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

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

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

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

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

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

KC Scout Kansas City s Bi-State Transportation Management Center

Hard Shoulder Running is a valuable tool July 14, Dean H. Gustafson, PE, PTOE State Operations Engineer VDOT Operations Division

KC Scout Kansas City s Bi-State Transportation Management Center

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

COMPARISON OF FIXED & VARIABLE RATES (25 YEARS) CHARTERED BANK ADMINISTERED INTEREST RATES - PRIME BUSINESS*

WIM #36 MN 36 MP 15.0 LAKE ELMO APRIL 2014 MONTHLY REPORT

95 Express Annual Operations Report: Fiscal Year

WIM #37 I-94, MP OTSEGO, MN APRIL 2012 MONTHLY REPORT

Bicycle Crashes. Number of Bike Crashes. Total Bike Crashes. are down 21% and severe bike crashes down 8% since 2013 (5 years).

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

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

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

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

Progress Report on the Design and Planning of an Infrastructure Improvement Project for the Sunnyside TIF District (Phase II)

Wisconsin 511 Traveler Information Annual Usage Summary January 3, Wisconsin 511 Phone Usage ( )

MAR DASHBOARD MAR. Compliant % Breakdown Mar % Late % On-time MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Utility Debt Securitization Authority 2013 T/TE Billed Revenues Tracking Report

National Capital Region Congestion Report

REVENUE & RIDERSHIP REPORT NOVEMBER 2017

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

Short-Term Transit Ridership and Revenue Forecasting

MALL CROSSING STUDY. Testing the Effectiveness Of the 4th Street East Crossing. For: City of Charlottesville Neighborhood Development Services

Chapter 4 Traffic Analysis

91 Express Lanes Model Update 2006 State Route 91 Implementation Plan. Gerald V. Nielsten May 18, 2007

Ben Timerson, MnDOT Erik Minge, SRF Consulting Group Greg Lindsey, University of Minnesota

2018 HR & PAYROLL Deadlines

Public Works Update Safety Campaign. Second Quarter Report

SEASONAL PRICES for TENNESSEE FEEDER CATTLE and COWS

Instances of 1 Minute or Less Between Buses 4 5% 55% 3.9% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 2.9% 2.8% Sep- Sep 07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07 Jan- Jan 08 Feb- Feb 08 Mar-08

MEASURING RECURRENT AND NON-RECURRENT TRAFFIC CONGESTION

Using GPS Data for Arterial Mobility Performance Measures

REVENUE & RIDERSHIP REPORT SEPTEMBER 2018

MEASUREMENT OF RECURRING VERSUS NON-RECURRING CONGESTION

A review of 2015 fatal collision statistics as of 31 December 2015

Financial Project ID No(s).: and ETDM No(s).: and 14181

2009 Forecast for the Chicago CBD

Congestion Reduction in Europe: Advancing Transport Efficiency. MG Tackling urban road congestion D3.4

FORM A PASCO COUNTY ACCESS CONNECTION PERMIT APPLICATION

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

Planning Daily Work Trip under Congested Abuja Keffi Road Corridor

CHAPTER 8 APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONGESTION MEASURES

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

SUBJECT: I-82 Existing Conditions I-84 Boardman to Ontario Corridor Management Plan P

WELCOME Mission-Geneva Transportation Study

North Carolina Transportation Issues

Proposed Action, Purpose and Need Technical Memorandum

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

National Capital Region Congestion Report

Ventura County Grand Jury

RTC TRANSIT OPERATING STATISTICS RTC RIDE RTC RAPID RTC INTERCITY SIERRA SPIRIT

CARTA East Cooper Transit Service Transportation Committee Town of Mount Pleasant. February 5, 2013

Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Travel Time Survey

DEC DASHBOARD. Positive Response Compliance DEC. Compliant Tickets : On-Time Performance Analysis. December % Late.

JAN DASHBOARD. Positive Response Compliance JAN. Compliant Tickets : On-Time Performance Analysis. January % Late.

