Transcript Trends in Measuring Operations Performance

Current Efforts in Measuring
Operations Performance
A National Overview
presented to
ITS Georgia 2005 Annual Meeting
presented by
Kenny Voorhies
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
August 29, 2005
Transportation leadership you can trust.
Current Performance Measurement Activities
Two national efforts
• NCHRP 3-68 – “Guide to Effective Freeway Performance
Measurement”
• NTOC Performance Measures Task Force
FHWA national activities
• Urban Congestion Reporting
• Mobility monitoring
State DOT efforts
NCHRP 3-68 - “Guide to Effective Freeway
Performance Measurement”
Project Tasks
•
•
•
•
Benchmarking interviews – 11 regions
Information development
Six Regional workshops (probably September)
Final Guide production
Focus on measures related to
congestion/mobility
Estimated completion date: October 2005
NCHRP 3-68 Findings: Performance Measures
Used
Outcome measures
• Derivations of travel time, speed, delay
• LOS still used but not as much
• Reliability measures in early stages
Output measures
• Incident management efficiency
• Operation of field equipment
Minimal use of customer satisfaction measures
NCHRP 3-68 Findings: Data is an Major Issue
In some cases ITS provides data for operations
agencies
Data quality has reduced use of ITS data
Primarily model-derived data for planning
agencies
NCHRP 3-68 Findings: Desired Uses of
Performance Measures
“Now that we have measures, what do we do
with the results?”
Weekly, monthly, quarterly, annual reports
Statewide reporting, Regional reporting
Linking measures to investment decisions not
well established
NCHRP 3-68 – Basic Principles
1.
Measures based on travel time
2.
Multiple measures are good
3.
Traditional HCM measures (LOS, V/C) not
primary measures
4.
Use person-based measures when necessary
5.
Use mobility (outcome) and efficiency (output)
measures
NCHRP 3-68 – Basic Principles (continued)
6.
Include customer satisfaction
7.
Three dimensions of congestion:
source (cause), temporal aspects, spatial detail
8.
Include reliability measures (may require
continuous data)
9.
Use graphics and methods to communicate with
both technical and non-technical audiences
NTOC Performance Measures
National Transportation Operations Coalition
(NTOC)
• ITE, AASHTO, TRB, ITS America, ICMA, AMPO, plus other
associations and the FHWA
One of several task forces is focusing on
operations performance measurement
• Led by ICMA with assistance from University of Maryland
Center for Advanced Transportation
NTOC Performance Measure Effort
Literature Review
Initial List of 14 Candidate Measures
Development of Survey
• Sent to association members
• 333 responses (261 from State and local agencies)
Candidate measures and survey results reviewed by
oversight committee at the ITE Technical Conference in
March
“Final” list of 10 performance measures has been
developed – four defined here
Some NTOC Performance Measure Definitions
Travel Time Reliability (Buffer Index) - The buffer
index is the additional time that must be added
to a trip, to ensure that travelers making the trip
will arrive at their destination at, or before, the
intended time, 95% of the time.
Extent of Congestion – Spatial (also measurable
by time) - Miles of roadway within a predefined
area and time period, for which average travel
times are 30% longer than unconstrained travel
times.
Some NTOC Performance Measure Definitions
Incident Duration - The time elapsed from the
notification of an incident until all evidence of
the incident has been removed from the incident
scene.
Customer Satisfaction – A qualitative measure of
customers’ opinions related to the roadway
management and operations services provided
in a specified region.
Top Ten NTOC Performance Measures
Customer Satisfaction
Throughput – Person
Extent of Congestion
– Spatial and
Temporal
Throughput – Vehicle
Incident Duration
Travel Time Reliability
(Buffer Index)
Travel Time – Link
Recurring Delay
Travel Time - Trip
Speed
NTOC Performance Measures Next Steps
A report documenting these initial measures was
distributed to the operations community in late
July to encourage their use
• NTOC Performance Measure Initiative – Final
Report
Potential next steps still under consideration may include having states/locals actually “test
drive” the performance measures to determine
their usefulness and whether or not the data is
available to reliably compute the measures
Use of Performance Measures by FHWA
Key Outcome Measures
• Travel time index
• Extent of congestion
• Buffer index
Uses
• Tracking national trends
• Educating state and local governments on use of
performance measures
Key FHWA Performance Measures Efforts
Urban Congestion Reporting (monthly)
Mobility monitoring (annually)
• Monthly reporting under development
Urban Congestion Reporting
Uses “web-scraping” from 10 traveler information web sites to
develop a monthly report on the following measures:
• Percent congested travel (time-based)
• Travel Time Index
• Buffer Index
Mobility Monitoring Program
Use of archived Traffic Management Center/ITS
Data to develop annual performance measures
Using 33 cities for 2004 data analysis
Mobility Measures: Travel Time Index, Percent of
Congested Travel
Reliability Measures: Buffer Time Index, Planning
Time Index
State DOT Efforts
Examples of Performance Measurement
Activities
• Washington State DOT
• Minnesota DOT
• Maryland SHA (CHART)
Washington State DOT
Performance measures vital tool for :
• Program Delivery
− Where are we now?
− How are we doing?
− Are there gaps?
− Where do we want to take this?
• Budget
• Sustainability of Maintenance and Operations
Measuring WSDOT’s
Incident Response Program
(from Grey Notebook)
- Joint Operations agreement with
State Patrol (2002)
- Zero over-90 minute incident
performance target
- Doubled IRT units (July 2002)
- Incident Response Database
(WITS)
Ramp Metering Improvements
Minnesota DOT
Mn/DOT uses ITS technologies to measure
system performance for reports to the public and
policy makers
Mn/DOT uses before/after studies and market
research to measure the performance of ITS
technologies
Two system measures are congestion and
incident clearance
Incident Management – Clearance Time
Average Clearance Time for Urban Freeway Incidents
50
45
39
36.4
36.3
34.1
33.7
34.3
34.0
2000
33.5
1999
32.9
1997
32.6
33.7
36.2
36.3
2002
32.5
33.2
2001
34.4
1996
35
Trendline
39.2
40
1995
36.3
37.3
38.0
35
Target =35
30
25
Calendar Year
Source: Mn/ DOT RTMC. (3-Year Moving Average) & Annual Average
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
20
1998
Clearance Time (Minutes)
41.4
Maryland State Highway Administration CHART
Developed business
processes
Maintains Business Plan
annually
Analysis conducted by
University of Maryland
Performance measures
documented annually in DOT
Performance Report
CHART Business Process
Performance measurement and
traffic flow analysis — CHART
archives data related to traffic flow,
weather, and the activities
managed by the program to
establish and maintain a data set by
which statistical and operational
performance measurements can be
calculated and evaluated, and
reenactments of activities may be
simulated and evaluated for best
practices.
TRAFFIC
MONITORING,
DETECTION,
VERIFICATION
INCIDENT,
TRAFFIC,
OPERATIONS
MANAGEMENT
TRAVELER
INFORMATION
PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENT
AND
TRAFFIC FLOW
ANALYSIS
EXTERNAL
TRANSPORTATION
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
INTERFACE
Objective from CHART Business Plan
Objective 2.1
Provide effective incident
management that reduces annual incident
congestion delay by at least 30 million vehiclehours to achieve related cost savings of $570M
for the traveling public, including $150M for
commercial traffic, by June 30, 2008
UMD Analysis
UMD Analysis