Road Space Reallocation

Roadway Design and Management To Support Transportation Alternatives

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TDM Encyclopedia

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About This Encyclopedia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Updated March 8, 2007

---

This chapter describes how roadway design and management practices can be changed to encourage more efficient transportation. Road Space Reallocation can improve public transit, ridesharing, cycling and walking, and help create more accessible communities.

Description

Road space is a valuable public resource. Roadway right-of-way is one of the most valuable assets owned by most municipal governments, and roadway design can have a significant effect on a community’s character and its transportation patterns. Conventional transport planning practices tend to devote most road space to general traffic lanes and automobile parking. Since automobiles are relatively space intensive and impose crash risk, noise and air pollution impacts on nonmotorized travel, motor vehicle traffic tends to “squeeze out” other modes of transport.

Road Space Reallocation involves shifting more road space to specific transportation activities, and managing roadways to encourage more efficient and equitable transportation. It is a method of Prioritizing transportation to favor higher value trips and lower cost modes. Road Space Reallocation can involve the following TDM strategies.

• Access Management
• Carfree Planning
• Context Sensitive Design
• Cycling Improvements
• Freight Vehicle Lanes
• HOV Priority
• Bus Rapid Transit
• New Urbanism
• Parking Management
• Pedestrian Improvements
• Sidewalk Management
• Speed Reductions
• Taxi Parking
• Traffic Calming
• Universal Design
• Vehicle Use Restrictions

Road Space Reallocation can be particularly appropriate on congested roadways. A vehicle’s road space requirements increase with its size and speed (Congestion). Automobile transportation requires several times as much road space per passenger-mile than other modes, as indicated in Table 1 (also see Litman, 2001), so motorists impose far more congestion on other road users than people who travel by other modes. For this reason, it tends to be both more equitable and efficient to give priority to more space efficient modes on congested roads, so travelers who require less road space are not delayed by congestion as much as travelers who require less road space.

Table 1 Typical Per-Person Travel Space Requirements (Land Use Evaluation)

	Speed (mph)	Standing/Parked (square feet)	Traveling (square feet)
Pedestrian	3	5	20
Bicycle	10	20	50
Bus Passenger	30	20	75
Automobile	30	400	1,500
Automobile	60	400	5,000

This table compares typical space requirements for different modes of travel.

Since faster vehicles require more road space and impose greater impacts on nonmotorized travelers, Traffic Speed Management can be a form of road space allocation: reduced traffic speed frees up more road space for alternative modes.

Research summarized by Cairns, Akins and Goodwin (2001) indicates that under certain conditions, reducing the amount of road space allocated to automobile traffic does not increase traffic congestion, and that it can help achieve a variety of transportation improvement objectives. This research found that reducing roadway capacity tends to reduce total vehicle traffic: travelers respond by shifting when and how they travel, and their destinations.

Many congested urban arterials have on-street parking lanes. In such situations, Road Space Reallocation involves trade-offs between convenient automobile parking and improved mobility by alternative modes. Reallocating this road space to transit, HOV or cycling lanes, or increased sidewalk space can help achieve equity and efficiency objectives by improving mobility options for non-drivers and encouraging travelers to shift from automobile to more space-efficient modes such as transit, ridesharing, cycling and walking, particularly since automobile parking can be provided off-street or on nearby streets. However, local interests (particularly merchants with shops located on an arterial) often lobby to maintain on-street parking.

In addition, prioritization can support other planning objectives, such as creating better public spaces for commercial activities, social interactions and aesthetic features Marshall, 2003). For example, it may mean converting traffic or parking lanes into sidewalk space to accommodate retail activities, benches and laws, or closing off streets to vehicle traffic for special events.

An lobbying effort called Complete The Streets (www.completestreets.org) promotes the concept of insuring that all (or at least most) streets accommodate all modes, including walking, cycling and motor vehicles. This program argues that nonmotorized modes deserve more consideration in roadway design and roadspace allocation.

How It Is Implemented

Road Space Reallocation is usually implemented as part of a local or regional transportation planning process. It may include adopting HOV Priority policies, New Urbanist street design standards, and Nonmotorized Planning programs. Institutional Reforms may be required to achieve these changes, for example, allow funding to be shifted from general lanes to HOV or bicycle lanes, or sidewalks.

Travel Impacts

Roadway design affects transportation activities in many ways. Reallocating road space can encourage the use of alternative modes and create more accessible land use patterns.

