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

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

Performance Measure Summary - Chicago IL-IN. 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

100 Most Congested Roadways in Texas

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

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

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

Passenger Rail in Virginia

Transportation Infrastructure Systems Needs and Challenges: Progress Report

CONGESTED LOS ANGELES

CONGESTION REPORT 4 th Quarter 2016

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

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

December 2010 URBAN MOBILITY REPORT2010

Planning Daily Work Trip under Congested Abuja Keffi Road Corridor

Traffic Congestion in Houston. Presented by Bill King

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

Cairo Traffic Congestion Study Phase 1

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

Improving Mobility Without Building More Lanes

I-105 Corridor Sustainability Study (CSS)

Mathematics of Planet Earth Managing Traffic Flow On Urban Road Networks

APPENDIX H EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ANALYSIS

THE 2007 URBAN MOBILITY REPORT

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:

Road Conversion Study Plumas Street

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

MEASURING RECURRENT AND NON-RECURRENT TRAFFIC CONGESTION

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

FINAL DESIGN TRAFFIC TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

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

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

WINNIPEG S PERIMETER HIGHWAY: DISASTER BY DESIGN

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

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

Waterford Lakes Small Area Study

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

Performance Measures Target Setting NCTCOG Public Meetings

Access Management Benefits & Techniques. Access Management Workshop June 2, 2006

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

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

REVIEW OF LOCAL TRAFFIC FLOW / LONG RANGE PLANNING SOLUTIONS STUDY

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

2009 URBAN MOBILITY REPORT

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

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

US 69 RELIEF ROUTE STUDY

CarMax Auto Superstore/ Reconditioning Center #6002 Murrieta, California

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

Highway 217 Corridor Study. Phase I Overview Report

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

Congestion Management Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are Managed Lanes?

APPENDIXB. Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum

Impact of Signalized Intersection on Vehicle Queue Length At Uthm Main Entrance Mohd Zulhilmi Abdul Halim 1,b, Joewono Prasetijo 2,b

Concurrent Monitoring, Analysis, and Visualization of Freeway and Arterial Performance for Recurring and Non-recurring Congestion

Proposed Action, Purpose and Need Technical Memorandum

Glenn Avenue Corridor Traffic Operational Evaluation

KC Scout Kansas City s Bi-State Transportation Management Center

Transcription:

Performance Measure Summary - Denver-Aurora CO 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) 2,615 2,550 2,475 2,425 2,360 Rank 17 18 18 19 19 Commuters (1000s) 1,307 1,297 1,301 1,315 1,276 Freeway 21,709 21,242 20,980 22,205 21,817 Arterial Streets 21,048 20,356 20,600 21,575 21,193 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 ($/gallon) 3.33 3.54 3.28 3.27 2.62 Diesel ($/gallon) 3.59 3.80 3.85 3.67 2.90 System Performance 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Congested Travel (% of peak VMT) 42 -- -- -- -- Congested System (% of lane-miles) 30 -- -- -- -- Congested Time (number of "Rush Hours") 5.10 -- -- -- -- Total Fuel (1000 gallons) 44,922 44,502 43,146 41,299 41,025 Rank 15 15 15 15 15 Fuel per Peak Auto Commuter (gallons) 24 24 23 22 22 Rank 15 12 15 17 16 Total Delay (1000s of person-hours) 91,479 90,623 87,862 84,100 83,544 Rank 18 18 18 18 18 Delay per Peak Auto Commuter (pers-hrs) 49 49 48 46 47 Rank 19 19 19 21 17 Travel Time Index 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.28 1.29 Rank 16 14 14 15 12 Commuter Stress Index 1.36 1.36 1.35 1.34 1.35 Rank 16 15 17 17 16 Freeway Planning Time Index (95th Pctile) 2.97 -- -- -- -- Rank 13 -- -- -- -- Total Cost ($ millions) 2,061 2,075 2,041 1,994 2,043 Rank 19 18 18 18 17 Cost per Peak Auto Commuter ($) 1,101 1,109 1,091 1,066 1,092 Rank 28 25 26 28 27