INNOVATIVE INTERSECTION DESIGN

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

Traffic Impact Analysis

Volume Studies CIVL 4162/6162

EVALUATION OF METHODOLOGIES FOR THE DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF FREEWAY WEAVING SECTIONS. Alexander Skabardonis 1 and Eleni Christofa 2

MULTIMODAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT

100 Most Congested Roadways in Texas

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

May 2018 MLS Statistical Report

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

Truck Climbing Lane Traffic Justification Report

Understanding Rider Differences in Mileage and Riding Frequency through the MSF100 Motorcyclists Naturalistic Study.

CONGESTION REPORT 4 th Quarter 2016

Chapter 5 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION

SOLTRANS BOARD MEETING SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS / HANDOUTS January 15, 2015 MEETING HANDOUTS

b Number issued 200,000 (marked with * in the attached appendix) Exercise price is as set out in the appendix

NEVADA SLOT MACHINES: HISTORICAL HOLD PERCENTAGE VARIATIONS ANNUAL AND MONTHLY HOLD PERCENTAGES, CENTER FOR GAMING RESEARCH, NOVEMBER 2017

MoPac South: Impact on Cesar Chavez Street and the Downtown Network

Properties. terc.ucdavis.edu 8

Manufacturers continue capacity expansion as technology orders grow

3. EXCEL FORMULAS & TABLES

January 2019 FY Key Performance Report

KING STREET TRANSIT PILOT

2. Existing Conditions

Mobility and Congestion

7.0 FREEWAYS CONGESTION HOT SPOT PROBLEM & IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ANALYSIS & DEFINITION

Maryland State Highway Mobility Report. Morteza Tadayon

Mr. Joseph J. Lhota Chairman Metropolitan Transportation Authority 2 Broadway New York, NY Re: Train On-Time Performance Report 2017-F-8

Figure 1: Vicinity Map of the Study Area

GIVING GEORGIANS A CHOICE TO KEEP MOVING

MEMORANDUM. Charlotte Fleetwood, Transportation Planner

Site Description: LOCATION DETAILS Report Prepared By: Tower Site Report Date

Integrating CMS Into The Planning Process

Traffic Safety Basic Facts 2011

Flatfish AM Development Bycatch Savings

SWISS Traffic Figures May 2004

September 2018 FY Key Performance Report

Final Report. Evaluation of Flashing Yellow Right Turn Arrow at Silverbell Rd and Cortaro Rd. FHWA Experimentation #4-329(E)

2018 Annual Economic Forecast Dragas Center for Economic Analysis and Policy

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Wind Resource Data Summary Guam Naval Ordnance Annex Data Summary and Retrieval for November 2009

THE FUTURE OF THE TxDOT ROADWAY DESIGN MANUAL

Transcription:

(http://mobility.tamu.edu/mmp) Office of Operations, Federal Highway Administration Appendix ELP El Paso, Texas 2003 Annual Report on Freeway Mobility and Reliability This report is a supplement to: Monitoring Urban Freeways in 2003: Current Conditions and Trends from Archived Operations Data. Texas Transportation Institute and Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Report No. FHWA-HOP-05-018, December 2004, available at http://mobility.tamu.edu/mmp. Exhibit ELP-1: Current Measures and Trends Measures Current Year Last Year Two Years Ago 2003 2002 Change 2001 Change Performance Measures Travel Time Index 1.26 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Planning Time Index 1.43 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Buffer Index 12% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. % Congested Travel 58% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Delay (veh-hours) per 1000 VMT 2.91 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Explanatory Measures Peak Period VMT (000) 320 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Avg. Annual DVMT (000) 1,640 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Data Quality Measures % complete 33% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. % valid 49% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. % of VMT covered 41% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. % of freeway miles 60% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. * See pages 7 and 8 for maps of freeway coverage, measure definitions, and further documentation. Exhibit ELP-2: 2000 to 2003 Annual Trends 1.45 1.43 1.35 Exhibit ELP-3: Daily and Monthly Trends 1.80 1.70 1.60 2003 31 miles 1.25 1.15 1.26 1.50 1.05 2000 2000 to 2002: No data available 2001 2002 31 miles 2003 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Day of Year (weekdays, non-holidays only) Travel Time Index Planning Time Index Travel Time Planning Time Monthly Travel Time Monthly Planning Time El Paso began archiving traffic detector data in mid-2003, so no trend information is available yet. The month-to-month trends within 2003 show no apparent pattern. The freeway mileage coverage within El Paso is relatively high (60%). The data completeness is low (33%) mostly because the January-April data was not available. Data Source(s): TransVista (http://www.transvista.dot.state.tx.us/), Texas Department of Transportation Includes 31 of 52 (60%) total freeway miles in El Paso; collected using loop detectors; see page 7 for additional information on the data source Data Analysis: Texas Transportation Institute, analysis completed September 2004 El Paso, Texas ELP-1 2003 Annual Report

