As Falleth (1999) points out, these enterprises directly related to the by -pass roads spring up because of the increased regional accessibility offered by the bypass (p. 365). In Norway these consist of hotels and gas sta tions (Falleth, 1999), whereas in the US they may consist of retail centers of over one quarter of a million square feet. Indeed, the greatest hazard in planning bypasses is preventing such land uses. Once the transportation infrastructure and regional a ccessibility are in place, it is politically difficult for planners to deny owners this use. In many ways, though, larger forces are at work, such as the general trend toward large one -stop retail centers, and planners face an uphill battle against this ma rket shift (Mitchell, 2001) Access Management Access management is a transportation planning and engineering practice that seeks to gain greater efficiencies from roadways. Access management is widespread and enjoys overwhelming acceptance by federal, st ate, and local governments. The Committee on Access
31 Management (CAM) (2003) defines access management as follows: Access management is the systematic control of the location, spacing, design, and operation of driveways, median openings, interchanges, and street connections to a roadway. It also involves roadway design applications, such as median treatments and auxiliary lanes, and the appropriate spacing of traffic signals. (p. 3) That is to say, access management uses roadway and street network design to create a more efficient transportation system. The transportation network is more efficient because access management uses economical alternatives to roadway reconstruction or relocation in producing greater roadway safety and capacity (FHWA, 1982, p 5). Roads essentially have fewer conflict points, a faster flow of traffic, and increased throughput (CAM, 2003). In addition, parcels along access managed roads can be easily reached by the public. In other words, access management preserves mobility while still allowing reasonable access to roadside businesses. Access management thus has the potential to reconcile both. Features of Access Management Most features of access management serve to restrict motorists direct access to parcels along the r oadway so that mobility may be maintained. These features include the roadway features in the CAM definition above, such as medians; functional classification system; driveways, traffic signals, and intersection spacing and design; and street connections. First, access management promotes medians, which can reduce crashes by thirty percent (CAM, 2003). Second, a functional classification system, or road hierarchy, is an important part of access management. Roads are classified according to capacity and type and placed in a hierarchy. Regulations then require that roads connect only to roads of similar classification, either one level more or less (CAM, 2003) This system avoids local roads or even residences from fronting on major arterials and decreas ing safety and flow. Third, access management recommends greater driveway, traffic signal, and intersection spacing and automobile and
32 pedestrian -friendly design to preserve roadway capacity. Fourth, an interconnected street network is critical. It all ows travelers more options to avoid more congested roadways and to access more businesses. More information is available in the Access Management Manual the authoritative guide published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) (CAM, 2003). Goals of A ccess Management One of the primary goals of access management is to provide for businesses and residents legal right to access the road system. As the Access Management Manual states, The ability of private property to connect to the public roadway s ystem is a key element in U.S. law (CAM, 2003, p. 269). This right is not absolute, but rather is countered by the publics right to an efficient and safe transportation system (CAM, 2003). Unfortunately, road transportation is a rival good, where an in dividuals use decreases its enjoyment by others (CAM, 2003). Government regulation is therefore warranted in restricting where property owners can connect to roads and how travelers can access parcels (CAM, 2003). As the Florida Supreme Court has ruled, individuals have the right to reasonable access, or, in other words, the road system must minimize circuity excessive distances to reach the road (CAM, 2003). Government must therefore strike a balance between both the publics and property owners right s when it designs a transportation system (CAM, 2003). The difficulty government faces is that most access management strategies serve to restrict access and to promote mobility, but government must carefully balance the right to access and mobility. Ind eed, satisfying businesses concerns is an important goal of access management. Many businesses fear that access management will decrease their customer base, but businesses suffer when there is low corridor mobility (CAM, 2003). Poor design and spacing of driveways can reduce travel speeds by five to ten miles per hour (CAM, 2003). Those corridors are less attractive to drivers. Access management restricts access points, which allow customers to get to
33 businesses, but it also improves mobility. The qu estion is, then, whether the improvements in mobility outweigh the restrictions to drivers ability to patronize businesses. As access management practitioners claim, t he answer for most cases is yes. Studies have shown that unless extreme circuity resu lts, the overwhelming majority of businesses experience the same number of customers or better (CAM, 2003). The impact is positive because the restrictions are minor (CAM, 2003). These claims, however, must be tested in a wider variety of situations. To date, almost all studies of access management are before and after studies (CAM, 2003). In other words, researchers have compared information on traffic flow before and after the addition of medians and driveway closures. They have noted significant impr ovements, as stated above. What is needed are a variety of studies that test the claims of access management in different situations. It is possible that the improvements to traffic flow from access management are not universal. In other words, some fac ilities will experience little if any improvement to traffic flow from access management. Moreover, there is currently no widespread method to prospectively determine the improvements in traffic flow from access management. This method would be valuable in deciding whether the prospective improvements to LOS are worth the expenditure of funds. Another claim of access management is that it will improve multimodal travel on a facility. Medians provide a shelter for pedestrians as they cross a street. They also make the pedestrian environment more attractive to travel. Further, driveway closures reduce traffic conflicts to bicyclists and pedestrians. A functional road hierarchy also allows travel on lower volume streets, thus bypassing the heavily travers ed collectors and arterials. If planners have a methodology of evaluating improvements to multimodal travel from access management, planners can better evaluate the costs and benefits from access management.
34 Much of the practice of access management tho ugh, focuses on preserving corridor mobility. Nontraversable medians, drive consolidation, and other features of access management restrict access in the interest of allowing continuous flow. For example, one -half mile spacing of signalized intersections reduces travel delay by sixty percent and total travel time by fifty percent (CAM, 2003). Greater efficiencies are available through a combination of and well -planned application of additional access management techniques. Again, with the exception of an integrated street network, these practices limit individuals access to businesses and residences. As a result, access management techniques generally favor mobility over access. This preference for mobility has a number of impacts on accessibility and mobility, as discussed below. Access, Accessibility, and Mobility The relationship between access, accessibility, and mobility is important to understand, but it is also complicated. First, access is not the same as accessibility. Access i s the ability to get from a road network to a particular destination, or conversely, the ability to get from an origin to the road network. Accessibility, on the other hand, is the number of activities within a certain distance from an origin. Second, ac cess can affect accessibility. If access is severely restricted, then accessibility is decreased because of the greater travel impediments. This decrease, though, is not clear and depends on the context. In addition, there is the complex tradeoff relati onship between accessibility and mobility, which is affected by access management programs. As mobility increases through greater roadway throughput, individuals are able to travel farther in the same amount of time. Land uses also locate further from ea ch other as land prices decrease in response to changes in relative accessibility caused by improved mobility. The question is, then, what the extent of the accessibility-mobility tradeoff is in access -managed corridors. Also, are the gains in mobility a nd the well -managed access from access management able to come to a better balance with accessibility? Further, even if access management does produce a better
35 transportation system through the balance of access and mobility, do the policies of the City of Newberry, Alachua County, and the State of Florida allow access management? This thesis investigates these questions. Policy Framework of Access and Mobility The act that guides transportation planning and investments in Florida is the 1985 Growth Management Act. This act created the concurrency requirement in transportation. As Florida Statutes Chapter 163.3180 (2)(c) states concurrency is the requir ement that transportation facilities needed to serve new development shall be in place or under actual construction within 3 years after the local government approves a building permit or its functional equivalent that results in traffic generation (Florida Sta te Senate 2008). This concept allows the local government, or in some instances the state, to encourage the proper phas ing and location of new development (Ben -Zadok, 2007). As deficiencies were discovered in the system, developers were allowed to pay money (proportionate share) to cover the costs of providing adequate public facilities (Nicholas and Chapin, 2007). Trans portation concurrency is the main component of concurrency as it relates to accessibility and mobility. State law mandated transportation concurrency in 1989, at which time LOS standards were implemented to measure compliance with concurrency standards (B en Zadok, 2007). Although a complicated process, concurrency can be summarized as follows: proposals for development must be reviewed for the impact on a road's LOS. Facility LOS is established in the jurisdictions comprehensive plan. If the developmen t can add those trips without degrading the LOS on the facility, then the development is deemed to have adequate public facilities to support the impact of its development. If does not, then it cannot receive planning permission. Because this system is r ather inflexible, a number of reforms have been introduced to improve the implementation process (Steiner, 2007). In addition, planners and
36 engineers have sought to gain increasing efficiencies from transportation networks, such as implementing access man agement policies. The State of Florida established the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS), a network of roads, railroads, and other transportation facilities throughout Florida. As designated by state policy in 2003, SIS facilities are essential to the economy, hurricane preparedness, and overall transportation mobility of the State of Florida (Williams and Hopes, 2007, p. 2). The SIS encompasses most facilities of the Florida State Intrastate Highw ay System (FIHS), including SR 26 through Newberry (Williams and Hopes, 2007). In practice, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) closely protects capacity on SR 26 because it already exceeds its LOS standards on segments in the City of Newberry ( Williams and Hopes, 2007). SR 26 through Newberry is currently at an LOS of F, the worst rating possible. The citys comprehensive plan has set an expected LOS of C for the facility (Traffic Circulation Element, n.d.). This LOS standard was establishe d by FDOT because the State, and not the City of Newberry, has ultimate control over the operation of SR 26. Consequently, many developments do not receive planning approval as FDOT refuses them permission to access the SIS facility. According to state policy, the state and local governments should work together toward coordinated land use and transportation planning through access management (Williams and Hopes, 2007). The main purpose of SIS facilities, though, is for efficient mobility between regional centers. This purpose conflicts with Newber rys desire for a vibrant downtown, which requires a high level local accessibility. The question is whether government can apply access management and thereby resolve the conflict between access and mobility and accessibility and mobility on an SIS facility. The methodology for doing so is described in Chapter 3
37 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The case study of Newberry, Florida is used to analyze one proposed method of measuring the potential impacts of access man agement on the SIS facility SR 26. This methodology for analyzing access management was arrived at following months of dedicated trial and -error research. The chosen methodology is based on National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 3 79 led by Dr. James Bonneson, Michael P. Pratt, and Mark A. Vandehey, its accompanying draft chapter of the 2010 HCM, and existing HCS. First, a method based on Dr. B onnesons spreadsheet method is attempted. Second, an al ternative spreadsheet method is constructed that combines the segment analysis from the draft 2010 HCM and signal delay analysis from the existing HCS. This alternative method produces the results that are discussed in Chapter 4: Results. In additi on, pedestrian observations are made at strategic points in Newberry downtown and at a special event held on December 3, 2008. This chapter begins with a detailed description of the research instruments. This methodology uses the draft 2010 HCM methodology to evaluate the potential effects o f access management on SR 26 in Newberry, Florida. The variables looked at are LOS and the ratio of system travel speed to based free -flow speed. The access management treatments consist of medians, driveway consolidation, and parallel access facilities. Parallel access facilities are anticipated to be built at NW 78th Ave and SW 30th Ave and are assumed to take trips off SR 26. Further, one of the main questions is whether access management is capacity increasing or capacity preserving. To answer this question, this methodology develops scenarios of current traffic levels and projections for 2025 traffic levels using FDOT projections of traffic volumes. Increases in LOS or the speed ratio under current traffic levels indicate that access management is capacity increasing, and increases in 2025 levels but not in current traffic levels indicate that
38 access management is capacity preserving. These data will then be analyzed as to their effects on accessibility and mobility on the Florida SIS facility. In struments and Materials Used This thesis employs NCHRP 3 79 by Dr. James Bonneson, Michael P. Pratt, and Mark A. Vandehey as the methodology for determining the impacts of access management.1 This methodology was developed by these researchers, primarily at the Texas Transportation Institute, as part of a NCHRP project designated 3 79. The purpose of that project is to develop an update to Chapter 15: Urban Streets of the 2000 HCM which will be released as part of the 2010 HCM Because the entire 2010 HCM is not finished and the Transportation Research Board has not approved the entire Chapter 15 revision, NCHRP 3 79 is a working copy. This thesis uses the copy current as of October 15, 2008. The author of this thesis chose this date because it was the date closest to when the author could make calculations and still have the thesis ready for publication in May 2009. Two possible methodologies for evaluating facility performance and the access management treatments are investigated: the spreadsheet method developed by Dr. Bonneson and the alternative methodology developed by this author and based on NCHRP 379 and existing HCS. Characteristics of Dr. Bonnesons Spreadsheet Methodology Dr. Bonnesons NCHRP 3 79 spreadsheet engine requires three main sections of input: set up, intersection, and segment. Appendix A lists what variables are required for the methodology, grouped by worksheet, dialog box, and field. The set up input section involves basic assumptions of urban street and facility design. Next, the intersection input section asks for such 1 Henceforth the methodology is referred to alternatively as Dr. Bonnesons methodology or NCHRP 379, because Dr. Bonneson is the head researcher for N CHRP 3 79 and the parts of the 2010 HCM revision pertinent to this thesis.
