National Capital Region Congestion Report

Similar documents
National Capital Region Congestion Report

CONGESTION REPORT 4 th Quarter 2017

CONGESTION REPORT 3 rd Quarter 2017

CONGESTION REPORT 2 nd Quarter 2017

CONGESTION REPORT 4 th Quarter 2016

Maryland State Highway Mobility Report. Morteza Tadayon

Using GPS Data for Arterial Mobility Performance Measures

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

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

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

VPP Suite User Group. January 20, Dial & enter # at the prompt

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

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

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

CONGESTED LOS ANGELES

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

Measuring and Communicating Mobility:

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

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

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

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

North Coast Corridor:

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

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

I-95 CORRIDOR COALITION YEAR 17 PROJECTS

Congestion Reducing Activities. Toby Carr GDOT Director of Planning April 10, 2014

Washington DC Section of ITE Project Briefing

State Highway 44/State Street High Capacity Corridor

Understanding Rail and Bus Ridership

Operational Comparison of Transit Signal Priority Strategies

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

Sketch Level Assessment. of Traffic Issues. for the Fluor Daniel I-495 HOT Lane Proposal. Ronald F. Kirby

Purpose and Need Report. Appendix B. Purpose and Need Report

Public Information and Participation Comments

Congestion Management Report

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS of The Draft 2015 CLRP

Tulsa Metropolitan Area LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Mobility and Congestion

Dulles Area Transportation Association. October 11, Susan Shaw, P.E., Megaprojects Director Virginia Department of Transportation

Appendix B: Forecasting and Traffic Operations Analysis Framework Document

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

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

What are Managed Lanes?

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

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Board Action/Information Summary

Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Travel Time Survey

Wide-area area, User Friendly Performance Monitoring. Michael L. Pack, University of Maryland CATT Laboratory 1

TRANSIT PERFORMANCE IN THE I-66 INSIDE THE BELTWAY CORRIDOR

DEVELOPING A POLICY TO PLAN AND OPERATE MANAGED LANES IN NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS: LBJ IN DALLAS COUNTY AND AIRPORT FREEWAY IN TARRANT COUNTY

Freeway Performance Report 2015, 3 rd Quarter. Photo courtesy of

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

Performance Measures Target Setting NCTCOG Public Meetings

I-105 Corridor Sustainability Study (CSS)

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

VIRGINIA RAILWAY EXPRESS

Public Hearing Tarrant County. October 11 th, 2012

BRIEFING ON PROPOSED ADDITIONS AND CHANGES Additions and Changes to Projects Proposed for Inclusion in the 2015 CLRP Update

Crash Analysis of I-64 Closure in St. Louis County

I-35W Solutions Alliance Project Update July 13, 2017

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

100 Most Congested Roadways in Texas

Improving Mobility Without Building More Lanes

100 Most Congested Roadways in Texas

Title. Metropolitan Council Transportation Committee December 12, Brad Larson Metro District MnDOT

Interstate 66 Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

Cairo Traffic Congestion Study Phase 1

Passenger Rail in Virginia

Managed Lanes 2017: What They Are and How They Work. Robert W. Poole, Jr. Director of Transportation Policy Reason Foundation

KC Scout Kansas City s Bi-State Transportation Management Center

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

Project Description Form 8EE

Sustainable Transportation Planning in the Portland Region

2012 Congestion Management System Summary. September 2012

Interstate 66 Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement. Cooperating and Participating Agencies Meeting March 19, 2012

495 EXPRESS LANES NORTHERN EXTENSION STUDY COMMENT SUMMARY REPORT JUNE 11, 2018 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING


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

APPENDIX C Arlington Transit On-Board Survey Technical Memorandum

Highway 217 Corridor Study. Phase I Overview Report

the Story of the 30s & 70s Bus Lines James Hamre - WMATA

Transform 66 Project February 4, 2016 Partnering Conference Michigan Department of Transportation American Council of Engineering Companies

Public Opinion about Transportation Issues in Northern Virginia

Congestion Management Report

WHAT IFS: Over the course of

Typical Rush Hour Commute. PennyforTransportation.com

SANTA CLARA COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE PLAN August 2008

