Using GPS Data for Arterial Mobility Performance Measures

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

National Capital Region Congestion Report

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

100 Most Congested Roadways in Texas

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

Maryland State Highway Mobility Report. Morteza Tadayon

100 Most Congested Roadways in Texas

National Capital Region Congestion Report

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

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

CHAPTER 8 APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONGESTION MEASURES

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

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

I-105 Corridor Sustainability Study (CSS)

City of Wayzata Comprehensive Plan 2030 Transportation Chapter: Appendix A

Subject: Solberg Avenue / I-229 Grade Separation: Traffic Analysis

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

City of Homewood Transportation Plan

Planning Daily Work Trip under Congested Abuja Keffi Road Corridor

5.0 Roadway System Plan

CONGESTION REPORT 4 th Quarter 2016

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

92% COMMUTING IN THE METRO. Congested Roadways Mode Share. Roadway Congestion & Mode Share

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

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

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

Chapter 4 Traffic Analysis

Defining Purpose and Need

CHAPTER 7 ACCESS MANAGEMENT. Background. Principles of Access Management. Hennepin County Transportation Systems Plan (HC-TSP)

Basalt Creek Transportation Refinement Plan Recommendations

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

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

Preliminary Transportation Analysis

CONGESTED LOS ANGELES

PRELIMINARY DRAFT WADDLE ROAD / I-99 INTERCHANGE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS FINAL TRAFFIC SUMMARY REPORT

Twin Cities Regional Bicycle System Study

CONGESTION REPORT 4 th Quarter 2017

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

Highway 111 Corridor Study

CHAPTER 4: IDENTIFICATION OF ROAD SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES: TRANSPORTATION PLANNING MODEL

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

CONGESTION REPORT 3 rd Quarter 2017

Moving Towards Complete Streets MMLOS Applications

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

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

Traffic Congestion in Houston. Presented by Bill King

Capacity and Level of Service LOS

Bi-state metropolitan planning organization (MPO)

Operation Green Light Traffic Signal Coordination Report North Oak Trafficway - New Mark Drive to NE 42nd Street

CONGESTION REPORT 2 nd Quarter 2017

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 C. Corridor Spacing Research

McGrath Boulevard Project Development Public Meeting #2 May 28 th, 2015 East Somerville Community School

Overview. Existing Conditions. Corridor Description. Assessment

Traffic Circulation Study for Neighborhood Southwest of Mockingbird Lane and Airline Road, Highland Park, Texas

Cairo Traffic Congestion Study Phase 1

Regional Bicycle Barriers Study

MUTCD Part 6G: Type of Temporary Traffic Control Zone Activities

ENHANCED PARKWAY STUDY: PHASE 2 CONTINUOUS FLOW INTERSECTIONS. Final Report

Performance Measures Target Setting NCTCOG Public Meetings

Geometric and Trafc Conditions Summary

Tulsa Metropolitan Area LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Unit 7 Speed, Travel Time and Delay Studies

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

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DES MOINES ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

Performance Criteria for 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan

Traffic Impact Analysis Walton Acres at Riverwood Athletic Club Clayton, NC

MONROE COUNTY NEW YORK

Assessing Level of Service for Highways in a New Metropolitan City

Mobility and Congestion

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

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

Congestion Management Report

Corridor Studies. LA 415 and LA 73

SECTION 1 - TRAFFIC PLANNING

JONESBORO HIGHWAY 63 HIGHWAY 18 CONNECTOR STUDY

Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan

Highway 49, Highway 351 and Highway 91 Improvements Feasibility Study Craighead County

appendix b BLOS: Bicycle Level of Service B.1 Background B.2 Bicycle Level of Service Model Winston-Salem Urban Area

November 14, Dulles To DC Loop Public-Private Partnership Proposal. Executive Summary

INNER LOOP EAST. AIA Rochester Annual Meeting November 13, 2013 TRANSFORMATION PROJECT. Bret Garwood, NBD Erik Frisch, DES

Appendix B: Forecasting and Traffic Operations Analysis Framework Document

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

Walmart (Store # ) 60 th Street North and Marion Road Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Regional Transportation Needs Within Southeastern Wisconsin

Operational Ranking of Intersections: A Novel Prioritization Methodology

2. Context. Existing framework. The context. The challenge. Transport Strategy

2009 PE Review Course Traffic! Part 1: HCM. Shawn Leight, P.E., PTOE, PTP Crawford Bunte Brammeier Washington University

Chapter 5 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION

Arterial Management Plan for US Route 250 and State Route 623

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

Classification Criteria

US 69 RELIEF ROUTE STUDY

Focus on New Baseline Conditions, Indicators and Analytic Approaches

CITY OF ALPHARETTA DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN TRAFFIC EVALUATION

Traffic Parameter Methods for Surrogate Safety Comparative Study of Three Non-Intrusive Sensor Technologies

APPENDIX G: INTERSECTION NEEDS AT OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD

Alta Planning + Design

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

Transcription:

Using GPS Data for Arterial Mobility Performance Measures Paul Czech, MnDOT Shawn Turner, TTI CTS Research Conference May 22, 2014 ~ St. Paul, MN

Methodology & Results INRIX GPS Data + = Road Inventory Data in GIS: - Func Class - Traffic Volume - Etc http://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/ts/2013/201314.pdf

Takeaways 1. Private sector probe travel time data 2. Context-sensitive targets on arterials

Private sector probe travel times Multiple providers, competitive marketplace Low relative cost - $23k per year for Metro area (historical, not real-time) Travel times are foundational data Mobility, accessibility, economic, etc. Potential to capture multiple modes in future

Context-sensitive targets Reflect sliding scale role of mobility for arterial streets in different land use contexts For example, urban streets vs. surburban / exurban highways

Context-sensitive targets How to quantify land use context? Ultimately settled on intersection density Could also be based on policy

Context-sensitive targets Slower speed targets in urban, multi-modal contexts (existing or planned) Intersection Density (intersections per mile) Target Value = % of Daytime Uncongested Speed Less than 4 90 4 to 8 80 More than 8 70 Vehicle speed only one of multiple MOEs

For More Info http://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/ts/2013/201314.pdf Paul Czech, MnDOT Project Director paul.czech@state.mn.us, 651.234.7785 Shawn Turner, TTI shawn-turner@tamu.edu, 979.845.8829

Performance Measures Calculations Three mobility performance measures were calculated for the MnDOT arterial network at different spatial and temporal levels: Segment by Direction Corridor System-wide Mobility performance measures reported: Delay Travel Time Index (TTI) Planning Time Index (PTI)

All Directional Arterial Segments by Annual Delay Per Mile Results (Daytime Light Traffic)

All Directional Arterial Segments by Annual Target Delay Per Mile Results (Target Values based upon Intersection Density)

Top 20 Congested Arterial Segments by Annual Delay Per Mile Results (Daytime Light Traffic)

Top 20 Congested Directional Arterial Segments by Annual Target Delay per Mile Results (Target Values based upon Intersection Density)

All Directional Arterial Segments in the Morning Peak (6-9am) by Travel Time Index Results (Daytime Light Traffic)

All Directional Arterial Segments in the Evening Peak (4-7am) by Travel Time Index Results (Daytime Light Traffic)

Top 20 Congested Directional Arterial Segments in the Morning Peak (6-9am) by Travel Time Index Results (Daytime Light Traffic)

Top 20 Congested Directional Arterial Segments in the Evening Peak (4-7pm) by Travel Time Index Results (Daytime Light Traffic)

All Directional Arterial Segments in the Morning Peak (6-9am) by Planning Time Index Results (Daytime Light Traffic)

All Directional Arterial Segments in the Evening Peak (4-7pm) by Planning Time Index Results (Daytime Light Traffic)

Top 20 Unreliable Directional Arterial Segments in the Morning Peak (6-9am) by Planning Time Index Results (Daytime Light Traffic)

Top 20 Unreliable Directional Arterial Segments in the Evening Peak (4-7pm) by Planning Time Index Results (Daytime Light Traffic)

System-wide Results Length of Arterial System: 1,764 miles Total Annual Delay: 7.6 million person-hours Peak Period Delay: 3.8 million person-hours Total Annual Target Delay: 4.1 million person-hours Average Delay per Mile: 4,301 person-hours/mile Average Target Delay per Mile: 2,308 person-hours/mile AM Peak Travel Time Index: 1.07 PM Peak Travel Time Index: 1.08 AM Peak Planning Time Index: 1.36 PM Peak Planning Time Index: 1.41

Background MnDOT is a performance based organization that uses a variety of measures to track performance including mobility Principal arterial (freeway) measures have been developed and utilized for a number of years Arterial (non-freeway) measures are less developed but needed

Background (Freeways) Comprehensive system of inpavement loop detectors and data recorders allows MnDOT to measure performance in several ways: Real-time speeds Recurring congestion Recurring Congestion Speed data is recorded and analyzed for patterns Data is presented in several formats in the annual Metro Freeway Congestion Report

Background (non-freeways) Mobility performance measures have NOT been extensively developed on the non-freeway portions of the system (i.e. major signalized arterials) Many of MnDOTs signalized arterials do not have inplace hardware to allow for comprehensive performance data collection similar to freeways The collection of GPS data appears to be a viable costeffective method to support the development of certain arterial street performance measures

The Study MnDOT, in consultation with the Metropolitan Council, commissioned a study: Developing Twin Cities Arterial Mobility Performance Measures Using GPS Speed Data Partnered with the Texas Transportation Institute Utilized INRIX private sector speed data Identify illustrative system and corridor level performance measures and targets

Scope of Work Procure GPS Travel Time data Review mobility performance measures in MnDOT policy documents and elsewhere Develop arterial street mobility performance measures and supporting analytical process Document the study methods and findings in a final project report