39 information as turning movements, which in the Newberry case are peak hour turn counts. The segment input section, in addition to the intersection data, requests data for the segment design. Although ma ny types of data are necessary to use Dr. Bonnesons methodology, many defaults are accepted. These defaults are accepted because the time and skill required to determine the facility -specific equivalents exceed the resources and scope of this thesis. Further, most defaults are in the set up input section where the benefits from acquiring more accurate inputs are small. Basic Assumptions of Dr. Bonnesons Methodology The major assumption that affects the Newberry application involves the set up of the s egments. The methodology requires two segments, which are generally bounded by signalized intersections at both ends (Bonneson, et al., 2008). Unfortunately, Newberry has only one signalized intersection (See Figure 3 2 ). To overcome this problem, the segments are presented as they are from W 260th St to NW 242nd St. The intersections of W 266th and SR 26 and W 242nd and SR 26 are dummy intersections. In other words, they are shown as having a signalized intersection even though there is none. The se intersections are modeled as having the same characteristics as the signalized intersection. This configuration was chosen despite the condition in Dr. Bonnesons methodology that segments must match each other in the number of lanes to be considered p art of the same facility, and the two segments in question do not (Bonneson, et al., 2008). Setting up an artificial situation would have compromised the verisimilitude of the model and created more assumptions in the model. This strategy was thus select ed with knowledge of the costs and benefits involved. Alternative Methodology This alternative method was constructed because it can be easily computed should Dr. Bonnesons spreadsheet method fail. The alternative methodology is based on segment analysi s from NCHRP 3 79 and on exis ting HCS signal analysis The premis e behind this split comes
40 from NCHRP 3 79. That project founds its analysis of performance on the two main components of any facility: the segment and the intersection. The segment is anal yzed separate from the intersect ion because the signal functions differently and, as Bonneson, et al., 2008 suppose, separately from the segment, which consists of driveways, connection roads (treated as driveways in the methodology), medians, and segment l ength, among others. Appendix B shows the equations employed in the alternative methodology while Appendix C contains a complete list of variables necessary for the segment analysis. These factors are closely related to access management and come from t he equations and procedures listed in Dr. Bonnesons draft 2010 HCM Chapter 15: Urban Streets (Dr. Bonneson, et al., 2008). The intersection analysis uses the existing HCS and produces as its output the signal delay, which is a measure of intersection p erformance. The variables used in HCS are listed in widely available publications and instruc tion manuals for the software. The principal difference in practical terms between Dr. Bonnesons spreadsheet methodology and the alternative spreadsheet methodology is that the alternative methodology only analyses the first segment through downtown Newberry. In other words, this methodology only performs an analysis of the segment of SR 26 from W 266th St to SR 45. In addition, the full segment LOS analysis is only for the eastbound direction. By the term full the author means that both the segment and the intersection are analyzed and the LOS effects of access management are available. The eastbound direction has both a segment and a real downstream inters ection. The westbound direction of trave l only has a true segment. While the downstream intersection for the westbound direction of travel could be modeled using the data collected, several assumptions about signalization would be required. The author j udged these assumptions so great as to affect data reliability that he decided to forego signal analysis and only to analyze
41 the segment. The author made this decision with the knowledge that this analysis wo uld have provided important results The main d ifference in engineering terms between Dr. Bonnesons methodology and the alternative spreadsheet methodology lies in platooning. Dr. Bonnesons methodology includes platooning effects in its analysis of signalization, and this may have an appreciable eff ect on the calculated LOS of the facility. Because the alternative methodology uses the older 2000 HCM, this effect is not present. As a result, the alternative methodology may be less accurate than Dr. Bonnesons methodology would be. Assumptions of the Alternative Methodology The assumptions for the alternative methodology are the same as for Dr. Bonnesons methodology with only the changes listed here. The segment begins with the segment and then ends with the intersection. This means that for eastb ound analysis, the intersections of SR 26 with SR 45 and 240th St are used. In addition, the maximum number of defaults necessary for modeling each intersection is used in HCS. In other words, the signalization information for the intersection of SR 26 with SR 45 is used while the peak hour factors and volumes from the counts are input into HCS Perhaps the most important assumption is the averaging of the speed limits on the segment. Normally, most engineers would have divided the intersection in two where the speed limit changes and inserted a dummy intersection with a 100% green time (Communication with S. Washburn, February 10, 2009). Unfortunately, this would have complicated the data with the addition of a further intersection. Instead, the author chose to average the speed limit on the segment, which average is 35. While this assumption does affect the validity of the results, it assumed not to have a large impact on the effects from access management.
42 Measuring Access Management: Vari ables One primary focus of this research is to test the claims of access management by investigating the changes in throughput and multimodal travel potential. To measure throughput, t his thesis uses t he ratio of system travel speed to base free -flow speed (hereafter referred to as the speed ratio) and LOS. These two variables fit into the overall investigative framework (see Table 3 1 and Figure 3 1 3 ). The concept t hat frames the research is facility performance. This concept deals with the speed that automobiles are able to travel on the facility compared to its free -flow speed. One primary manifestation of performance is throughput, which is the amount or number of units passing through a system, usually measured over a period of time ( Oxford English Dictionary 1989). Factors that affect throughput include speed, volume of traffic, and intersection coordination, among others. To investigate mult imodal travel potential, this thesis looks at the existing pedestrian environment, including number of pedestrians at specific locations, and pedestrian interactions on the facility. The traditional measures of throughput in transportation planning and engineering are the speed ratio and LOS. The base free-flow speed represents the free-flow speed on longer street segments (Bonneson, et al., 2008, p. 17). This is affected by factors such as speed limit, access point density, median type, and curb prese nce (Bonneson, et al., 2008, p. 17). The system travel speed, on the other hand, is a calculation of overall average travel speed in the subject direction of travel (Bonneson, et al., 2008, p. 29). According to the methodology, LOS is calculated from the speed ratio much like grades are assigned to the percentage of total points in a class (Bonneson, et al., 2008, p. 30) (See Table 32). The letter A thus signifies the best performance while F represents the lowest performance. The final component of variable selection is identifying the decision level. The decision level is the point at which it is determined that a change has occurred in the system. In this case,
43 the decision level is the point at which the application of access management has imp roved or degraded the facility. For LOS, this level is the increase or decrease in the letter grade, such as an increase from a C to a B or a decrease from a B to a C. For the speed ratio, it is not so clear or well established. Most analysts use the LO S measures. Because this methodology is new and requires close scrutiny, a graded approach is used. That is, a five percent change is considered small, between five and ten percent is considered a medium change, and greater than ten percent is a large ch ange (See Table 3 1). While foresight may hold these to be ambitious targets, the Access Management Manual claims improvements of thirty percent or more (CAM, 2003). Therefore the decision level for the speed ratio is by no means unreasonable and is in fact modest given the claims of access management professionals. Procedures Followed This thesis tests the claims of access management in the context of Newberry by using different access management treatments and scenarios (See Figure 3 1 3 ). Dr. Bonnesons methodology and the alternative methodology are the chosen research instruments. The term treatment means the addition of a specific access management strategy to the subject facility. For example, the addition of a median with specified lengt h and position is a treatment. A scenario is a combination of different traffic levels with an access management treatment. For example, current traffic levels and a median of a certain design is a scenario. The scenarios are then entered into the sprea dsheet driver for Dr. Bonnesons methodology, and the outputs are then analyzed. These scenarios are repeated for both east and west bound travel. Pedestrian Travel Data The first group of pedestrian data consists of pedestrian observations. These obse rvations are of two kinds. The first observations are of pedestrians along the facility. Counts of pedestrians are taken while the traffic counts are taken. The counts are of individuals passing
44 through the intersection. Data are for all but four of th e access connections to SR 26. Data do not exist for these connections because the author chose to do so only after these observations were made Observations of pedestrian behavior are also taken on December 15, 2008. T he hours are 11:30 am to 12:30 pm in front of Newberry City H all in the heart of the downtown restaurant area and between 12:30 pm and 1:30 pm near the intersection of SR 26 and Seaboard Drive. These locations are chosen because they are near businesses without adjacent off -street parking during the lunchtime hour, when restaurants and other uses receive their midday peak. The second observations are taken during November near the elementary and middle schools. The times are during the hour of school r elease. These are Monday, November 17, 2008 from 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm for the middle school and Tuesday, November 18, 2008 from 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm for the elementary. These observations intended to give insight into school travel and its interaction with t he road facility. Finally, a unique opportunity presented itself on December 2, 2008 between 6:00 pm and 9:00 pm. The Newberry Main Street Organization held a Festival of Lights to highlight the holiday season in Newberry. The location of this festival was the two blocks between W 252nd St and Seaboard Drive along SR 26. This festival presented the author with a chance to observe the creation of a vibrant pedestrian environment, its effects on local pedestrian access, and the effect of mobility on SR 26. The authors observations are noted in Chapter 4: Results. Data Collection Data collection is designed to provide the inputs for Dr. Bonnesons 2010 HCM spreadsheet because its data requirements encompass those of the alternative methodology. The data that relate to the access management treatments vary according to the specific treatments, but the current situation is the basis for these. The traffic counts are adjusted for the 2025 scenario by a specific multiplier (discussed below). This methodolo gy uses GIS software and
45 2008 aerial photography provided by the Alachua County Property Appraisers Office to determine the length of physical features on the ground, such as intersection length and percent of segment with a curb. A full list of variable s and their sources is contained in Appendix A. The first group of data collected is signal timing data. These data come from the City of Gainesville Public Works Department, which maintains signal data for all of Alachua County. Signal length and other information are also derived from this. Although the intersections of SR 26 and W 266th St and SR 26 and NW 242nd St are not signalized, the signal timing of these intersections is simulated to be the same as the signalized intersection for which data is available. This assumption is necessary for the facility to meet the requirements of Dr. Bonnesons methodology. The second group of data is for turning movements and pedestrian counts. Turning counts are taken during the afternoon hours of highest tra ffic, i.e. 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm, on Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. Dates and times of collection are shown on Figure 3 4 The counts are output in fifteen minute intervals. The author of this study takes counts with a Jamar Technologies, Inc. Traff ic Data Collector (TDC) 8 board. Two volunteers are also instructed in turning movement counts and assist in data collection. In addition, pedestrian counts are taken during data collection for all intersections except four. These turning movement data must be converted to pm peak hour turning movements for use in the spreadsheet. The pm peak hour counts are used because this forms the basis of Newberrys concurrency management system. The basis for this is the turning movement counts at SR 26 and US 27 collected by GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., on May 7, 2008 and submitted to the City of Newberry as part of the Oak View Village development application. Essentially, each set of turning movement counts is multiplied by one of two factors to
46 standardize the counts to the pm peak hour. The first factor, called Factor 1, is for counts collected during the hour of 4:00 pm to 5:00 pm. Factor 1 is equal to the ratio of total counts during the peak hour to the total counts during the hour of 4:00 pm to 5: 00 pm. Factor 1 is 1.2030. The second factor, or Factor 2, is for counts collected during the hour of 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm. It is equal to the ratio of total counts during the peak hour to the total counts during the hour of 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm. Factor 2 is equal to 1.0476. Counts are rounded to the nearest whole number. One further step is necessary to make the turning counts ready for the spreadsheet program. Because there are only six spaces in the spreadsheet for access connections to SR 26 on each of the two segments, the eleven connections on the western segment must be combined. This author has chosen to combine the turning movements for pairs of adjacent access roads, with one remaining. The through movements on SR 26 are averaged for the two intersections. The two outermost access roads on the eastern segment are also combined. The turning movements for the intersections of W 249th St, W 246th St, and also SW 242nd St are combined and treated as one intersection in the methodology. FDOTs p m peak hour cordon counts 100 feet east of SR 45 are used for through movements. The author chose to do this because of the low volumes at both intersections and because the FDOT counts are issued by a government body. In addition, the railroad through N ewberry disrupts traffic on the subject facility. All east and west bound traffic through the central business district is cut off and must wait in long queues that spill back to the signalized intersection. These trains may take up to ten minutes to pa ss through the city. In the event of a train passing through the downtown at the end of the data collection period, not all cars can pass through before the end of the one hour collection period,
47 an additional fifteen minute interval is taken. This addit ional fifteen minute interval is then averaged with the preceding interval to produce an average final interval. Any half numbers are rounded up. The three fifteen-minute count intervals are then added to the average interval to produce the hourly count. Other data are also collected for the 2010 HCM spreadsheet. These data come from the physical attributes of the facility and the regulations of the road, i.e. speed limit. The length of the segment, for example, is measured in ESRI ArcView 9.3 software using the Alachua County Property Appraisers 2008 aerial photography. Although GPS instruments could be used, GPS can be subject to positioning and human error. ArcView is widely recognized for its convenience, accuracy, and effectiveness. In addition the speed limit on the facility is gathered from the signs along the facility. Finally, information on existing medians, driveways, and other features are taken using both personal observations to determine type of feature and from ArcView to determine length. Finally, several defaults are accepted from the spreadsheet methodology. These defaults are accepted after consultation with a professor in the civil engineering department. The justification lies in the reasonableness of these assumptions. For example, it is both reasonable and within normal parameters to assume that the initial queue at an intersection is zero. Although subsequent data collection may prove otherwise, the cost of that data collection would be prohibitively expensive and the ti me involved would exceed the resources of this thesis. In addition, such data collection would introduce further assumptions and potential sources of human error. As a result, defaults are used whenever possible. Access Management Treatments and Scenario s This thesis explores the nature of access management. The research question is first whether access management can provide for both access and mobility on an SIS facility.