3.9 - Transportation and Traffic

Trip Generation for an averaged sized elementary school in Provo, Utah

Project Mobility - Route 3 South Express Toll Lanes. Industry Day Overview

FY 2018 I-66 Commuter Choice Program Presentation to the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission May 3,

Appendix C. NORTH METRO STATION AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT 88th Avenue Station

2.2 TRANSIT VISION 2040 FROM VISION TO ACTION. Emphasize transit priority solutions STRATEGIC DIRECTION

City of Wayzata Comprehensive Plan 2030 Transportation Chapter: Appendix A

Highway 17 Transportation Improvement Study

KC Scout Kansas City s Bi-State Transportation Management Center

CARPOOLS RIDE FREE ON NEW I-66 EXPRESS LANES, INSIDE THE BELTWAY

Capital Beltway HOT Lanes - Frequently Asked Questions

Planning Daily Work Trip under Congested Abuja Keffi Road Corridor

Circulation in Elk Grove includes: Motor vehicles, including cars and trucks

Transcription:

NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BOARD National Capital Region Congestion Report 4th Quarter 2015 Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 777 North Capitol Street, N.E., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20002 www.mwcog.org

Author Wenjing Pu Senior Transportation Engineer Project Management Andrew J. Meese Systems Performance Planning Director Oversight Kanti Srikanth Director, Department of Transportation Planning Data and Tools Providers I-95 Corridor Coalition Vehicle Probe Project INRIX, Inc. Center for Advanced Transportation Technology Laboratory, University of Maryland Release date: February 15, 2016 Available: www.mwcog.org/congestion For more information please contact COG/TPB staff Wenjing Pu (wpu@mwcog.org) Copyright 2016, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (COG/TPB)

Table of Contents Congestion Travel Time Index (TTI)... 1 Unreliability Planning Time Index (PTI)... 2 Top 10 Bottlenecks... 3 Congestion Maps... 9 4th Quarter 2015 Spotlight CMP in FAST Act... 11 Introduction... 11 CMP in FAST Act... 11 Background... 12 Motivation... 12 Methodology... 12

Congestion Travel Time Index (TTI) Interstate System Non-Interstate NHS 3 TTI 4th Quarter 2015: 1.37 1.6% or 0.02 1 TTI 4th Quarter 2015: 1.23 2.5% or 0.03 TTI Trailing 4 Quarters: 1.33 0.5% or 0.01 2 TTI Trailing 4 Quarters: 1.22 1.2% or 0.01 Transit-Significant 4 All Roads TTI 4th Quarter 2015: 1.25 1.2% or 0.01 TTI 4th Quarter 2015: 1.19 0.4% or 0.005 TTI Trailing 4 Quarters: 1.23 2.0% or 0.03 TTI Trailing 4 Quarters: 1.18 1.0% or 0.01 1 Compared to 4th quarter 2014; 2 Compared to one year earlier; 3 NHS: National Highway System; 4 See page 14. Figure 1. Monthly average Travel Time Index for Total AM peak (6:00-10:00 am) and PM peak (3:00-7:00 pm) Travel Time Index Travel Time Index (TTI), defined as the ratio of actual travel time to free-flow travel time, measures the intensity of congestion. The higher the index, the more congested traffic conditions it represents, e.g., TTI = 1.00 means free flow conditions, while TTI = 1.30 indicates the actual travel time is 30% longer than the free-flow travel time. National Capital Region Congestion Report, 4th Quarter 2015 1

Unreliability Planning Time Index (PTI) Interstate System Non-Interstate NHS 3 PTI 4th Quarter 2015: 1.93 1.7% or 0.03 1 PTI 4th Quarter 2015: 1.51 6.4% or 0.09 PTI Trailing 4 Quarters: 1.86 1.4% or 0.03 2 PTI Trailing 4 Quarters: 1.46 1.0% or 0.01 Transit-Significant 4 All Roads PTI 4th Quarter 2015: 1.52 4.2% or 0.06 PTI 4th Quarter 2015: 1.43 3.6% or 0.05 PTI Trailing 4 Quarters: 1.47 0.3% or 0.01 PTI Trailing 4 Quarters: 1.40 1.1% or 0.02 1 Compared to 4th quarter 2014; 2 Compared to one year earlier; 3 NHS: National Highway System; 4 See page 14. Figure 2. Monthly average Planning Time Index for Total AM peak (6:00-10:00 am) and PM peak (3:00-7:00 pm) Planning Time Index Planning Time Index (PTI), defined as the ratio of 95th percentile travel time to free flow travel time, measures travel time reliability. The higher the index, the less reliable traffic conditions it represents, e.g., PTI = 1.30 means a traveler has to budget 30% longer than the uncongested travel time to arrive on time 95% of the times (i.e., 19 out of 20 trips). National Capital Region Congestion Report, 4th Quarter 2015 2