Time of Day Patterns and Trends The charts on this page illustrate average weekday (no holidays included) traffic patterns and trends that were measured on the freeway sections instrumented with operations-based traffic sensors. 2.00 1.90 1.80 1.70 1.60 1.50 12 AM 2 AM 4 AM 6 AM 8 AM 10 AM 12 PM 2 PM 4 PM 6 PM 8 PM 10 PM 12 AM Time of Day (weekdays, non-holidays only) Travel Time Planning Time Exhibit ELP-4: Mobility and Reliability by Time of Average Weekday This chart shows areawide congestion and reliability patterns. The difference between the solid line (travel time index) and the dashed line (planning time index) is the additional buffer or time cushion that travelers must add to average trip times to ensure 95% on-time arrival. The El Paso data indicate slower-than-normal speeds throughout the day, with small traffic peaks occurring near 8 am and 5 pm. Travel reliability appears to be consistent throughout the day. Percentage 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 12 AM 2 AM 4 AM 6 AM 8 AM 10 AM 12 PM 2 PM 4 PM 6 PM 8 PM 10 PM 12 AM Time of Day (weekdays, non-holidays only) This chart illustrates the difference in using two different speed thresholds (50 and 60 mph) to compute the percent of congested days as well as the percent of congested travel. Using a 50 mph threshold, 20-30% of the VMT and 50-70% of days are congested during the peak hours. Using a 60 mph threshold, 60-70% of the VMT and 80-90% of days are congested during the peak hours. Days below 50 mph Days below 60 mph VMT below 50 mph VMT below 60 mph Exhibit ELP-5: Frequency and Percentage of Congested Travel by Time of Average Weekday El Paso, Texas ELP-2 2003 Annual Report

Time Period of the Day Patterns and Trends The charts on this page illustrate average weekday (no holidays included) traffic patterns and trends that were measured on the freeway sections instrumented with operations-based traffic sensors. The time periods are defined uniformly for all cities to facilitate trend analysis over time and between cities. The time periods are defined as follows: Early AM: 12 to 6 am AM Peak: 6 to 9 am Mid-day: 9 am to 4 pm PM Peak: 4 to 7 pm Late PM: 7 pm to 12 am PM Peak (4p-7p) 24% Late PM (7p-12a) 17% Early AM (12a-6a) 4% AM Peak (6a-9a) 17% Mid-day (9a-4p) 38% This chart shows the percent of delay that occurred during different time periods of an average weekday. Note that the AM and PM peak periods are the same duration, but that the other time periods have different lengths. The delay in the mid-day period is greater than either the morning or evening peak period. This could be caused by slow traffic speeds throughout the day (see Exhibit 4). Exhibit ELP-6: Percent of Delay by Time Period 1.70 500,000 450,000 1.60 400,000 1.50 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 Early AM AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak Late PM Travel Time Planning Time Vehicle Delay Exhibit ELP-7: Mobility, Reliability, and Delay by Time Period Delay (vehicle-hours) This chart shows congestion and reliability (shown as bars) as well as delay (shown as a line) during different time periods of an average weekday. The trends in this chart follow closely those shown in Exhibit 6. The congestion (travel time index) and reliability (planning time index) levels are consistently high throughout the day. Because the mid-day period includes more hours, it has significantly greater delay than the peak periods. El Paso, Texas ELP-3 2003 Annual Report