Inventory Measures 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Population (1000s) 2,290 2,250 2,200 2,145 2,090 Rank 19 19 19 20 21 Commuters (1000s) 1,236 1,210 1,181 1,150 1,115 Freeway 21,000 20,120 20,395 19,935 19,900 Arterial Streets 21,538 22,000 22,925 23,555 23,380 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 ($/gallon) 2.17 3.39 3.20 2.60 2.32 Diesel ($/gallon) 2.48 4.10 3.68 2.88 2.56 System Performance 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Total Fuel (1000 gallons) 39,982 40,408 40,577 40,288 39,534 Rank 15 15 15 15 15 Fuel per Peak Auto Commuter (gallons) 21 22 22 22 21 Rank 17 15 15 14 16 Total Delay (1000s of person-hours) 81,419 82,287 82,630 82,043 80,507 Rank 17 17 17 17 17 Delay per Peak Auto Commuter (pers-hrs) 47 49 50 51 52 Rank 16 22 19 18 13 Travel Time Index 1.29 1.30 1.31 1.31 1.32 Rank 12 12 11 12 8 Commuter Stress Index 1.35 1.36 1.37 1.37 1.38 Rank 13 13 14 14 11 Total Cost ($ millions) 2,024 2,038 2,126 2,168 2,199 Rank 17 18 18 18 18 Cost per Peak Auto Commuter ($) 1,082 1,089 1,136 1,159 1,175 Rank 28 31 28 25 22

Inventory Measures 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 Population (1000s) 2,065 2,050 2,030 2,025 1,910 Rank 21 20 20 20 21 Commuters (1000s) 1,096 1,083 1,046 1,019 938 Freeway 18,815 17,960 17,400 17,250 16,905 Arterial Streets 22,820 21,790 20,925 20,520 20,185 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 ($/gallon) 1.94 1.51 1.39 1.70 1.55 Diesel ($/gallon) 2.04 1.55 1.40 1.68 1.51 System Performance 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 Total Fuel (1000 gallons) 38,072 35,916 34,664 31,971 29,094 Rank 15 15 15 16 16 Fuel per Peak Auto Commuter (gallons) 20 19 19 17 16 Rank 14 17 13 20 23 Total Delay (1000s of person-hours) 77,530 73,139 70,590 65,105 59,247 Rank 17 18 16 18 18 Delay per Peak Auto Commuter (pers-hrs) 50 48 48 45 44 Rank 14 16 15 17 16 Travel Time Index 1.31 1.30 1.29 1.28 1.27 Rank 9 10 10 10 11 Commuter Stress Index 1.37 1.35 1.35 1.33 1.33 Rank 13 14 14 15 15 Total Cost ($ millions) 2,189 2,120 2,093 1,961 1,835 Rank 18 17 17 17 17 Cost per Peak Auto Commuter ($) 1,170 1,133 1,118 1,048 981 Rank 26 29 30 34 39

Inventory Measures 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 Population (1000s) 1,860 1,830 1,800 1,770 1,730 Rank 21 21 21 23 23 Commuters (1000s) 891 857 822 789 753 Freeway 16,500 16,120 15,700 15,100 14,285 Arterial Streets 19,520 17,990 16,850 16,410 16,170 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 ($/gallon) 1.16 1.10 1.24 1.36 1.22 Diesel ($/gallon) 1.18 1.22 1.33 1.41 1.26 System Performance 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 Total Fuel (1000 gallons) 26,662 24,307 21,961 19,408 17,128 Rank 16 16 19 20 21 Fuel per Peak Auto Commuter (gallons) 14 13 12 10 9 Rank 34 34 38 50 53 Total Delay (1000s of person-hours) 54,294 49,500 44,721 39,523 34,879 Rank 19 20 21 22 23 Delay per Peak Auto Commuter (pers-hrs) 42 40 37 34 31 Rank 18 21 22 34 40 Travel Time Index 1.26 1.24 1.23 1.21 1.19 Rank 9 14 15 20 23 Commuter Stress Index 1.32 1.30 1.28 1.26 1.25 Rank 15 16 21 24 24 Total Cost ($ millions) 1,738 1,620 1,486 1,343 1,221 Rank 18 18 19 23 23 Cost per Peak Auto Commuter ($) 929 866 794 718 652 Rank 43 47 52 59 63