48 Ancillary to this is whether access management is throughput increasin g or throughput preserving. If access management is throughput increasing, the results from the methodolog ies should show that access management increases the LOS of the facility given both current and future traffic condit ions. If access management is only throughput preserving, the results should show that the facilitys LOS does not increase given current traffic conditions but that it does not degrade as much as normal given future, increased traffic conditions The latter assumption that access management is throughput preserving is widespread among transportation planners. It is possible that access management is both throughput preserving and throughput increasing. To test this hyp othesis, this thesis uses a series of access management treatments and scenarios. The treatments consist of medians, driveway consolidation, and parallel collectors. These treatments are added individually to the spreadsheet methodology. For example, the section of the spreadsheet involving segment design is simulated to have a median where there is none. In other words, a restrictive median is input as existing on the segment. The change in LOS is observed for each treatment to reveal its effectivenes s. In addition, there are two scenarios. The first scenario uses the current traffic counts. If a change in LOS is observed when the spreadsheet uses current traffic counts, then the data suggest that access management is capacity increasing. The secon d scenario is based on the traffic forecasts for the year 2025. The year 2025 is chosen because the Gainesville MTPO figures are validated for the years 2000, 2010, and 2025. Unfortunately, these figures are not readily available through the model becaus e the model is cumbersome to use, even with the help of individuals trained in transportation modeling. Nevertheless, 2025 is chosen because the MTPO considers it an important date for transportation planning. If the spreadsheet output shows that the app lication of access management with 2025 traffic levels has caused an increase in LOS compared to levels without
49 access management, then access management is throughput preserving. Many policy documents influence the design of the access management treatments. The chief source is Williams and Hopes (2007) document Analysis of Corridor Management Policies on Selected Critical SIS Facilities. In this document the facility is classified as Class 6, 245foot access spacing for connecting roads (Wil liams and Hope, 2007, p. 12). Because SR 26 meets these standards, access spacing is not investigated in this thesis. According to FDOTs 2006 Median Handbook Interim Version, median openings can be of several types (FDOT, 2006). The types chosen here are restrictive medians, where there is no opening, and the normal median opening with turning movements in each direction (FDOT, 2006). The spreadsheet, however, does not consider median design. Driveway location is influenced by guidelines in the Access Management Manual FDOTs Driveway Handbook, and knowledge of the local environment. This thesis uses four median treatments and the existing medians in the spreadsheet methodologies The existing medians are the control (See Figure 3 5 ). The first median treatment features restrictive medians near the intersections where medians provide the most protection for pedestrians (See Figure 3 6 ). The medians east of the railroad are in front of businesses with off -street parking. Th e second median treatment eliminates the median near W 266th St and adds medians through the areas of downtown with greatest pedestrian traffic (See Figure 3 7 ). The third median treatment adds a two -way left -turn lane (TWLTL) in the residential areas a nd a restrictive median near W 266th St (See Figure 3 8 ). Finally, the fourth median treatment is most restrictive and places restrictive medians throughout the facility except for part of the facility where a TWLTL already exists (See Figure 3 9 ). T he author chose an
50 increasing level of access management to determine how sensitive Dr. Bonnesons methodology is and to have a variety of treatments to evaluate. In contrast to four median treatments, there are only the existing driveways and the proposed driveway treatment. The existing driveways serve as a control. There is only one driveway treatment because of the small number of driveway closures (See Figure 3 10). Those driveways are proposed to be closed because they have sufficient parking nearby, such as on street parking, adjacent driveways, or parking lots. Where possible, either consolidation or cross access is proposed for closed driveways with adjacent driveways or parking lots. One driveway is proposed to be closed and the adjacent driveway expanded to satisfy the businesss access needs. In addition, parallel access facilities are a proposed treatment to the Newberry road network. These proposed facilities are NW 78th Ave and SW 30th Ave (See Figure 3 1 1 ). The purpose of these facilities is to take trips off SR 26. To project what percent of trips would be taken off the facility, the Gainesville MTPO model is used to link trips from Newberry to important areas in Gainesville (See Figure 3 1 2 ). These areas are: north Gainesvi lle on the south side of NW 39th Ave, downtown Gainesville, the University of Florida, and south Gainesville (See Figure 3 1 1 ). It is assumed that the south and north Gainesville trips can be wholly diverted to the parallel access facilities. Only half of University of Florida trips and one third of downtown Gainesville trips are assumed to be diverted from SR 26. Further, the figures from the person trips matrix are used for the home -based work, home -based shopping, home based social and recreational, home -based other, and non-home based trip purposes. These trip totals by purpose are then matched up to the destinations in Gainesville described above (See Table 33 ). These trip figures totals are then converted to a percentage of total trips by tha t mode and
51 multiplied by the percentage that can be diverted from SR 26 (See Table 3 3 ). It is assumed, then, that a figure of 14.89% of total trips can be diverted from SR 26. This percentage is then subtracted from the pm peak hour counts to produce data for use in the spreadsheet. The two scenarios for traffic consist of current (2008) traffic and projected 2025 traffic. The 2008 levels are the adjusted figures of pm peak hour traffic. The projected 2025 traffic numbers are based on historic traf fic counts for the years 1993 to 2007 (FDOT, 2007). Two locations are used: 250 feet west and 100 feet east of the intersection of SR 26 and SR 45. The western point is used for the western of the two segments and the eastern for the east segment. Regre ssion analysis is used on each data set to project the traffic levels on both segments in 2025 (See Figure s 3 1 4 and 3 1 5 ). The percentage growth in traffic on the segments is then calculated. This percentage growth in pm peak hour traffic is then added to the segments for use in Dr. Bonnesons spreadsheet. For the intersection of SR 26 and SR 45 the northbound and southbound turning movements use the growth figures from the western segment. Westbound and southbound turning movements use the gr owth figures from the eastern segment. Sensitivity Analysis for the Alternative Methodology The alternative methodology requires sensitivity analysis. Although the control design serves this function for most access management functions, the variable labe led Delay Due to Other Sources along the Segment is intended to model delay due to on -street parking, pedestrian movements, cyclists, and other occasional events (Bonneson, et al., 2008). There are no formulas or other guides to estimating this delay in the NCHRP 3 79 report. The author assumes that access managem ent will provide a reduction in delay due to other sources along the segmen t such as from pedestrians having easier crossing of the facility. The author assumes that the changing of this con stant will provide slightly different results. He therefore chose possible values for this constant that seem plausible (See Table 3 4 ). These
52 scenarios of sensitivity analysis are then applied to the alternative methodology. The author believes that the third scenario is the most similar to real -world con ditions. Full results of sensitivity analysis scenarios one and three are presented in Chapter 4: Results. All scenarios of sensitivity analysis are presented in Appendix C. In addition, the author performed an analysis of these scenarios. The difference between the speed ratios produced for each access management treatment and scenario are analyzed. These speed ratios for each sensitivity analysis scenario two through five are subtracted from sen sitivity analysis scenario 1, where delay due to other sources is zero. The differences between the scenarios two through five are then averaged and presented in Chapter 4: Results.
53 Table 3 1. Variables in the Methodology. Concept Indicator Variable Decision Level Facility Performance Throughput Ratio of System Travel Speed to Base FreeFlow Speed Increase/Decrease in ratio 0% < x medium, LOS Letter Increase or Decrease in LOS
54 Table 3 2. Conversion Chart from the Speed Ratio to LOS. Adapted from Bonneson, et al., 2008, p. 30 S peed Ratio LOS 5 A 67 B 50 C 40 D 30 E < 30 F
55 Table 3 3 Percent of Total Trips Diverted to Parallel Access Facilities from SR 26. Area Newberry Trips to Area Total Newberry Trips Percent of Newberr y Trips Percent of Trips to Area Assumed to Use Parallel Access Facility Percent of Total SR 26 Trips Diverted North Gainesville 669.02 10519.16 6.36 100 6.36 South Gainesville 513.78 10519.16 4.88 100 4.88 University of Florida 675.05 10519.16 6.42 50 3.21 Downtown Gainesville 138.82 10519.16 1.32 33 0.44
56 Table 3 4 Values in Sensitivity Analysis for Delay Due to Other Sources. Treatment Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Control 0 2 4 6 8 Median Treatment 1 0 2 3 5 7 Median T reatment 2 0 2 3 4 6 Median Treatment 3 0 1 2 3 4 Median Treatment 4 0 1 2 2 3 Driveway Consolidated 0 1 2 3 4
57 Figure 3 1. Location of Newberry and SR 26 in Florida and Alachua County.
58 Figure 3 2 Map of intersections in Newberry with aerial photography and roads shown
59 Figure 3 3 Map of Newberry Zoning with Subject Intersections Highlighted. Intersection Intersection Intersection
60 Figure 3 4 Map of Data Collection Locations and Major Attractors in Newberry
61 Figure 3 5 Existing Medians in Newberry.
62 Figure 3 6 Proposed Median Treatment 1.
63 Figure 3 7 Median Treatment 2.
64 Figure 3 8 Median Treatment 3
65 Figure 3 9 Median Treatment 4.
66 Figure 3 10. Proposed driveway closures and c onsolidations.
67 Figure 3 1 1 Proposed Parallel Collectors and Gainesville Destinations.
68 Figure 3 1 2 TAZs in Newberry
69 Treatment Scenario Direction Segment Travel Speed Segment Base Free-Flow Speed Speed Ratio LOS Control 2008 Traffic 2025 Traffic 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Median Design 1 2008 Traffic 2025 Traffic 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Median Design 2 2008 Traffic 2025 Traffic 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Median Design 3 2008 Traffic 2025 Traffic 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Median Design 4 2008 Traffic 2025 Traffic 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Driveway Consolidation 2008 Traffic 2025 Traffic 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Figure 3 1 3 Sample Data Analysis Chart
70 AADT Counts and Projections for the Segment West of SR 45 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 Year Average Daily Trips Figure 3 1 4 Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT) Counts and Projections for the Segment West of SR 45. [Source: Florida Department of Transportation. (2007). 2007 Florida Traffic Information [computer software]. Tallahassee Florida: Florida Department of Transportation ]
71 AADT Counts and Projections for the Segment East of SR 45 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 Year Average Daily Trips Figure 3 1 5 Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT) Counts and Projections for the Segment East of SR 45. [Source: Florida Department of Transportation. (2007). 2007 Florida Traffic Information [computer so ftware ]. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Department of Transportation. ]
72 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This chapter presents the results of the spreadsheet methodologies as applied to potential access management scenarios in Newberry. The chapter begins with an overvi ew of the process of finding a suitable methodology. It then continues with a description of Newberry and the major attractors in its CBD. It then continues with the results from both the downtown pedestrian observations and the pedestrian counts that ac companied the traffic counts. Next, the observations from the Newberry Lights Festival are presented with an emphasis on the interaction between SR 26, downtown businesses, and pedestrians. This chapter then gives the results from both spreadsheet method ologies in each treatment and scenario studied in this thesis. The Researcher as Goldilocks: The Process of Developing a Methodology To understand the logic behind the author's choosing this methodology and the limitations behind it, it is necessary to rev isit the long process of finally choosing Dr. Bonneson's spreadsheet. The project of analyzing Newberrys potential for access management began with the assumption that finding a methodology to evaluate access management would be quite simple. In fact, i t was presumed that a ready -made methodology would be available and that the only difficulties would be in collecting and interpreting data. Just the opposite turned out to be true. Despite the Access Management Manual and the numerous reports on access management one even analyzed SR 26 as a case study no sound method exists to estimate prospective improvements in LOS and capacity from median design or access spacing. This fact was somewhat ironic in that LOS measures form the basis of transportation pl anning in Florida. Unfortunately, this thesis cannot reflect the countless hours, meetings, and frustrated communications involved. Nevertheless, the lengthy process that led to the present methodology is detailed here.
73 Problems in Floridas Modeling Process In the State of Florida, government agencies make decisions regarding transport ation policies and improvements based on the performance of the road facility. The principal measures of performance are capacity and LOS. To determine LOS, transportation officials use the four step modeling process to determine the existing and project ed traffic volumes (generally Annual Average Daily Trips (AADT) or peak -hour trips). In addition, traffic count studies are conducted on arterials and major collectors to determine current flow. Transportation officials then determine the LOS of the faci lity and whether the traffic volumes exceed the LOS designation in the communitys comprehensive plan. This process is generally referred to as concurrency management. The success of concurrency management rests on two factors: the validity of the transp ortation data, and the communitys concurrency management system. Although the burden of collecting and maintaining transportation data is split between state, regional, and local levels, the Gainesville MTPO is responsible for maintaining the model. The Gainesville model follows the Florida Standard Urban Transportation Modeling Structure (FSUTMS), which FDOT has required all state MPOs to use. The Gainesville MTPO model therefore becomes the basis of many decisions in regards to transportation in Alach ua County. Newberry, though, does not lie within the boundaries of the MTPO, but the MTPO model includes data for Newberry and all Alachua County Unfortunately, the Gainesville MTPO model is not current Its socioeconomic data is from 2000, which makes it out of date and therefore unsuitable for modeling (N. Lepp, Personal Communication, July 22, 2008). Moreover, the MTPO lacks the ability to run micro -simulation (N. Lepp, Personal Co mmunication, July 22, 2008). The authors experience confirms these assumptions. To conduct this research, the author learned the CUBE modeling program. CUBE is FDOTs choice of modeling program and is
74 configured to run FSUTMS. Ideally, if sufficient data exists, local governments can develop sophisticated models with full street networks and traffic signalization. The MTPOs model does not yet possess that level of sophistication. In fact, the model is not well suited for CUBE, as it was developed before FDOT adopted CUBE as the transportation modeling program. The model is appropriate for a general analysis of transportation patterns, particularly from one TAZ to another. Micro -simulation, though, would be able to display street and even car -level traffic. The author chose not pursue this option because of the prohibitive cost of a site license for CUBE Dynasim, a program for micro -simulation. An interview with an expert in access management also confirmed the view that current micro -simulation pr ograms such as Corsim are not sensitive enough for analyzing medians or other access management treatments (K. Williams, Personal Communication, August 13, 2008). In short, the Gainesville MTPO model is insufficient for evaluating access management in New berry. The CORSIM micro -simulation program is also unsuitable for this project. CORSIM is capable of showing transportation systems at a fine level of detail. For example, users are able to track individual cars as they travel through the network. CORSI M, though, is insufficient in regards to access management because it is unable to model the effects of driveways or of the full range of median types (G. Sokolow, Personal Communication, July 2008). In addition, CORSIM requires data that are not readily available and would require costly collection (G. Sokolow, Personal Communication, July 2008). Further, CORSIM is too complicated to learn in a reasonable time period to the detail necessary to develop a new methodology involving the program (G. Sokolow, Personal Communication, July 2008). For these reasons, the author decided to forgo the four -step modeling process and micro -simulation altogether and seek a new method of evaluating access management.
75 The (Potentially False) Dichotomy of Planning and Engi neering The author next attempted to find two separate but complimentary methods of evaluating access management: one from planning and one from engineering. He noted that planners and engineers look at land use and transportation from different perspecti ves. Planners generally view transportation and land use as working together in a dynamic system whereas engineers tend to ignore land use beyond the trip generation process. The thought was as follows: if engineers and planners each have their own way o f analyzing access management, perhaps those two methods can be brought together to develop a holistic means of evaluating access management treatments. The author anticipated at the beginning that engineers would possess a more quantifiable method wherea s planners would have a more qualitative method. In reality, both planners and engineers take highly quantitative approaches toward access management. Ironically, both disciplines lack a fully developed system of evaluation. Engineers are working on revi sions to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), slated for release in 2010, which is based on NCHRP projects. The Urban Streets chapter incorporates median design and access spacing as inputs to determine the capacity in the road facility (Bonneson, et al., 2008). These figures could then be used to determine changes in LOS on the SIS segments through Newberry. Through civil engineering faculty at the University of Florida the author received a working copy of the new Urban Streets methodology. Planners on the other hand, were assumed to look at trip generation rates from land uses and how those rates would interact with the road system. An interview with a planner in Alachua Countys growth management department confirmed the reliance on trip generati on rates as major tools in current planning (J. Paul, Personal Communication, Sept. 5, 2008). As the planner indicated, although planners make use of trip generation rates in concurrency management, officials in Alachua County cannot use the current Gaine sville MTPO model to determine the number of new trips each road
76 receives from a proposed development (J. Paul, Personal Communication, Sept. 5, 2008). The main setback to the planners method lies in the lack of effective site impact analysis. Site impac t analysis is the process of quantifying the impact of proposed development on the transportation network. For example, a developer proposes a new residential subdivision of one hundred single family detached homes. These homes will generate 954 new trips per day. The planner must then distribute those trips on the road network, find out which road segments receive trips, and calculate the change in LOS on those segments resulting from the new trips. The author attempted to produce various scenarios of service roads, parallel collectors, and frontage roads and then use site impact analysis to determine how trips would be distributed in each scenario. Unfortunately, the time required in coming up with a robust method of site impact analysis would exceed the time constraints on this project. In the end, the author decided to employ the proposed NCHRP 3 79 methodology in this thesis. He chose to do so for four reasons. First, the methods of evaluating transportation impacts from developments are not suff iciently sophisticated in Alachua County to produce reliable results. Better transportation models are needed first to determine how trips will be distributed on the road network. Second, the NCHRP 3 79 methodology and accompanying spreadsheet driver pro duce the capacity data required in LOS analysis. These data form the basis of transportation planning in FDOTs top-down structure. Planners are therefore trained in making decisions from NCHRP 3 79s output data. Third, the spreadsheet inputs include e nough details about median design and access spacing to permit the analysis of numerous access management scenarios. Finally, as detailed above, the NCHRP 3 79 methodology is the only reliable one that can include access management.