Day of Week Patterns and Trends The charts on this page illustrate average traffic patterns and trends that were measured on the freeway sections instrumented with operations-based traffic sensors. Because of different peak period times and lengths on weekdays and weekends, the statistics presented on this page are 24-hour daily totals or averages. Friday 17% Thursday 16% Saturday 11% Sunday 8% Wednesday 17% Monday 15% Tuesday 16% This chart shows the percent of total daily delay that occurred during each day of the week. All weekdays have comparable delay levels, with Monday delay being slightly less than other weekdays. Each weekend day has 50-75% of the delay typical of the weekdays. Exhibit ELP-8: Percent of Daily Vehicle Delay by Day of Week 1.70 1.60 1.50 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 Delay (vehicle-hours) This chart shows average daily congestion and reliability (shown as bars) as well as total daily delay (shown as a line) during each day of the week. The trends in this chart follow closely those shown in Exhibit 8. All weekdays have comparable congestion and delay levels. The weekend congestion and reliability levels are higher than expected. Travel Time Planning Time Vehicle Delay Exhibit ELP-9: Mobility, Reliability, and Delay by Day of Week El Paso, Texas ELP-4 2003 Annual Report

Other Traffic Data Patterns and Trends The chart on this page illustrates average traffic patterns and trends that were measured on the freeway sections instrumented with operations-based traffic sensors. Percentage 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60+ Speed Range (mph) % of VMT % of Time % of Delay This chart shows the percent of VMT, time, and delay in different speed ranges. This chart is useful to determine how much VMT and delay occurred at different congestion levels. Nearly 60% of the delay is in the 20 to 30 mph and 30 to 40 mph ranges. About 10% of the delay occurs in the 50 to 60 mph range, indicating that most traffic delay happens at slower speeds. Exhibit ELP-10: Percent of VMT, Delay and Time Periods in Different Speed Ranges El Paso, Texas ELP-5 2003 Annual Report

Mobility and Reliability Statistics for Specific Freeway Sections The table in this section illustrates average weekday (no holidays included) statistics from the freeway sections instrumented with operations-based traffic sensors. Where possible, the freeway sections have been defined to begin and end at major interchanges, streets, or other locations where traffic conditions are likely to change. The freeway sections are typically between 5 and 10 miles in length. Exhibit ELP-11. Mobility and Reliability by Section and Time Period Travel Time Index Buffer Index Freeway Section Morning Evening Average Morning Evening Average (sorted from most congested to least congested sections) Length (mi) Peak (6a-9a) Midday (9a-4p) Peak (4p-7p) peak period Peak (6a-9a) Midday (9a-4p) Peak (4p-7p) peak period IH-10 WB: Executive Dr to Mesa 6.35 1.51 1.38 1.52 1.52 61% 52% 46% 52% US-54 NB: Paisano to Fred Wilson 4.95 1.33 1.37 1.35 1.35 6% 5% 4% 5% IH-10 WB: Hawkins to US-54 4.30 1.32 1.35 1.33 36% 37% 39% 37% IH-10 EB: Executive Dr to US-54 6.30 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.28 21% 19% 26% 23% IH-10 EB: Mesa to Executive Dr 6.30 1.26 1.25 1.26 1.26 43% 47% 43% 43% IH-10 EB: US-54 to Hawkins 4.40 1.19 1.19 1.23 1.21 36% 36% 38% 37% US-54 SB: Fred Wilson to Paisano 5.00 1.18 1.21 5% 6% 5% 5% IH-10 WB: US-54 to Executive Dr 6.55 1.12 1.13 1.21 1.16 32% 33% 29% 31% US-54 NB: Fred Wilson to Loop 375 4.50 1.08 1.09 1.07 1.07 8% 7% 6% 7% US-54 SB: Loop 375 to Fred Wilson 4.45 0% 0% 2% 1% IH-10 EB: Hawkins to LeeTrevino 3.15 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. IH-10 WB: Zaragosa to Hawkins 6.00 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Average for all Sections 1.24 1.24 1.28 1.26 31% 30% 29% 30% This table shows average weekday congestion (travel time index) and reliability (buffer index) for specific routes for different time periods of the day. Nearly all freeway sections have relatively high congestion levels, even during the mid-day period. Data were not available for the last two freeway sections. El Paso, Texas ELP-6 2003 Annual Report

