Performance Measure Summary - San Jose CA. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Similar documents
Performance Measure Summary - Chicago IL-IN. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Denver-Aurora CO. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Using GPS Data for Arterial Mobility Performance Measures

Presented by: Keith Nichols, PE Principal Transportation Engineer, TTAC Agenda Item #14 October 7, 2015

Measuring the Distribution and Costs of Congestion. Tim Lomax Texas Transportation Institute

100 Most Congested Roadways in Texas

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard. Scott Weber, Transportation Planner & Analyst James Winters, Regional Planner & Policy Analyst

100 Most Congested Roadways in Texas

Mobility and Congestion

Appendix SEA Seattle, Washington 2003 Annual Report on Freeway Mobility and Reliability

Chapter 4 Traffic Analysis

Appendix PDX Portland, Oregon 2003 Annual Report on Freeway Mobility and Reliability

Appendix LOU Louisville, Kentucky 2003 Annual Report on Freeway Mobility and Reliability

Appendix ELP El Paso, Texas 2003 Annual Report on Freeway Mobility and Reliability

Congestion Evaluation Best Practices

Maryland State Highway Mobility Report. Morteza Tadayon

Appendix PIT Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 2003 Annual Report on Freeway Mobility and Reliability

CONGESTED LOS ANGELES

Appendix MSP Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota 2003 Annual Report on Freeway Mobility and Reliability

Annex 9: Measuring Congestion, Reliability Costs and Selection of Calculation Method Direct Costs

CHAPTER 8 APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONGESTION MEASURES

Los Angeles Congested Corridor Study and Comparisons with Texas Transportation Institute Congestion Estimates

Passenger Rail in Virginia

Transportation Infrastructure Systems Needs and Challenges: Progress Report

December 2010 URBAN MOBILITY REPORT2010

Traffic Congestion in Houston. Presented by Bill King

CONGESTION REPORT 4 th Quarter 2016

METHODOLOGY. Signalized Intersection Average Control Delay (sec/veh)

3 ROADWAYS 3.1 CMS ROADWAY NETWORK 3.2 TRAVEL-TIME-BASED PERFORMANCE MEASURES Roadway Travel Time Measures

Planning Daily Work Trip under Congested Abuja Keffi Road Corridor

2009 URBAN MOBILITY REPORT: Six Congestion Reduction Strategies and Their. Effects on Mobility

National Capital Region Congestion Report

Intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Maple Street in Lexington Signalized Intersection and Roundabout Comparison

DECEMBER 2012 URBANMOBILITY REPORT POWERED BY REGION UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION CENTER

Preview. Tables in your paper Mass Transit as alternative to auto California s problems in urban transportation

Cairo Traffic Congestion Study Phase 1

Preview. Second midterm Tables in your paper Mass Transit as alternative to auto California s problems in urban transportation

Assessing Level of Service for Highways in a New Metropolitan City

Richmond Area MPO Regional Transportation and Land Use Performance Measures 2013

Existing Conditions. Date: April 16 th, Dan Holderness; Coralville City Engineer Scott Larson; Coralville Assistant City Engineer

Final Report. Real-Timing the 2010 Urban Mobility Report. Tim Lomax, David Schrank, Shawn Turner, Lauren Geng, Yingfeng Li, and Nick Koncz

National Capital Region Congestion Report

Highway 111 Corridor Study

I-105 Corridor Sustainability Study (CSS)

Mathematics of Planet Earth Managing Traffic Flow On Urban Road Networks

THE 2007 URBAN MOBILITY REPORT

Planning Committee STAFF REPORT March 7, 2018 Page 2 of 4 The following MTSOs are being used across the five subregions: Intersection Level of Service

APPENDIX H EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ANALYSIS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF CALEDON TRANSPORTATION NEEDS STUDY

Clouds, Crowds, and Traffic: What 10 Emerging Megatrends Mean for the Future of Transportation

Regional Transportation Needs Within Southeastern Wisconsin

Measuring and Communicating Mobility:

modes, the increased roadway capacity is the implied solution, which, in turn, has been shown to lead to more driving (induced demand).