77 An Overview of Newber ry The case study focuses on Newberry, Florida, a small town of 5,000 in North Central Florida. It has recently grown with the construction of new single family housing developments on the edge of the built up area, and numerous developments on the periph ery are proposed for the community. In addition, Newberry is a part of the growing Gainesville metropolitan region. The region is linked very closely to the University of Florida and the economic activity there. As a result, much of the transportation i n the region is focused on travel to the attractions there. Newberry CBD and Its Surroundings SR 26, which flows through Newberry and bisects its CBD, provides an excellent case study of accessibility, mobility, and the possibilities of access management (See Figure 3 1) Newberrys CBD contains numerous driveways and frequent roadway connections on both sides of SR 26. These connections give access to the numerous businesses in the historic district. Among others, these businesses include a bank; hardw are and auto parts stores; a small discount retailer; city offices; and other restaurants, small businesses, and community uses. Much of the CBD is part of a designated historic district with some buildings on the National Register of Historic Buildings. Although Newberry is a small community, flow on SR 26 is often slow and congested because it is a primary route for truckers and the west to -east commute to jobs in Gainesville. This problem is compounded by the occasional train that cuts off traffic on S R 26 for several minutes. The goals of a safe, walkable downtown and efficient transportation remain elusive along SR 26, the SIS facility. There are numerous trip attractors on the edge of Newberrys CBD (See Figure 3 4) Oak View Middle School lies ap proximately one quarter mile south of SR 26. Observations on November 17, 2008 during the afternoon close of school 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm reveal that this
78 school generates few trips by private automobile.1 Only ninety cars were counted as turning into the s chool. Further observations were taken at Newberry Elementary School, one -half mile south of SR 26, on November 18, 2008 between 1:00 pm and 2:00 pm. Only about sixty cars arrived to pick up their children. It is therefore doubtful that these attractors have a significant impact on the performance of SR 26. In addition, there are three employment centers near Newberry that generally require travel on SR 26 (See Figure 3 4) The first is Florida Rock, which is a producer of aggregate for concrete produ ction. It is located northeast of downtown along CR 235. The second is an industrial park over one -half mile north of downtown on SR 45. Although small, it is quickly growing into an employment center that will impact traffic on SR 26. Finally, two dis tribution centers for major discount retailers lie within the City of Alachua along CR 235 approximately eight miles northeast of downtown Newberry. Although these facilities constitute large regional employment centers, the amount of truck traffic on SR 26 is minimal because Interstate 75 lies close to these distribution centers. The largest employment in the region is at the University of Florida and Shands Hospital. During the 20052006 school year both institutions employed 34,000 individuals with over 50,000 students (Hodges, Mulkey, and Stevens, 2007). Trips to these facilities greatly impact the performance of SR 26. Railroad A conversation with a railroad official on December 11, 2008 revealed much about rail traffic in the region. The railroad line runs through the heart of Newberrys CBD. Although there is no set schedule, approximately twice daily the coal shipments travel through town. The right -of -way is owned by CSX, but the North Florida Railroad is leasing it for 100 years. The 1The author conducted these counts with the principals permission and did not involve any contact with children.
79 main freight is coal destined for the coal -fired power plants in Crystal River, Florida owned by Progress Energy. The coal, which comes in trains of 100 cars each, travels the long distance from mines in the Appalachian region. It reaches an interchange approximately one -half mile south of SR 26 where the North Florida Railroad picks up the coal shipments from CSX for continued travel to Crystal River. There is also frequent freight service through Newberry to High Springs, Florida because the interchange is only one -quarter mile north of SR 26. The authors observations show the profound impact that the railroad has on transportation in Newberry. If a long coal train passes through town, the delay can last up to eight minutes and can cause traffic backups f or about a half mile. Once the train has passed, it may take up to eight minutes for traffic to return to normal. Although the train does not frequently pass through the downtown during the peak hour of travel, it did so twice during the data collection periods. Its effect was to stop travel in the Newberry CBD as if a wall were erected in the community. Research Site and Context The research site and context focus on the city of Newberry. Although the policy research extends beyond the city boundaries of Newberry to cover the State of Florida and Alachua County, the research site is wholly within Newberry. The site is the roadway facility SR 26 from its intersection with W 266th Street to its intersection with Doc Karelas Drive / NW 242nd Street, a le ngth of approximately 1.6 miles. This facility has the greatest concentration of access points, the highest accessibility, and the most problems with congested mobility. While the study attempts to model access management only on SR 26, other road facili ties factor into the research because they intersect with SR 26 and influence the flow on that facility. The facility US 27/41 (SR 45) intersects SR 26 and is a major intersection for regional and local traffic. Further, a CSX rail line intersects SR 26 in the heart of downtown, stopping traffic for several minutes.
80 SR 26 is characterized by its low level of access management. The intersection of SR 26 and W 266th St is unsignalized and has no medians to separate the two lanes of traffic. From there, t he two lanes extend for approximately one mile until the intersection with US 27/41 (SR 45) without any separating medians. This segment forms the downtown core of Newberry. At the intersection, the eastbound lane gains a left turn lane. To the east of this intersection, on the suburban segment, there are four lanes, two in each direction. One of the westbound lanes at the intersection is right -turn only, and there is also a left turn lane in the same direction. US 27/41 at this intersection has two th rough lanes with a left -turn only lane in each direction. The signals are actuated with protected left turns in each direction. After the intersection, the four lanes are separated by a TWLTL. Access connections to SR 26 are frequent along the downtown segment but sparse in the suburban segment. Intersections not included, there are eleven road connections on the east bound side and ten on the west -bound side of the downtown segment. On the suburban segment, there are two road connections on the south side and one connection on the north side. In addition, there are at least a few dozen driveways on both sides of the road in the downtown segment, but there are only seven in the east bound direction and six in the west -bound direction in the suburban s egment. This difference in access connections may explain the congestion found on the downtown segment and the relatively free -flowing traffic on the suburban segment. It also presents a situation where access management may cause significant improvement s to the throughput of SR 26 in Newberrys downtown. Pedestrian Observations and Counts The set of observations taken December 15, 2008 provide important insight into pedestrian transportation and accessibility in Newberry. The first set of hour long obse rvations from 11:30 to 12:30 was for attractors on SR 26 between W 254th Street and W 255th Street (See Figure 3 4)
81 This section of SR 26 contained the city hall, a small parking lot, offices, and local businesses, including a large local restaurant. Th e overwhelming majority of individuals parked on the street or in the small parking lot across from the restaurant. By far the most popular destination was the restaurant as it was lunch time, followed by city hall. There was very little true pedestrian activity as most people walked straight from their cars to the establishment and then back. Very few individuals traveled by foot as their primary mode of transportation. Approximately 100 people walked street used their automobiles for transportation in the city center while only seven people traveled primarily by foot. The second set of pedestrian observations took place between 12:30 pm and 1:30 pm on the same day. The location was between W 254th Street and Seaboard Drive. This segment contained sma ll businesses, such as a restaurant, a bank, shops, a pocket park, and a vacant historic building. Although the author could not see their parking spots, most people parked on the street or in parking spaces to the side or back of the block. There was more pedestrian activity relative to total foot traffic, but there were only about 55 total people on the street throughout the hour. The pedestrian environment was quite good, with street shrubbery and small trees, decorative railing, benches, and the park There were few widely known attractors in this segment like the restaurant in the first set. Overall, the observed downtown segments were not vibrant pedestrian environments. Few people walked very far from their automobiles to their destinations. As a result, parking played a significant role in peoples travel. Further, pedestrians could cross the street safely, but many individuals had to wait sometimes minutes to cross. There is perceived danger by pedestrians as to the safety of crossing, and this perception may have resulted in fewer people walking around the downtown.
82 Pedestrian Counts : The results of the pedestrian counts taken at the same time as the turning counts are presented in Figure 4 3 In general, there were few pedestrians wal king along the facility. The author observed almost no pedestrians where there was no sidewalk or were no significant attractors. These areas also had posted speed limits of 40 for the western most portion of the facility and 45 for the easternmost portion.2 The highest pedestrian count was 71 individuals at the intersection with a bank, restaurant, pocket park, and parking lot. The second highest pedestrian count was 20 individuals at the intersection with a discount retail chain, hardware store, and sm all businesses. The pedestrian counts exposed a linkage between trip attractors and pedestrian activity in downtown Newberry. Newberry Lights Festival The Newberry Lights Festival came as an unexpected opportunity to observe the interaction of pedestrian accessibility and mobility on SR 26. This festival took place on December 2, 2008 from 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm. Its hosts were the Newberry Main Street Organization and business partners in the downtown. The Newberry Main Street Organization has as its purpose the promotion of downtown businesses and the building of the local community. Indeed, the local businesses enthusiastically supported the event. In addition, the city also helped put on the event, decorating light poles and allowing the use of the ci tys downtown pocket park. Finally, this second annual event was heavily advertised with radio announcements, school publicity, and flyers distributed throughout Newberry. The Newberry Main Street Organization made a significant effort at attracting the community to the festival. First, a local news crew came to the event, and the Main Street 2 The speed limits were averaged for each segment, so the speed l imits in the software are 35 mph and 40 mph, respectively.
83 Organization hoped it would broadcast live to attract vistors.3 Second, local businesses offered free hot chocolate and food to all visitors inside their shops. T hird, organizers worked hard at creating a family -friendly atmosphere. Emphasizing its Christmas theme, the Organization hired a Santa Claus for the pocket park, asked a local church choir to sing, provided supplies for making Christmas crafts, and offere d inexpensive horse drawn carriage rides for only a $1 donation. Finally, the Organization sponsored a lights competition for local businesses and residences. This exciting atmosphere for downtown complemented the contributing structures to the historic district, which is on the National Register of Historic Places. The results of the Newberry Lights festival were remarkable. Of a city population of 5,000, perhaps four hundred pedestrians attended the event. This figure is impressive considering the cold temperatures of less than forty degrees. It is further estimated that approximately 150 people rode in the horse -drawn carriage. Most attendees came as families, with several small children and strollers accompanied by their parents. The pocket park, the center of the event, was packed with visitors, who sipped hot chocolate, visited with Santa, and listened to the carolers. From an attendance perspective, the event was a success. Local business leaders later expressed their appreciation to the pres ident of the Organization and showed interest in participating in this event next December. The Festival functioned well in spite of the high traffic volume on the facility The Festi val took place on both the north and south sides of SR 26. This setup required pedestrians to cross the street to participate in the entire event. Further, the Festival occurred during a period of high traffic on the facility. In many ways these adverse conditions did not prevent residents from enjoying the festivities. Many people were willing to cross the street, and several people 3Unfortunately, the television station only made brief mention of the event on the 11 oclock news.
84 seemed undeterred by the busy traffic flowing at unsafe speeds. Children safely crossed with their parents clutching the m closely to them. The only complaint from the attendees about the road stemmed from a loud diesel truck that intentionally disrupted activities several times. In addition, the lighted horse -drawn carriage was able to travel on SR 26 in traffic for a few hundred feet on each ride. It was also able safely to make a left hand turn onto SR 26 from Seaboard Drive on each ride. As expected, the flow of traffic on SR 26 did pose significant difficulties for the festival. Event organizers tried to divert the route of the horse drawn carriage from having to cross SR 26 as they felt it was unsafe to do so. The author of this paper also attended the event and crossed the road several times. Each time he did so, the author felt wary of crossing and preferred to avoid having to do so. He observed that cars were reluctant to slow down for him and only stopped less than half the time. The authors experience showed that drivers behavior did not differ significantly from other times of day or non -events. Results o f Dr. Bonneson's Spreadsheet Methodology The first result from the spreadsheet methodology is that Dr. Bonneson's spreadsheet methodology does not function properly Numerous attempts were made to analyze the spreadsheet problem to identify the source of error, including meeting with a faculty member from the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Florida and sending the spreadsheet to the McTrans Center at the University of Florida for further analysis. Both ways of obtaining help were unsu ccessful in producing any results. It was finally determined that the spreadsheet methodology did not work when a national expert on signal performance was also unable to produce any results. The like ly cause of this failure was that the macros in the sp readsheet progra m were not properly set up. This failure is understandable for many reasons. Dr. Bonneson stated that he could not guarantee the accuracy or functionality of the spreadsheet as it is not yet finalized and approved by the Transportation Re search Board (Personal
85 Communication, Sept. 22, 2008). As a busy professor and member of the Board, he was justifiably unable to fix the macro script errors before the publication of this thesis. The failure of Dr. Bonneson's methodology caused the creati on of the alternative spreadsheet methodology. Working with Dr. Washburn in the Department of Civil Engineering, the author took the equations for segment performance from NCHRP 3 79 and the intersection analysis module from the existing HCS. These two c omponents produce an analysis of segment performance, and this approach was essentially the one that Dr. Bonneson sought in his failed methodology. The segment analysis portion of the alternative spreadsheet was easy to develop as the equations were clear and required only modest amounts of data input. Results of the Alternative Spreadsheet Methodology The results of the alternative spreadsheet methodology for sensitivity analysis scenarios one and three are displayed below. Full results for all scenarios are found in Appendix C. In summation, they demonstrate that the methodology did not find a significant difference in segment performance from medians and driveway consolidation. The construction of parallel access facilities produced a large improvemen t in segment performance as measured by both change in LOS and the speed ratio. Most of this improvement was due to improved signal delay time. The methodology also found that while access management is in part capacity increasing, it shows a much stronger tendency toward preserving capacity. Finally, sensitivity analysis demonstrated that delay due to other sources exerted a minor influence on the result s Results for the Westbound Direction The results for the westbound direction are presented in Figur e 4 1 It shows that for the current (2008) levels of traffic within each traffic level current (2008) traffic levels, current levels with parallel access facilities, 2025 traffic levels, and 2025 traffic levels with parallel access facilities the additi on of restrictive medians and driveway consolidation produced no
86 noticeable change in either the speed ratio or the LOS. Figure 4 1 also illustrates that the addition of parallel access facilities greatly improved the speed ratio. In the case of 20 08 levels, the addition of parallel access increased the speed ratio by about 0.05, a medium level of improvement. For 2025 levels, it increased the speed ratio by about 0.10, a large difference. From the difference in improvement due to parallel access facilities, from 0.05 to 0.10 in the seventeen year period, it appears that while access management increased throughput its effect was even more to preserve the throughput or to prese rve the speed ratio and LOS, near where they were in 2008. Results for the Eastbound Direction The results of the alternative spreadsheet methodology for sensitivity analysis scenarios one and three are presented in Figure 4 2 As explained in Chapter 3: Methodology, these data do not include the intersection analysis. That is to say, they only analyze the segment using the equations from Dr. Bonnesons NCHRP 3 79 report (See Appendix B) As the results show, the speed ratio only changed b y less than 0.03 due to the addition of medians and driveway consolidation. The greatest change to the segment performance resulted from driveway consolidation, though this improvement amounted to less than 0.03. In addition, there was little difference between traffic levels with or without parallel access facilities. This difference was likely due to the fact that the author did not calculate signal delay in the eastbound d irection. These results indicate that signal analysis is still the overwhelming factor in determining LOS and facility performance. They also demonstrate that the proposed 2010 HCM does not handle well the effect of driveways on facility performance. In addition, the 2010 HCM does not handle the effects of highway mid-segment volum e on facility performance. In other words, the 2010 HCM does not show well that segment performance can decrease when high-volume facilities have access problems. The methodology still takes this volume into consideration, but it is
87 perhaps not proportio nate to the real effect. Sensitivity Analysis The results from sensitivity analysis are presented in Appendix C and in Figure s 4 1 and 4 2 The change in the speed ratio due to the variable delay due to other sources was minimal. For the eastbound direction, the difference in the speed ratio from this delay amounted to less than 0.04. The difference for the westbound direction was higher, with a maximum of just over 0.06. As seen in the figures the average differences from sensitivity analysis scenario one was less than 0.05, which is only a small change in the speed ratio. Nevertheless, the difference exists and demonstrates that delay due to other sources can change the LOS if the segment or facility is close to a higher or lower classification. Further, the fact that the delay due to other sources was higher in the westbound direction reveals the large impact of signal analysis on facility analysis. Overall, sensitivity analysis reveals that delay due to other sources w as a factor of generally small importance in segment ana lysis. These results are analyzed in depth in Chapter 5: Discussion.
