regional transportation technical advisory committee (rttac)seftc.org/system/uploads/documents/rttac...

Regional Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (RTTAC)

Meeting Agenda October 10, 2012 – 1:30 PM

South Florida Regional Transportation Authority Board Room,

800 NW 33rd Street

Pompano Beach, FL

_______________________________________________________________________ I Call to Order

II September 18, 2012 Meeting Notes

III SFECC Passenger Rail Study Status Report

IV Baseline Transit Network **

V 2040 Regional Transportation Plan Status Report

VI Long Range Transportation Plan Status

VII Regional Freight Study

VIII Regional Performance Measures **

IX Seven50 Status Report

X Regional Transportation Improvement Program

XI SEFTC Meeting – October 22, 2012

XII Other Business

XIII Next RTTAC Meeting – TBD

XIV Adjournment **Action Item

Q:\MPO\Randy\Working Files\My Documents\RTTAC\Oct 12\09_18_2012 RTTAC Meeting Minutes_draft.docx

Regional Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (RTTAC)

September 18, 2012 Meeting Notes The following is a summary of the RTTAC meeting held on September 18, 2012. MEETING TIME AND LOCATION SFRTA, 1:30 p.m. MEETING ATTENDEES 1. Randy Whitfield, Palm Beach MPO, [email protected] 2. Greg Stuart, Broward MPO, [email protected] 3. Wilson Fernandez, Miami-Dade MPO, [email protected] 4. Lois Bush, FDOT D4, [email protected] 5. Larry Merritt, FDOT D4, [email protected] 6. Phil Steinmiller, FDOT D6, [email protected] 7. Joseph Quinty, SFRTA, [email protected] 8. Arlene Davis, Port Everglades, [email protected] 9. Kim Delaney, TCRPC, [email protected] 10. Jonathan Roberson, BCT, [email protected] 11. Marcela Camblor Cutsaimanis, TCRPC, [email protected] 12. Jim Murley, SFRPC, [email protected] 13. Nilia Cartaya, MDT, [email protected] 14. Phil Matson, Indian River MPO, [email protected] 15. Jessica Josselyn, Kittelson & Associates, Inc., [email protected] 16. Jason King, Dover Kohl, [email protected] 17. Joshua Salazar, HDR, [email protected] 18. Santanu Roy, HDR, [email protected] 19. Dr. Burchell, Rutgers, [email protected] 20. Jill Quigley, Jacobs, [email protected] 21. Jessica Vargas Astazia, Tindale Oliver; [email protected] 22. Susan O’Rourke, Susan O’Rourke PE, Inc., [email protected] 23. Ashutosh Kumar, AECOM, [email protected] MEETING NOTES The following is a summary of the key points discussed at the meeting. The comments have been organized by agenda topic. Underlined text highlights deadlines/schedules/and motions.

mailto:[email protected]�




















http://www.seftc.org/�

RTTAC September 18, 2012 Meeting Notes Page 2

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

I Call to Order

Randy Whitfield called the meeting to order. II July 11, 2012 Meeting Notes

The meeting notes were approved without any changes. III South Florida East Coast Corridor Study Status Report

Kim Delaney from TCRPC provided an update on the activities that have been completed so far in connection with the evaluation. She stated there was unanimous acceptance of FEC evaluation recommendations; however, that at the recent PTAC meeting conflicts arose but resolutions are anticipated. Reports are anticipated for the October SEFTC and RTTAC meetings by the DOT and RTA. Arlene Davis asked if there will be one FEC Study moving forward. Kim Delaney stated that one study moving forward was the recommendation from the evaluation and that that is the direction the region is headed.

IV Regional Modeling Subcommittee Report Wilson Fernandez gave an overview of the September 7th modeling subcommittee meeting. He noted that it was the last subcommittee meeting under the current consultant contract so outstanding issues were wrapped up. Those outstanding items included: (1) Passed a resolution on Origin-Destination Capture information needs (in relation to the

previous AirSage presentations). He noted this is to support the 2045 planning cycle, not the 2040. The subcommittee recommended putting together a draft request for information (RFI) that seeks information on current technology and potential future technology for capturing O-D data. The lead agency to handle the RFI has to still be determined at a future RTTAC meeting, but the RFI language has been drafted and endorsed by the subcommittee.

(2) Passed a policy related to the use of the SERPM model. The region currently has two existing models (aside from the 7.0 ABM activity). SERPM 6.7 was developed for the SFECC and is a transit oriented tool that was not in the 2035 adopted LRTPs. SERPM 6.5 was developed as part of the 2035 LRTP adoption. Because of these two existing tools, the subcommittee discussed how they should be applied within the region from a policy standpoint. A policy stating SERPM 6.5 is to be used as the default model was crafted and approved by the committee. The policy also states that if a project has a significant transit component then SERPM .7 may be used with approval by the committee.

(3) Endorsed the minimal growth scenario in SERPM 6.7. Scott Seeburger of FDOT District Four presented to the subcommittee a recommendation for a minimal growth scenario as the background network in SERPM 6.7. This recommendation was made based on feedback from the region during the FEC evaluation time period. The group came to conclusion that a minimal growth scenario among the three counties would be the prudent approach for the background network. Typically the LRTPs and TDPs are assumed but the region recognizes that they aren’t fundable; therefore, they shouldn’t be coded into the background network. Joe Quinty stated that he agrees with the approach of having a minimal transit growth scenario.



Wilson Fernandez asked the RTTAC to make a recommendation on the RFI proposal so that the region has a formal action to fall back on should anything occur in the future related to the items. The RTTAC stated that one can be given at the October 10th RTTAC which can then be brought to the SEFTC in October. Wilson Fernandez and Scott Seeburger were agreed to prepare a written agenda item related to the RFI. Phil Steinmiller asked if the modeling information was related to the Seven50 project. Wilson Fernandez stated it did relate and that any policies prepared and approved by the group would apply to all regional projects, including the Seven50 plan. As a side note, Phil Matson from Indian River MPO stated that the jury is still out on the ABM vs. the gravity based model for his region. His RFP states that the consultant will recommend the modeling technique.

V 2040 Regional Transportation Plan Status Report

Wilson Fernandez stated that the time period for submittals closed on September 14th and that three submittals were received. The consultant selection process with the first tier is occurring in early October and oral presentations will occur later in October if that is decided as the next step under Tier 1. They are still on track for December MPO approval of the 2040 RTP consultant selection.

VI Long Range Transportation Plan Status

Randy Whitfield stated that the Palm Beach LRTP will start October 1st. Greg Stuart stated that the Broward LRTP was being approved on the 20th of September and will start immediately upon approval. Wilson Fernandez stated that Miami’s Board is expected to approve the LRTP selection at their October MPO Board meeting.

VII Regional Freight Study

Greg Stuart updated the group on the Regional Freight Study. He noted the project went to his library and that TY Lin was the recipient of the contract. He stated negotiations had begun based on the scope approved by the SEFTC. The first round the fee was $220,000. Based on several conversations regarding what would bring the region the most value, the final fee was increased to $340,000. The additional funding will be coming from FDOT Central Office, the FDOT Districts, and/or the Broward MPO. The scope and fee has been shared within the region and the first phase is anticipated for approval in October for $150,000. Greg also noted that we have been coordinating with Juan Flores, the State Logistics and Freight Administrator, and that he believes we are headed in the right direction. Marcela Camblor asked for Greg to share the information with the Seven50 team.



Arlene Davis asked if the group foresees the freight plan being a phased process. Greg Stuart said that yes it will be phased and will take a year’s time to complete. He stated thus far the first three of five phases were funded. Jim Murley noted that both RPCs are doing economic development plans that are filled with freight related items. He encouraged that documentation to be connected to the Regional Freight Plan activity.

VIII Regional Performance Measures Jessica Josselyn gave an update on the regional performance measures. She walked the group through the comments received from the last draft and how they were addressed. At the conclusion of the presentation two questions were raised. Phil Matson stated that he liked the format and content but questioned if a 5% spread for grading the measures was appropriate across all categories. Phil Steinmiller stated that the trend lines appeared slightly off from a graphical perspective and that they should be relooked at for accuracy. Jessica stated she will address both comments in the final version. She noted the final report will be sent to the committee for review and approval at the RTTAC October meeting.

IX Seven50 Status Report

Marcela Camblor gave a brief overview/update of the project status and passed the discussion over to the consultant team to discuss specifics on modeling elements of the plan. Jason King gave a brief overview of the regional sessions where hundreds participated. He summarized that they received feedback consistent with what we have heard in the past – that currently folks feel the region is disconnected but that they believe in the future we will be well integrated and connected.

The discussion moved into the socioeconomic data development led by Santanu Roy and Dr. Burchell. The following questions were asked during the SE Data discussion:

• Phil Steinmiller noted that the word ‘model’ needed to be added on page 5 of the memorandum.

• Wilson Fernandez asked if they were utilizing for the TAZ database for employment and population for the southern three counties the information that has been supplied as part of our model validation. The consultant team stated that the information was indeed used.

The discussion then moved to the 2060 Trend Network which went over a myriad of different options the region could move forward with in terms of what the network would be built upon. The recommendation was to use the 2035 Cost Feasible Plans as the base network and that the 2040 SIS Unfunded Needs list of projects will be used in the scenario planning but not in the baseline. It was agreed that the MPOs will review the networks throughout the process to confirm which projects should be included.

A comment was made by Greg Stuart and Randy Whitfield that there was a lack of coordination with their MPOs on the development of the 2040 Unfunded Needs list. Joe Quinty stated that there were some concerns related to the projects on the list.



Wilson Fernandez stated that the proposed process will allow us to take a realistic direction and analyze the outcomes to determine what is best.

Jim Murley noted that this is an investment plan in the end. One corridor that is popping up a lot right now is US 27. He noted that they are unsure of how to handle that corridor and asked for guidance on how to plan for US 27 for the scenario planning.

Marcela Camblor stated that they will need some level of prioritization from the RTTAC and asked the group to take the unfunded needs list and let her team know their thoughts. Her team would like comments back prior to the next RTTAC meeting. Jessica Josselyn and Randy Whitfield stated they would compile the comments from the group and report back at the next RTTAC meeting.

By January 2013, the 2010 base year model will be calibrated/validated for the MPOs review. Wilson Fernandez requested this be presented at the RTTAC modeling subcommittee meeting in January.

Attached to these meeting minutes is a summary prepared by the Seven50 team containing a detailed overview of the complete RTTAC discussion on this topic.

X Regional Transportation Improvement Program

The three MPOs have all completed their regional TIP components. A discussion was held on whether all three elements can be merged into one regional document to include Miami-Dade’s preamble on the purpose of the regional TIP and how it’s applied. Jessica Josselyn offered to review the three elements in terms of consistency and format and that she would report back to the group in October regarding how easily they could be merged.

XI Other Business

Jessica Josselyn mentioned that the Broward MPO organized a managed lane workshop recently. She said that District 4 and District 6 are doing some interesting work and it would be beneficial for the group if they could report to the RTTAC. Kim Delaney asked if there were any discussions on arterial managed lanes and network. Jessica Josselyn replied that the option seems to be off the table.

XII Next RTTAC Meeting – October 10

The next RTTAC meeting will be held on October 10.

XIII Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned by Randy Whitfield.

MEMORANDUM TO: RTTAC Members FROM: Randy M. Whitfield, P.E. Director Palm Beach MPO DATE: October 10, 2012 RE: South Florida East Coast Corridor Study Status Report ______________________________________________________________________ Last year, FDOT retained a consultant to perform the next phase of its South Florida East Coast Corridor (SFECC) Study and presented a status report to SEFTC and the MPOs. In the same time frame, SFRTA presented its Fast Start proposal to implement passenger service on the FEC in the near term using existing equipment and spiltting current Tri Rail services. At the January meeting, the SEFTC Board requested an evaluation of the two proposals for passenger rail service on the FEC rail corridor in the three-county area. The evaluation was to focus on the planning process and the technical aspects of each proposal from a higher level approach to focus activities on a single plan for the region. The report was presented to SEFTC on July 23 where it was accepted and supported by the Board. Several Steering Committee meetings and coordination meetings between FDOT and SFRTA have occurred. A status report will be presented at the meeting. Staff Recommendation: For information and discussion. RMW

MEMORANDUM TO: RTTAC Members FROM: Randy M. Whitfield, P.E. Director Palm Beach MPO DATE: October 10, 2012 RE: Baseline Transit Network ______________________________________________________________________ At the last RTTAC Modeling Subcommittee meeting, FDOT raised a concern related to the baseline transit network to be used for modeling of the FEC alternatives and other activities in the three-county area. The concern related to inclusion of projects identified in the TDPs for the counties and the funding availability for implementation. While reviewing modeling of SFECC alternatives, the MPOs noted the networks should be based on the existing transit systems due to the lack of funding for expansion. The subcommittee agreed the use of the existing systems was the prudent approach. The issue was presented at the RTTAC meeting with general agreement. FDOT has asked the RTTAC to endorse the recommendation of the subcommittee. Attached is a letter from the Department with the request and background information. Staff Recommendation: The RTTAC support the use of the Baseline Transit Network for modeling of alternatives for various studies underway in the tri-county area. RMW

Florida Department of Transportation RICK SCOTT GOVERNOR

605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450

ANANTH PRASAD, P.E. SECRETARY

www.dot.state.fl.us

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: September 28, 2012

TO: Randy Whitfield, P.E., Chair Regional Transportation Technical Advisory Committee

FROM: Amie K. Goddeau, P.E., Mobility Development Manager District 4

COPIES: Wilson Fernandez, Scott Seeburger

SUBJECT: Approval of Baseline Transit Network Recommendation

The Regional Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (RTTAC) is requested to approve using projections that closely resemble existing transit service levels for future year alternatives for all multi-modal studies in the region. New transit projects from Transit Development Plans will be added when funding sources are identified.