Table 2 Travel Impact Summary

Objective	Rating	Comments
Reduces total traffic.	2	Depends on the specific strategies employed.
Reduces peak period traffic.	2
Shifts peak to off-peak periods.	0
Shifts automobile travel to alternative modes.	3
Improves access, reduces the need for travel.	2
Increased ridesharing.	3
Increased public transit.	3
Increased cycling.	3
Increased walking.	3
Increased Telework.	0
Reduced freight traffic.	0

Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.

Benefits and Costs

Road Space Reallocation can encourage the use of alternative modes and create a more efficient transportation system, and so can help achieve all TDM objectives. Research by Cairns (1999) indicates that it can increase road safety.

Table 3 Benefit Summary

Objective	Rating	Comments
Congestion Reduction	2
Road & Parking Savings	2
Consumer Savings	2
Transport Choice	2
Road Safety	2
Environmental Protection	2
Efficient Land Use	3
Community Livability	3

Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.

Equity Impacts

Road Space Reallocation has a variety of equity impacts. It increases safety and accessibility for some types of travel, but can reduce speeds for others. Road Space Reallocation gives priority to efficient modes, which increases horizontal equity: travelers that impose less congestion on others bear less congestion delay. Current road design and management practices result in transit and rideshare passengers being delayed by traffic congestion equally with single occupant automobile passengers, although they require less road space per passenger-mile and so impose less congestion on other road users.

Similarly, current transportation planning practices can be considered unfair to people who walk or bicycle, who bear transportation costs, but receive less benefit than motorists. Road Space Reallocation that favors nonmotorized modes can increase horizontal equity by allowing people who impose lower costs (road space, parking requirements, crash risk and environmental impacts) to have a greater share of public resources than they do now.

Table 4 Equity Summary

Criteria	Rating	Comments
Treats everybody equally.	-1	Benefits some people, but disadvantages others.
Individuals bear the costs they impose.	2	Allocates more road space to space efficient modes.
Progressive with respect to income.	3	Improves travel by modes used by low-income people: transit, ridesharing, cycling and walking.
Benefits transportation disadvantaged.	3	Improves travel by modes used by disadvantaged people: transit, ridesharing, cycling and walking.
Improves basic mobility.	3	Prioritizes travel to favor basic access trips.

Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.

Applications

Road Space Reallocation can be implemented at various scales, but tends to be most important in urban areas where there is adequate demand for alternative modes, and traffic and parking congestion problems are significant.

Table 5 Application Summary

Geographic	Rating	Organization	Rating
Large urban region.	1	Federal government.	0
High-density, urban.	3	State/provincial government.	1
Medium-density, urban/suburban.	2	Regional government.	2
Town.	2	Municipal/local government.	3
Low-density, rural.	1	Business Associations/TMA.	3
Commercial center.	3	Individual business.	1
Residential neighborhood.	3	Developer.	1
Resort/recreation area.	3	Neighborhood association.	2
College/university communities.	3	Campus.	3

Ratings range from 0 (not appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).

Category

Incentive to Use Alternative Modes

Relationships With Other TDM Strategies

Road Space Reallocation supports Transit, Ridesharing, Cycling, Walking, Universal Design, HOV Priority, Freight Transport Management, Traffic Calming, Parking Management and Tourist Transport Management. It is supported by transportation planning reforms (Prioritizing Transportation, Access Management, Comprehensive Transportation Planning, Institutional Reforms, Least Cost Planning and Context Sensitive Design). It tends to support land use management objectives, including New Urbanism, Street Reclaiming and Smart Growth.

Stakeholders

Road Space Reallocation is implemented through planning that often includes provincial/state departments of transportation, local and regional transportation and planning authorities and traffic engineers.

Barriers To Implementation

There may be opposition to reallocating road space from automobile associations, and public officials accustomed to current roadway design and management practices. There may be opposition from people who consider current practices most equitable, and shifting resources to alternative modes to be unfair. There may be institutional barriers to overcome, including planning and funding practices that favor automobile use, such as dedicated highway funding that is unavailable for other types of facilities.

Best Practices

1. Establish explicit principles for allocating road space and managing roads, taking into account the social value of different types of transportation activities and their social costs.

2. Use Comprehensive Transportation Planning to evaluate and implement roadway design and management options.

3. Involve stakeholders in planning and implementing Road Space Reallocation.

4. Give higher value trips and lower cost modes priority over lower value, higher cost trips.

5. Consider a variety of prioritization strategies, including HOV Priority, Traffic Calming, Parking Management, Least Cost Planning, etc.