Top 10 Bottlenecks Rank (Last Quarter Rank) Average duration Average max length (miles) Occurrences Impact factor 1 (9)* I-66 W @ VA-234/EXIT 47 2 h 59 m 12.21 98 214,122 2 (3) I-270 S @ I-270 (SPUR) 2 h 8 m 12 128 196,645 3 (22) I-495 CW @ MD-4/PENNSYLVANIA AVE/EXIT 11 3 h 8 m 13.61 70 179,173 4 (1) I-495 CW @ MD-214/CENTRAL AVE/EXIT 15 2 h 10 m 8.49 151 166,733 5 (4) I-95 N @ VA-123/EXIT 160 2 h 24 m 6.01 181 156,679 6 (29) I-495 CCW @ GREENBELT METRO DR/EXIT 24 1 h 52 m 5.05 255 144,335 7 (18) I-495 CCW @ VA-193/GEORGETOWN PIKE/EXIT 13 2 h 5.34 223 142,950 8 (2) I-95 S @ VA-123/EXIT 160 2 h 44 m 5.09 165 137,862 9 (7) DC-295 N @ EASTERN AVE 3 h 28 m 3.49 185 134,329 10 (5) MD-295 N @ MD-197/EXIT 11 3 h 34 m 6.98 70 104,493 * See Bottlenecks section in the Background chapter for ranking variability from quarter to quarter. 2 6 10 7 9 4 1 3 5 8 National Capital Region Congestion Report, 4th Quarter 2015 3

Rank 1 I-66 W @ VA- 234/EXIT 47 * 2 h 59 m 12.21 98 214,122 * The Impact Factor of a bottleneck is simply the product of the Average Duration (minutes), Average Max Length (miles) and the number of occurrences. Rank 2 I-270 S @ I- 270 (SPUR) 2 h 8 m 12 128 196,645 National Capital Region Congestion Report, 4th Quarter 2015 4

Rank 3 I-495 CW @ MD- 4/PENNSYLVANIA AVE/EXIT 11 3 h 8 m 13.61 70 179,173 Rank 4 I-495 CW @ MD- 214/CENTRAL AVE/EXIT 15 2 h 10 m 8.49 151 166,733 National Capital Region Congestion Report, 4th Quarter 2015 5

Rank 5 I-95 N @ VA- 123/EXIT 160 2 h 24 m 6.01 181 156,679 Rank 6 I-495 CCW @ GREENBELT METRO DR/EXIT 24 1 h 52 m 5.05 255 144,335 National Capital Region Congestion Report, 4th Quarter 2015 6

Rank 7 I-495 CCW @ VA- 193/GEORGETOWN PIKE/EXIT 13 2 h 5.34 223 142,950 Rank 8 I-95 S @ VA- 123/EXIT 160 2 h 44 m 5.09 165 137,862 National Capital Region Congestion Report, 4th Quarter 2015 7

Rank 9 DC-295 N @ EASTERN AVE 3 h 28 m 3.49 185 134,329 Rank 10 MD-295 N @ MD-197/EXIT 11 3 h 34 m 6.98 70 104,493 National Capital Region Congestion Report, 4th Quarter 2015 8

Congestion Maps Figure 3. Travel Time Index during weekday 8:00-9:00 AM in 4th Quarter 2015 National Capital Region Congestion Report, 4th Quarter 2015 9

Figure 4. Travel Time Index during weekday 5:00-6:00 PM in 4th Quarter 2015 National Capital Region Congestion Report, 4th Quarter 2015 10