Traditionally, the baseline transit network has been the background future condition against which build alternatives are compared against in federal transit alternatives analysis studies. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has stipulated that this network be based on the Long-Range Transportation Cost Feasible Transit Plan. Altering this practice as contained in the above recommendation is justified for the following reasons:

FTA proposed that the existing transit system be used as the point of comparison for New/Small Starts projects and that there is no longer a need for the baseline alternative (Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), Federal Register Volume 77, Number 16, January 25, 2012)

MAP-21 eliminates FTA’s involvement in alternatives studies (FTA Office of Budget and Policy, August 22, 2012, http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP21_essay_style_ summary_v5_MASTER.pdf )

The RTTAC recommended using projections that closely resemble existing transit service levels for future year alternatives in the South Florida East Coast Corridor study since the Transit Cost Feasible Plans and Transit Development Plans do not have dedicated funding (Memorandum, May 18, 2012)

Seven existing and near-term transit corridor studies in Broward County alone will unnecessarily utilize project resources to individually seek approval of the recommendation from the RTTAC

The RTTAC Modeling Committee endorses the recommendation

AG:sps Attachments (RTTAC memorandum, presentation)

MEMORANDUM TO: Amie Goddeau, SFECC Project Manager FROM: Randy M. Whitfield, P.E. Director, Palm Beach MPO Gregory Stuart, AICP Director, Broward MPO Irma San Roman, Acting Director, Miami-Dade MPO DATE: May 18, 2012 RE: Review of FEC Steering Committee request on key modeling assumptions

Memorandum ______________________________________________________________________ This memo provides a summary of the MPOs’ comments on the FEC Steering Committee Request on Key Modeling Assumptions Memorandum delivered for review on May 11, 2012. The MPO directors request these items be addressed and responded to by the next SFECC Steering Committee Meeting.

General Comments: • We recommend adjusting the Palm Tran projections to more closely resemble existing

conditions for the following reasons: The Palm Beach MPO staff has reviewed the 2011-2021 TDP for Palm Tran adopted last year. While the report identifies a number of projects to reduce headways on some routes and increase services, the forecast for costs and revenues does not allow for any increases to the current services. The 2035 Cost Feasible Transit Plan reflects a similar conclusion stating Palm Tran will continue to operate at current levels.

• We recommend adjusting the BCT projections to more closely resemble existing conditions for the following reasons: Broward County Transit stated in the May SFECC Steering Committee that the assumptions applied in the model were not realistic given current funding and revenue projections. It was noted that although components of the system may be ‘rearranged’, actual new service in addition to what already exists is not appropriate to assume. The Broward MPO concurred with BCT’s comments.

• We recommend adjusting the MDT projections to more closely resemble existing conditions for the following reasons: Miami-Dade MPO stated in the May SFECC Steering Committee meeting that the assumptions applied in the model for Miami-Dade Transit were not realistic given current funding and revenue projections. It was noted that

May 18, 2012 Page 2 Amie Goddeau Review of FEC Steering Committee request on key modeling assumptions Memorandum

although components of the system may be ‘rearranged,’ actual new service in addition to what already exists is not appropriate to assume. Miami-Dade Transit staff concurred with the MPO’s sentiments at the May 16th RTTAC meeting.

• We recommend the parking evaluations consider the amount of parking required, not only for initial ridership but also for what is projected in future years, including the identification of sites where this parking could be provided, as well as the impact of expanded feeder bus service on parking demand. This can be done in an equilibration analysis after initial projections are made, but the project analysis for all options should be based on demand forecasts recognizing parking availability and cost equilibration. For both the SFECC and FastStart studies, the parking assumptions, including both capacity and cost, should be documented. We concur with the SFECC consultant’s comment stating that parking at rail stations is often addressed in planning studies, such as this, through an equilibrium analysis in which an initial forecast is made of parking demand without and with constraints on capacity followed by adjustment to bring demand and capacity into balance. We recommend that when the analysis is completed, the parking capacities assumed at each station should be documented. We feel this will be especially critical for the FastStart proposal since the provision of parking is to be left to the local jurisdictions.

• Related to the ownership and purpose of the existing parking lots, as mentioned in the

2010 Feasibility Study – assuming these lots were built with the purpose of providing parking support for local businesses, we recommend providing more clarity/certainty in the documentation and assumptions that the communities are willing to have these lots serve commuters and thus be unable to meet their initial objectives.

• As with most elements of travel forecasting, even if the assumptions appear reasonable,

the results of the model applications will require careful review to ensure the assumptions remain valid (e.g,.whether or not the assumed growth in capacity is consistent with the forecast growth in ridership) and there are no wildly unexpected results arising from the assumptions. The MPOs appreciate the continued collaboration throughout these modeling activities such that the project continues to move forward in an agreed-upon and positive direction.

• The MPO consultant team is still reviewing the FEC Phase 3 Key Modeling Assumptions Appendix materials posted to the project website on May 14th. We anticipate completing the review and providing comments by May 24th.

Specific comments with references: 1. Memo Reference: Palm Tran assumes a 17% growth in vehicle-hours between 2010

and 2016, with BCT and MDT buses assuming 30% growth during the same timeframe. Metrorail service is expected to grow by 16% once the Airport Connector becomes operational.

Comment: The validity of these projections is questionable given current budget constraints. As discussed in the last SFECC steering committee, a more reliable basis for future transit service would be the last funded year in the respective TDPs.

May 18, 2012 Page 2 Amie Goddeau Review of FEC Steering Committee request on key modeling assumptions Memorandum

2. Memo Reference: Palm Tran assumes an additional 45% growth in vehicle-hours between 2016 and 2035, and BCT assumes 64% growth during the same timeframe. MDT bus and Metrorail service are expected to grow by 6-12%.

Comment: The validity of these projections is questionable given current budget constraints. As discussed in the last SFECC steering committee, a more reliable basis for future transit service would be the last funded year in the respective TDPs.

3. Memo Reference: Based on conversations with Palm Tran, BCT, and MDT, minimal

changes were assumed for the Build network.

Comment: We need to discuss collectively how the network will be modified to adjust local transit service to better correlate with (better serve/support) the new FEC service. Who will make these assumptions, and how will SFRTA’s input be gathered to inform this modification?

4. Memo Reference: (Under the Roadway Network section) The following table shows the

expected increase in lane-miles between 2010 and 2016 by facility type and county.

Comment: Please add a column in the table to show the actual number of increased lane-miles and the corresponding percentage per facility type. This will be valuable supplemental information to what is already included.

We appreciate the opportunity to review these important factors of the project modeling element. If you have any questions, please contact Randy Whitfield. Cc: Gerry O’Reilly, FDOT District IV Gus Schmidt, FDOT District IV

M l i M d l C id S di iMulti‐Modal Corridor Studies in Southeast FloridaSoutheast Florida

Transit System Assumptions

1

Backgroundg• Issue – What background transit network should be

assumed for transit corridor studies in the region?assumed for transit corridor studies in the region? – The adopted LRTP transit networks are traditionally used for

horizon‐year alternatives2035 LRTP T i i ff d bl– 2035 LRTPs: Transit services unaffordable

– 2035 corridors support regional transit goals but produce significant competition between individual projects

• RTTAC agreed that existing transit services be used for all analysis years for the SFECC Study

• FTA NPRM states that Baseline no longer required• FTA NPRM states that Baseline no longer required

2

Transit Service Levels

Approximate Daily Transit Vehicle MilesApproximate Daily Transit Vehicle Miles

Network 2010 Service Existing Service (May 2012)

SERPM 6.5 E+C (2013/14)

2035 Cost Feasible LRTP

P l T 24 000 25 000 ( 4%) 27 000 ( 12%) 40 000 ( 67%)Palm Tran 24,000 25,000 (+4%) 27,000 (+12%) 40,000 (+67%)

BCT 53,000 56,000 (+6%) 63,000 (+19%) 152,000 (+186%)

MDT 91,000 98,000 (+8%) 113,000 (+24%) 116,000 (+27%)

Region‐wide 168,000 179,000 (+7%) 203,000 (+21%) 308,000 (+83%)

Source: SERPM transit network; assuming 6 hours peak and 10 hours off‐peak period service

3

Broward Transit Studies

Studies Underway Central Broward Transit – Griffin Road Alternative Central Broward Transit SR 7/Broward Alternative Central Broward Transit – SR 7/Broward Alternative FEC Regional study Oakland Park

Future StudiesFuture Studies University Drive (Starts November) Phase 2: SR 7 (FY14 Planning) Sunrise Blvd (FY15 Planning) Hollywood/Pines Blvd (CM/Mobility Hubs) Hollywood/Pines Blvd (CM/Mobility Hubs)

Hollywood/Pines Blvd (FY16 Planning) Sample Road (FY16 Planning)

Proposalp• SFECCS Steering Committee recommended to use the existing transit service levels for future yearthe existing transit service levels for future year alternatives

• Propose to follow the same recommendation for all multi‐modal corridor studies in the regionall multi‐modal corridor studies in the region, with projects added from the TDP when funding source is identified

5

MEMORANDUM TO: RTTAC Members FROM: Randy M. Whitfield, P.E. Director Palm Beach MPO DATE: October 10, 2012 RE: Regional Performance Measures ______________________________________________________________________ In the late summer of 2011, a case study memorandum relating to how other regions measure regional coordination was presented to the RTTAC for review and comment. In the fall of 2011, a performance measures ‘report card’ template was presented to the RTTAC for review and comment. Since that time, the regional consultant, Kittelson & Associates, has finalized the case study memorandum based on comments received and has also begun re-directing the performance measures ‘report card’ approach. At the last meeting, a revised ‘report card’ was presented. Several comments were received. Based on comments received the report card and report have been updated.The revised report card and supporting technical memorandum are attached for review and finalization. Staff Recommendation: For review and recommendation to the SEFTC for acceptance. RMW

FILENAME: C:\USERS\JJOSSELYN\DESKTOP\PERFORMANCE MEASURES_FINAL DRAFTV2.DOCX

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Southeast Florida Regional Transportation System Measures

October 3, 2012

THE IMPORTANCE OF MEASURING PERFORMANCE

The advent of transportation performance measurement coincides with development of the

interstate system and the enactment of the federal gas tax as a means of funding transportation

system improvements at the federal and local levels. Performance measures provide an objective

method for defining what is important to those who fund, plan, design, construct, maintain, use, and

are impacted by transportation. Performance measures also help to guide decisions about what

transportation to provide, where and when, and how to minimize adverse impacts while optimizing

the benefits derived from the investment.

Since the 1960’s, the way we measure performance has changed and we are faced with new

challenges. Separate cities, counties, and MPOs have literally grown together, sharing a larger set of

common urban characteristics that blurs the relevance of political boundaries from a transportation

perspective. An urban area like Southeast Florida must develop and maintain a regional perspective in

order to ensure that a safe, efficient, interconnected, and seamless transportation system is provided

and maintained for all users.