Source and Coverage of Data This report was produced using data collected and archived by the TransVista program of the Texas Department of Transportation (http://www.transvista.dot.state.tx.us/). A map of the freeway routes on which traffic data was collected is shown below (dots indicate routes on which sensors are located). Exhibit ELP-12: Freeway Routes with Traffic Sensors in El Paso (Source of graphic: TransVista, http://www.transvista.dot.state.tx.us/) Exhibit ELP-13: Instrumented Freeway Coverage in El Paso Coverage Measures Year Instrumented Total Freeway Freeway Routes System 1 Percent Coverage Lane-miles 2000 n.a. 280 n.a. 2001 n.a. 285 n.a. 2002 n.a. 285 n.a. 2003 193 288 67% Centerline-miles 2000 n.a. 51 n.a. 2001 n.a. 51 n.a. 2002 n.a. 51 n.a. 2003 31 52 60% Average annual 2000 n.a. 3,975 n.a. daily vehicle-miles 2001 n.a. 4,115 n.a. of travel (DVMT) 2002 n.a. 4,015 n.a. (1000) 2003 1,635 4,035 41% 1 Source is FHWA s Highway Performance Monitoring System and the Texas Transportation Institute s Urban Mobility Study (http://mobility/tamu.edu/ums). El Paso, Texas ELP-7 2003 Annual Report

Documentation and Definitions Performance Measures Travel Time Index: ratio of the average peak period travel time to an off-peak travel time. For example, a value of means that average peak travel times are 20% longer than off-peak travel times. In this report, the morning peak period is from 6 to 9 a.m. and the evening peak period is from 4 to 7 p.m. The off-peak travel time is calculated by assuming a free-flow speed of 60 mph. Planning Time Index: statistically defined as the 95th percentile Travel Time Index, this measure also represents the extra time most travelers include when planning peak period trips. For example, a value of 1.60 means that travelers plan for an additional 60% travel time above the off-peak travel times to ensure 95% on-time arrival. Buffer Index: the extra time (or buffer) needed to ensure on-time arrival for most trips. For example, a value of 40% means that a traveler should budget an additional 8 minute buffer for a 20-minute average peak trip time to ensure 95% on-time arrival. In this report, the buffer index is a VMT-weighted average of the buffer index for each route for the morning and evening peak period. The buffer index is calculated for each route and time period as follows: buffer index = (95 th percentile travel time average travel time) / average travel time. % Congested Travel: the congested peak period vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) divided by total VMT in the peak period. This is a relative measure of the amount of peak period travel affected by congestion. Total Delay per 1000 VMT: the total vehicle delay (in vehicle-hours) divided by the amount of VMT. This is a relative measure of the total delay and will not be as affected by changes in the level of sensor instrumentation for a particular city. Vehicle Delay: the delay (in vehicle-hours) experienced by vehicles traveling less than free-flow speeds (assumed to be 60 mph in this report). Explanatory Measures Peak Period VMT: the average amount of VMT within the defined peak periods (weekdays from 6 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 7 p.m.) for the year. Peak period VMT is reported by 1000s. Average Annual DVMT (000): the average annual amount of daily VMT (DVMT) for all days and times for the year. Average annual DVMT is reported by 1000s. Data Quality Measures % complete: the number of valid reported data values divided by the number of total expected data values (given the number of active sensors and time periods). In this report, % complete is reported as the lowest value of either traffic volume or speed data. % valid: the number of reported data values that passed defined acceptance criteria divided by the total number of reported data values. In this report, % valid is reported as the lowest value of either traffic volume or speed data. % of DVMT covered: the amount of average annual DVMT reported by sensors divided by the areawide average annual DVMT as estimated in FHWA s Highway Performance Monitoring System and TTI s Urban Mobility Study. This measure characterizes the relative amount of areawide travel that has the performance indicated in this report. % coverage of freeway mileage: the amount of freeway lane-miles containing sensors divided by the areawide freeway lane-miles as estimated in FHWA s Highway Performance Monitoring System and TTI s Urban Mobility Study. This measure characterizes the relative amount of areawide freeways that has the performance indicated in this report. El Paso, Texas ELP-8 2003 Annual Report