Road Conversion Study Plumas Street

Corridor Advisory Group and Task Force Meeting #10. July 27, 2011

REVIEW OF LOCAL TRAFFIC FLOW / LONG RANGE PLANNING SOLUTIONS STUDY

MEASURING RECURRENT AND NON-RECURRENT TRAFFIC CONGESTION

SUPERSTREETS IN TEXAS. ITS Texas Annual Meeting San Marcos, Texas Session 6A - Operations November 11, 2011

FINAL DESIGN TRAFFIC TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

What is the Congestion Management Process? What is Congestion? Growth in the Treasure Valley Development and Congestion

WINNIPEG S PERIMETER HIGHWAY: DISASTER BY DESIGN

Iowa Corridor Management Pilot Project Overview. Recommendations For A Corridor Management Program August 2004

CarMax Auto Superstore/ Reconditioning Center #6002 Murrieta, California

MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION

Waterford Lakes Small Area Study

Performance Measures Target Setting NCTCOG Public Meetings

2014 Mobility Assessment Report Functional Planning & Policy Montgomery County Planning Department

PRELIMINARY DRAFT FIRST AMENDMENT TO VISION 2050: A REGIONAL LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN

Attachment A: Columbus Area Metropolitan Transportation Plan Objectives, Performance Measures, and Targets

Appendix B: Forecasting and Traffic Operations Analysis Framework Document

UPDATING THE WEST COUNTY ACTION PLAN

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

HCM Sixth Edition. Plus More. Rahim (Ray) Benekohal University of Illinois at Urban Champaign,

Monitoring Urban Roadways in 2000: Using Archived Operations Data for Reliability and Mobility Measurement

Performance Metrics: [Making lemonade out of federal and state Requirements]

2009 URBAN MOBILITY REPORT

Date: September 7, Project #: Re: Spaulding Youth Center Northfield, NH Property. Traffic Impact Study

ADOT Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Summary of Phase IV Activities APPENDIX B PEDESTRIAN DEMAND INDEX

Lincoln Avenue Road Diet Trial

Complete Streets Policies in Charlotte

US 69 RELIEF ROUTE STUDY

Technical Memorandum TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY. RIDLEY ROAD CONVENIENCE STORE Southampton County, VA. Prepared for: Mr. David Williams.

Transit Signal Priority (TSP) Application to Miami-Dade Transit

Improving Mobility Without Building More Lanes

Highway 217 Corridor Study. Phase I Overview Report

Arnold Hinojosa

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY. Creekside Thornton, Colorado. For. August 2015 November 2015 Revised: August Prepared for:

Congestion Management Report

Management of Multi-Lane Highways in Jordan (Case Study)

Overview. Existing Conditions. Corridor Description. Assessment

MCTC 2018 RTP SCS and Madera County RIFP Multi-Modal Project Eval Criteria GV13.xlsx

MULTIMODAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT

DRAFT. Memo. Range of the Alternatives Considered in the EIS

FUTURE MOBILITY IN TEXAS: The Cost of Meeting the State s Need for Safe and Efficient Mobility

The World and U.S. Economy and San Pedro Bay Container Trade Outlook Forecast Review

2014 STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT

# Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Freeway System Reconstruction Study and Preliminary Recommended Plan

Assessing the Traffic and Energy Impacts of Connected and Automated Vehicles (CAVs)

ESTIMATING TRAFFIC CONGESTION & LOS ON URBAN ROADS USING GPS DATA

APPENDIXB. Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum

Transcription:

