VMT Tool

Background

As part of our proposed scope of work, we at Arup took a user-centered approach to the needs assessment and design of the proposed VMT analysis tool. This tool would help reduce the vehicle miles traveled across different counties.

The research goal would be to get feedback from SCAG and SFVCOG stakeholders through planned and facilitated workshops with transportation planners from multiple member cities including Burbank, Glendale and Santa Clarita. In this workshop we addressed the following objectives:

1. To define the primary users for the VMT tool and SFVCOG's current workflow
2. To identify current challenges/pain points which the VMT tool could address and features/benefits it could incorporate from currently used tools and methods
3. To list and prioritize the basic requirements of the VMT toolTo define what would make the tool successful.
4. To outline the next steps for design and development

From the workshop held with the transportation planners from SFVCOG, I confirmed and readjusted several of our initial assumptions, allowing us to iterate on our initial persona and user journey. Some of the key findings noted and their role in the design and development of the tool included:

Non-experts including local politicians, external consultants, and eventually even the public may be viewing the outputs of this tool.
Recent developments to local transit stations will play a key role in mitigating and reducing VMT.
Planners within SFVCOG cities often work collaboratively between departments (i.e. transportation and traffic).

Final User Persona & Journey

The second iteration of the persona and user journey is based on findings following the kickoff and user engagement workshop. Based on the findings and considerations above and an investigation looking into other existing VMT tools, I prioritized the following features for our proposed VMT tool:

1. Map visualization with base layers: Allow for users to toggle and view relevant site-selection data through a map interface to help find ideal locations for running VMT calculations.
‍
2. Base calculations using site characteristic and land use program inputs: Allow for users to run a base calculation of VMT metrics for a selected site and inputted land use program without any mitigating factors.
‍
3. VMT mitigation strategy inputs and constants: Allow for users to add mitigation strategies to the base calculation and input program-specific parameters as well as change assumed constants if desired.
‍
4. Report generation with comparative measures: Calculations will be summarized in a readable and printable format (i.e. PDF) highlighting key results and allowing for users to compare outputs with baseline VMT statistics and VMT statistics from other regional areas.
‍
5. Ease-of-use and intuitive design: The tool is designed to be relatively lightweight in the initial feature set which should ease onboarding. Our proposed design is heavily inspired by other existing VMT tools used broadly by other planners which should provide end-users with a familiar user experience.

A/B Testing

The biggest change I faced was the organization of the mitigation strategy options. I found that the users struggled with attention when there were so many options and icons present on the screen. To reduce overall cognitive load, I decided that we would instead use a button that contained options within a pop-up if they chose to include those options. There was an overall decrease in difficulty and time, especially with external users who had little knowledge of using the tool.

Having the "Add", "Remove", and "Clear Selection" buttons before allowing the user to select sections on the map not only clutter the screen but also consequentially increased the number of clicks a user would have to make if they wanted to add or change APNs. I also realized through the journey mapping that users would need more freedom when selecting spaces on the map. Based on feedback from Geospatial Engineers, I decided to use a familiar format from the mapping software, Esri.

Final Prototype

For the purposes of this client's requirement and budget, I was required to create a design based on key findings. This process took 7 iterations to complete.

Key Learnings

Through this process, I learned that client requirements are often a subjet to change. It took a lot of patience and creativity to achieve a product that could be delivered to developers for further production. As the scope for this project is limited, there were a few requirements and features which we could not incorporate into our design but could be considered should this scope or the tool itself expand in the future:

1. Saving/storing calculations: Save calculation inputs and outputs to allow for users to re-run or readjust calculations at a later time.

2. Comparison feature for multiple VMT site calculations: Allow for users to easily compare VMT calculation outputs with different base parameters or mitigation options.

3. More in-depth site-selection capabilities: Provide users with features that would help them identify optimal sites for VMT mitigation.

4. VMT forecasting: Provide users with forecasts predicting VMT mitigation over time.

5. VMT input suggestions: Highlight the most effective mitigation options or land use program inputs based on selected sites or vice versa.

6. VMT Retrospectives: Allow for users to go back and leave notes on how effective certain mitigation strategies were and if actual VMT reduction matched the calculated result from the tool.

7. Calculation Exports: Provide users with additional export options for both data, inputs, and calculation results aside from PDF and CSV based on what tools are used by external consultants or other key city departments.

8. Storing, managing, and displaying relevant documents: Allow for users to store, manage, and access relevant documents, such as those for site selection, directly within the tool.