Future Applications and Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) Applicability

By monitoring and reporting the region’s transportation system outcomes, we are able to make more

informed future investment decisions. For example, as the region moves into the preparation of their

2040 Regional Transportation Plan, the series of performance measures may be used as guidance on

reshaping and forming the regional GOMs and ultimately the projects which the region chooses to

invest in over time. If the monitoring of the system identifies that a particular goal and objective is

not being achieved in the manner predicted, then different strategies and investments may be

considered over time. This iterative process, outcome-based assessment is consistent with the

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) signed into law July 2012. MAP-21

targets performance-based planning and programing and uses a performance-based approach to

support established national goals on safety, infrastructure condition, congestion reduction, system

October 3, 2012 Page 2


reliability, freight movement and economic vitality, environmental sustainability and reduced project

delivery delays. The performance measures are limited to:

• National Highway System (NHS) – pavement conditions and Interstate System and NHS performance;

• Highway Safety – serious injuries and fatalities;

• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality – traffic congestions and mobile source emissions;

• Freight – freight movement on the Interstate System; and

• Transit – safety and state of good repair

USDOT, in consultation with States DOTs, MPOs, and other stakeholders, is responsible for

establishing performance measures to assess the progress of federal-aid programs. USDOT is required

to promulgate a rulemaking to address these measures within 18 months of MAP-21 enactment. The

State DOTs, MPOs and transit operators are responsible for setting targets that address the

performance measures, incorporating these measures into plans and programs, and reporting

progress. Therefore, Plans and Transportation Improvement Programs will need to follow a

performance-driven approach and include discussion on the national performance measures and

targets. It is required to report on progress made towards achieving the targets. The Secretary is

expected to report to Congress in five years of MAP-21 enactment on the effectiveness of

performance-based planning and the progress at the State and MPO levels.

The Southeast Florida performance measures herein may be applied towards the MAP-21

requirements and may be adjusted over time as standards are created and mandated throughout the

country and state.

REGIONAL PERFORMANCE IN SOUTHEAST FLORIDA

2035 Regional Long Range Transportation Plan

In 2010, the Southeast Florida Transportation Council adopted the first Regional Long Range

Transportation Plan (RLRTP) encompassing Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties.

Representatives from stakeholders throughout the region were given the opportunity to participate

in the planning process to ensure that the final product met regional needs without compromising

local interests. A core component of the Plan was a series of goals, objectives, and measures of

effectiveness (GOMs) that establish the regional priorities. These were used to evaluate potential

projects for their ability to support regional goals, and give guidance on how to evaluate the region’s

success in achieving its goals. Table 1 summarizes the adopted 2035 RLRTP goals, objectives, and

measures of effectiveness.



Table 1 2035 RLRTP Goals, Objectives and Measures of Effectiveness

Theme Goal Objective Measure of Effectiveness

Mobility Provide efficient and reliable transportation system for regional passengers and freight operations

Preserve and expand the existing regional transportation system capacity to support passenger and freight operations

Miles of new highway capacity, new transit revenue hours of service, increased capacity of freight hubs

Maximize existing system capacity through increased highway and/or transit capacity, tolling, implementation of TSM, and ITS strategies and technologies

% decrease in auto-transit travel congestion

% decrease in person hours of delay per capita (by mode)

Accessibility Provide multimodal access to major regional passenger and freight activity centers

Provide competitive travel times Comparison to similar cities

Increase mode choice for regional travel Increase transit coverage to TSA’s

Provide efficient regional routes for freight goods movement to and from regional freight hubs and destinations

% decrease in travel time from regional corridors to freight destinations

Connectivity Provide an integrated multimodal transportation system throughout the region

Increase multimodal connections between regional origin-destination (O-D) pairs

Increase in the number of multimodal connections between O-D pairs

Environment Protect the region’s environment

Improve air quality and minimize air pollution (via alternative vehicle technologies, increased mode split, decreased travel delay time, etc.)

% decrease in emissions

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions % decrease in CO2 emissions

Protect the natural environment and historic areas

Right-of-way impact to the protected natural environment and/or historic areas

Safety and Security

Provide for a safer and more secure transportation system for the region’s residents, businesses, and visitors

Preserve and enhance the capacity of regional evacuation corridors (security) % increase in capacity

Reduce fatal and injury crashes on regional roads (safety)

Decrease in fatal crashes

Decrease in injury crashes

Quality of Life Preserve and enhance the quality of life and promote energy conservation

Promote projects that support urban infill and densification Geographic location of new projects

Prioritize funding to favor intra-urban (within

UDB) improvements Geographic location of new projects

Promote the use of alternative vehicle technologies SECO annual meeting attendance

Tracking Progress

Under SEFTC guidance and initiative, the activities conducted as a part of this memorandum explored

the feasibility of using a complimentary set of performance measures to track the progress of the

region towards meeting its 2035 goals and objectives. Measures were selected based on the

following criteria: 1) supportive of the 2035 GOMs; 2) ability to be estimated annually, 3) consistency

from year-to-year of the data sources for developing the measure, and 4) the needed data is already

available at little or no cost. For this first round of performance measures, a five year trend was

selected and reported for the period of 2006 to 2010. For each measure data sources, data statistics,

and graphs were reported. In addition, several context measures were identified and reported for the

region. The context measures assisted in assessing whether a performance measure was showing



improved, degrading and/or maintaining performance based on other factors occurring in the region

and country.

The following sections are included herein which touch upon these different components of

tracking progress:

Major Data Sources: The first section of this memorandum discusses the major data sources that were used to obtain the required information and develop the recommended regional transportation performance measures.

Context Measures: The second section describes the Context Measures which are basic annual statistics on the region in order to provide context and normalization for some of the proposed measures of effectiveness. These measures were used in the calculation of several MOE’s.

Recommended Performance Measures: The third section, discusses the recommended regional transportation performance measures as they support the regional goals and objectives defined in the 2035 Regional Long Range Transportation Plan (RLRTP).

Future Opportunities: The last main section of the memorandum discusses Future Opportunities with the performance measurement activity for the Southeast Florida region

Bibliography and Appendix: These two supportive sections are provided for those looking to understand in more detail the resources used within the development of this performance measurement system.



MAJOR DATA SOURCES

This section discusses the data sources utilized in the development of the recommended regional

transportation performance measures.

Major Data Sources

National Transit Database (NTD)

Transit data, necessary for several of the measures, were obtained from the National Transit

Database (NTD). The NTD was established by Congress to be the Nation’s primary source for

information and statistics on the transit systems of the United States. Recipients or beneficiaries of

grants from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) under the Urbanized Area Formula Program

(§5307) or Other than Urbanized Area (Rural) Formula Program (§5311) are required by statute to

submit data to the NTD. Over 660 transit providers in urbanized areas currently report to the NTD.

Each year, NTD performance data are used to apportion over $5 billion of FTA funds to transit

agencies in urbanized areas (UZAs). Annual NTD reports are submitted to Congress summarizing

transit service and safety data (1).

In the three counties of interest, the main public transportation providers are Broward County

Transportation, Miami Dade Transit, PalmTran, and the South Florida Regional Transportation

Authority. They all participate in the NTD program.

Florida Source Book (Mobility Performance Measures or MPM)

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) publishes the Florida Highway Data Source Book.

The focus of the Source Book is on the State Highway System (SHS), but some data on county and city

roads are included. It also includes mobility performance measures data for the SHS, emphasizing the

Strategic Intermodal System (SIS).

The Source Book is updated annually mid-year (with traffic data for the previous calendar year), but

newer versions of some of the data items may be available by request to the Florida Department of

Transportation/Transportation Statistics Office. For the purpose of developing this technical report

and the accompanying performance measures, the FDOT provided access to facility-level data for the

Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties.

Several assumptions are inherent in the measures and methodologies associated with Florida’s

Source Book data (also known as Mobility Performance Measures or MPM) (2). Virtually all of the

assumptions can be associated with default assumptions used by the Highway Capacity Committee in

development of the Highway Capacity Manual.

The weekday peak hour occurs between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m.



The free-flow speed is the speed limit of the facility plus 5 mph (Source: HCM). The FDOT caps free-flow speed at the posted speed, for facilities with speed limits greater than 65 mph.

A roadway segment is considered congested if the level of service (LOS) is E or F, as defined in the HCM. The LOS thresholds are based on the FDOT Quality of Service and Capacity Tables, which are a function of the road classification, number of lanes, and the average annual daily vehicular traffic volume (AADT).

The average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes contained in the database are adjusted to hourly directional flow values for all calculation procedures. A directional distribution factor of 55 percent and hourly k factors (by facility type) is used to develop the hourly directional volumes.

For the hourly and daily vehicle speed calculations, a minimum speed of 10 miles per hour is assumed

for arterials, and 25 miles per hour for freeways and highways.

Florida Crash Analysis Reporting System (CARS)

FDOT maintains a large collision database called the CARS system. The database was created by

combining crash data from the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles with roadway

information from FDOT. The database is updated on an annual basis. All reported crashes with a

fatality, an injury, or high property damage occurring on state roads are included in this database (3),

but non-state roads are available for certain counties. The FDOT has permitted access to CARS

system. All crashes occurring on state and non-state roads in the counties of Miami-Dade, Broward,

and Palm Beach for 2006-2010 have been summarized for relevant regional performance

measurement.

Texas Transportation Institute Annual Urban Mobility Report (TTI)

The Texas Transportation Institute—part of the Texas A&M University System—publishes the Urban

Mobility Report; a nationally known report on mobility and congestion (4). The Urban Mobility Report

uses traffic volume data from the states and traffic speed data from INRIX, a leading private-sector

provider of travel time information. The combination produces a thorough and detailed illustration of

traffic problems in 439 U.S. urban areas.

The report includes metrics such as vehicle miles traveled, delay per commuter, cost of congestion,

and travel time index (a measure of travel time reliability). The recent addition of INRIX speed data is

expected to yield more accurate measurements of vehicle miles traveled in congestion and free flow

travel time. The INRIX data are used in conjunction with volume and roadway inventory data from

FHWA’s Highway Performance Monitoring System to produce “high-quality congestion measures” (5).

Other Data Sources

Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact (SEFRCCC) (6)



Florida Department of Transportation Work Program (7)

American Housing Survey (8)

Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) and American Community Survey (9)

Florida Department of Revenue Fuel Taxes (10)

Port of Miami Annual Reports (12)

Port Everglades Annual Reports (13)

Port of Palm Beach Annual Reports (14)

Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) (15)

Reference Statistics Data Sources

U.S. Census

Population data were collected for the Miami - Fort Lauderdale - Pompano Beach Metropolitan

Statistical Area (MSA), which encompasses the three counties of interest. One-year estimates from

the Census’ American Community Survey were used to maintain an annual measure of the region’s

population from 2006 to 2010 (9).

U.S. Department of Commerce

Data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis were used to better understand measures that are likely

affected by economic activity (16), such as truck miles traveled and time spent traveling. The dataset

used was the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the Miami-Fort Lauderdale metropolitan region from

2006 to 2010.

U.S. Department of Labor

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics were collected for use with measures depending on

employment (17). Total non-farm employment data for the Miami- Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach

MSA were downloaded for 2006 to 2010.

Florida Department of Revenue

Data from the Florida Department of Revenue were collected to calculate the fuel tax sales per year

in the region. The fuel tax distributions by county for 2006 to 2010 were downloaded as well as the

fuel tax rate per TIP.



Florida Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

This data source was used to obtain vehicle registrations by county (11). Their recurring and periodic

reports include state-wide statistics on driver demographics, revenue reports, crash rates, etc.



CONTEXT MEASURES

It was determined that some basic annual statistics on the region are needed to provide context and

normalization for some of the proposed measures of effectiveness. For that purpose, data from the

sources described above were used in the calculation of several MOE’s. For example, Census

population was used to normalize annual transit trips, among others.

This section discusses the following context measures:

Regional Investments

Regional Population

Gross Domestic Product

Employment

System Lane Miles

Vehicle Miles Traveled

Fuel Tax Sales

Transit Revenue

Vehicle Registrations


Regional investment is derived from the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) from the three

counties in their respective years. The investment amount includes the Mass Transit Priorities,

Transportation Enhancements and Road Program projects from each TIP.

Table 2 Regional Investment

MPO 2006 TIP 2007 TIP 2008 TIP 2009 TIP 2010 TIP

Palm Beach 571,406,070 597,990,000 2,091,631,351 1,739,321,604 1,040,553,405

Miami Dade 6,653,460,000 2,222,800,000 10,279,423,000 3,566,800,000 7,608,072,000

Broward 2,283,048,000 3,116,752,000 2,962,326,000 2,961,302,000 2,551,773,000

MPOs Combined 9,507,914,070 5,937,542,000 15,333,380,351 8,267,423,604 11,200,398,405

Regional Population

Regional population is derived from American Community Survey Estimates for the Miami - Fort

Lauderdale - Pompano Beach Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). This MSA covers all of Miami-Dade,

Broward, and Palm Beach Counties.