Performance Measure Summary - San Jose CA There are several inventory and performance measures listed in the pages of this Urban Area Report for the years from 1982 to 2014. There is no single performance measure that experts agree says it all. A few key points should be recognized by users of the Urban Mobility Scorecard data. Use the trends The multi-year performance measures are better indicators, in most cases, than any single year. Examining a few measures over many years reduces the chance that data variations or the estimating procedures may have caused a "spike" in any single year. (5 years is 5 times better than 1 year.) Use several measures Each performance measure illustrates a different element of congestion. (The view is more interesting from atop several measures.) Compare to similar regions Congestion analyses that compare areas with similar characteristics (for example, population, growth rate, road and public transportation system design) are usually more insightful than comparisons of different regions. (Los Angeles is not Peoria.) Compare ranking changes and performance measure values In some performance measures a small change in the value may cause a significant change in rank from one year to the next. This is the case when there are several regions with nearly the same value. (15 hours is only 1 hour more than 14 hours.) Consider the scope of improvement options Any improvement project in a corridor within most of the regions will only have a modest effect on the regional congestion level. (To have an effect on areawide congestion, there must be significant change in the system or service.) Performance Measures and Definition of Terms Travel Time Index A measure of congestion that focuses on each trip and each mile of travel. It is calculated as the ratio of travel time in the peak period to travel time in free-flow. A value of 1.30 indicates that a 20-minute free-flow trip takes 26 minutes in the peak. Planning Time Index A travel time reliability measure that represents the total travel time that should be planned for a trip. Computed with the 95th percentile travel time it represents the amount of time that should be planned for a commute trip to be late for only 1 day a month. If it is computed with the 80th percentile travel time it represents the amount of time that should be planned for a trip to be late for only 1 day a week. A PTI of 2.00 means that for a 20-minute trip in light traffic, 40 minutes should be planned. Peak Commuters Number of travelers who begin a trip during the morning or evening peak travel periods (6 to 10 a.m. and 3 to 7 p.m.). "Commuters" are private vehicle users unless specifically noted. per Commuter A yearly sum of all the per-trip delays for those persons who travel in the peak period (6 to 10 a.m. and 3 to 7 p.m.). This measure illustrates the effect of traffic slowdowns as well as the length of each trip. Total Delay The overall size of the congestion problem. Measured by the total travel time above that needed to complete a trip at free-flow speeds. The ranking of total delay usually follows the population ranking (larger regions usually have more delay). Free-Flow Speeds These values are derived from overnight speeds in the INRIX speed database. They are used as the national comparison thresholds. Other speed thresholds may be appropriate for urban project evaluations or sub-region studies. Excess Fuel Consumed Increased fuel consumption due to travel in congested conditions rather than freeflow conditions. Congestion Cost Value of travel delay for 2014 (estimated at $17.67 per hour of person travel and $94.04 per hour of truck time) and excess fuel consumption estimated using state average cost per gallon. Urban Area The developed area (population density more than 1,000 persons per square mile) within a metropolitan region. The urban area boundaries change frequently (every year for most growing areas), so increases include both new growth and development that was previously in areas designated as rural. Number of Rush Hours Time when the road system might have congestion.

Inventory Measures 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Population (1000s) 1,950 1,920 1,865 1,820 1,815 Rank 25 25 26 26 24 Commuters (1000s) 1,013 989 954 930 924 Freeway 27,553 27,039 17,070 17,146 16,922 Arterial Streets 17,794 17,462 15,720 16,563 16,347 Value of Time ($/hour) 17.67 17.39 17.14 16.79 16.30 Commercial Cost ($/hour) 94.04 89.60 89.56 86.81 88.12 Gasoline ($/gallon) 3.63 3.89 3.89 3.51 3.05 Diesel ($/gallon) 3.85 4.12 4.20 4.02 3.20 System Performance 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Congested Travel (% of peak VMT) 52 -- -- -- -- Congested System (% of lane-miles) 44 -- -- -- -- Congested Time (number of "Rush Hours") 6.70 -- -- -- -- Total Fuel (1000 gallons) 43,972 41,981 40,396 39,125 35,692 Rank 16 16 16 16 17 Fuel per Peak Auto Commuter (gallons) 28 27 26 25 23 Rank 8 9 9 8 10 Total Delay (1000s of person-hours) 104,559 99,825 96,056 93,035 84,870 Rank 15 15 16 16 17 Delay per Peak Auto Commuter (pers-hrs) 67 65 65 64 59 Rank 5 5 5 5 7 Travel Time Index 1.38 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.34 Rank 3 4 3 3 6 Commuter Stress Index 1.50 1.49 1.49 1.48 1.45 Rank 5 4 4 5 5 Freeway Planning Time Index (95th Pctile) 3.24 -- -- -- -- Rank 8 -- -- -- -- Total Cost ($ millions) 2,230 2,164 2,113 2,088 1,965 Rank 15 16 17 17 19 Cost per Peak Auto Commuter ($) 1,422 1,380 1,347 1,332 1,253 Rank 8 9 9 9 10