Define the network 8-County Metro Area plus a few selected corridors in adjacent counties GIS database of MnDOT non-freeway arterials Some freeway sections added for reference

Methodology GPS Data + INRIX Data Set GIS Data

Methodology Arterial system categorized into segments for performance reporting purposes that combined multiple MnDOT GIS links with the following characteristics: One travel direction only; Similar cross-section design (e.g., number of lanes, type of land use, etc.); Similar operational characteristics (e.g., traffic volumes, speeds, and queuing); Approximately 2 to 5 miles in urban areas, as long as 8 to 10 miles in suburban or developing areas; Terminates at major cross streets, interchanges, or other traffic generators

Methodology Map of Defined Corridors

Map Methodology of Segments

Methodology Performance Measures Mobility performance measures recommended for arterial streets: Person-based congestion delay per mile, peak period and daily total Percent (%) of free-flow speed (or its inverse, travel time index) Reliability, expressed as 80 th percentile travel time index or % of trips exceeding travel time index of 2.50

Methodology Performance Measures Need to have a congestion definition that separates quantitative measurement from travelers perceptions This can be accomplished by defining congestion and unacceptable congestion: Congestion travel time or delay in excess of that normally incurred under light or free-flow travel conditions. Unacceptable Congestion travel time or delay in excess of an agreed-upon norm [or target value]. The agreed-upon norm may vary by type of transportation facility, geographic location, and time of day

Methodology Performance Measures Intersection Density reflecting both land use context and street functional class were combined into a single attribute Sub-categories of intersection density were based on MnDOT s Access Management policy: Less than 2 intersections per mile 2 to 4 intersections per mile 4 to 8 intersections per mile Greater than 8 intersections per mile

Methodology Performance Measures The base light or free-flow speed as defined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual is the prevailing light traffic speed with NO traffic control Values were adjusted to account for signal delay (these can be adjusted) Table 3-2. Performance Measure Target Values Based on Intersection Density Intersection Density Target Value = (intersections per mile) Percent of Prevailing Light Traffic Speed Less than 2 100 2 to 4 90 4 to 8 85 More than 8 75

Performance Measures Calculations Three mobility performance measures were calculated for the MnDOT arterial network at different spatial and temporal levels: Segment by Direction Corridor System-wide Mobility performance measures reported: Delay Travel Time Index (TTI) Planning Time Index (PTI)

All Directional Arterial Segments by Annual Delay Per Mile Results (Daytime Light Traffic)

All Directional Arterial Segments by Annual Target Delay Per Mile Results (Target Values based upon Intersection Density)

Top 20 Congested Arterial Segments by Annual Delay Per Mile Results (Daytime Light Traffic)

Top 20 Congested Directional Arterial Segments by Annual Target Delay per Mile Results (Target Values based upon Intersection Density)

All Directional Arterial Segments in the Morning Peak (6-9am) by Travel Time Index Results (Daytime Light Traffic)

All Directional Arterial Segments in the Evening Peak (4-7am) by Travel Time Index Results (Daytime Light Traffic)

Top 20 Congested Directional Arterial Segments in the Morning Peak (6-9am) by Travel Time Index Results (Daytime Light Traffic)

Top 20 Congested Directional Arterial Segments in the Evening Peak (4-7pm) by Travel Time Index Results (Daytime Light Traffic)

All Directional Arterial Segments in the Morning Peak (6-9am) by Planning Time Index Results (Daytime Light Traffic)

All Directional Arterial Segments in the Evening Peak (4-7pm) by Planning Time Index Results (Daytime Light Traffic)

Top 20 Unreliable Directional Arterial Segments in the Morning Peak (6-9am) by Planning Time Index Results (Daytime Light Traffic)

Top 20 Unreliable Directional Arterial Segments in the Evening Peak (4-7pm) by Planning Time Index Results (Daytime Light Traffic)

System-wide Results Length of Arterial System: 1,764 miles Total Annual Delay: 7.6 million person-hours Peak Period Delay: 3.8 million person-hours Total Annual Target Delay: 4.1 million person-hours Average Delay per Mile: 4,301 person-hours/mile Average Target Delay per Mile: 2,308 person-hours/mile AM Peak Travel Time Index: 1.07 PM Peak Travel Time Index: 1.08 AM Peak Planning Time Index: 1.36 PM Peak Planning Time Index: 1.41

Conclusions and recommendations Private sector data providers are a viable source of travel speed data for mobility performance monitoring on arterial streets Mobility performance measures for arterial streets should be travel speed-based measures that compare peak traffic speeds to speeds during light traffic, recognizing that the light traffic speed is not a target value but simply a reference point for performance measures Performance measure target values can be context-sensitive and based on surrounding land use Ideally, multiple performance measures should be used to quantify and monitor mobility on arterial streets The exact mobility performance measures and target values are likely to evolve and be refined as MnDOT and partner agencies gain experience in performance monitoring on arterial streets

Questions? Thank you!