Table 3 Regional Population

Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 5 Year Change Region 5,463,857 5,413,212 5,414,772 5,547,051 5,582,351 2.2%

Miami-Dade 2,402,208 2,387,170 2,398,245 2,500,625 2,505,379 4.3%

Broward 1,787,636 1,759,591 1,751,234 1,766,476 1,753,578 -1.9%

Palm Beach 1,274,013 1,266,451 1,265,293 1,279,950 1,323,394 3.9%

Regional population growth is estimated at 0.6% between 2009 and 2010.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

GDP growth in Southeast Florida has been faster than that of Florida as a whole, but has been

significantly slower than the national average. Data was acquired from the Bureau of Economic

Analysis and values are expressed in millions of 2011 dollars.

Table 4 Gross Domestic Product

Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 5 Year Change

Southeast Florida $253,712 $263,802 $260,883 $253,266 $257,560 1.5%

Florida $731,467 $760,936 $748,117 $726,184 $736,065 0.6%

United States $13,289,235 $13,936,199 $14,193,120 $13,834,700 $14,416,601 8.5%

Employment

Data retrieved from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that the Southeast Florida region has lost a

smaller proportion of jobs due to the recession than Florida as a whole, but has lost more than the

national average. As of 2010, job loss in Southeast Florida was very similar to the national average.

Preliminary statistics for 2011 & 2012 show a resumption of job growth at a higher rate than the rest

of Florida, but again, slightly below the national average. Values are expressed in thousands of jobs.

Table 5 Employment Statistics (thousands of jobs)

Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 5 Year Change

Southeast Florida 2,395 2,416 2,351 2,202 2,184 -8.8%

Florida 7,995 8,020 7,736 7,249 7,193 -10.0%

United States 136,091 137,595 136,794 130,787 129,856 -4.6%

System Lane Miles

The roadway system in Southeast Florida is still expanding as roadways are widened and new

connections are built. It is expected that system expansion will slow as the region approaches build

out conditions. Roadway lane mileage data were collected from the FDOT’s Mobility Performance



Measurement (MPM) Database and the Texas Transportation Institute’s (TTI) Urban Mobility Report.

The MPM database is focused on state facilities, so it shows a smaller total in comparison with the

Urban Mobility Report, which includes all freeways and arterials. FDOT data will be used for

calculating lane mileage for performance measures because a significant majority of the regional

system is on state facilities.

Table 6 System Lane Miles

Data Source 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 5 Year Change

TTI - Total 9,550 9,640 9,715 9,715 9,764 2.2%

TTI – Freeway 2,110 2,140 2,180 2,180 2,191 3.8%

TTI – Arterial 7,440 7,500 7,535 7,535 7,573 1.8%

MPM – Total 7,169 7,186 7,288 7,306 7,380 2.9%

MPM – Miami-Dade 2,609 2,616 2,654 2,653 2,693 3.2%

MPM – Broward 2,439 2,440 2,468 2,464 2,473 1.4%

MPM – Palm Beach 2,122 2,130 2,166 2,189 2,215 4.4%

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

Vehicle usage of system roadways is an important factor to consider when evaluating many of the

recommended performance measures. Data on VMT were collected from the FDOT’s Mobility

Performance Measurement (MPM) Database and the Texas Transportation Institute’s (TTI) Urban

Mobility Report. The MPM classified data by location, focusing on VMT by facility and county, while

the Urban Mobility Report breaks VMT down by facility type. Values are shown as thousands of

vehicle miles traveled per day.

Table 7 Vehicle Miles Traveled


TTI - Total 92,945 93,195 91,770 91,311 91,767 -1.3%

TTI – Freeway 40,360 41,035 39,440 39,243 39,439 -2.3%

TTI – Arterial 52,585 52,160 52,330 52,068 52,328 -0.5%

MPM – Total 79,575 79,729 79,326 76,522 78,442 -1.4%

MPM – Miami-Dade 31,233 31,950 31,214 30,766 31,577 1.1%

MPM – Broward 28,774 28,945 27,988 27,168 27,474 -4.5%

MPM – Palm Beach 19,567 18,833 20,123 18,586 19,391 -0.9%

For comparative purposes, the recommended performance measures will use the Urban Mobility

Report results since they reflect regional roadway usage beyond state facilities and can therefore

better reflect regional trends. The MPM data is likely to under-report arterial VMT.



Fuel Tax Sales

The fuel tax sales per county were calculated based on the motor fuel tax rates per year and the

certified motor fuel gallons per county per year. Data was acquired from the Florida Department of

Revenue. From 2006 to 2010 there is an overall decrease in the fuel tax sales in the region.

County 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Southeast Florida $885,134,692.798 $893,871,837.093 $872,387,973.691 $859,208,303.727 $830,878,999.698

Broward $303,934,152.726 $307,629,305.823 $302,094,630.377 $301,877,692.650 $294,587,263.878

Miami-Dade $371,864,436.375 $377,810,666.322 $367,800,372.658 $357,575,178.882 $338,245,061.257

Palm Beach $209,336,103.697 $208,431,864.948 $202,492,970.656 $199,755,432.195 $198,046,674.563

Transit Revenue Hours

The amount of transit service provided each year can vary for a number of reasons. Transit providers

may need to run more buses to offer the same service when congestion increases, new services may

have been added, or routes may have been modified. Alternatively, budget shortfalls or low ridership

may require the provider to cut back on services that are provided. The number of transit revenue

hours is a variable that can be used to better understand changes that are observed in some of the

recommended performance measures.

Table 8 Transit Revenue Hours


Regional Revenue Hours 6,311,327 7,275,570 6,898,850 6,609,849 6,367,020 0.9%

Miami-Dade Transit 3,447,859 4,324,791 4,126,215 3,978,455 3,816,255 10.7%

Broward County Transit 1,760,141 1,800,973 1,662,352 1,565,006 1,489,769 -15.4%

Palm Tran 1,014,860 1,039,757 985,621 930,898 920,004 -9.4%

South Florida Regional Transit Authority

88,467 110,049 124,662 135,490 140,992 59.4%

Transit revenue hours peaked in 2007 and have faced subsequent cut backs due to budgetary

constraints. Miami-Dade Transit has maintained service above 2006 levels despite cut backs while the

South Florida Regional Transportation Authority has consistently increased the amount of service

offered year over year.


New vehicle registrations are an indicator of growth amongst the driving public. While some vehicle

registrations are replacements for existing vehicles, many of them are people new to the state or who



are buying their first car. This measure provides context that can be used to better understand

system performance.

Table 9 Vehicle Registrations

County 2006 2007 2008 2009 4 Year Change

Southeast Florida 4,499,034 4,403,489 4,405,019 4,191,178 -6.8%

Miami-Dade 1,996,453 1,997,214 1,975,762 1,896,977 -5.0%

Broward 1,501,001 1,407,080 1,436,305 1,338,767 -10.8%

Palm Beach 1,001,580 999,195 992,952 955,434 -4.6%



RECOMMENDED PERFORMANCE MEASURES

This section discusses the recommended regional transportation performance measures as they

support the regional goals and objectives defined in the 2035 Regional Long Range Transportation

Plan (RLRTP).

This section describes the following recommended performance measures:

Mobility

Multimodal Access

Sustainability

Safety

Quality of Life and Energy Conservation

Mobility

The Southeast Florida Transportation Council is committed to supporting the development of a

regional transportation network that is both efficient and reliable. The system needs to balance the

movement of people and freight to support both livable communities and economic development.

Preserve and Expand System Capacity

Recommended Measures: Average time spent traveling per capita

Truck congestion cost per truck mile traveled

It is important to ensure that the transportation network is adequate to meet the needs of Southeast

Florida residents, and must also meet the needs of a major shipping hub. The region has three ocean

ports, three commercial airports, and more than 5.5 million people. The RLRTP proposes to measure

this through regional lane miles, transit revenue hours and freight hub capacity. These measures

provide a good starting point, but can be refined to provide a more complete vision of system

conditions.

The recommended measures rely on data that are collected annually by FDOT and the Texas

Transportation Institute. Average time spent traveling per capita is a quality of life measure that

allows us to know how much time people need to spend getting to places they need to go. There are

many strategies that can help reduce travel times including the promotion of mixed-use

development, higher density development, system capacity expansion, travel demand management,

multimodal transportation options, etc. Similarly, truck congestion cost per truck mile traveled gives

us a way to monitor the competitiveness of Southeast Florida’s transportation system year over year.



Average Time Spent Traveling per Capita

The daily time spent traveling (in hours/person) was obtained from MPM data, by dividing each

facility’s daily passenger miles traveled by the average daily speed. More information on the MPM’s

methodology can be found in their technical report, Urban Mobility Report.

∑

The resulting travel times (in hours) were added for each county and are presented in Table 10.

Table 10 Daily Time Spent Traveling (hours)

County 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Region 3,235,630 3,230,790 3,260,138 3,064,080 3,132,304

Miami-Dade 1,468,948 1,495,494 1,418,289 1,399,849 1,436,405

Broward 1,080,987 1,096,520 1,092,856 1,033,419 1,036,738

Palm Beach 685,695 638,776 748,994 630,812 659,161

In order to normalize the measure, the region-wide travel times were divided by the Census

population. The regional population (shown in Table 3 under section on Context Measures) was

derived from American Community Survey Estimates for the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). This MSA covers all of Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach

Counties. Values were inflated and adjusted to 2010 dollars. Table 11 includes the region average

time spent traveling per capita and supporting data.

Table 11 Average Time Spent Traveling per Capita

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 5 Year Change

Average Time Spent Traveling per Capita per Day (hours/person)

0.59 0.60 0.60 0.55 0.56 -5.2%

Daily Hours Spent

Traveling 3,235,630 3,230,790 3,260,138 3,064,080 3,132,304 -3.2%

Regional Population 5,463,857 5,413,212 5,414,772 5,547,051 5,582,351 2.2%

There has been a reduction in the number of traveling hours per capita in the region. This is likely due

to higher unemployment rates which result in fewer overall trips, and reduced congestion due to

lower VMT over the last few years. Figure 1 illustrates the region-wide daily travel time per capita.



Figure 1 Region-wide Daily Travel Time per Capita

Truck Congestion Cost per Truck Mile Traveled

Daily truck miles traveled for the entire Florida highway system are available through the FDOT

Source Book (20). More information on the Source Book’s truck assumptions can be found in (2).

Table 12 shows the daily truck miles traveled in the region. Region-wide truck miles traveled have

fallen 31% from 2006 to 2010, surely an effect of the economic recession at the time.

Table 12 Daily Truck Miles Traveled

County 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Region 6,272,468 5,514,715 5,130,011 4,588,131 4,315,494

Miami-Dade 2,364,903 2,121,278 1,672,339 1,527,899 1,530,675

Broward 1,933,047 1,942,889 1,522,053 1,547,904 1,360,666

Palm Beach 1,974,517 1,450,548 1,935,619 1,512,328 1,424,154

The Texas Transportation Institute ( T T I ) directly publishes the congestion cost incurred by trucks

due to congestion. Miami, FL is one of the several large urbanized areas tabulated by the Institute.

Data on this subject are only available from 2007 onwards.

To normalize the measure, the congestion cost was divided by the annual number of truck miles

traveled from the MPM. Values were inflation adjusted to 2010 dollars. Table 13 includes the region

truck congestion cost per truck mile traveled and supporting data.

0.55

0.56

0.57

0.58

0.59

0.60

0.61

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Ho

urs



Table 13 Truck Congestion Cost per Truck Mile Traveled

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 4 Year Change*

Truck Congestion Cost per Truck mile Traveled N/A $0.314 $0.265 $0.374 $0.383 22.0%

Annual Truck VMT (millions) 2,289 2,013 1,872 1,675 1,575 -21.7%

Truck Congestion Cost N/A $632M $496M $626M $604M 0.2%

*Truck congestion cost estimates were not available for 2006

Congestion costs per revenue mile for freight traffic have increased over the last four years. While the

absolute cost of congestion to trucks has remained steady, the drop in truck miles traveled is likely to

be a major cause of the short term cost per mile increase despite other congestion indicators being in

decline. Figure 2 illustrates the Truck Congestion Costs per Truck Mile Traveled from 2007 to 2010.

Figure 2 Truck Congestion Costs per Truck Mile Traveled

Optimize use of Existing Capacity

Recommended Measures: Uncongested peak VMT per lane mile

Transit revenue miles per revenue hour

The roadway network in Southeast Florida is approaching build out. While some expansion is

possible, it is preferable to use the existing system more efficiently to avoid or delay capital

expenditures and to help keep communities attractive for pedestrians, cyclists, and other non-

automotive transportation modes. The RLRTP proposes to monitor the decrease in auto-transit

congestion and decrease in person hours of delay for this objective. These measures were the basis

for those recommended in this study.