88 Figure 4 1. Results of the alternative spreadsheet methodology for the eastbound direction. Scenarios refer to the scenarios of the sensitivity analysis. From left to right within each scenario, the data points stand for: Control, Median Treatment 1, Median Treatment 2, Median Treatment 3, Median Treatment 4, and Driveway Consolidation.
89 Figure 4 2. Results of the alternative spreadsheet methodology for the westbound direction Scenarios refer to the scenarios of the sensitivity analysis. From left to right within each scenario, the data points stand for: Control, Median Tr eatment 1, Median Treatment 2, Median Treatment 3, Median Treatment 4, and Driveway Consolidation
90 Figure 4 3 Pedestrian counts at intersections standardized for 2008 pm peak hour counts.
91 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION This chapter presents a discussion of the results from the pedestrian observations and the spreadsheet methodology i n the context of the research question: Can access management provide for access, accessibility, and mobility on an SIS facility through a small town? In investigating this question, the author seeks the broad implications of access management for communi ty building and for the transportation policy framework in Florida. The chapter begins with a review of the results for access management from Dr. Bonneson's spreadsheet and the alternative spreadsheet, with an emphasis on the relationship between access management, mobility, and LOS. The chapter then discusses the relationship between access, accessibility, mobility, and access management. Next, the role of access management in holistic transportation planning is treated. This chapter concludes with an evaluation of SIS facilities and their relationship to access management. General Findings on Access Management and LOS The results are mixed as to the effects of access management on LOS. The alternative methodology was able to detect only minute change s in LOS due to restrictive medians and driveway consolidation. This result indicates that either these two treatments have only minor impacts on facility performance or that the current simplified methodologies are not adequate at analyzing driveways and segment performance. If they have only minor impact, then Newberrys transportation problems are due to wider problems of land use planning, such as the housing jobs imbalance (discussed below). These two forms of access management would likely provide little relief to the facility and cause FDOT to lift the concurrency moratorium. If the current methodologies are not adequate at analyzing driveways, then the dominance of signal analysis and road widening will continue in transportation planning and engineering.
92 Multimodal s olutions will be more difficult to implement because they will be hard to demonstrate quantitatively. The addition of parallel access facilities was the only access management treatment that produced l arge gains in LOS. This result seems quite natural because the addition of parallel access facilities took large amounts of traffic off the road. As a result, the signal performance greatly improved and the overall segment received a better LOS rating. While parallel access facilities are an important component of access management, the improvement of LOS through additional capacity is hardly a remarkable result. Adding an additional lane would have had an effect similar to adding parallel access facili ties. Indeed, the results indicate that the transportation engineering method of evaluating segment perfo rmance is hard -wired toward new facility construction or widening The research also found that access management both preserves and increases throughput through the addition of parallel access facilities While the future preservation of throughput was greater, access management was still throughput increasing. Although this result is significant, it must be tempered with the fact that this result was only found through the building of parallel facilities. The addition of medians and the driveway closures had no noticeable effect on LOS. A dding more capacity in the form of parallel access would naturally improve throughput in the present and the future. This question should be revisited once a methodology is developed that accounts for a variety of access management treatments. Recommendations for Delay Due to Other Sources : The unknown factor in the alternative spreadsheet methodology is the variable delay due to other sources. The results offer some suggestions. First, there is probably some change in LOS from this variable as a result of access management. Sensitivity analysis scenario one is unlikely to be correct. On the
93 other hand, the results indicate that scenario five is probably too extreme in its changes due to access management. Therefore, scenarios two through four are highly plausible. Future researchers should focus on producing guideline s for this variable Access, Mobility, and Access Management The results of this study illuminate the relationship between access, mobility, and access management. As defined in Chapter Two, access is the ability to reach a destination by a form of trans portation, such as when a car enters a parking lot or a pedestrian uses a sidewalk to walk to a store. The relationship to mobility is that mobility is travel from point A to point B while access is being able to transfer that mobility to entrance to the transportation network from point A and the exit to point B from the transportation network. The first component consists of vehicles principally the automobile using the transportation network. The second consists of pedestrians' use of the same network. Results of the Alternative Methodology and Access, Mobility, and Access Management As stated above, the effect of access management on LOS is mixed, and so its effects on access and mobility are also mixed. The alternative methodology showed no medium o r large change in LOS from medians and driveway consolidation. As a result, there were no demonstrable changes in mobility even though access would be constrained through the addition of medians and the closure of driveways. The only treatment that did s how promise, the parallel access facilities, does not restrict access, even though mobility would in crease as a result These results are probably of little comfort to access management professionals. It cannot be demonstrated in advance by any known met hod that the most common access management will improve the throughput on a transportation facility. Although these professionals have long been at odds to find such a methodology, this thorough analysis of the possible methodologies confirms their suspic ions. It is often hard to justify the expenditure of millions for something for
94 which the data cannot be quantified as well as transportation engineers LOS measures. Fortunately for access management professionals, numerous post access management studies existing showing benefits from medians and driveway consolidation. Unfortunately for Newberry, these studies are probably of little help in convincing FDOT officials to lift the concurrency moratorium. Results of Pedestrian Observations and Access, Mobil ity, and Access Management The results of the pedestrian observations demonstrate the importance of providing targeted access improvements. In other words, there are certain points along SR 26 where improvements to the facility would disproportionately b enefit pedestrians. FDOT can achieve the greatest value from a cost -benefits perspective by placing medians at the intersections of highest pedestrian usage. In the case of Newberry, these were the restaurant and the discount retail chain. These areas a lso had some of the largest amounts of parking in the downtown. Adding the medians and enacting the driveway consolidation in these general areas would make the pedestrian environment safer and decrease individuals' fears of crossing the road. The median s would constitute a barrier to automobile traffic and permit pedestrians to cross in shorter time. The driveway consolidation would eliminate more possibilities for pedestrian accidents by reducing turning conflicts from automobiles. Mobility on the fac ility would also be preserved by reducing turning conflicts. If access management did, in fact, improve access ibility and mobility in regards to the requi rements of the SIS facility, significant hazards would still remain. The Newberry Lights Festival de monstrated the need for greater pedestrian safety on SR 26. The author observed how many pedestrians were afraid of crossing the busy road. Access management would allow them to do so more safely, but it would also preserve that same mobility that runs c ounter to community vitality. In this respect access management is a double -edged sword for the
95 community. The regulations on SIS facilities place maintaining a high LOS a priority in planning, and access management would help them achieve this goal. In this sense SR 26 is a policy -imposed barrier to the community. This fact is strengthened by the observation that when trains traveled through Newberry and cut off transportation, the pedestrian environment suddenly became much safer. Indeed, it seems th at access management partially enforces the hierarchy of mobility that our transportation system has imposed on travelers. This hierarchy of mobility places national and regional traffic above local travel just as the functional hierarchy places longer -di stance travel above shorter -distance travel. For example, the SIS facility is given priority by FDOT over local travel when FDOT places a concurrency moratorium on new development in Newberry. Access management strengthens this hierarchy by restricting a ccess to local development from SR 26. The highest elements in the hierarchy of mobility are those that serve regional functions. At the top is the railroad. As observations confirm, when the railroad travels through Newberry, all other transportation i s cut off. It is as if a wall were temporarily erected through the community so that the regional power plant can receive coal. Next comes the SIS facility SR 26. The regional goal of moving automobiles from housing to businesses is given priority. Loc al goals or plans for the transportation network are not considered as highly in policy considerations, as seen in the concurrency moratorium. Access management contributes to this hierarchy by restricting access to local businesses for the sake of preser ving LOS. Access management can, however, contribute positively to both access and mobility by providing targeted improvements, as mentioned above. The second scenario for medians is the best example of thoughtful implementation of median treatments.
96 Finally, pedestrians are at the bottom of the mobility hierarchy. Although there is a clear blinking yield sign for pedestrians at the busiest pedestrian crossing point, the trip across the road is a dangerous one for most people. Adding a median at thi s and similar points would grant pedestrians some mobility benefits of being higher up the hierarchy while imposing only minor restrictions on automobility. Ironically, the mobility hierarchy largely follows the laws of physics. A train possesses the gre atest momentum, followed next by the fast -moving vehicles and lastly by the pedestrians. Testing the Claims of Access Management This report began with a discussion of whether the claims of access management can be tested and then proved or disproved. The claims of access management are that it can both increase throughput on a facility and promote multimodal travel. The results show that access management does indeed improve multimodal travel. The pedestrian observations noted that pedestrians would ben efit from medians, which provide shelter from the high volumes of traffic on SR 26. They would also enjoy a safer pedestrian travel environment through driveways closures. On the other hand, this research cannot confirm whether access management can impr ove throughput. The author believes that the alternative spreadsheet methodology does not show improvement in LOS from access management because the methodology is not sensitive to access management treatments excepting parallel access facilities and because congestion in Newberry is not due to problems with access As a result, it seems that one claim of access management is not correct in this case study. Accessibility, Mobility, and Access Managemen t The connection between accessibility, mobility, and access management is visible in this case study. As stated earlier, accessibility is the ability to reach an activity within a specified distance or time period by a chosen method of conveyance. Ther e are two main types of
97 accessibility named for their method of conveyance: auto accessibility and pedestrian accessibility. Access management affects both types differ ently Access Management, Automobility, and Accessibility The results indicate that ei ther the throughput improvements from access management cannot be modeled or that Newberrys transportation problems are not due to issues of accessibility and mobility If the benefits from access management are tangible and significant but cannot be shown, then access management could accommodate accessibility and mobility. Greater throughput and efficiency from the existing system would allow individuals to enjoy fast, convenient transportation and a greater number of interesting activities within a sh ort distance This situation would truly be a win -win proposition. If Newberrys problems are not due to accessibility and mobility issues, then Newberry is a victim of the inability of the political -economic system to coordinate the land use transport ation system. The only solution, then, would be to build a bypass around Newberry. This solution would adversely impact Newberrys relative regional accessibility but would offer the possibility of increased local accessibility through new development. Further, it is not certain whether a bypass is a truly viable option as Newberry lies on the most direct route to Gainesville the regional employment center The results from the alternative methodology illustrate the preference for automobility in trans portation engineering. The only successful access management treatmen t was the one that added road mileage to the system. Signal analysis plays such an important role in analyzing travel by automobile, while the segment makes little difference. It is th e opposite for pedestrians. For them the signal is of less importance than the quality of travel along the segment, such as street trees, a sidewalk, and interesting shops along the way. The results of this research show that the current HCM and propose d 2010 HCM do not adequately consider these
98 matters. It is appropriate, then, that transportation engineers provide the technical information while planners play an important role when they ask: But is it a good idea? The overall change in auto accessi bility due to access management may not be that great even if the alternative methodology showed large improvements from access management As stated in the definition above, accessibility is measured by either distance or time. Distance is not a large factor in auto accessibility because the facility is so short (only 1.61 miles). Time is probably a greater factor on transportation decisions because it changes with road conditions, such as rush hour traffic or train crossings. Time is closely related to facility LOS, which is based on the speed o f traffic flow. For local residents, who know of the interconnected downtown street network, the real impact is not from the minimal travel time on SR 26 but rather from the concurrency moratorium On the ma in, there is only a minor difference in auto accessibility due to access management in regards to distance and time. The first part of the definition of accessibility is also important. This part relates to the number of activities within a certain dista nce or time. The question to be asked is: Will access management increase the number of activity centers within a drivable distance on the facility? The answer is mixed. The construction of several parallel access facilities might convince FDOT to lift the concurrency moratorium But even if FDOT lifts the concurrency moratorium and more businesses can locate in Newberry, improved mobility will still negatively impact the community by allowing businesses to locate even further out from Newberry downtown The improvements from access management create both benefits and drawbacks to accessibility. Access Management, Pedestrian Accessibility, and Mobility Access management also produces mixed results for pedestrian accessibility and mobility. It helps bo th pedestrian accessibility and mobility in a few ways. It does so by creating the safety benefits for pedestrians. When pedestrian safety is increased, the number of activities one
99 can walk to is increased. Access management first enhances pedes trian safety by giving shelter for pedestrians at medians. This aspect has already been discussed at length. Second, access management in the Newberry scenario also provides for parallel collectors to divert traffic. SR 26 experiences less vehicular tra ffic and therefore presents a more pleasant environment for pedestrians. Third, it eliminates some turning movements that threaten pedestrians, particularly at midblock into driveways. It remains to be seen whether the benefits from access management are tangible or only psychological for the pedestrian. It is assumed here that they are real, whatever their nature. Access management does not contribute to pedestrian accessibility in a few ways According to the results, the goal of an access management plan is to preserve a high speed of flow on SR 26. Although high LOS is FDOT's goal for SR 26, high speeds make an unattractive pedestrian environment. People take longer to cross the street and purposefully avoid doing so if possible for fear of accide nt. In addition, although access management does increase many aspects of pedestrian mobility and accessibility, many aspects are policy or market driven. If FDOT accepts that access management sufficiently improves LOS on SR 26 to warrant a lifting of the concurrency moratorium, then accessibility will likely increase. More businesses would be permitted to locate in downtown Newberry. The market must then act to locate those types of businesses that are accessible to pedestrians. These decisions are driven, among other things, by market analysis and available real estate. Access management, therefore, improves pedestrian accessibility the greatest when others make the corresponding policy and business decisions. Bridging the Gaps through Holistic Tra nsportation Planning Mobility, and automobility in particular, is a function of the performance of the facility, or LOS. Mobility and accessibility are therefore closely related through the congestion impacts from the location of activities in an area. Without access, both accessibility and mobility are of
