HomeMy WebLinkAboutEgge Transportation O&M comments 5-23-191
Tom Rogers
From:Mark Egge <mark@eateggs.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 23, 2019 6:56 PM
To:Lacie Kloosterhof
Cc:Cathy Costakis (costakisce@gmail.com); Chris Mehl; cob@espt.com; George Thompson;
Henry Happel; Jennifer Madgic; Lauren Waterton; Paul Spitler; Tom Rogers; Chris
Saunders
Subject:Growth Plan Transportation Objectives & Metrics
Attachments:Egge Transportation Objective and Metric Suggestions.docx
Planning Board Members, Planning Staff—
In preparation for our continued discussion of growth plan metrics on 6/4/19, I have attached (and pasted
below) a short document with suggested metrics to measure progress toward our accessibility and mobility
goals.
I've listed seven proposed metrics. Five of these proposed metrics are simple look-ups from national sources
(implying minimal burden to maintain).
Finally—invoking the right of perpetual reconsideration (after missing the May 14th meeting where these were
discussed)—I've also included a set of suggested objectives to support our accessibility and mobility goals that I
believe may more readily yield progress toward our goals.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mark Egge
542 N Black Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715
---
A CITY THAT PRIORITIZES ACCESSIBILITY AND MOBILITY CHOICES | Our City
fosters the close proximity of housing, services, and jobs, and provides safe, efficient mobility for
pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and drivers.
Goal: Accessibility to jobs, services, and amenities for users of all modes
Rationale: property values, talent attraction, job creation, transportation costs, livability,
improved public health, reduced injuries and deaths from car crashes and air pollution, climate
change, equity, community and social capital.
I worry that the current list of objectives is very focused on pathways and trails. In my view,
these objectives are more appropriate under the “City Influenced by our Natural Environment,
Parks, and Open Space” vision statement, to the extent that our existing pathways and trails
serve primarily recreational—not mobility—purposes. Instead, I would propose the following
objectives:
Objectives:
2
1. Prioritize mixed-use land use patterns. Encourage and enable the development of housing, jobs,
and services in close proximity.
2. Develop safe, connected, permeable and complimentary transportation networks for pedestrians
and mobility-impaired users; bicyclists and other medium-speed users (bicycles, e-bikes, electric
scooters, etc.); and, motor vehicles.
3. Make investment decisions that prioritize the mobility of pedestrians, then cyclists, then transit
users, then automobiles.
4. Create inviting places to walk.
5. Develop an interconnected network of low-stress bicycle facilities such that at least 80% of
households and 80% of jobs are within ½ mile of the network.
6. Develop a trunk network for high-frequency, priority transit service connecting commercial
districts, dense residential areas, employment centers, and other significant demand generators.
Indicator Why track this? Data Needed Notes
Walk Mode Share Indicates effectiveness at
building a walkable city
Census – ACS
Journey to
Work
Each mode should be
tracked individually,
because each mode
requires different
strategies. Bicycle Mode Share Indicates effectiveness at
building a bikable city
Census – ACS
Transit Mode Share Indicates effectiveness at
building a city well-served
by transit
Census – ACS
Bike
Accessibility: Percent
of jobs and residents
within 1/2 mile of a
low-stress bike
facility (Level of
Traffic Stress 1)
Indicates effectiveness at
building a connected
network of low-stress
bicycle facilities.
Census -
LODES, bike
facility
network
LTS 1: protected
facility or low-speed,
low-volume road, e.g.
buffered bike lane,
cycle track, bicycle
boulevard
Transit
Accessibility: Percent
of jobs and residents
within 1/4 mile of a
bus route, or 1/2 mile
of a high-frequency
express service route
Measures the coverage of
the transit network. (should
exclude routes with
headways > 30 minutes)
Census -
LODES, GTFS
Willingness to walk is
greater for high-
frequency transit
In my view, Bikescore, Walkscore, etc. are good measures for broad multimodal interconnectivity,
but lack a direct connection to the outcomes of achieving our objectives (they’re a bit of a black
box, and don’t reflect how many people are actually walking, biking, or taking transit). These
broad metrics seem appropriate for the goal of “Ensure multimodal connectivity within and
3
between districts” under “A City Bolstered by Downtown and Complementary Districts,” but I
believe our mobility goals deserve more specific metrics that directly connect to our effectiveness at
accommodating each mode.
Goal: Enhance pedestrian, bicyclist, and vehicular safety measures throughout the City
Objective: Adopt a Vision Zero policy
For improving transportation-related safety, Vision Zero is the gold standard, encompassing a host
of strategies that improve safety for all users.
Indicator Why track this? Data Needed Notes
Bike/Ped
Safety: Count of
Pedestrian and
Bicyclist Severe and
Fatal Injuries
Nationally used measure of
bike/ped safety
NHTSA FARS Not the best measures,
to the extent that these
events are
(fortunately) very rare
and random variation
can mask the impact
of interventions.
Calculating as a 5-year
rolling average helps
reduce noise.
Traffic
Safety: Count of
Severe and Fatal
Injuries
Nationally used measure of
traffic safety
NHTSA FARS