$0.250

$0.270

$0.290

$0.310

$0.330

$0.350

$0.370

$0.390

2007 2008 2009 2010



Data from the FDOT, the TTI Urban Mobility Report, and the National Transit Database were used for

these measures. Uncongested VMT per lane mile is intended to show how much traffic the

transportation system is handling in uncongested conditions. More efficiency should allow higher

uncongested traffic volumes. Transit revenue miles per revenue hour will show how efficiently the

transit system is able to navigate the roadway network. It is assumed that stop density will not

change significantly enough to skew this measure in the foreseeable future.

Uncongested Peak VMT per Lane Mile

The percent of peak travel that is heavily congested is also published in the FDOT 2010 Source Book

(Florida Department of Transportation, 2012). The peak is defined as 5 p.m. to 6 p.m., and heavily

congested means that the LOS is E or F. Table 14 and Table 15 summarize the peak vehicle miles

traveled (VMT) and the proportion of peak VMT in congested conditions, respectively.

Table 14 Peak Vehicle Miles Traveled

County 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Region 6,508,322 6,525,316 6,490,965 6,259,383 6,421,023

Miami-Dade 2,552,064 2,611,335 2,552,211 2,515,299 2,581,643

Broward 2,352,917 2,367,907 2,287,222 2,220,024 2,248,601

Palm Beach 1,603,342 1,546,074 1,651,532 1,524,059 1,590,779

Table 15 Peak Vehicle Miles Traveled (in congestion)

County 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Region 2,776,878 2,888,103 2,722,890 2,394,561 2,504,351

43% 44% 42% 38% 39%

Miami-Dade 1,230,568 1,327,639 1,143,536 1,109,245 1,175,245

48% 51% 45% 44% 46%

Broward 1,073,012 1,103,423 1,047,213 955,261 950,266

46% 47% 46% 43% 42%

Palm Beach 473,299 457,041 532,141 330,055 378,840

30% 30% 32% 22% 24%

Roadway lane mileage data were collected from the FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measurement

(MPM) Database and the Texas Transportation Institute’s (TTI) Urban Mobility Report. System lane

mile data from both data sources are summarized in Table 6 in the section on Context Measures. The

MPM database is focused on state facilities, so it shows a smaller total than the Urban Mobility

Report, which includes all freeways and arterials. FDOT data was used for calculating lane mileage for

performance measures because a significant majority of the regional system is on state facilities.



The uncongested peak VMT per lane mile was calculated based on the peak VMT, the proportion of

peak VMT in uncongested conditions, and the regional lane miles. Table 16 summarizes the region

uncongested peak VMT per lane mile and supporting data.

Table 16 Uncongested Peak VMT per Lane Mile

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 5 Year Change

Uncongested Peak

VMT per Lane Mile 517 509 517 531 531 2.7%

Peak VMT 6,508,322 6,525,316 6,490,965 6,259,383 6,421,023 -1.3%

Regional Lane Miles 7,169 7,186 7,288 7,306 7,380 2.9%

Percent of Peak

Travel Congested 43% 44% 42% 38% 39% -8.6%

The system is handling more uncongested traffic per lane mile than it had 5 years previously. This is

due largely to the smaller proportion of peak traffic experiencing congestion. As the economy

recovers, it is likely that VMT and congestion will rebound.

Figure 3 Uncongested Peak VMT per Lane Mile

Transit Revenue Miles per Revenue Hour

As part of the NTD reporting, transit agencies submit revenue hours and revenue miles logged by

their services. Because congestion may impact revenue hours even if revenue miles do not increase, a

measure of “revenue speed” (in miles per hour) better captures the transit agencies’ performance.

Demand-responsive transit—such as paratransit—is excluded from this measurement, since it has the

potential to distort speeds even as it completes relatively few passenger trips. Table 17 contains the

transit revenue miles by modes, and Table 18 contains the transit revenue hours also by mode.

505

510

515

520

525

530

535

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010



Table 17 Transit Revenue Miles

Agency Mode 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Broward County Transit Division

Bus 16,013,518 16,879,810 14,245,816 13,878,467 14,049,190

Demand Responsive (Van) 7,364,390 7,882,892 9,074,306 8,310,956 7,328,065

Ferryboat 32,406

Miami Dade Transit

Bus 36,825,387 35,654,448 33,407,289 31,547,096 29,177,775

Heavy Rail 9,690,079 8,354,432 7,158,361 6,691,511 6,709,459

Demand Responsive (Van) 13,948,718 13,605,381 13,084,419 13,260,276

Automated Guideway 941,678 934,906 1,120,647 1,073,135 1,055,673

South Florida Regional Transit Bus 265,001 402,689 433,646 436,515 475,859

Commuter Rail 2,007,224 2,558,956 2,856,470 2,953,182 2,892,398

PalmTran Bus 6,858,765 7,139,132 7,229,629 6,899,573 6,954,202

Demand Responsive (Van) 9,158,580 9,685,046 9,321,541 8,599,976 8,270,797

Region-wide (fixed route modes only) 72,634,058 71,924,373 66,451,858 63,479,479 61,314,556

Table 18 Transit Revenue Hours by Mode

Agency Mode 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Broward County Transit Division

Bus 1,187,113 1,254,275 1,051,090 1,014,405 1,024,606

Demand Responsive (Van) 565,186 546,698 611,262 550,601 465,163

Ferryboat 7,842

Miami Dade Transit

Bus 2,949,999 2,923,018 2,752,703 2,629,625 2,444,526

Heavy Rail 405,539 359,326 318,765 294,140 295,254

Demand Responsive (Van) 950,790 944,519 949,173 973,028

Automated Guideway 92,321 91,657 110,228 105,517 103,447

South Florida Regional Transit Bus 28,457 45,563 48,042 48,175 44,752

Commuter Rail 60,010 64,486 76,620 87,315 96,240

PalmTran Bus 421,683 425,901 426,166 408,777 404,478

Demand Responsive (Van) 593,177 613,856 559,455 522,121 515,526

Region-wide (fixed route modes only) 5,152,964 5,164,226 4,783,614 4,587,954 4,413,303

Table 19 shows the total transit revenue miles per hour for the region and supporting data.

Table 19 Transit Revenue Miles per Hour

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 5 Year Change

Transit Revenue (Miles per Hour) 14.10 13.93 13.89 13.84 13.89 -1.4%

Transit Revenue (Miles) 72,634,058 71,924,373 66,451,858 63,479,479 61,314,556 -15.6%

Transit Revenue (Hours) 5,152,964 5,164,226 4,783,614 4,587,954 4,413,303 -14.4%



Figure 4 displays the region-wide transit revenue miles per hour from 2006 to 2010.

Figure 4 Region-wide Transit (fixed route modes only)

Multimodal Access

The Southeast Florida Transportation Council is intent on providing multimodal access to major

regional passenger and freight activity centers. In the RLRTP, objectives in this area include providing

competitive travel times, increasing mode choice for regional travel, and providing efficient freight

routes.

Provide Competitive Travel Times

Recommended Measures: Average time spent traveling per capita

Delay per auto commuter

Percent of peak travel that is congested

The RLRTP recommends comparison to other cities to measure progress in the provision of

competitive travel times. This document proposes three measures of effectiveness that can be easily

compared with national averages and measures from similar cities.

Average Time Spent Traveling per Capita

As mentioned above, average time spent traveling per capita is a quality of life measure that allows us

to know how much time people need to spend getting to places they need to go. More detail on this

measure is provided in the earlier section on Mobility.

13.80

13.85

13.90

13.95

14.00

14.05

14.10

14.15

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Re

ven

ue

Mile

s p

er

Ho

ur



Delay per Auto Commuter

Delay can also be used to measure the competitiveness of travel times. According to the Texas

Transportation Institute’s Urban Mobility Report (4), Miami, FL metropolitan area commuters

experienced 38 hours of delay in 2010, which compares favorably to the national “Very Large City”

average of 52 hours (4) a year. The report indicates that delay per auto commuter decreased from

44 hours per year in 2006 to 38 hours per year in 2010: a drop of 13.6%. These values are directly

reported in (4). Table 20 summarizes the delay per auto commuter.

Table 20 Delay per Auto Commuter (hours/year)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Annual delay per auto commuter 44 42 35 39 38

Figure 5 displays the graphical representation of the delay per auto commuter in hours per year.

Figure 5 Region-wide Delay per Auto Commuter

Percent of Peak Travel that is Congested

The last proposed measure of competitive travel times is the percent of peak travel that is congested.

According to the MPM data source, peak travel occurs between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. and is congested

when in LOS E or F. This measure has been trending downward as well. Table 21 summarizes the

percent of peak travel in congestion in the region.

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Ho

urs

/Ye

ar



Table 21 Percent of Peak Travel that is Congested

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 5 Year Change

Percent of Peak Travel that is Congested

43% 44% 42% 38% 39% -8.6%

Peak VMT 6,508,322 6,525,316 6,490,965 6,259,383 6,421,023 -1.3%

Peak VMT that is Congested

2,776,879 2,888,103 2,722,890 2,394,561 2,504,351 -9.81%

Figure 6 illustrates the Region-wide Proportion of VMT Congested from 2006 6o 2010.

Figure 6 Region-wide Proportion of VMT Congested

Increase Mode Choice

Recommended Measures: Annual transit trips per capita

Commute mode share

The number of annual transit trips per capita is a good measure of the popularity of mass transit in a

city. While it does not directly address transit coverage, it says whether usage is increasing or

decreasing. Furthermore, empirical evidence and the results of a large number of studies suggest that

there is strong positive correlation between transit use and population density (18), another RLRTP

focus.

37%

38%

39%

40%

41%

42%

43%

44%

45%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010



Annual Transit Trips per Capita

Transit trips per capita on the four fixed-route agencies (i.e., Broward County Transportation, Miami

Dade Transit, South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, and PalmTran) declined 3.8% over the

2006 to 2010 period. Table 22 summarizes the annual unlinked passenger trips for the four fixed-

route transit agencies.

Table 22 Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips

Agency 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Broward County Transit Division 40,637,984 42,442,268 39,665,062 37,720,691 37,354,511

Miami Dade Transit 107,094,084 111,263,859 114,802,110 103,504,590 97,230,319

South Florida Regional Transit 2,908,420 3,709,923 4,258,742 4,711,486 4,050,353

PalmTran 9,970,563 11,046,504 10,798,100 10,936,346 11,235,733

When divided by the “Service Area Population” reported by each agency, the following trips per

capita values are obtained, as summarized in Table 23.

Table 23 Annual Unlinked Trips per Service Area Population

Agency 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Broward County Transit Division 25.04 23.74 22.19 21.54 21.15

Miami Dade Transit 45.00 46.32 47.79 43.09 38.88

South Florida Regional Transit 0.53 0.68 0.78 0.86 0.74

PalmTran 10.40 11.24 10.99 11.13 11.43

Out the four agencies, Miami Dade Transit had the highest ridership—peaking at 47.79 annual transit

trips per capita in 2008—but also a steep decline over the five years (13.6%). Broward County

Transportation suffered a similar decline, going from 25.04 in 2006 to 21.15 in 2010.

PalmTran exhibited a modest 10% growth, from 10.4 to 11.4 annual transit trips per capita. Finally,

the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority’s annual transit trips per capita grew almost 40%

in the study period. However, the relatively low number of trips and its high service area population

damper its effect on the region’s transit trips per capita.

To obtain a region-wide measure, the sum of unlinked transit trips was divided by the Census regional

population. Because the four agencies have different service areas and populations, the analyst

should not sum their transit trips per capita (as reported in the NTD), but instead sum their number of

unlinked trips and then divide by the region’s population.

∑



The resulting annual transit trips per capita for the region is presented in Table 24 and displayed in

Figure 7.

Table 24 Annual Transit Trips per Capita

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 5 Year Change

Annual Transit Trips per Capita 29.40 31.12 31.31 28.28 26.85 -8.7%

Figure 7 Transit Trips per Capita

Commute mode share

Commute mode share was obtained from PUMS data, published by the U.S. Census. It was found

that commute mode share has remained relatively stable over the time period between the surveys.

Single-occupancy vehicles (SOV) continue to dominate journey to work in the region. A modest

increase in single-occupant vehicle’s mode share was offset by a higher proportion of telecommuters.

Table 25 summarizes the commute mode share data in the region.

Table 25 Commute Mode Share

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 5 Year Change

Drive Alone 77.7% 78.7% 78.2% 77.8 78.6 1.2%

Shared Ride (2) 7.9% 7.5% 7.7% 8.0% 7.2% -8.9%

Shared Ride (3+) 2.5% 2.2% 2.5% 2.5% 2.2% -12.0%

Transit 4.0% 3.6% 3.8% 3.2% 3.3% -17.5%

Bike 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% 0.7% 0.9% 50.0%

Walk 1.7% 1.8% 1.5% 1.8% 2.0% 17.6%

Other 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% -11.8%

Work at Home 3.9% 4.0% 4.3% 4.5% 4.3% 10.3%

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

An

nu

al T

ran

sit

Trip

s



Drive alone commutes have shown a slight fluctuation that is reflective of gas price peaking. There

has been a small 5-year increase in drive alone commutes. Biking, walking and telecommuting have

shown very large increases though they still represent a small proportion of overall commute traffic.