100 little value. In this sense, access management is one very important part of transportation planning as it is one of a few concepts that has the potential to coordinate between accessibility access, and mobility (See Figure 5 1). As the results demonstrate, this effect cannot be shown on an SIS facility because the improvement in LOS is not sufficient, but access management still holds the potential in limited cir cumstances. Access management, though, is only one part of transportation planning. As a result, it is necessary to take a holistic approach toward land use and transportation. The Newberry Lights Festival demonstrated where access management can help t he most. The entire downtown Newberry community received a shot in the arm when its accessibility suddenly increased. Businesses and community attractions were suddenly brought to life through festive caroling, carriage rides, and free treats. One key w as the sudden increase in pedestrian activity that interesting attractions had created. This activity shows that pedestrian accessibility is not merely a matter of if you build it, they will come. Rather, good pedestrian accessibility requires enticing land uses, word of mouth, and a pleasant atmosphere. It was more than transportation planning and land use. Nevertheless, there were deficiencies in the intersect of accessibility, mobility, and access that access management could help solve. It could do so by improving pedestrian safety (medians), reducing traffic conflict (driveways and medians), and relieving the high volumes of traffic (parallel collectors, a functional hierarchy, and an interconnected road network). The holistic approach is vital for community planning in the Newberry case study. First, planning should focus on providing greater accessibility through land use planning. Higher densities for both businesses and residences would increase the number of activities in Newberry. Change s to zoning, parking standards, and public perception must take place first. A greater mix
101 of land uses and densities would create a balanced community where people of mixed incomes can walk to local businesses. The suburban, eastern portion of SR 26 nee ds this more than the historic district. Further, the provision of affordable housing must occur at a regional level. Jurisdictions should work together to overcome the drive until you qualify syndrome whereby workers drive until they can find affordable housing (Nelson and Malizia, 2006). Gilchrist County can no longer be the affordable housing for many workers in Gainesville. In turn, consumers should change their expectations of housing size, activity centers should develop, and a better jobs -housi ng balance should exist. Communities should also improve mobility and access in new ways. To overcome the congestion issues of greater accessibility, express bus service should be started between Gilchrist County, Newberry, and Gainesville. Free bus ser vice would prove far less costly than lane widening or continued congestion. Bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks in other words, complete streets should be built, which might require a road diet. The key to mobility is value and diversity in choice, not just automobility. In addition, a new direction in access is needed. Policy makers should ensure that the legal framework is in place to deal with access rights (CAM, 2003). Planners should better evaluate what constitutes reasonable access under the law and in market terms (CAM, 2003). Finally, frontage roads and parallel access roads can be used in those jurisdictions where more sensible planning techniques namely, an interconnected street network are not available. It must be stressed that while a ccess management can help coordinate accessibility, mobility, and access, it is only one of a few possible coordinators. Without the sound planning techniques described above, access management is a tool with too many expectations placed on it. To use th e metaphor of building a home, the overly high expectations of access management
102 are akin to expecting a hammer to pound the nails, saw the wood, and mix the concrete. Access management can help with mobility problems, but appropriate land uses, a functio nal hierarchy, and an interconnected network are necessary. It can also improve accessibility through higher densities and a mix of land uses. The political climate must be amenable to doing so. SR 26 as an SIS Facility and Access Management Access mana gement is limited in its ability to improve the performance and benefits to the community from the designation of SR 26 as an SIS facility. First, there are simply numerous things that access management cannot do to make the SIS facility less injurious to the community. Access management cannot provide affordable housing in Gainesville to take trips off SR 26. Inclusionary zoning and better financing for affordable housing are the solutions. Further, the proposed parallel collectors can only provide alt ernatives to travel on SR 26. Whether or not people use them depends on how Gainesville chooses to grow and on drivers' perception of the costs and benefits associated with traveling along those routes. Unfortunately, these results also cannot convince F DOT that the LOS impro vements from these treatments are great enough to warrant the lifting of the moratorium. Even so, access management does offer benefits to SR 26 as an SIS facility. Parallel access facilities improve the functioning of the roadway Access management can increase safety through medians and driveway consolidation. These improvements somewhat offset the negative effects of the high speeds and high volumes on the regional facility. Finally, it can help coordinate planning when a holis tic approach is taken. If appropriate planning tools were implemented, SR 26 as an SIS facility would just be a necessary evil for regional travel that becomes less costly to the community as time passes. In the final analysis, SR 26 exists as an importa nt part of regional transportation plans at the expense of Newberry's community unity and accessibility. The real impact from the SIS
103 facility is that FDOT takes away planning powers away from local governments to determine its community. This fact may o r may not be beneficial depending on the local government's commitment to planning. If the community is not committed to the balance between access, accessibility, and mobility, access management cannot help the community very much and the SIS system is a ppropriate. In some ways, though, the SIS system is moot. The regional planning decisions that led to Newberry's predicament such as land use densities or the jobs housing balance were made before the SIS system was enacted in 2003.
104 Figure 5 1. Venn Diagram of the relationship between access, accessibility, mobility, and access management. Created by the author.
105 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS This chapter contains an analysis of this research project and recommendations for futur e studies involving access management. First, this chapter begins with a summary of findings with an emphasis on how the results answer the research question. The chapter then provides recommendations for future studies and how this methodology can be im proved. Third, recommendations are given for planners and policy makers and how they can implement the results of this study. Fourth, it discusses the limitations of this research. Finally, this chapter closes with a brief discussion of areas of future research. The overall emphasis of this chapter lies in allowing future researchers to refine the process of determining the changes to LOS from access management. Summary of Findings The results of this study explore the research question, which is: Can access management provide for both accessibility and mobility on an SIS facility in the case study of SR 26 through Newberry, Florida? The results from the alternative methodology are unclear. Either it does not accurately model access management, or the transportation problems in Newberry are problems of regional accessibility and mobility and not local accessibility and mobility The author believes it is a mix of both. Newberry is the victim of poor regional planning, and the current methods do not a ppear to model access management well. The pedestrian observations, including the Newberry Lights Festival, demonstrate the mixed impacts of access management on accessibility and mobility. From a pedestrian's perspective, access management improves thei r ability to access local businesses by foot, enhances mobility by foot, and increases accessibility, or the number of potential activities within the downtown. The Newberry Lights Festival shows that access management is only one part, albeit an importan t one, of pedestrian
106 accessibility. Other land use, business, and advertising enhancements would also increase accessibility by increasing the attractiveness of the CBD. In terms of the SIS facility, the impacts of access management are mixed. The result s of this research will probably not convince FDOT to lift the moratorium on this SIS facility. Regional accessibility and mobility are most important to FDOT. It must be remembered that access management is limited in its ability to effect change in a c ommunity. Its role should consist of coordinating land use and transportation by balancing the goals of access, accessibility, and mobility. Recommendations for Future Studies Future researchers can improve upon the scope and methodology of this research project. Future researchers could administer pedestrian surveys. This author has assumed that pedestrians view favorably such improvements as landscaped medians and driveway consolidation. A researcher may find from pedestrian surveys that pedestrians actually view medians as another part of the road that is too narrow or exposed to be safe. Sisiopiku and Akin (2003) administered surveys to pedestrians, which included a question about whether a median shelter influenced their decision to cross the road Only 34% responded that it did influence their decision to cross, but they indicated that they like colored pavement for the sidewalk and median (Sisiopiku and Akin, 2003). Other researchers may expand this research by investigating different types of median shelters and distributing more in -depth questionnaires. In addition, future studies may take a greater number of more in -depth observations. The greatest knowledge about accessibility and SR 26 came from the Newberry Lights Festival, a rare occasio n when sufficient people are on the street to observe their behavior. The City of Newberry may choose to promote more occasions like this, and such events would provide more opportunities for research. Pedestrian behavior may also change when there are n umerous
107 people on the street and drivers are aware of their presence. Further, more adventurous researchers could impose physical treatments on the roadway. Although concrete medians are beyond the scope of a prospective study, cones or temporary concret e barriers at intersections may create effects similar to a raised median. The behavior of pedestrians could then be observed for any changes due to the treatment. Future researchers can also improve the set up of treatments and scenarios for the alterna tive spreadshee t methodology. They should develop a clear guide to estimating the delay due to other sources They should also improve the ability of the 2010 HCM to model medians and driveway closures. T he basic assumptions of the spreadsheet can also be improved. The predictions of traffic volumes are based on 2007 forecasts from FDOT. More accurate forecasts may be available from local agencies or updated studies. In addition, researchers may find better configurations of parallel collectors and the traffic volumes these would take off SR 26. The Gainesville MTPO will soon release its update of the transportation model, including the socioeconomic data. These data will give a more accurate picture of transportation in Alachua County T he access m anagement treatments can also be refined and improved. Future researchers would do well to find out from engineers, planners, and local residents what median configuration is best When researchers do have this knowledge, they can better test which confi gurations will provide the optimal amount of LOS improvements for the community given the costs. Researchers should also focus on finding guidance for the use of the variable delay due to other sources so that results may be more accurate and sensitivi ty analysis will not be necessary. Future studies must further test the claims of access management. In particular, they should strive to clarify when access management is appropriate for a facility and when it is not. They
108 should also specify what impr ovements to multimodal transportation will result. Indeed, these studies must be more critical in their analysis of access management. Finally, researchers should investigate what, if any, further access management treatments are possible to stud y throug h Dr. Bonneson's NCHRP 3 79 report Recommendations for Planners Although the prospective evaluation of changes in LOS due to access management can b enefit almost all planners, these methodologies are not suitable for all. They are not fit for use by sma ll planning departments. It required the author to expend considerable time counting vehic les and observing traffic It also required close communication with engineers, who gave invaluable advice on how to use the alternative spreadsheet methodology I ndeed, the author could not have completed this research without several engineers' generous offer of their time. Unfortunately, even though this methodology would benefit them, small planning staffs often do not have the time or engineering resources rea dily available. A user -friendly manual for Dr. Bonnesons spreads heet, when it is fixed would make this methodology more accessible. These methodologies are also inappropriate in areas where more ambitious projects are planned and, conversely, where the commitment to planning is weak. First, many areas are experimenting with exciting transportation improvements, such as light rail or BRT. An access management regime would detract from the main goal to a more conventional and less effective means of managing transportation demand. Fortunately, light rail and BRT already incorporate most aspects of access management, such as safe areas for pedestrian crossing. Second, many planners may see access management as the panacea for their community's tr ansportation ails. It is not. Although access management can improve the coordination of land use, transportation, and accessibility, it is only one possible way among many of doing so. Transportation planning
109 requires real commitment to community bui lding, and planners should not use it as an easy way out. In spite of these warnings, this methodology for evaluating access management is appropriate in a variety of circumstances. It is most suited for cities with both planning and engineering staffs particularly ones with transportation engineers. The author worked for a city of 40,000 with both planning and engineering departments, and many jurisdictions of this size have these resources available. Planners and engineers can work together, as the author did, and make valuable conclusions about potential access management schemes for their community. Finally, many roads experience congestionrelated problems and are therefore good candidates for the addition of medians, driveway consolidation, and a more integrated street network. Limitations of This Study Although the implications of this study are wide -ranging, such as the ability to prospectively evaluate LOS changes due to access management, there are limits to the conclusions from this study. To begin with, many conclusions are location-specific. Few jurisdictions have the right mix of transportation problems as Newberry has: congested roads, a historic district, an active rail corridor, an SIS facility, and a severe jobs -housing imbalance. Moreover, under its Growth Management Act, Florida places an emphasis on LOS measures and concurrency that many states do not FDOT also has regulatory powers, such as placing moratoria on development, which specifically relate t o SIS facilities and concurrency. In addition, the institutional culture of FDOT may be more hostile to community based initiatives than found elsewhere. As a result, these conclusions may not be relevant where adequate public facilities are not required Finally, these conclusions are not meant to detract from highly important issues, such as the jobs -housing imbalance, sprawl, and America's crumbling infrastructure.
110 Areas of Future Research There exist numerous possibilities for study that lie outside the scope of this project that would help answer the research question. A comparative study of different states would illuminate what policies those states have enacted to deal with limited access facilities in a small town. Such a study could also focu s on the implementation of access management in those communities. In addition, researchers can also investigate other cases studies in Florida. US Highway 19 through western Florida is a prominent example of access management in a rural community (J. Pa ul, Personal Communication, Sept. 5, 2008). These Florida case studies use state policies and may provide a comparable example of implementation. Researchers should also examine pedestrian attitudes toward medians, particularly in the area of jay walking That is, many pedestrians may fear ticketing for jay walking or embarrassment should they use midblock medians. Finally, researchers could make further adjustments to existing software packages and micro -simulation programs such as CORSIM so that mode ling of access management treatments becomes more accurate and convenient.
111 APPENDIX A VARIABLES IN DR BONNESONS METHODOLOGY This appendix lists the variables used in Dr. Bonnesons spreadsheet methodology. These va riables are listed according to the order in which they appear in the Excel spreadsheet, beginning with the first worksheet. The worksheet column lists the name of the worksheet in the spreadsheet. The dialog box name column and the field name column pro vide information on how to find the variables, which are in the variable column. The type column lists whether the variables are general for the entire facility, require information on the intersection, or are specific to the segment.