6. Be flexible when implementing Road Space Reallocation. For example, HOV Priority or Speed Reductions can be implemented at certain times to deal with peak-period congestion, but not at other times.

Wit and Humor

One night a wife found her husband standing over their newborn baby's crib. Silently she watched him. As he stood looking down at the sleeping infant, she saw on his face a mixture of emotions: disbelief, doubt, delight, amazement, enchantment, skepticism.

Touched by this unusual display and the deep emotions it aroused, with eyes glistening she slipped her arms around her husband.

“A penny for your thoughts,” she whispered in his ear.

“It's amazing!” he replied. “I just can't see how anybody can make a crib like that for only $46.50!”

Examples and Case Studies

A New Deal for Transport (www.dft.gov.uk/itwp/paper)

The UK Government’s Transport White Paper ‘A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone’ signalled a change in the policy framework within which roadspace can be reallocated and highlighted how in appropriate cases roadspace can be used to accommodate, even facilitate, the renaissance of urban areas. Indeed, the Government, in its recent ‘Guidance on Provisional Local Transport Plans’, has indicated that it is now keen to “encourage local authorities to take a radical look at the options” for reallocating roadspace (paragraph 49).

In addition, the potential road traffic reduction impacts of novel capacity reallocation measures such as High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes and No-Car Lanes may also warrant further investigation. However, at a more general level, it is clear that the reallocation of roadspace will form a crucial element in any strategy for road traffic reduction. There are two important reasons for this. Firstly, by reallocating road space to buses, pedestrians and cyclists, road capacity released by the restraint of certain car-based trips (for example, through road user charging) will be prevented from being taken up by suppressed demand, which is known to exist on large parts of London’s congested highway network. Secondly, it is likely that significant increases in vehicle speed may occur in areas where road user charging schemes are implemented.

For example, the previous Government’s London Congestion Charging Research Programme found that if a high level (£8.00 per day, one-way) road user charge was introduced in Central London, traffic speeds in the area would increase by 27%. Similarly, Halcrow Fox’s recent work for London First, found that the imposition of a £5.00 road user charge in Central London would result in an increase in vehicle speeds of 20%. The ROCOL Report indicates a 12.5% increase in average traffic speeds over a 14-hour period in Central London with a £5.00 road user charge. Such speed increases will need to be carefully checked if one of the strategy’s main objectives - to reduce the number of road accident casualties - is to be achieved. Clearly, the reallocation of roadspace to buses, pedestrians and cyclists, and sensible traffic calming measures are likely to be critical in checking such speed increases. It is, however, worth clarifying that LPAC’s strategy aims to deliver improvements in journey time reliability rather than increases in speed for vehicles paying road user charges, hence, bringing greater certainty of travel for all road users.

During the consultation exercise on the draft Supplementary Advice, a number of concerns were raised, particularly in Outer London, that a reduction in general highway capacity on the secondary network through the reallocation of roadspace to buses, pedestrians and cyclists, could result in the transfer of traffic onto local residential roads. Whilst this may occur in certain circumstances, if roadspace reallocation is co-ordinated with traffic calming measures on neighbouring local roads, the problem should be avoided in most cases. Of relevance to this, research carried out jointly for the DETR and London Transport in 1998 into the ‘Traffic Impact of Highway Capacity Reductions’ (Summary Report) found that “the negative effects of reducing capacity exist, but are, on balance, less significant than has sometimes been feared” (paragraph 4.1.1). The report concludes that “measures which reduce or reallocate road capacity, when well-designed and favoured by strong reasons of policy, need not automatically be rejected for fear that they must inevitably cause unacceptable congestion” (paragraph 4.1.5).

Multi-Modal Signal Synchronization (Raja and Packard, 2006)

Traditionally, traffic-signal optimization refers to the efforts being made to improve motor-vehicular-traffic flow. However, the optimization philosophy for Arlington, Virginia differs substantially from that of most jurisdictions as its vision of creating urban villages focuses on reducing automobile dependency and encouraging the use of mass transit, walking and biking. The County has recently completed optimization of 190 signals with the primary emphasis on improving pedestrian mobility and multi-modal safety, while also improving traffic flow for autos, buses and bicyclists, and reducing fuel consumption and emissions.