Fewer workers are carpooling.

To simplify the measure and provide direct insight on the most important aspect of journey to work—

whether travelers are choosing single-occupancy vehicles (SOV) over other option—Table 25 was

reduced to a single-occupant versus “other modes” as shown in Table 26.

Table 26 Proportion of Workers Choosing Non-SOV vs. SOV

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Non-SOV Commute Mode Share % 22.3 21.3 21.8 22.2 21.4

Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) Commute Mode Share % 77.7 78.7 78.2 77.8 78.6

Figure 8 illustrates de region-wide Non-SOV % versus the SOV travelers.

Figure 8 Region-wide Non-SOV %

Provide Efficient Routes for Freight Movement

Recommended Measures: Port freight Activity

Truck congestion cost per truck mile traveled

When viewed in the context of fluctuations in economic activity, the amount of freight activity at

regional ports is a good indicator of the health of the shipping industry and the competitiveness of

regional transportation infrastructure.

21.2

21.4

21.6

21.8

22

22.2

22.4

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010



Port freight Activity

Regional freight movement through the ports was hit by the economic downturn, but did grow in

2010 for the first time since 2005. Table 27 summarizes the freight activity at southeast Florida ports.

Values are expressed in thousands of tons. Figure 9 shows a graphical representation of the port

freight activity for region.

Table 27 Freight Activity at Southeast Florida Ports

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 5 Year Change

Southeast Florida 17,623 17,183 16,891 14,400 15,154 -14.0%

Port of Miami 8,654 7,835 7,430 6,831 7,389 -14.6%

Port Everglades 5,688 6,060 6,585 5,204 5,217 -8.3%

Port of Palm Beach 3,280 3,288 2,877 2,364 2,548 -22.3%

Figure 9 Port Freight Activity for Southeast Florida


The cost of truck congestion per truck mile traveled is a more direct measure of efficiency. More

detail on this measure is provided earlier in the section on Mobility.

Multimodal Integration

The Southeast Florida Transportation Council envisions an “integrated multimodal transportation

system throughout the region”. The major objective under this goal is to “increase the multimodal

14,000

14,500

15,000

15,500

16,000

16,500

17,000

17,500

18,000

2006 2006.5 2007 2007.5 2008 2008.5 2009 2009.5 2010



connections between regional origin-destination (O-D) pairs”. Using the 20 regional O-D’s defined in

the RLRTP (see Appendix: Supporting Documents), the team was able to obtain a measure very similar

to the RLRTP recommendation.

Increase Multimodal Connections between Regional O-D Pairs

Recommended Measure: Population living within ½ mile of a high-frequency transit route

connecting regional O-D pairs

A more involved measurement that estimates the population living with ½ a mile of high-frequency

(i.e., headways of 30-minutes or less) transit connecting regional O-D pairs is provided. Population

data is not available annually at the resolution for this measure, so only changes to transit services

can be updated each year. Population estimates can be updated as new information is released.

Population Living within ½ Mile of a High-frequency Transit Route Connecting Regional O-D Pairs

The population living within ½ a mile of a regional Origin-Destination (O-D) pair connector was

obtained by combining several data sources. The first step was to identify high-quality transit routes

that connect regional O-D pairs, as defined in the RLRTP. The transit routes chosen were those with

peak headways of 30-minutes or less which connected two or more regional O-D’s.

Using GIS software, these transit lines were applied a ½ buffer in each direction. Census population

data (by blocks) was then overlaid on this map. By counting population only on those blocks within

the transit buffers, the team was able to obtain the desired performance measure. Table 28

summarizes the proportion of population living within ½ a mile of high-frequency transit in the

region.

Table 28 Proportion of Population Living Within 1/2 a Mile of a High-Quality Transit Route

County Total Population Population within ½ a mile of high-quality

transit % of Population within ½ a mile of high-

quality transit

Southeast Florida 5,564,635 3,219,615 57.9%

Miami-Dade 2,496,435 1,824,867 73.1%

Broward 1,748,066 991,536 56.7%

Palm Beach 1,320,134 403,212 30.5%

Sustainability

The Southeast Florida Transportation Council is dedicated to protecting the environment and

reducing the impact of transportation on air quality, greenhouse emissions, and historical or

environmentally sensitive areas.



Improve Air Quality

Recommended Measures: Commute mode share

Proportion of vehicle sales that are hybrid

Improving air quality and minimizing air pollution via alternative vehicle technologies, increased mode

split, or decreased travel delay time is an important element of protecting the region’s environment

and figures prominently in the RLRTP. As a measure of effectiveness, the RLRTP recommends the

percentage decrease in emissions. Since data on all emissions could not be found, it is proposed that

this objective be monitored with commute mode share and VMT per gallons of fuel consumed.

Commute Mode Share

More detail on this measure is provided earlier in the section on Multimodal Access.

Proportion of Vehicle Sales that are Hybrid

According to research conducted at Duke University (19), the Miami, FL metropolitan region has the

lowest proportion of hybrid vehicle sales to total new vehicle sales of the 22 MSA’s studied. At 0.87%,

Miami ranks below Little Rock, AR (1.50%), San Antonio, TX (1.25%), among others. For their study,

the authors purchased a data set from R.L. Polk & Co.1 containing year-by-year total and hybrid

vehicle sales. These data could likely be obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles or the I-95

Express authorities as well. Table 29 includes the proportion of total vehicle sales that are hybrid in

Miami, FL, and Table 30 summarizes the supporting data for other cities.

Table 29 Proportion of Total Vehicle Sales that are Hybrid (Miami, FL MSA, 2006)

Total Vehicle Sales Hybrid Vehicle Sales % of Total Vehicle Sales that are Hybrid

Proportion of Total Vehicle Sales that are Hybrid 266,897 2,322 0.87%

Table 30 Proportion of Total Vehicle Sales that are Hybrid (22 MSA's, 2006). Adapted from (19)

MSA Number of households Hybrid sales Percent in total vehicle sales Local incentive(start date) Gasoline price $

Albany, NY 360,273 737 1.62 Income tax (03/04) 2.70

Albuquerque, NM 319,922 763 2.37 Excise tax (07/04) 2.58

Atlanta, GA 1,994,938 2,775 1.34 No 2.52

Cleveland, OH 1,167,916 1,643 1.16 No 2.51

Denver, CO 1,132,085 3,561 3.51 Income tax (01/01) 2.45

Des Moines, IA 209,297 438 1.96 No 2.32

Hartford, CT 704,130 1,535 2.00 Sales tax (10/04) 2.80

1 polk.com



MSA Number of households Hybrid sales Percent in total vehicle sales Local incentive(start date) Gasoline price $

Houston, TX 2,197,010 3,132 1.22 No 2.49

Lancaster, PA 197,929 318 1.80 No 2.53

Las Vegas, NV 713,397 1,340 1.32 No 2.62

Little Rock, AR 250,142 436 1.50 No 2.48

Madison, WI 185,657 917 4.88 No 2.55

Miami, FL 1,706,995 2,322 0.87 HOV (07/03) 2.64

Milwaukee, WI 682,896 1,340 1.99 No 2.59

Nashville, TN 548,192 752 1.47 No 2.43

Phoenix, AZ 1,585,544 3,254 1.53 No 2.51

St. Louis, MO 1,100,071 1,526 1.30 No 2.40

San Antonio, TX 739,674 1,022 1.25 No 2.41

San Diego, CA 1,177,384 4,946 3.40 HOV (08/05) 2.85

San Francisco, CA 2,871,199 20,162 7.02 HOV (08/05) 2.87

Seattle, WA 1,529,146 5,732 3.82 Sales tax (01/05) 2.70

Syracuse, NY 292,717 408 1.15 Income tax (03/04) 2.69

Reduce Greenhouse Emissions

Recommended Measure: Regional CO2 emissions

Greenhouse emissions stemming from the transportation sector have been tallied for the period

spanning 2006-2009 by the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact (6). It was found that

the transportation sector was responsible for over 30 million tons of CO2 emissions in 2006 but the

number has been decreasing ever since.

Regional CO2 emissions

Regional CO2 emissions due to the transportation sector are measured and reported in the Southeast

Florida Regional Climate Compact (21). Data from the Compact’s report show that between 2006 and

2009 (the last year for which data are available), emissions were reduced by 6.7%. Table 31

summarizes the regional CO2 emissions in the transportation sector in the region.

Table 31 Regional CO2 Emissions by the Transportation Sector

2006 2007 2008 2009 4 Year Change

Regional Emissions of Transportation Sector (in metric tons of CO2)

30,853,046 30,373,200 29,300,926 28,784,969 -6.7%



A significant decrease of 6.7% over the four years indicates that the region is moving in the right

direction. The reduction is likely to be a result of lower vehicle miles traveled, fewer hours spent in

congestion, and higher fuel efficiency. Figure 10 displays the decreasing trend from 2006 to 2009.

Figure 10 Regional Emissions of Transportation Sector (in metric tons of CO2) per year

Protect the Natural Environment and Historic Areas

Recommended Measure: Total acreage of designated historical preservation and conservation

areas

Total Acreage of Designated Historical Preservation and Conservation Areas

Information was not obtained at the time of this memorandum. It is proposed that total conservation

areas and historical preservation districts are compiled at each update of the Miami-Dade, Broward,

and Palm Beach Comprehensive Plans and Land Use Maps. The objective will be to ensure that the

amount of land designated is not reduced in the future.

Safety

The Southeast Florida Transportation Council wishes to provide a safer and more secure

transportation system for the region’s residents, businesses, and visitors.

Preserve and Enhance Evacuation Routes

Recommended Measure: Amount of money dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of

evacuation routes

28,500,000

29,000,000

29,500,000

30,000,000

30,500,000

31,000,000

2006 2007 2008 2009



The amount of money dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of evacuation routes can be

used to monitor investment in these crucial roadways. This measure builds on the initial RLRTP

measure of increase in capacity. This measure captures improvements made to the evacuation routes

without focusing exclusively on automobile capacity expansion.

Amount of Money Dedicated to the Preservation and Enhancement of Evacuation Routes

One of the most involved performance measures reported here, “money devoted to the preservation

and enhancement of evacuation routes” can be used to monitor the network’s ability to safely

evacuate Southeast Florida’s population. As opposed to measuring new lane-miles of evacuation

roadway, this measure monitors security and emergency preparedness without focusing exclusively

on capacity expansion.

This measure was obtained by cross-referencing the Florida Work Program’s (7) 2006-2011 .csv

dataset with maps of evacuation roads obtained from the counties’ MPOs (see Appendix: Supporting

Documents). The amount of money devoted to the preservation and enhancement of evacuation

routes in the three counties and in the entire region is summarized in Table 32 and Table 33,

respectively. Values in Table 33 have been adjusted for inflation and are presented in 2010 dollars.

Table 32 Amount of Money Devoted to the Preservation and Enhancement of Evacuation Routes by Counties

County 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Miami/Dade $105,924,545.00 $399,736,504.00 $387,045,877.00 $489,572,212.00 $199,017,660.00

Broward $133,441,220.00 $145,447,402.00 $119,904,616.00 $ 80,054,535.00 $53,509,867.00

Palm Beach $151,724,066.00 $314,657,838.00 $223,201,041.00 $154,987,843.00 $ 239,155,713.00

Table 33 Amount of Money Devoted to the Preservation and Enhancement of Evacuation Routes

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 5-YearChange

Amount of Money Devoted to the Preservation and Enhancement of Evacuation Routes

$424,686,011 $900,979,152 $733,238,614 $730,055,720 $491,683,240 13.6%

Although the amount of funding has varied significantly over the study period, the result is a 13.6%

increase over 2006 levels. Figure 11 illustrates the amount of money devoted to the preservation and

enhancement of evacuation routes.



Figure 11 Region-wide Money Devoted to Evacuation Routes

Reduce Fatal and Injury Crashes

Recommended Measures: Number of fatal crashes per 100 million VMT

Number of injury crashes per 100 million VMT

Safety is an important and straightforward objective of the RLRTP. The goal is to reduce the number

of fatal and injury crashes in the region. The proposed measures are an adaptation of the RLRTP

measures. For purposes of this report, the number of crashes is normalized by using VMT data from

the Texas Transportation Institute. This normalization offsets small increases in crashes where there

are large increases in VMT that result in a lower crash rate.