4th Quarter 2015 Spotlight CMP in FAST Act Introduction On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed the Fixing America s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, authorizing $305 billion surface transportation funding for the next five years. This is the first bill to provide funding for more than two years since SAFETEA-LU, giving states and local governments more certainty to plan and invest in improvements to roadway, bridge, and transit systems. This quarterly spotlight takes a first look at the FAST Act in the area of Congestion Management Process (CMP). CMP in FAST Act The CMP is enriched in the FAST Act by adding an OPTIONAL Congestion Management Plan (CMPL) that may be developed by a transportation management area (TMA). The Act states that: A metropolitan planning organization serving a transportation management area may develop a plan that includes projects and strategies that will be considered in the TIP of such metropolitan planning organization. Such plan shall (i) develop regional goals to reduce vehicle miles traveled during peak commuting hours and improve transportation connections between areas with high job concentration and areas with high concentrations of low-income households; (ii) identify existing public transportation services, employer-based commuter programs, and other existing transportation services that support access to jobs in the region; and (iii) identify proposed projects and programs to reduce congestion and increase job access opportunities. In developing the Congestion Management Plan:, a metropolitan planning organization shall consult with employers, private and nonprofit providers of public transportation, transportation management organizations, and organizations that provide job access reverse commute projects or job-related services to low income individuals. Another change regarding the CMP is that the FAST Act elaborates on travel demand reduction strategies that include intercity bus operators, employer-based commuting programs such as a carpool program, vanpool program, transit benefit program, parking cash-out program, shuttle program, or telework program. The Act also adds job access projects in addition to travel demand reduction and operational management strategies to address congestion management. The FAST Act retains the MAP-21 performance-based planning requirements with no changes. The CMP, especially congestion measures and this quarterly congestion report, is expected to be adjusted by the forthcoming US DOT System Performance Measures rulemaking. National Capital Region Congestion Report, 4th Quarter 2015 11

Background Motivation Inspired by various agency and jurisdictional dashboard efforts around the country (e.g., the Virginia Department of Transportation Dashboard), driven by the MAP-21 legislation and the emerging probebased traffic speed data from the I-95 Corridor Coalition Vehicle Probe Project, this quarterly updated National Capital Region Congestion Report takes advantage of the availability of rich data and analytical tools to produce customized, easy-to-communicate, and quarterly updated traffic congestion and travel time reliability performance measures for the Transportation Planning Board (TPB) Planning Area. The goal of this effort is to timely summarize the region s congestion and the programs of the TPB and its member jurisdictions that would have an impact on congestion, to examine reliability and non-recurring congestion for recent incidents/occurrences, in association with relevant congestion management strategies, and to prepare for the MAP-21 performance reporting. Methodology Travel Time Index (TTI) TTI is defined as the ratio of actual travel time to free-flow travel time, measures the intensity of congestion. The higher the index, the more congested traffic conditions it represents, e.g., TTI = 1.00 means free flow conditions, while TTI = 1.30 indicates the actual travel time is 30% longer than the freeflow travel time. For more information, please refer to Travel Time Reliability: Making It There On Time, All The Time, a report published by the Federal Highway Administration and produced by the Texas Transportation Institute with Cambridge Systematics, Inc. This report uses the following method to calculate TTI: 1. Download INRIX 5-minute raw data from the I-95 Traffic Monitoring website (http://i95.inrix.com) or the VPP Suite website (https://vpp.ritis.org). 2. Aggregate the raw data to monthly average data by day of the week and hour of the day. Harmonic Mean was used to average the speeds and reference speeds (Harmonic Mean is only used here; other averages used are all Arithmetic Mean). For each segment (TMC), the monthly data have 168 observations (7 days in a week * 24 hours a day) in a month. 3. Calculate TTI = reference speed / speed in the monthly data. If TTI < 1 then make TTI = 1. If constraint TTI >= 1 was not imposed, some congestion could be cancelled by conditions with TTI < 1. 4. Calculate regional average TTI for the Interstate system, non-interstate NHS, non-nhs, and all roads for AM peak (6:00-10:00 am) and PM Peak (3:00-7:00 pm) respectively, using segment length as the weight. 5. Calculate the average TTI of the AM Peak and PM Peak to obtain an overall congestion indicator. Planning Time Index (PTI) PTI is defined as the ratio of 95th percentile travel time to free flow travel time, measures travel time reliability. The higher the index, the less reliable traffic conditions it represents, e.g., PTI = 1.30 means a traveler has to budget 30% longer than the uncongested travel time to arrive on time 95% of the times (i.e., 19 out of 20 trips), while TTI = 1.60 indicates that one has to budget 60% longer than the uncongested travel time to arrive on time most of the times. For more information, please refer to Travel Time Reliability: Making It There On Time, All The Time, a report published by the Federal National Capital Region Congestion Report, 4th Quarter 2015 12