By performing a thorough review of pedestrian intervals, the newly implemented time for pedestrians to cross the streets increased by an average of over four seconds per crossing. To further improve pedestrian operations, an exclusive all-red phase and additional pedestrian overlaps were implemented at selective locations. Among other multi-modal improvements, new vehicular clearances were implemented to enhance traffic safety; “Walk” intervals were increased at selective bike crossings to improve the bicycle flow; an additional left-turn phase was added and the offsets were specially designed near the metro stations to improve bus flow; and time-of-day lead/lag operations were implemented to improve the peak directional traffic flow. Despite the increases in clearance intervals, efforts were made to maintain the historically low cycle lengths in Arlington. A significant effort was made to adjust the splits and also fine-tune the offsets using the time-space diagram that resulted in improved bi-directional progression and a reduction in existing traffic problems such as left-turn spill-over, blockage of upstream intersections, stacking issues on short links, etc. These improvements are truly multi-modal – for motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders – consistent with Arlington’s commitment to transportation investment that supports improved access for all modes of travel and environmental sustainability.

Zürich Transit Speedup Program (Ott, 1995)

The speed-up programme concentrated on three separate objectives:

· Unhindered trips between junctions, without hold-ups caused by private traffic, to be achieved by building special (tram) lines and separate bus lanes.

· Zero' waiting time for public transport at light-controlled junctions, by developing a fully flexible control philosophy.

· Extension of the data-controlled operational control system, so that the operational control centre is always informed about deviations from the timetable and other programmes, and can remedy the situations or help by putting previously-designed measures into effect.

Houston HOV Lanes (www.hou-metro.harris.tx.us/hov.htm)

Houston, Texas has 105 miles of HOV lanes. They move 96-228% more people per lane than general access lanes, and account for 5% of the travel by the workforce. HOV lanes can be used by buses, carpools, vanpools and motorcycles. On weekday mornings, HOV lane traffic moves toward Downtown (inbound). On weekday afternoons and evenings, HOV lane traffic moves away from Downtown (outbound). On the Katy HOV lane, minimum occupancy increases to three persons from 6:45 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. weekdays; a minimum of three passengers per vehicle also is required on the Northwest HOV lane from 6:45 to 8 a.m. At other times, the minimum occupancy requirement is two. QuickRide, a pilot program started in January 1998, allows carpools with two people per vehicle to use the Katy HOV during weekday peak periods for a fee. QuickRide commuters are tracked and billed using a transponder attached to their windshields.

Oxford, UK (www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucetgpp/emits/emits.htm)

The city of Oxford (population of 130,000, of which 20,000 are students) was one of the first cities in the UK to adopt traffic restraint policies. This program includes:

• Restraints on automobile traffic. Private automobiles may drive on most city streets but cannot driver through the city center.
• Bus priority systems.
• A large pedestrianized area in the city center.
• Bus priorities, particularly in the city center.
• Improved Park & Ride.
• Promotion of walking, cycling and public transit access.

Oxford serves as a regional centre for a scattered, largely rural population of about half a million people. The city has the largest Park and Ride system in the UK and extensive bus priority lanes and traffic signal systems. Deregulation of buses in 1986 resulted in real competition with two large bus companies operating extensive bus services. These strategies were first introduced in the 1980’s and were expanded further in the mid-1990’s. They have proven very successful, with traffic levels remaining stable for over 25 years. Bus patronage has experienced an 80% growth in passengers in the last 10 years and economic vitality has been preserved.

Traffic restraint measures in the city center appear to have increased economic activity for many businesses, particularly those involved in light retail and tourist activities. Other businesses opposed the changes. Some of their objections appear warranted (their business activity declined) but others were excessively negative in their reactions, giving customers an impression that access to their shops would be far more difficult than it really is (customers are allowed to access most city businesses by car, they simply cannot drive through the town).

Strategic land use policies, for the sub-region within which Oxford lies, take account of the critical landscape and environmental constraints and are complimentary to transport policies aimed at reducing car dependence and encouraging the use of alternative modes of travel.

California HOV Lanes (LAO, 2000)

A legislative study of HOV facilities in California found that they carry an average of 2,518 passengers per hour during peak hours--substantially more people than a congested mixed-flow lane and roughly the same number of people as a typical mixed-flow lane operating at maximum capacity. This only represents two-thirds of their capacity. Regional data indicate that HOV lanes induce mode shift to carpooling.

SoHo Streetscape (Schaller Consulting, 2006)

A survey of more than 1,000 drivers and pedestrians traveling to