Inventory Measures 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 Population (1000s) 1,675 1,610 1,600 1,580 1,580 Rank 23 23 23 23 23 Commuters (1000s) 712 668 647 624 609 Freeway 13,475 12,950 12,430 11,425 11,205 Arterial Streets 15,685 15,170 13,900 13,240 12,365 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 ($/gallon) 1.16 1.21 1.23 1.19 1.11 Diesel ($/gallon) 1.20 1.25 1.23 1.28 1.15 System Performance 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 Total Fuel (1000 gallons) 15,233 13,126 11,821 11,035 10,579 Rank 22 24 24 24 24 Fuel per Peak Auto Commuter (gallons) 8 7 6 6 6 Rank 56 59 63 58 51 Total Delay (1000s of person-hours) 31,021 26,730 24,071 22,471 21,542 Rank 23 24 24 24 23 Delay per Peak Auto Commuter (pers-hrs) 29 26 24 23 23 Rank 41 49 54 50 44 Travel Time Index 1.18 1.16 1.15 1.15 1.14 Rank 23 26 26 23 25 Commuter Stress Index 1.23 1.22 1.20 1.20 1.19 Rank 30 30 32 30 28 Total Cost ($ millions) 1,116 987 915 880 879 Rank 24 27 28 27 25 Cost per Peak Auto Commuter ($) 597 527 489 470 470 Rank 67 70 70 70 68

Inventory Measures 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 Population (1000s) 1,565 1,550 1,510 1,500 1,485 Rank 23 23 23 23 23 Commuters (1000s) 598 587 566 557 547 Freeway 10,500 10,315 10,135 9,765 9,510 Arterial Streets 12,170 12,120 12,115 12,100 12,195 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 ($/gallon) 1.15 1.06 1.06 1.04 1.36 Diesel ($/gallon) 1.14 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.35 System Performance 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 Total Fuel (1000 gallons) 10,197 9,261 8,916 9,060 8,970 Rank 22 23 23 19 19 Fuel per Peak Auto Commuter (gallons) 5 5 5 5 5 Rank 57 47 39 33 29 Total Delay (1000s of person-hours) 20,764 18,860 18,156 18,449 18,267 Rank 23 23 22 22 20 Delay per Peak Auto Commuter (pers-hrs) 22 21 21 21 21 Rank 40 38 30 26 22 Travel Time Index 1.14 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 Rank 23 23 21 19 18 Commuter Stress Index 1.19 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 Rank 28 30 29 27 24 Total Cost ($ millions) 893 850 852 898 905 Rank 25 26 25 23 21 Cost per Peak Auto Commuter ($) 477 454 456 480 484 Rank 63 65 58 46 40

Inventory Measures 1984 1983 1982 Population (1000s) 1,460 1,375 1,350 Rank 23 23 23 Commuters (1000s) 532 498 484 Freeway 9,865 9,180 8,900 Arterial Streets 12,215 11,665 11,530 Value of Time ($/hour) 7.75 7.43 7.20 Commercial Cost ($/hour) 46.47 44.23 43.08 Gasoline ($/gallon) 1.37 1.41 1.47 Diesel ($/gallon) 1.36 1.39 1.46 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) 8,413 6,991 6,181 Rank 18 21 21 Fuel per Peak Auto Commuter (gallons) 4 4 3 Rank 34 29 36 Total Delay (1000s of person-hours) 17,132 14,237 12,588 Rank 20 23 23 Delay per Peak Auto Commuter (pers-hrs) 21 18 17 Rank 19 25 24 Travel Time Index 1.13 1.11 1.10 Rank 17 18 19 Commuter Stress Index 1.18 1.16 1.15 Rank 23 27 28 Freeway Planning Time Index (95th Pctile) -- -- -- Rank -- -- -- Total Cost ($ millions) 879 762 696 Rank 20 22 23 Cost per Peak Auto Commuter ($) 470 407 372 Rank 40 43 44