Number of Fatal Crashes per 100 Million VMT

The number of fatal crashes in the three South Florida counties has declined considerably from 2006

to 2010. In fact, the 31.9% decrease from 724 in 2006 to 420 in 2010 is much larger than the

corresponding national decrease, which according to (22), was around 20.3%.

The number of fatal crashes was obtained from the FDOT CAR system, as described earlier. The data

set downloaded by Kittelson for this report includes crashes on state and non-state roads. To

normalize the number of crashes based on traffic volume, the crash counts were divided by

the region’s VMT as reported by the Texas Transportation Institute. The number of fatal crashes is

provided in Table 34.

$400,000,000

$500,000,000

$600,000,000

$700,000,000

$800,000,000

$900,000,000

$1,000,000,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010



Table 34 Number of Fatal Crashes

County 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Miami-Dade 314 281 250 239 222 200

Broward 220 214 201 165 158 119

Palm Beach 190 183 174 144 113 101

Region-wide fatal crashes 724 678 625 548 493 420

Data on VMT were collected from the FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measurement (MPM) Database

and the Texas Transportation Institute’s (TTI) Urban Mobility Report. The MPM classified data by

location, focusing on VMT by facility and county, while the Urban Mobility Report breaks VMT down

by facility type. VMT data from these two sources are summarized in Table 7 in the section on

Context Measures.

For comparative purposes, the recommended performance measures will use TTI’s Urban Mobility

Report results because they reflect regional roadway usage beyond state facilities and can therefore

better reflect regional trends. The MPM data is likely to under-report arterial VMT.

Table 35 summarizes the annual VMT (in 100 millions) reported from TTI.

Table 35 Region-wide Vehicle Miles Traveled (in 100 millions), from Texas Transportation Institute

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Region-wide VMT (in 100 millions) 339 340 335 333 335

The region-wide number of fatal crashes per 100 million VMT is provided in Table 36 and they are

illustrated in Figure 12. From this figure it is noticeable the decreasing trend of fatal crashed per 100

million VMT from 2006 to 2010.

Table 36 Region-wide Number of Fatal Crashes per 100 Million VMT

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 5 Year Change

Region-wide Fatal Crash Rate (per100MVMT) 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.5 -31%



Figure 12 Region-wide Fatal Crash Rate (per 100MVMT)

Number of Injury Crashes per 100 Million VMT

Although the region saw a small uptick in injury crashes from 2009 to 2010, the measure is still down

7.4% from the 2006 high of 41,995 injury crashes. Similarly to the fatal crash measure, the counts

were divided by the Texas Transportation Institute’s VMT data (see 0). The number of injury crashes is

provided in Table 37. The region-wide number of injury crashes per 100 million VMT is provided in

Table 38.

Table 37 Number of Injury Crashes

County 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Miami-Dade 20,361 19,627 18,126 17,054 17,995

Broward 13,205 13,189 12,729 12,694 13,242

Palm Beach 8,389 8,393 7,788 7,775 7,595

Region-wide (injury crashes) 41,955 41,209 38,643 37,523 38,832

Table 38 Region-wide Number of Injury Crashes per 100 Million VMT

The region-wide injury crash rate was observed to be 6.3% lower in 2010 than in 2006. In the case of

the three counties of interest, both the absolute number of crashes and the crash rate per 100 million

VMT have decreased over the study period. Figure 13 displays the Region-wide Crash Rate per

100MVMT.

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

2.1

2.2

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 5 Year Change

Region-wide Injury Crash Rate (per 100MVMT) 123.7 121.1 115.4 112.6 115.9 -6.3%



Figure 13 Region-wide Crash Rate (per 100MVMT)

Quality of Life and Energy Conservation

The Southeast Florida Transportation Council would like to preserve and enhance the quality of life

and promote energy conservation in the region. It considers that projects that support urban infill and

densification.

Promote Urban Infill and Prioritize Intra-urban Improvements

Recommended Measure: Ratio of single family housing permits to multi-family housing permits

Ratio of Single Family Housing Permits to Multi-family Housing Permits

Higher density residential development is one indicator of urban infill while new single family

subdivisions are often evidence of sprawl. This metric new housing ventures in the region by type.

Information was acquired from the annual BEBR abstract.

Table 39 Single Family vs. Multi-Family Housing Starts

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 5 Year Change

Southeast Florida 35.5% 52.5% 47.5% 62.4% 50.4% 42.2%

Miami-Dade 32.7% 40.2% 31.3% 44.7% 29.4% -10.2%

Single Family 6,584 3,246 1,086 624 941 -85.6%

Multi-Family 13,469 4,836 2,388 771 2,262 -83.2%

Broward 52,9% 44.6% 42.0% 53.7% 83.8% 58.6%

Single Family 3,550 1,754 908 563 979 -72.4%

Multi-Family 3,166 2,179 1,256 486 189 -94.0%

Palm Beach 55.5% 67.1% 58.5% 77.0% 83.1% 49.6%

Single Family 4,625 2,101 1,278 1,102 1,251 -73.1%

Multi-Family 3,725 1,029 905 329 255 -93.2%

112

114

116

118

120

122

124

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010



There has been a significant reduction in new housing permits throughout the recession. In 2010, the

number of new housing permits increased for single family dwellings in all three counties while multi-

family dwelling permits continued to decline in both Broward and Palm Beach Counties. 2010 saw a

higher proportion of new housing permits issued for single family dwellings than was the case in

2006. Figure 14 illustrates the trend for the proportion of multi-family housing starts to all housing

starts from 2005 to 2010.

Figure 14 Proportion of Multi-Family Housing Starts to All Housing Starts

Promote Alternative Vehicle Technologies

Recommended Measure: VMT per gallons of fuel consumed

Vehicle miles traveled per gallons of fuel consumed is a proxy measure for the fuel efficiency of

vehicles in the region. A couple of limitations prevent this calculation from being a true measure of

fuel efficiency, especially the incomplete coverage of the Texas Transportation Institute’s VMT data

(e.g., local streets are not counted). Regardless, the measure can still be used to track year-to-year

progress in fuel efficiency.

VMT per Gallons of Fuel Consumed

The Florida Department of Revenue’s Fuel Taxes page publishes the number of gallons of fuel and

diesel consumed by county. In conjunction with the Texas Transportation Institute’s VMT data, the

number of VMT per gallon of fuel or diesel consumed was calculated. The amount of fuel consumed is

provided in Table 40 and Table 41. The VMT per gallons of fuel consumed is provided in Figure 15.

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010



Table 40 Gallons of Motor Fuel Consumed, by County

County 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Miami-Dade 1,020,652,912 1,021,835,764 987,042,316 948,769,579 904,007,564

Broward 818,400,187 816,577,743 793,687,531 781,930,682 771,473,270

Palm Beach 552,524,506 541,131,483 519,109,494 508,132,251 509,893,199

Table 41 Gallons of Diesel Consumed, by County

County 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Miami-Dade 182,791,866 177,563,177 162,333,848 141,398,650 133,553,973

Broward 105,411,827 101,718,692 94,826,088 85,533,952 79,935,007

Palm Beach 83,755,444 81,053,189 76,458,067 65,877,611 62,496,034

Table 42 VMT per Gallons of Fuel Consumed

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 5 Year Change

VMT per Gallons of Fuel Consumed

12.28 12.42 12.72 13.16 13.61 11%

Annual VMT (in 100 millions)

339 340 335 333 335 -1%

Annual Fuel Consumed (in 100 million gallons)

28 27 26 25 25 -11%

The ratio of VMT to gallons of fuel consumed can give an indication of the changes in fuel efficiency of

the vehicle fleet, but it may not be equal to the region’s average fuel efficiency because of limitations

in the data set.

Figure 15 displays the region-wide VMT per gallons of fuel and diesel trend from 2006 to 2010.

Figure 15 Region-wide VMT per Gallons of Fuel and Diesel

12.20

12.40

12.60

12.80

13.00

13.20

13.40

13.60

13.80

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010



FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES

Throughout the development of the 2006-2010 performance measurement system for Southeast

Florida, several measures were identified that did not meet the guiding criteria but were value-added

and worthy of including in future monitoring periods should opportunities become available to have

access to necessary data, tools, and resources. These measures are included below along with their

respective purpose of inclusion and suggested guidance:

Equity measure

• Purpose: Measure and monitor regional equity

• Needs to be coordinated via the three 2040 LRTP efforts Transit speed along premium service routes

• Purpose: Identify strategies for transit mobility efficiencies

• Compliments transit coverage measure

• Can be accomplished with AVL/APC data % of transit supportive land uses (or population within supportive land use designated areas) served by premium transit

• Purpose: Refocus transit investments in identified lacking areas

• Need to investigate alternative data sources

• Need annual high accuracy population counts at a SERPM TAZ or census block level % of transit trips with less than two transfers between regional O-D pairs

• Purpose: Identify investments and strategies for a better integrated regional transit system

• Regional transit integration focus

• Need to investigate data sources

• TCQSM applicability % of planned premium transit system implemented

• Purpose: Indicates how well built investments match plans

• Activity-based versus outcome-based

• For 2040 RTP, suggest transit spending per capita

• Investments made will be indirectly shown via commute mode share, transit revenue hours, etc. measures



Intersection delay at railroad crossings, ex: ‘Loss of capacity based on average train schedule and crossing duration’

• Purpose: Identify strategies to alleviate congestion at railroad crossing

• Potential significant analysis effort/ inconsistent data

• Need to filter out different delay sources

• May conflict with freight initiative Economic impact of congestion

• Purpose: Identify strategies to help maintain/control the increase of truck congestion cost per mile given the State’s freight initiative

• Work with regional freight update

• Assess if the truck congestion cost per mile is affecting the total value of goods moving through our region

Freight moving through region via rail and roadway network

• Purpose: Identify investment opportunities for freight via multiple modes Work with regional freight update

• Need to filter out multiple mode travel (one freight trip that uses rail and Port, etc.) % of total Vehicle Miles Traveled that is congested (peak and off-peak) and duration of congestion

Purpose: Identify TSM&O strategies

Work with regional modeling group on data source and frequency of data

Work with SHRP2 Reliability Research Delay per auto commuter (all modes)

Purpose: Identify investments and strategies for all commuter travel in the region

Need to investigate data sources

Need to investigate resource needs



BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Federal Transit Administration. Access NTD Data. National Transit Database. [Online] 5 3, 2012. [Cited: 5 29, 2012.] http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/data.htm.

2. Li Jin (Kittelson & Associates, Inc.). FDOT Mobility Performance Measures Database: Update Procedure and Methodology. Tallahassee, FL: FDOT, January 2008.

3. Lu, Linjun and Lu, Juan. Development of an interface between FDOT CARS and the Safety Analyst. Tampa, FL: FDOT, July 2009.

4. Texas Transportation Institute. Urban Mobility Report. College Station, TX: s.n., 2010.

5. —. Appendix A: Methodology for the 2011 Urban Mobility Report. Urban Mobility Report. [Online] 2011. [Cited: 6 25, 2012.] http://mobility.tamu.edu/files/2011/09/appendix-a.pdf.

6. Miami Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, and Monroe Counties. Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact. [Online] 2011. [Cited: 6 25, 2012.] http://www.southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/.

7. FDOT Office of Work Program and Budget. Five Year Work Program. Work Program Reports. [Online] 2006-2011. [Cited: 6 25, 2012.] http://www2.dot.state.fl.us/fmsupportapps/workprogram/WorkProgram.aspx.

8. U.S. Census Bureau. American Housing Survey. People and Households. [Online] 2010. [Cited: 6 25, 2012.] http://www.census.gov/housing/ahs/.

9. —. American Community Survey. Public Use Microdata Sample. [Online] 2010. [Cited: 6 25, 2012.] http://www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/public_use_microdata_sample/.

10. State of Florida. Fuel Taxes. Florida Department of Revenue. [Online] [Cited: 6 25, 2012.] http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/fuel/.

11. Florida Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Recurring/Periodic Reports. Statistics, Studies, and Publications. [Online] [Cited: 6 25, 2012.] http://www.flhsmv.gov/html/safety.html.

12. Miami Dade County. Annual Financial Reports. Port of Miami. [Online] [Cited: 7 5, 2012.] http://www.miamidade.gov/portofmiami/business-report.asp.

13. Broward County. Annual Report. Port Everglades. [Online] [Cited: 7 5, 2012.] http://www.porteverglades.net/about-us/annual-report/.

14. Palm Beach County. Financial Information. Port of Palm Beach. [Online] [Cited: 7 5, 2012.] http://www.portofpalmbeach.com/administration/financial-information/.

15. University of Florida. Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research. [Online] [Cited: 7 5, 2012.] http://www.bebr.ufl.edu/bebr-products/series/Florida%20Statistical%20Abstract.