Inventory Measures 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Population (1000s) 1,770 1,740 1,705 1,690 1,675 Rank 27 28 28 27 27 Commuters (1000s) 898 879 856 842 828 Freeway 16,600 16,350 16,680 16,800 16,820 Arterial Streets 16,610 16,795 17,105 17,055 16,400 Value of Time ($/hour) 16.01 16.10 15.47 15.06 14.58 Commercial Cost ($/hour) 89.75 81.52 82.56 80.43 78.05 Gasoline ($/gallon) 2.61 3.84 3.24 2.88 2.62 Diesel ($/gallon) 2.71 4.39 3.60 3.17 2.93 System Performance 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Total Fuel (1000 gallons) 32,925 34,504 33,521 32,308 30,806 Rank 18 18 18 18 20 Fuel per Peak Auto Commuter (gallons) 21 22 21 21 20 Rank 17 15 20 19 19 Total Delay (1000s of person-hours) 78,292 82,046 79,709 76,823 73,253 Rank 18 18 19 19 19 Delay per Peak Auto Commuter (pers-hrs) 56 60 60 58 56 Rank 7 7 7 8 9 Travel Time Index 1.32 1.34 1.34 1.33 1.32 Rank 8 7 7 8 8 Commuter Stress Index 1.43 1.45 1.45 1.44 1.43 Rank 7 6 6 6 7 Total Cost ($ millions) 1,843 1,924 1,942 1,922 1,894 Rank 19 19 19 19 19 Cost per Peak Auto Commuter ($) 1,175 1,227 1,238 1,226 1,208 Rank 15 14 17 18 19

Inventory Measures 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 Population (1000s) 1,675 1,675 1,675 1,675 1,675 Rank 27 25 25 24 24 Commuters (1000s) 824 819 807 794 782 Freeway 16,600 16,565 16,760 16,775 16,530 Arterial Streets 16,800 17,950 17,575 17,455 16,775 Value of Time ($/hour) 14.10 13.73 13.43 13.22 12.85 Commercial Cost ($/hour) 74.17 72.23 70.86 71.38 70.47 Gasoline ($/gallon) 2.28 1.78 1.66 1.93 1.72 Diesel ($/gallon) 2.27 1.79 1.58 1.78 1.68 System Performance 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 Total Fuel (1000 gallons) 29,629 29,097 28,153 27,428 25,843 Rank 21 19 19 19 19 Fuel per Peak Auto Commuter (gallons) 19 19 18 17 16 Rank 23 17 19 20 23 Total Delay (1000s of person-hours) 70,454 69,190 66,943 65,220 61,450 Rank 20 19 19 17 16 Delay per Peak Auto Commuter (pers-hrs) 54 53 52 51 49 Rank 9 9 10 10 10 Travel Time Index 1.31 1.31 1.30 1.30 1.28 Rank 9 8 9 7 9 Commuter Stress Index 1.42 1.42 1.41 1.40 1.39 Rank 7 7 7 7 7 Total Cost ($ millions) 1,883 1,899 1,879 1,860 1,802 Rank 20 19 19 18 18 Cost per Peak Auto Commuter ($) 1,201 1,211 1,198 1,186 1,149 Rank 21 17 15 14 15

Inventory Measures 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 Population (1000s) 1,670 1,650 1,620 1,595 1,550 Rank 24 24 24 24 24 Commuters (1000s) 766 745 720 697 667 Freeway 18,635 17,650 17,170 17,050 17,000 Arterial Streets 16,710 16,630 16,600 16,510 16,165 Value of Time ($/hour) 12.43 12.17 11.98 11.71 11.37 Commercial Cost ($/hour) 66.76 65.76 66.83 66.20 64.27 Gasoline ($/gallon) 1.59 1.27 1.40 1.21 1.27 Diesel ($/gallon) 1.50 1.39 1.51 1.24 1.31 System Performance 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 Total Fuel (1000 gallons) 23,774 21,991 20,723 19,525 18,561 Rank 19 20 20 19 19 Fuel per Peak Auto Commuter (gallons) 15 14 13 12 12 Rank 26 27 27 31 20 Total Delay (1000s of person-hours) 56,531 52,291 49,275 46,427 44,136 Rank 17 17 17 17 17 Delay per Peak Auto Commuter (pers-hrs) 46 43 42 41 40 Rank 12 14 14 12 13 Travel Time Index 1.26 1.25 1.24 1.23 1.23 Rank 9 10 11 10 10 Commuter Stress Index 1.37 1.35 1.34 1.34 1.33 Rank 7 9 9 9 8 Total Cost ($ millions) 1,713 1,620 1,550 1,494 1,462 Rank 19 18 18 18 18 Cost per Peak Auto Commuter ($) 1,093 1,033 989 953 933 Rank 23 26 25 23 22

