Extent of Highway Capacity Manual Use in Planning (2012)

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

 19 multiple people were contacted at the same agency. Large agencies such as Florida DOT have many divisions, neces- sitating more than one response to understand how different areas within the same agency use the HCM. TABLE 3 ASSESSMENT OF RESPONSE BIAS Agency Type By Agencies Responses Response Invited Rate City/County/Borough 6 3 50% Regional Metropolitan 9 7 78% Planning Organization State Department of 9 6 67% Transportation Other 7 7 100% Total 31 23 71% 

20 CHAPTER SIX SURVEY RESULTS This section documents the results of the online survey and presents a breakdown of the responses to this question. Two follow-up questions asked of participants for the extent of respondents had never used the HCM. One was a transporta- HCM use in planning. A total of 35 individuals from 31 tion planner from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District agencies were invited to participate in this survey. From who had never needed to use it. The other was a statewide these invitees, 30 people from 23 agencies completed the and urban supervisor for the Montana DOT, who stated that survey. These responses are based primarily on the 2000 the HCM is mostly used by the traffic engineering folks, HCM, as the 2010 HCM had not yet been released at the time whereas the planning division uses HCM software for con- of the questionnaire. gestion management. Question 1: What type of agency do you work for? TABLE 5 Table 4 shows the breakdown of the agencies survey respon- FAMILIARITY OF RESPONDENTS WITH THE HCM (Q2) dents worked for. The majority of respondents worked for Familiarity with the HCM Response state DOTs; a few were from consulting firms, MPOs, and Little or None 9 (30%) the FHWA. Average 9 (30%) Advanced or Expert 12 (40%) TABLE 4 Total 30 (100%) DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES BY AGENCY TYPE (Q1) Agency Type Responses Location Question 3: How often do you or your agency perform the City/County/ 3 (10%) Milwaukee, WI following short-range (<20 years) planning practices? Borough San Diego, CA SFCTA—San Francisco This question was asked to understand what planning Regional Metro- 7 (23%) MTC—Oakland, CA practices respondents are involved in compared with those politan Planning NCFRPC—Gainesville, FL of their agency. The respondents provided at least two Organization responses for each planning practice and time length, which NCTCOG—Arlington, TX ARC—Atlanta, GA shows that they are involved in diverse planning practices. BMTS—Binghamton, NY Table 6, looking at the respondents’ answers for their agency SEMCOG—Detroit, MI as a whole, shows that once again there is a wide range TJPDC—Charlottesville, VA of responses. (It should be noted that one of the “never” responses in Table 6 for each planning practice was from a State Department 13 (43%) California, Ohio, Oregon, of Transportation Wyoming, respondent who worked at a university.) Florida, and Montana Question 4: How often do you or your agency perform Other 7 (23%) Professor—South Dakota the following long-range (20+ years) planning practices? Consultants—San Diego, CA; Vienna, VA; Royal Oaks, MI As with the short-range planning practices, respondents FHWA—Atlanta GA; were diversified in the frequency with which they personally St Paul, MN; Washington, DC perform different long-range planning practices. Highway/ Total 30 (100%) transit systems planning and highway facility and corri- dor planning were most often performed by respondents, Question 2: How would you rate your familiarity with whereas development master planning and bike/pedestrian the HCM? planning were performed less often. The agencies that respondents work for tended to perform all long-range prac- Familiarity with the HCM among the respondents ranged tices more regularly, with fewer responses of “never.” Table widely, from never having used it to expert users. Table 5 7 provides more information. 

 21 TABLE 6 SHORT-RANGE PLANNING PRACTICES PERFORMED BY RESPONDENTS’ AGENCY (Q3) Short-Range At Least At Least At Least Never Total Planning Practices Once per Month Once Every 6 Months Once per Year Highway/Transit Systems Planning 17 (56.7%) 6 (20.0%) 5 (16.7%) 2 (6.7%) 30 (100%) Highway Facility and 17 (56.7%) 7 (23.3%) 5 (16.7%) 1 (3.3%) 30 (100%) Corridor Planning Congestion Management 14 (46.7%) 6 (20.0%) 7 (23.3%) 3 (10.0%) 30 (100%) Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning 17 (56.7%) 6 (20.0%) 4 (13.3%) 3 (10.0%) 30 (100%) Development Decisions 18 (60.0%) 5 (16.7%) 3 (10.0%) 4 (13.3%) 30 (100%) (site impact studies) Performance Monitoring 11 (36.7%) 8 (26.7%) 9 (30.0%) 2 (6.7%) 30 (100%) TABLE 7 LONG-RANGE PLANNING PRACTICES PERFORMED BY RESPONDENTS’ AGENCY (Q4) Long-Range Planning Practices At Least At Least At Least Never Total Once per Month Once Every 6 Months Once per Year Highway/Transit Systems Planning 10 (33.3%) 7 (23.3%) 9 (30.0%) 4 (13.3%) 30 (100%) Highway Facility and Corridor Planning 12 (40.0%) 6 (20.0%) 10 (33.3%) 2 (6.7%) 30 (100%) Project Prioritization 11 (36.7%) 4 (13.3%) 12 (40.0%) 3 (10.0%) 30 (100%) Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning 12 (40.0%) 3 (10.0%) 11 (36.7%) 4 (13.3%) 30 (100%) Development Master Planning 8 (26.7%) 5 (16.7%) 9 (30.0%) 8 (26.7%) 30 (100%) TABLE 8 AGENCY USE OF HCM FOR SHORT-RANGE PLANNING (Q5) HCM Use for Short-Range Planning At Least At Least At Least Never Total Once per Month Once Every 6 Months Once per Year Highway/Transit Systems Planning 12 (40.0%) 6 (20.0%) 7 (23.3%) 5 (16.7%) 30 (100%) Highway Facility and Corridor Planning 17 (56.7%) 4 (13.3%) 5 (16.7%) 4 (13.3%) 30 (100%) Congestion Management 10 (33.3%) 6 (20.0%) 9 (30.0%) 5 (16.7%) 30 (100%) Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning 9 (30.0%) 4 (13.3%) 8 (26.7%) 9 (30.0%) 30 (100%) Development Decisions (site impact studies) 13 (43.3%) 4 (13.3%) 5 (16.7%) 8 (26.7%) 30 (100%) Performance Monitoring 7 (23.3%) 7 (23.3%) 8 (26.7%) 8 (26.7%) 30 (100%) Question 5: How often do you or your agency use the Table 9 shows that responses for agencies performing long- Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), HCM-like methods, range planning practices using the HCM are similar to those or software based on the HCM for the following short- for the short-range practices. Agency utilization of these range (<20 years) planning practices? practices is fairly evenly distributed among the different time ranges. Table 8 shows that the use of the HCM methods for short- range planning practices had a good distribution. Most The first six questions were designed to better understand respondents had personally never used the HCM for bike/ the planning practices currently being used by agencies and pedestrian planning, but this is not true of their agencies as the prevalence of the HCM’s use. The remaining questions a whole, with only nine responses showing that an agency specifically ask the respondents their opinions and sugges- had never used the HCM for this planning application. The tions on the HCM. rest of the short-range planning practices are fairly evenly distributed across the four frequencies listed. Question 7: How satisfied are you with using the Highway Capacity Manual or HCM-based software for the follow- Question 6: How often do you or your agency use the ing short-range (<20 years) planning applications? Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), HCM-like methods, or software based on the HCM for the following long- Table 10 shows that respondents were generally satisfied with range (20+ years) planning practices? using the HCM for short-range planning practices. None of