16. U.S. Department of Commerce. Regional Economic Accounts. Bureau of Economic Analysis. [Online] [Cited: 6 25, 2012.] http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm.

17. U.S. Department of Labor. Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject. Bureau of Labor Statistics. [Online] [Cited: 6 25, 2012.] http://www.bls.gov/sae/#tables.

18. Bertaud, Alain and Richardson, Harry. Transit and Density: Atlanta, the United States, and Western Europe. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, 2004.

19. Beresteanu, Arie and Li, Shanjun. Gasoline Prices, Government Support, and the Demand for Hybrid Vehicles in the U.S. North Carolina: Duke University, 2008.

20. Florida Department of Transportation. Florida TransStat Highway Data. Florida Department of Transportation. [Online] 2012. [Cited: 5 29, 2012.] http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/statistics/sourcebook/.

21. Regional Compact GHG Inventory Working Group. Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact. Miami, FL: South Florida Regional Compact, 2005-2009.

22. NHTSA. Fatality Analysis Reporting System. [Online] 2012. [Cited: 5 29, 2012.] http://www- fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx.



APPENDIX: SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Figure 1 Regional Origin Destination Pairs



Figure 2 Evacuation Routes (Miami-Dade)

EVACUATION ROUTES & ZONES



Figure 3 Evacuation Routes (Broward)



Figure 4 Evacuation Routes (Palm Beach)

EVACUATION ROUTES & ZONES

SoutheaSt Florida regional tranSportation SyStem meaSureSOutcomes Assessment Annual Report2006 through 2010 Reporting PeriodFor More Information:

The Southeast Florida Transportation Council (SEFTC) has an active website listing Council Members, resolutions, committees and their members, meeting schedules and agendas, as well as regional documentation. Visit www.SEFTC.org for more information.

Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization . . . . . . . Phone: (305) 375-4507

Broward Metropolitan Planning Organization . . . . . . . . Phone: (954) 876-0033

Palm Beach Metropolitan Planning Organization . . . . . . . Phone: (561) 684-4170

AbOut SEFtCThe Southeast Florida Trans-portation Council (SEFTC) is a formal partnership of the Mi-ami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) within the U.S. Census designated Miami Urbanized Area. SEFTC serves as a forum for policy coordination and undertakes regional planning efforts for all transportation modes in-cluding:

• Regional long range transportation plans covering the tri-county region

• Regional project prioritization and selection processes

• Regional transit and freight systems

• Regional public involvement

The following SEFTC commit-tees successfully coordinate planning and public involve-ment efforts for studies, plans, and projects of regional sig-nificance:

• Regional transportation technical Advisory Committee (RttAC) — composed of staff from the three MPOs, Florida Department of Transportation Districts Four and Six, Florida Turnpike Enterprise, Miami-Dade Expressway Authority, the four area transit agencies, and the two area Regional Planning Councils

• RttAC Modeling Subcommittee — composed of technical members from each of the RTTAC agencies

• Regional Public Involvement Management team — composed of the Public Involvement Officers from each of the three MPOs

HOw SEFtC EvOlvEdWhile the Miami-Dade, Bro-ward, and Palm Beach MPOs always maintained coop-erative working relationships with each other, their alliance solidified when the 2000 Cen-sus data was released defin-ing the tri-county area as the “Miami Urbanized Area.” Then in 2005, recognizing the need for increased regional trans-portation planning and co-ordination balanced with the need and desire to maintain localized transportation plan-ning, the three MPOs created the Southeast Florida Trans-portation Council (SEFTC). This was accomplished through an Interlocal Agree-ment under Florida Statutes Chapter 339.175, paving the way for the first meeting in January 2006.

www.seftc.org www.seftc.org

10831_Info_summary_layout.indd 1 9/18/12 9:12 AM

the Importance of Measuring Performance The advent of transportation performance measurement coincides with development of the interstate system and the enactment of the federal gas tax as a means of funding transportation system improvements at the federal and local levels. Performance measures provide an objective method for defining what is important to those who fund, plan, design, construct, maintain, use, and are impacted by transportation. Performance measures also help to guide decisions about what transportation to provide, where and when, and how to minimize adverse impacts while optimizing the benefits derived from the investment.

Since the 1960’s, the way we measure per-formance has changed and we are faced with new challenges. Separate cities, coun-ties, and MPOs have literally grown togeth-er, sharing a larger set of common urban characteristics that blurs the relevance of political boundaries from a transportation perspective. An urban area like Southeast Florida must develop and maintain a regional perspective in order to ensure that a safe, ef-ficient, interconnected, and seamless trans-portation system is provided and maintained for all users.

Future Opportunities By monitoring and reporting the region’s transportation system outcomes, we are able to make more informed future investment decisions. This outcome-based assessment is consistent with the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) signed into law July 2012. MAP-21 creates a streamlined, performance-based, and multimodal program to address the many challenges facing our transportation system. These challenges include improving safety, maintaining infrastructure condition, reducing traffic congestion, improving efficiency of the system and freight movement, protecting the environment, and reducing delays in project delivery. Turning those challenges into opportunities, the data shown herein will be used as a tool to help identify appropriate investments during the region’s metropolitan transportation planning process.

Context MeasuresThe following measures have been identified and quantified as a source of regional context. Each context measure represents the sum-mation of Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach county statistics.

Southeast Florida Regional Outcomes (2006 through 2010 Reporting Period)The following performance measures have been identified and quantified for the 2006 through 2010 reporting period. Data sources and methodology information may be found at www.SEFTC.org.

2006 — 2010 Five-Year Trend Change

Regional Performance in Southeast FloridaIn 2010, the Southeast Florida Transportation Council (SEFTC) adopted their first Regional Transportation Plan to the year 2035. Stakeholders throughout the region were given the opportunity to participate in the planning process to ensure that the final prod-uct met regional needs without compromising local interests. A core component of the Plan was a series of goals and objectives which guided the transportation investment decisions made in the region. A set of measures, shown herein, was developed as a way for the Region to monitor our progress and challenges in meeting the regional goals and objectives. For each measure, five years of data have been collected to demonstrate performance over time. Visit www.SEFTC.org for more information and background on the development of the performance measures.

MObIlItY

Time Spent Traveling (per capita)

From 0.59 hours in 2006 to 0.56 hours in 2010 (a 5% decrease)


From $0.31/mile in 2007 to $0.38/mile in 2010 (a 22% increase)

Uncongested Peak Vehicle Miles Traveled per lane-mile

From 517 VMT/lane-mile in 2006 to 531 VMT/lane-mile in 2010 (a 3% increase)

Delay per Auto CommuterFrom 44 hours/year in 2006 to 38 hours/year in 2010 (a 14% decrease)

Proportion of Travel CongestedFrom 43% in 2006 to 39% in 2010 (a 9% decrease)

MultIMOdAl ACCESS & IntEgRAtIOn

Annual Transit Trips per CapitaFrom 29.4 trips/year/person to 26.9 trips/year/person (a 9% decrease)

Commute Mode ShareFrom 22.3% in 2006 to 21.4% in 2010 (a 4% decrease)

Tonnage of Freight Goods Moving Through Ports

From 17.6 Million tons in 2006 to 15.2 Million tons in 2010 (a 14% decrease)

EnvIROnMEntAl PROtECtIOn

Regional CO2 EmissionsFrom 30.9 Million metric tons in 2006 to 28.8 Million metric tons in 2009 (a 7% decrease)

SAFEtY & SECuRItYMoney devoted to the preservation and enhancement of evacuation routes

From $424.7 Million in 2006 to $491.7 Million in 2010 (a 14% increase)

Number of crashes (fatal) per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled

From 2.1 fatal crashes/100M VMT in 2006 to 1.5 fatal crashes/100M VMT in 2010 (a 31% decrease)

Number of crashes (injury) per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled

From 123.7 injury crashes/100M VMT in 2006 to 115.9 injury crashes/100M VMT in 2010 (a 6% decrease)

QuAlItY OF lIFE

Percent of new housing built as attached units

From 58% in 2006 to 46% in 2010 (a 21% decrease)

Vehicle Miles Traveled per gallons of fuel and diesel consumed

From 12.3 mpg in 2006 to 13.6 mpg in 2010 (an 11% increase)

REgional PERFoRmanCE mEaSuRES

2006 To 2010 PRogRESS

2006 To 2010 FivE YEaR ChangE

2006 To 2010 FivE YEaR TREnd

www.seftc.org


$9B in the 2006-2010 TIP to $11.2B in the 2010-2014 TIP

Regional Population

From 5.46M people in 2006 to 5.58M people in 2010

Gross Domestic Product

From $254B in 2006 to $256B in 2010

Total Nonfarm Employment

From 2.40M employees in 2006 to 2.18M employees in 2010

System Lane MilesFrom 9,550 lane-miles in 2006 to 9,764 lane-miles in 2010

Vehicle Miles Traveled

From 34.8B miles/year in 2006 to 34.5B miles/year

Fuel Tax SalesFrom $885M collected fuel tax sales in 2006 to $831M in 2010

Truck Miles Traveled

From 2.3B miles/year in 2006 to 1.6B miles/year in 2010

Transit Revenue Hours

From 6.31M hours in 2006 to 6.37M hours in 2010


From 4.50M vehicles in 2006 to 4.19M vehicles in 2009

ConTExT mEaSuRE

2006 To 2010 FivE YEaR ChangE

2006 To 2010 FivE YEaR TREnd

10831_Info_summary_layout.indd 2 9/18/12 9:12 AM

MEMORANDUM

TO: RTTAC Members FROM: Randy M. Whitfield, P.E. Director Palm Beach MPO DATE: October 10, 2012 RE: Seven50 Study Status Report ____________________________________________________________________________ The HUD Sustainable Communities Planning Initiative for Southeast Florida has been renamed the Seven50 program, reflecting seven counties and fifty years. The Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach MPOs are participating in a regional partnership through the South Florida Regional Planning Council and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council to plan, design, and implement a multi-jurisdictional regional plan for sustainable development. This seven-county initiative will create a Regional Vision and Blueprint with a horizon of 2060. At the last meeting, the consultant team provided an overview of the study activities and included data and assumptions being used in development of the plan. Comments and concerns were to be sent to Kittelson for compilation. The following comments were received.

• Suggest they use the 2010 employment totals that we developed for the SERPM 7. • The graphic showing Transit Improvements for FDOT D4 does not show all of Broward’s

Gateway Hub Locations. • What are the performance measures to be pulled out from the model for Seven50 in

addition to the standard systemwide statistics such as system miles, lane miles, VMT/VHT, bus route miles and seat hour-miles, population/employment balance, etc.?

• What demand variables are to be tested? Besides the population growth (and its related cohort and other changes), employment growth and assumed network configurations, what will be changed on the demand side? With the trend of technology advancements, what should be assumed and to be tested?

• On the supply side what should be assumed? There certainly will have to be funding available between 2035/40 to 2060 for some transportation investments. What are reasonable to be assumed?

• What should be the reasonable scale for performance measures? Is it sufficient at the countywide level?

These comments will be provided to the Seven50 consulting team. A status report on recent activities will be presented at the meeting. Staff Recommendation: For information purposes.

MEMORANDUM

TO: RTTAC Members FROM: Randy M. Whitfield, P.E. Director Palm Beach MPO DATE: October 10, 2012 RE: Regional Transportation Improvement Program ____________________________________________________________________________ Each of the MPOs has created a regional component of the respective TIPs. The documents were created using the criteria for the regional corridors and projects from the Regional Plan. The next step would be to compile the three components into a single document for the region. At the last meeting, Kittelson agreed to collect the individual documents and investigate creation of the single document. The information has been collected from each MPO. A status report will be presented at the meeting. Staff Recommendation: For information purposes.

MEETING NOTICE SOUTHEAST FLORIDATRANSPORTATION COUNCIL (SEFTC)

October 22, 2012 10:00 AM

South Florida Regional Planning Council

3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140 Hollywood, Florida 33021

________________________________________________________________ AGENDA:

I. CALL TO ORDER

A. Roll Call B. Pledge of Allegiance

*II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA** *III. APPROVAL OF MAY 23, 2012 MINUTES** IV. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO SPEAK ON TRANSPORTATION MATTERS

V. OLD BUSINESS

*A. Regional “Smart Card” Update *B. 2040 Regional Transportation Plan Status Report *C. Seven50 Program Update *D. SFECC Passenger Rail Study Status Report *E. “All Aboard” Florida FEC Proposal *F. Regional Performance Measures

VI. CORRESPONDENCE

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS BY MEMBERS

VII. STAFF COMMENTS

IX. NEXT MEETING – January 21, 2013

X. ADJOURNMENT

* Supporting Documentation Provided **Action Requested