116 APPENDIX B EQUATIONS USED IN THE ALTERNATIVE METHODOL OGY The following contains the equations used in the alternative spreadsheet methodology. These equations are reproduced here with the kind permission of Dr. Jim Bonneson, the author of NCHRP 3 79. 1 Base Free -Flow Speed (Bonneson, et al., 2008, pp. 2778) (Equation 154 and equations from Exhibit 157) a Sf0 = S0 + fCS + fA i S0 = 25.6 +0.47 Spl, where Spl = speed limit, mph ii. fCS = 0.15Prm 0.0047 Pcurb 0.00037 Pcurb* Prm, where Prm = percent of segment l ength with restrictive median; and Pcurb = percent of segment with curb on the right -hand side iii. fA = 0.078Da/N with Da = Da, sub + Da, other, where Da, sub = access point density on right hand side in subject direction of travel, points/m; Da, other = acc ess point density on right side of other direction of travel; and N = number of through lanes on the segment in the subject direction of travel. 2 Adjustment for Segment Length (Bonneson, et al., 2008, pp. 278) (Equation 155) a fL = 1.02 4.7 ((Sf0 19.5)/( L )) i L is equal to the length of the segment 3 Free -Flow Speed (Bonneson, et al., 2008, pp. 277) (Equation 153) a Sf = Sf0* fL i Sf0 = base free flow speed, mph ii. fL = segment length adjustment factor 4 Adjustment for Vehicle Proximity (Bonneson, et al., 2008, pp. 279) (Equation 156) a fv = 2/(1 + (1 (v /52.8NSf))0.21) i v = mid -segment volume, veh/h ii. N = number of through lanes for length of segment, ln iii. Sf = free -flow speed 5 Segment Running Time (Bonneson, et al., 2008, pp. 277) (Equation 152) a TR = ((6.0 l1)/(0.0025L )) + ((3600/5280)*( L / Sf)fv) + ( i = 1)Nap dap,i + dother i TR = segment running time ii. l1 = start up lost time, s iii. L = segment length, ft iv Sf = free -flow speed, mph v fv = proximity adjustment factor vi dap,i = delay due to left or right turns from the street into access point i, s/veh See chart below :
117 Mid-Segment Volume, veh/h/ln 1 Lane 2 Lanes 3 Lanes 200 0.04 0.04 0.05 300 0.08 0.08 0.09 400 0.12 0.15 0.15 500 0.18 0.25 0.15 600 0.27 0.41 0.15 700 0.39 0.72 0.15 Through Vehicle Delay (s/veh/pt) by Number of Through Lanes Exhibit 15-4 pg 15-8 of NCHRP 3-79 Report vii Nap = number of access points along the subject segment, approaches viii Dother = delay due to other sources along the segment (e.g., curb parking, pedestrian bicylcists, etc.), s/veh 6 Segment Travel Speed (Bonneson, et al., 2008, pp. 289) (Equation 15 25) a ST = (3600/5280)*( L /( TR + d )) i ST = average travel speed of through vehicles along the segment, mph ii. L = segment length, ft iii. TR = segment running time, s iv d = control delay, s/veh 7 System Travel Speed (Bonneson, et al., 2008, pp. 289) (Equation 1526) a ST = ( 3600/5280)*( L /( TR + d )) i ST = average travel speed of through vehicles along the facility, mph ii. L = segment length, ft iii. TR = segment running time, s iv d = control delay, s/veh
118 APPENDIX C RESULTS FROM THE ALT ERNATIVE METHODOLOGY Table C 1. Results from the alternative methodology for sensitivity analysis sc enario 1 in the eastbound direction. Treatment Scenario Direction Segment Travel Speed Segment Base Free-Flow Speed Speed Ratio LOS Control 2008 Traffic Eastbound 21.34940 37.21003 0.57375 C Median Design 1 2008 Traffic Eastbound 21.35093 37.21463 0.57372 C Median Design 2 2008 Traffic Eastbound 21.35131 37.21577 0.57372 C Median Design 3 2008 Traffic Eastbound 21.35208 37.21809 0.57370 C Median Design 4 2008 Traffic Eastbound 21.35407 37.22406 0.57366 C Driveway Consolidation 2008 Traffic Eastbound 21.66357 38.06803 0.56908 C Control 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Eastbound 23.55142 37.21003 0.63293 C Median Design 1 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Eastbound 23.55327 37.21463 0.63290 C Median Design 2 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Eastbound 23.55373 37.21577 0.63290 C Median Design 3 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Eastbound 23.55466 37.21809 0.63288 C Median Design 4 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Eastbound 23.55706 37.22406 0.63284 C Driveway Consolidation 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Eastbound 23.91226 38.06803 0.62815 C Control 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.75625 37.21003 0.42344 D Median Design 1 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.75710 37.21463 0.42341 D Median Design 2 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.75731 37.21577 0.42340 D Median Design 3 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.75773 37.21809 0.42339 D Median Design 4 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.75882 37.22406 0.42335 D Driveway Consolidation 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.93029 38.06803 0.41847 D Control 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Eastbound 19.46816 37.21003 0.52320 C Median Design 1 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Eastbound 19.46943 37.21463 0.52317 C Median Design 2 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Eastbound 19.46975 37.21577 0.52316 C Median Design 3 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Eastbound 19.47039 37.21809 0.52314 C Median Design 4 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Eastbound 19.47204 37.22406 0.52310 C Driveway Consolidation 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Eastbound 19.72234 38.06803 0.51808 C
119 Table C 2. Results from the alternative methodology for sensitivity an alysis scenario 1 in the westbound direction Treatment ScenarioDirectionSegment Travel Speed Segment Base Free-Flow Speed Speed Ratio LOS Control 2008 Traffic Westbound 33.44190 37.21003 0.89873 A Median Design 1 2008 Traffic Westbound33.44591 37.21463 0.89873 A Median Design 2 2008 Traffic Westbound33.44691 37.21577 0.89873 A Median Design 3 2008 Traffic Westbound33.44894 37.21809 0.89873 A Median Design 4 2008 Traffic Westbound33.45415 37.22406 0.89872 A Driveway Consolidation 2008 Traffic Westbound34.70578 38.06803 0.91168 A Control 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 33.73615 37.210030.90664 A Median Design 1 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 33.7401537.21463 0.90664 A Median Design 2 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 33.7411437.21577 0.90664 A Median Design 3 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 33.7431537.21809 0.90663 A Median Design 4 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 33.7483437.22406 0.90663 A Driveway Consolidation 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 35.0052138.06803 0.91954 AControl 2025 Traffic Westbound 33.09209 37.21003 0.88933 A Median Design 1 2025 Traffic Westbound33.09614 37.21463 0.88933 A Median Design 2 2025 Traffic Westbound33.09714 37.21577 0.88933 A Median Design 3 2025 Traffic Westbound33.09918 37.21809 0.88933 A Median Design 4 2025 Traffic Westbound33.10443 37.22406 0.88933 A Driveway Consolidation 2025 Traffic Westbound34.35095 38.06803 0.90236 A Control 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 33.46553 37.210030.89937 A Median Design 1 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 33.4695537.21463 0.89937 A Median Design 2 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 33.4705437.21577 0.89936 A Median Design 3 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 33.4725737.21809 0.89936 A Median Design 4 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 33.4777737.22406 0.89936 A Driveway Consolidation 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 34.7298038.06803 0.91231 A
120 Table C 3. Results from the alternative methodology for sensitivity analysis scenario 2 in the eastbound direction. Treatment Scenario Direction Segment Travel Speed Segment Base Free-Flow Speed Speed Ratio LOS Control 2008 Traffic Eastbound 21.09773 37.21003 0.56699 C Median Design 1 2008 Traffic Eastbound 21.09923 37.21463 0.56696 C Median Design 2 2008 Traffic Eastbound 21.09960 37.21577 0.56695 C Median Design 3 2008 Traffic Eastbound 21.22547 37.21809 0.57030 C Median Design 4 2008 Traffic Eastbound 21.22744 37.22406 0.57026 C Driveway Consolidation 2008 Traffic Eastbound 21.53325 38.06803 0.56565 C Control 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 23.24553 37.21003 0.62471 C Median Design 1 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 23.24734 37.21463 0.62468 C Median Design 2 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 23.24778 37.21577 0.62468 C Median Design 3 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 23.40068 37.21809 0.62874 C Median Design 4 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 23.40304 37.22406 0.62871 C Driveway Consolidation 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 23.75358 38.06803 0.62398 C Control 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.61875 37.21003 0.41975 D Median Design 1 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.61958 37.21463 0.41972 D Median Design 2 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.61979 37.21577 0.41971 D Median Design 3 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.68867 37.21809 0.42153 D Median Design 4 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.68975 37.22406 0.42149 D Driveway Consolidation 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.85971 38.06803 0.41661 D Control 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 19.25867 37.21003 0.51757 C Median Design 1 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 19.25992 37.21463 0.51754 C Median Design 2 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 19.26023 37.21577 0.51753 C Median Design 3 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 19.36506 37.21809 0.52031 C Median Design 4 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 19.36669 37.22406 0.52027 C Driveway Consolidation 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 19.61427 38.06803 0.51524 C
121 Table C 4. Results from the alternative methodology for sensitivity analysis scenario 2 in the westbound dire ction. Treatment Scenario Direction Segment Travel Speed Segment Base Free-Flow Speed Speed Ratio LOS Control 2008 Traffic Westbound 32.82850 37.21003 0.88225 A Median Design 1 2008 Traffic Westbound 32.83237 37.21463 0.88224 A Median Design 2 2008 Traffic Westbound 32.83333 37.21577 0.88224 A Median Design 3 2008 Traffic Westbound 33.13927 37.21809 0.89041 A Median Design 4 2008 Traffic Westbound 33.14438 37.22406 0.89040 A Driveway Consolidation 2008 Traffic Westbound 34.37252 38.06803 0.90292 A Control 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 33.11201 37.21003 0.88987 A Median Design 1 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 33.11586 37.21463 0.88986 A Median Design 2 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 33.11682 37.21577 0.88986 A Median Design 3 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 33.42804 37.21809 0.89817 A Median Design 4 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 33.43312 37.22406 0.89816 A Driveway Consolidation 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 34.66620 38.06803 0.91064 A Control 2025 Traffic Westbound 32.49134 37.21003 0.87319 A Median Design 1 2025 Traffic Westbound 32.49524 37.21463 0.87318 A Median Design 2 2025 Traffic Westbound 32.49621 37.21577 0.87318 A Median Design 3 2025 Traffic Westbound 32.79593 37.21809 0.88118 A Median Design 4 2025 Traffic Westbound 32.80108 37.22406 0.88118 A Driveway Consolidation 2025 Traffic Westbound 34.02444 38.06803 0.89378 A Control 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 32.85127 37.21003 0.88286 A Median Design 1 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 32.85514 37.21463 0.88286 A Median Design 2 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 32.85610 37.21577 0.88285 A Median Design 3 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 33.16246 37.21809 0.89103 A Median Design 4 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 33.16757 37.22406 0.89103 A Driveway Consolidation 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 34.39608 38.06803 0.90354 A
122 Table C 5. Results from the alternative methodology for sensitivity analysis scenario 3 for the eastbound direction. Treatment Scenario Direction Segment Travel Speed Segment Base Free-Flow Speed Speed Ratio LOS Control 2008 Traffic Eastbound 20.85193173 37.2100285 0.56038 C Median Design 1 2008 Traffic Eastbound 20.97559105 37.21463049 0.56364 C Median Design 2 2008 Traffic Eastbound 20.97595873 37.21577478 0.56363 C Median Design 3 2008 Traffic Eastbound 21.10035529 37.21809391 0.56694 C Median Design 4 2008 Traffic Eastbound 21.10229598 37.22406403 0.56690 C Driveway Consolidation 2008 Traffic Eastbound 21.40449086 38.0680285 0.56227 C Control 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 22.94749323 37.2100285 0.61670 C Median Design 1 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 23.09733066 37.21463049 0.62065 C Median Design 2 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 23.09777276 37.21577478 0.62064 C Median Design 3 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 23.24869165 37.21809391 0.62466 C Median Design 4 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 23.25102801 37.22406403 0.62462 C Driveway Consolidation 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 23.59699156 38.0680285 0.61986 C Control 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.48363329 37.2100285 0.41611 D Median Design 1 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.55172065 37.21463049 0.41789 D Median Design 2 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.55192467 37.21577478 0.41789 D Median Design 3 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.6202045 37.21809391 0.41969 D Median Design 4 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.62127805 37.22406403 0.41966 D Driveway Consolidation 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.7897512 38.0680285 0.41478 D Control 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 19.05364995 37.2100285 0.51206 C Median Design 1 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 19.15684625 37.21463049 0.51477 C Median Design 2 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 19.15715267 37.21577478 0.51476 C Median Design 3 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 19.26085801 37.21809391 0.51751 C Median Design 4 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 19.26247368 37.22406403 0.51747 C Driveway Consolidation 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 19.50738342 38.0680285 0.51243 C
123 Table C 6. Results from the alternative methodology for sensitivity analysis scenario 3 for the westbound direction Treatment Scenario Direction Segment Travel Speed Segment Base Free-Flow Speed Speed Ratio LOS Control 2008 Traffic Westbound 32.23720 37.21003 0.86636 A Median Design 1 2008 Traffic Westbound 32.53396 37.21463 0.87422 A Median Design 2 2008 Traffic Westbound 32.53490 37.21577 0.87422 A Median Design 3 2008 Traffic Westbound 32.83528 37.21809 0.88224 A Median Design 4 2008 Traffic Westbound 32.84030 37.22406 0.88223 A Driveway Consolidation 2008 Traffic Westbound 34.04559 38.06803 0.89434 A Control 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 32.51054 37.21003 0.87370 A Median Design 1 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 32.81230 37.21463 0.88170 A Median Design 2 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 32.81324 37.21577 0.88170 A Median Design 3 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 33.11876 37.21809 0.88986 A Median Design 4 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 33.12375 37.22406 0.88985 A Driveway Consolidation 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 34.33370 38.06803 0.90190 A Control 2025 Traffic Westbound 31.91201 37.21003 0.85762 A Median Design 1 2025 Traffic Westbound 32.20290 37.21463 0.86533 A Median Design 2 2025 Traffic Westbound 32.20386 37.21577 0.86533 A Median Design 3 2025 Traffic Westbound 32.49818 37.21809 0.87318 A Median Design 4 2025 Traffic Westbound 32.50324 37.22406 0.87318 A Driveway Consolidation 2025 Traffic Westbound 33.70407 38.06803 0.88536 A Control 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 32.25916 37.21003 0.86695 A Median Design 1 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 32.55632 37.21463 0.87483 A Median Design 2 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 32.55726 37.21577 0.87482 A Median Design 3 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 32.85805 37.21809 0.88285 A Median Design 4 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 32.86307 37.22406 0.88284 A Driveway Consolidation 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 34.06871 38.06803 0.89494 A
124 Table C 7. Results from the alternative methodology for sensitivity analysis scenario 4 for the eastbound direction. Treatment Scenario Direction Segment Travel Speed Segment Base Free-Flow Speed Speed Ratio LOS Control 2008 Traffic Eastbound 20.61179 37.21003 0.55393 C Median Design 1 2008 Traffic Eastbound 20.73261 37.21463 0.55711 C Median Design 2 2008 Traffic Eastbound 20.85376 37.21577 0.56035 C Median Design 3 2008 Traffic Eastbound 20.97670 37.21809 0.56362 C Median Design 4 2008 Traffic Eastbound 21.10230 37.22406 0.56690 C Driveway Consolidation 2008 Traffic Eastbound 21.27726 38.06803 0.55893 C Control 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 22.65700 37.21003 0.60889 C Median Design 1 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 22.80305 37.21463 0.61274 C Median Design 2 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 22.94969 37.21577 0.61667 C Median Design 3 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 23.09867 37.21809 0.62063 C Median Design 4 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 23.25103 37.22406 0.62462 C Driveway Consolidation 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 23.44245 38.06803 0.61580 C Control 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.35083 37.21003 0.41255 D Median Design 1 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.41775 37.21463 0.41429 D Median Design 2 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.48465 37.21577 0.41608 D Median Design 3 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.55234 37.21809 0.41787 D Median Design 4 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.62128 37.22406 0.41966 D Driveway Consolidation 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.72041 38.06803 0.41296 D Control 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 18.85294 37.21003 0.50666 C Median Design 1 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 18.95397 37.21463 0.50932 C Median Design 2 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 19.05517 37.21577 0.51202 C Median Design 3 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 19.15777 37.21809 0.51474 C Median Design 4 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 19.26247 37.22406 0.51747 C Driveway Consolidation 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 19.40165 38.06803 0.50966 C