Inventory Measures 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 Population (1000s) 1,540 1,525 1,505 1,500 1,410 Rank 24 24 24 24 24 Commuters (1000s) 653 635 618 605 560 Freeway 16,660 16,555 16,575 16,520 15,780 Arterial Streets 14,870 12,785 13,130 12,980 13,190 Value of Time ($/hour) 11.06 10.78 10.47 10.17 9.75 Commercial Cost ($/hour) 62.23 60.84 59.01 57.31 55.03 Gasoline ($/gallon) 1.16 1.23 1.28 1.11 1.14 Diesel ($/gallon) 1.19 1.26 1.25 1.25 1.19 System Performance 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 Total Fuel (1000 gallons) 17,708 16,643 16,310 15,966 14,549 Rank 19 19 17 16 16 Fuel per Peak Auto Commuter (gallons) 11 11 10 10 9 Rank 20 15 16 15 16 Total Delay (1000s of person-hours) 42,108 39,576 38,783 37,965 34,596 Rank 17 17 17 16 16 Delay per Peak Auto Commuter (pers-hrs) 39 38 38 37 37 Rank 13 13 13 12 12 Travel Time Index 1.23 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.21 Rank 7 7 6 6 7 Commuter Stress Index 1.33 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.31 Rank 8 8 8 7 7 Total Cost ($ millions) 1,435 1,383 1,396 1,407 1,337 Rank 18 18 17 16 16 Cost per Peak Auto Commuter ($) 915 882 890 898 852 Rank 21 20 16 13 15

Inventory Measures 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 Population (1000s) 1,390 1,370 1,355 1,340 1,325 Rank 24 24 24 24 24 Commuters (1000s) 548 535 526 515 506 Freeway 15,540 14,980 14,410 13,530 12,930 Arterial Streets 13,185 13,075 12,040 11,530 10,385 Value of Time ($/hour) 9.25 8.83 8.48 8.18 8.03 Commercial Cost ($/hour) 52.81 50.04 48.53 46.57 47.83 Gasoline ($/gallon) 1.14 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.35 Diesel ($/gallon) 1.09 1.01 1.01 0.99 1.29 System Performance 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 Total Fuel (1000 gallons) 13,927 13,157 12,013 10,619 9,414 Rank 16 15 15 17 17 Fuel per Peak Auto Commuter (gallons) 9 8 8 7 6 Rank 15 15 14 14 17 Total Delay (1000s of person-hours) 33,116 31,286 28,565 25,252 22,386 Rank 15 15 15 15 16 Delay per Peak Auto Commuter (pers-hrs) 36 35 32 29 26 Rank 12 12 12 12 13 Travel Time Index 1.21 1.20 1.18 1.17 1.15 Rank 5 7 11 11 16 Commuter Stress Index 1.31 1.30 1.28 1.26 1.24 Rank 7 6 7 12 14 Total Cost ($ millions) 1,349 1,335 1,270 1,163 1,051 Rank 16 16 16 17 17 Cost per Peak Auto Commuter ($) 860 852 810 742 670 Rank 14 15 15 17 18

Inventory Measures 1984 1983 1982 Population (1000s) 1,310 1,300 1,300 Rank 24 24 24 Commuters (1000s) 497 489 483 Freeway 12,240 11,455 11,040 Arterial Streets 9,900 9,410 9,235 Value of Time ($/hour) 7.75 7.43 7.20 Commercial Cost ($/hour) 46.47 44.23 43.08 Gasoline ($/gallon) 1.36 1.39 1.46 Diesel ($/gallon) 1.31 1.34 1.40 System Performance 1984 1983 1982 Congested Travel (% of peak VMT) -- -- -- Congested System (% of lane-miles) -- -- -- Congested Time (number of "Rush Hours") -- -- -- Total Fuel (1000 gallons) 8,202 7,444 6,548 Rank 20 19 20 Fuel per Peak Auto Commuter (gallons) 5 5 4 Rank 22 19 28 Total Delay (1000s of person-hours) 19,502 17,700 15,571 Rank 17 17 17 Delay per Peak Auto Commuter (pers-hrs) 23 21 19 Rank 13 14 17 Travel Time Index 1.13 1.12 1.11 Rank 17 16 17 Commuter Stress Index 1.23 1.21 1.20 Rank 15 16 16 Freeway Planning Time Index (95th Pctile) -- -- -- Rank -- -- -- Total Cost ($ millions) 948 897 815 Rank 19 19 19 Cost per Peak Auto Commuter ($) 604 572 520 Rank 21 20 24