Highway Administration and produced by the Texas Transportation Institute with Cambridge Systematics, Inc. This report uses the following method to calculate PTI: 1. Calculate TTI = reference speed / speed in the monthly data obtained in step 2 of the above TTI methodology. Do not impose constraint TTI >= 1, since the purpose of this calculation is to rank the TTIs to find the 95 th percentile, not to average the TTIs. 2. Calculate monthly average PTI: including sorting the data obtained in step 1 by segment, peak period, and month, finding the 95 th percentile TTI and this TTI is PTI by definition, and averaging the PTIs using segment length as the weight to get regional summaries (for the Interstate system, non- Interstate NHS, non-nhs, and all roads for AM peak (6:00-10:00 am) and PM Peak (3:00-7:00 pm) respectively). 3. Calculate yearly average PTI: including sorting the data obtained in step 1 by segment and peak period, finding the 95 th percentile TTI and this TTI is PTI by definition, and averaging the PTIs using segment length as the weight to get regional summaries. 4. Calculate the average PTI of the AM Peak and PM Peak to obtain an overall travel time reliability indicator. National Highway System (NHS) the October 1, 2012 designation of NHS was used in this report. In compliance with the MAP-21 requirements, all principal arterials have been added to the NHS. All Roads (in Figures 1 and 2) are the roads covered by the I-95 Corridor Coalition Vehicle Probe Project/INRIX data, as shown below. Figure 5. I-95 Vehicle Probe Project/INRIX data coverage in the National Capital Region National Capital Region Congestion Report, 4th Quarter 2015 13

Bottlenecks This report uses the Bottleneck Ranking tool in the VPP Suite to get the top 10 most significant bottleneck in the TPB Planning Area for a quarter. The VPP Suite uses the following methodology to track bottlenecks: Bottleneck conditions are determined by comparing the current reported speed to the reference speed for each segment of road. Reference speed values are provided by INRIX, Inc. for each segment and represent the 85th percentile observed speed for all time periods with a maximum value of 65 mph. If the reported speed falls below 60% of the reference, the road segment is flagged as a potential bottleneck. If the reported speed stays below 60% for five minutes, the segment is confirmed as a bottleneck location. Adjacent road segments meeting this condition are joined together to form the bottleneck queue. When reported speeds on every segment associated with a bottleneck queue have returned to values greater than 60% of their reference values and remained that way for 10 minutes, the bottleneck is considered cleared. The total duration of a bottleneck is the difference between the time when the congestion condition was first noticed (prior to the 5 minute lead in) and the time when the congestion condition recovered (prior to the 10 minute lead out). Bottlenecks whose total queue length, determined by adding the length of each road segment associated with the bottleneck, is less than 0.3 miles are ignored. Figure 6. The Life of a Bottleneck by Speed and Time This report uses the Impact Factor to rank the bottlenecks. The Impact Factor is simply the product of the Average Duration (minutes), Average Max Length (miles) and the number of occurrences. The University of Maryland CATT Lab is currently reviewing the bottleneck ranking methodology and it may soon be improved given the observed variability from quarter to quarter. Nonetheless, the identified bottlenecks by the current methodology represent significant choke points along traffic flows. Bottleneck location maps and spiral charts are all screen shots from the VPP Suite. Congestion Maps The maps were generated by the Trend Map tool in the VPP Suite. Since the VPP Suite limits the total number of segments of a query, the maps only show the freeways and some major arterials. National Capital Region Congestion Report, 4th Quarter 2015 14