125 Table C 8. Results from the alternative methodology for sensit ivity analysis scenario 4 for the westbound direction Treatment Scenario Direction Segment Travel Speed Segment Base Free-Flow Speed Speed Ratio LOS Control 2008 Traffic Westbound 31.66682 37.21003 0.85103 A Median Design 1 2008 Traffic Westbound 31.95313 37.21463 0.85862 A Median Design 2 2008 Traffic Westbound 32.24185 37.21577 0.86635 A Median Design 3 2008 Traffic Westbound 32.53682 37.21809 0.87422 A Median Design 4 2008 Traffic Westbound 32.84030 37.22406 0.88223 A Driveway Consolidation 2008 Traffic Westbound 33.72483 38.06803 0.88591 A Control 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 31.93054 37.21003 0.85812 A Median Design 1 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 32.22157 37.21463 0.86583 A Median Design 2 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 32.51518 37.21577 0.87369 A Median Design 3 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 32.81514 37.21809 0.88170 A Median Design 4 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 33.12375 37.22406 0.88985 A Driveway Consolidation 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 34.00751 38.06803 0.89334 A Control 2025 Traffic Westbound 31.35298 37.21003 0.84260 A Median Design 1 2025 Traffic Westbound 31.63373 37.21463 0.85003 A Median Design 2 2025 Traffic Westbound 31.91671 37.21577 0.85761 A Median Design 3 2025 Traffic Westbound 32.20579 37.21809 0.86533 A Median Design 4 2025 Traffic Westbound 32.50324 37.22406 0.87318 A Driveway Consolidation 2025 Traffic Westbound 33.38968 38.06803 0.87711 A Control 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 31.68801 37.21003 0.85160 A Median Design 1 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 31.97469 37.21463 0.85920 A Median Design 2 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 32.26381 37.21577 0.86694 A Median Design 3 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 32.55918 37.21809 0.87482 A Median Design 4 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 32.86307 37.22406 0.88284 A Driveway Consolidation 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 33.74751 38.06803 0.88651 A
126 Table C 9. Results from the alternative methodology for sensitivity analysis scenario 5 for the eastbound direction. Treatment Scenario Direction Segment Travel Speed Segment Base Free-Flow Speed Speed Ratio LOS Control 2008 Traffic Eastbound 20.37712 37.21003 0.54762 C Median Design 1 2008 Traffic Eastbound 20.49520 37.21463 0.55073 C Median Design 2 2008 Traffic Eastbound 20.61358 37.21577 0.55389 C Median Design 3 2008 Traffic Eastbound 20.85449 37.21809 0.56033 C Median Design 4 2008 Traffic Eastbound 20.97862 37.22406 0.56358 C Driveway Consolidation 2008 Traffic Eastbound 21.15153 38.06803 0.55562 C Control 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 22.37376 37.21003 0.60128 C Median Design 1 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 22.51618 37.21463 0.60504 C Median Design 2 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 22.65913 37.21577 0.60886 C Median Design 3 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 22.95057 37.21809 0.61665 C Median Design 4 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 23.10098 37.22406 0.62059 C Driveway Consolidation 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 23.28993 38.06803 0.61180 C Control 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.22029 37.21003 0.40904 D Median Design 1 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.28607 37.21463 0.41075 D Median Design 2 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.35183 37.21577 0.41251 D Median Design 3 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.48506 37.21809 0.41606 D Median Design 4 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.55340 37.22406 0.41783 D Driveway Consolidation 2025 Traffic Eastbound 15.65167 38.06803 0.41115 D Control 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 18.65642 37.21003 0.50138 C Median Design 1 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 18.75535 37.21463 0.50398 C Median Design 2 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 18.85443 37.21577 0.50662 C Median Design 3 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 19.05579 37.21809 0.51200 C Median Design 4 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 19.15937 37.22406 0.51470 C Driveway Consolidation 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Eastbound 19.29706 38.06803 0.50691 C
127 Table C 10. Results from the alternative methodology for sensitivity analysis scenario 5 for the westbound direction. Treatment Scenario Direction Segment Travel Speed Segment Base Free-Flow Speed Speed Ratio LOS Control 2008 Traffic Westbound 31.11627 37.21003 0.83623 A Median Design 1 2008 Traffic Westbound 31.39267 37.21463 0.84356 A Median Design 2 2008 Traffic Westbound 31.67131 37.21577 0.85102 A Median Design 3 2008 Traffic Westbound 32.24373 37.21809 0.86635 A Median Design 4 2008 Traffic Westbound 32.54175 37.22406 0.87421 A Driveway Consolidation 2008 Traffic Westbound 33.41006 38.06803 0.87764 A Control 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 31.37086 37.21003 0.84308 A Median Design 1 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 31.65174 37.21463 0.85052 A Median Design 2 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 31.93501 37.21577 0.85810 A Median Design 3 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 32.51705 37.21809 0.87369 A Median Design 4 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 32.82004 37.22406 0.88169 A Driveway Consolidation 2008 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 33.68746 38.06803 0.88493 A Control 2025 Traffic Westbound 30.81320 37.21003 0.82809 A Median Design 1 2025 Traffic Westbound 31.08432 37.21463 0.83527 A Median Design 2 2025 Traffic Westbound 31.35752 37.21577 0.84259 A Median Design 3 2025 Traffic Westbound 31.91861 37.21809 0.85761 A Median Design 4 2025 Traffic Westbound 32.21075 37.22406 0.86532 A Driveway Consolidation 2025 Traffic Westbound 33.08111 38.06803 0.86900 A Control 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 31.13673 37.21003 0.83678 A Median Design 1 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 31.41349 37.21463 0.84412 A Median Design 2 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 31.69250 37.21577 0.85159 A Median Design 3 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 32.26569 37.21809 0.86694 A Median Design 4 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 32.56410 37.22406 0.87481 A Driveway Consolidation 2025 Traffic with Parallel Access Facilities Westbound 33.43232 38.06803 0.87823 A
128 LIST OF REFERENCES Ben Zadok, Efraim. (2007). Chapter 3: Consistency, concurrency and compact development: Three faces of growth management implementation in Florida in Growth management in Florida: Planning for paradis e Timothy S. Chapin; Charles E. Connerly; and Harrison T. Higgins, Editors. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2150. Bonneson, J. Pratt, M. and Vandehey, M. (2008). Predicting the performance of automobile traffic on urban streets Final Report. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 3 79. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council. City of Newberry. (n.d.). Traffic Circulation Element. City of Newberry, Florida Comprehensive Plan. Retrieved December 13, 2008, fr om http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=13872&sid=9 Committee on Access Management (CAM) (2003). Access management manual Washington, D.C.: T ransportation Research Board. Deka, D. (2004). Social and environmental justice issues in urban transportation. The geography of urban transportation. S. Hanson and G. Giuliano, Ed. New York NY : The Guilford Press, 332355. Falleth, E.I. (1999). Suburban growth and land actors along by -pass roads in Norway. European Planning Studies 7(3), 357371. Retrieved January 19, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global database (Document ID: 41836577). Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (1982) Access management for streets and highways. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Transportation. FHWA (2008). An interim guidebook on the congestion management process in metropolitan transportation planning. Washi ngton, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. Retrieved May 22, 2008, from http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/cmpguidebook/cmpguidebook.pdf Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) (2006). Median Hanbook Interim Version. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Department of Transportation. Retrieved December 27, 2008, from http: //www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/accman/pdfs/mhb06b.pdf F DOT (2007). 2007 Florida Traffic Information [computer software]. Tallahassee, F L : Florida Department of Transportation. Florida State Senate. (2008). Title XI, Chapter 163.3180 (2)(c): Concurrency. Florida Statutes 2008. Retrieved March 24, 2009, from http://flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&UR L=Ch0163/SEC3180.HTM&Title= %3E2008-%3ECh0163%3ESection%203180#0163.3180
129 Forkenbrock, D. Mathur, S. and Schwei tzer, L. (2001). Transportation investment policy and urban land use patterns Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa Public Policy Center. Giuliano, G. (2004). Impacts of Transportation Investments, in The g eography of u rban t ransportation. Susan Hanson and Genevieve Giuliano, Ed. New York, NY: The Guilford Press, 237273. Halden, D. (2002 ). Using accessibility measures to integrate land use and transport policy in Edinburgh and the Lothians. Transport Policy 9 (4), 313324. Retrieved May 14, 2008, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VGG 45V6S1N 1/2/49b6f2c9b2a4fd7401d4785b37172ce0 Handy, S. (1993). Regional versus local accessibility: Implications for nonwork travel. Transportation Research Record, 1400, 5866. Handy, S. (2005). Smart Growth and the transportation-land use connection: What does the research tell us? International Regional Science Review 28(2), 146167. Retrieved March 14, 2009, from http://irx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/28/2/146/ Handy, S., and Clifton, K. J. (2001). Evaluating neighb orhood accessibility: Possibilities and practicalities. Journal of Transportation and Statistics 4 (2/3), 6778. Retrieved April 28, 2008, from http://www.bts.gov/publications/journal_of_transportation_and_statistics/volume_04_nu mber_23/paper_05/index.html Handy, S.L., and Niemeier, D.A. (1997). Measuring accessibility: An exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A 29, 11751194. Hansen, W. G. (1959). How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 25(2), Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 73 76. Hanson, S. (2004). The context of urban travel, in The geography of urban transportation. S. Hanson and G. Giuliano, Ed. New York NY : The Guilf ord Press, 329. Harris, B. (2001). Accessibility: Concepts and applications. Journal of Transportation and Statistics 4 (2/3), 1530. Retrieved April 28, 2008, from http://www.bts.gov/publications/journal_of_transportation_and_statistics/volume_04_nu mber_23/paper_02/index.html Hodge s, A. W. Mulkey, W. D and Stevens, T. J. (2007). Economic Impacts of the University of Florida and Affiliated Organizations, 200506: Executive Summary. Retrieved December 13, 2008 from h ttp://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FE699
130 Levine, J., and Garb, Y. (2002). Congestion pricings conditional promise: Promotion of accessibility or mobility? Transport Policy 9 (3), 179 188. Retrieved May 14, 2008 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VGG 454T7371/2/95a18ff034a920fe84c1f009815f5c6e Mitchell, J (2001). Business Improvement Districts and the new revitalization of downtown. Economic Development Quarterly 15, 115 123. Retrieved January 19, 2009, from http://edq.sagepub.com /cgi/reprint/15/2/115 Nelson, A., and Malizia, E. (2006). Leadership in a new era/Comment on Planning leadership in a new era Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(4), 393409. Retrieved December 27, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1174434531). Nicholas, J C, and Chapin, T S. (2007). Chapter 4: The fiscal theory and reality of growth management in Florida i n Growth management in Florida: Planning for paradise T S. Chapin, C. E. Connerly and H T. Higgins, Editors. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 51 66. Organisation for Economic Co -operation and Development (OECD). (2002) Impact of transport infrastructure investment on regional development Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co -operation and Development. Retrieved January 21, 2009, from http://www.sourceoecd.org/content/templates/co/co_main.htm?comm=transpor Rogers, C.L and Marshment, R. (2000). Measuring highway bypass impacts on small town business districts. Review of Urban and Regional Development Studies 12(3), 250265. Retrieved March 14, 2009, from EBSCO: Academic Search Premier database Sisiopiku, V.P. and Akin, D. (2003). Pedestrian behaviors at and perceptions towards various pedestrian facilities: An examination based on observation and survey data. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 6(4) (December 2003), 249 274. Retrieved January 29, 2009, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VN8 49NVN741/2/32b390573aa53a54d69d96016b5fcd3d Srinivasan, S. and Kockelman, K.M. (2002). The impacts of bypasses on small and medium sized communities: A n econometric analysis. Journal of Transportation and Statistics 5 (1). Retrieved January 20, 2009, from http://www.bts. gov/publications/journal_of_transportation_and_statistics/volume_05_nu mber_01/html/paper_04/index.html Steiner, R (2007). Chapter 13: Transportation concurrency: An idea before its time? i n Growth management in Florida: Planning for paradi se Timothy S. Chapin; Charles E. Connerly; and Harrison T. Higgins, Editors. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 209226.
131 Throughput. ( 1989). Oxford English Dictionary 2nd ed. OED Online Oxford University Press. Retrieved March 24, 2009, from http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50251976/ Vuchic, V. (1999). Transportation for l ivable c ities New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research. Williams, K. M.; & Hopes, C.. (2007). Analysis of corridor ma nagement practices on selected critical SIS facilities. Tampa, FL: Center for Urban Transportation Research. Retrieved March 14, 2009, from http://www.cutr.usf. edu/programs/pcm/files/SIS%20Final%20Draft_wLinks_FDOT.pdf
132 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Chad Justin Riding was born in 1983 in Laredo, Texas to Don and Donna Riding. The youngest of five children, he was raised in California after he moved to Fresno at age fifteen months. Chad enjoyed his childhood years, especially camping and hiking in the beautiful Sierra Nevadas. After graduating from Edison High School, Chad decided to attend Brigham Young University. After his freshman year he decided to serve a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Chad was asked to serve in Finland, and he did from the years 2002 to 2004, becoming proficient in the Finnish language. After his return to the United S tates, Chad completed his studies at Brigham Young University and graduated summa cum laude in April 2007 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Urban, Rural, and Environmental Planning and a minor in German. He was honored to give the valedictory address a t the convocation exercises for the College of Family, Home, and Social Sciences. Shortly after graduating, Chad moved to Gainesville, Florida to pursue a Master of Arts degree in Urban and Regional Planning. Chad possesses significant experience in urba n planning. As an undergraduate he was a research assistant for Dr. Richard Jackson and studied the planning issues associated with Locally Unwanted Land Uses (LULUs). Chad also completed an internship with the City of Madera, California and updated that city's GIS maps. He started his position with the City of Newberry, Florida in July as a planning intern. Chad assists the city's planners, performing necessary research and making maps. He is also the program manager of the Newberry Main Street Organi zation, a group that seeks to improve the businesses of Newberry's downtown. In his free time, Chad enjoys reading, cooking, brushing up on his Finnish and German, going to the gym, and participating in Church and social events. He served as the presiden t of the Student Planning Association at the University of Florida from April 2008 to April 2009.