Performance Measures for Highway Capacity Decision Making

1. PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR
HIGHWAY CAPACITY DECISION MAKING
WEST VIRGINIA PLANNING CONFERENCE – SEPTEMBER 16, 2015
SALEEM SALAMEH, P.E., PH.D. KYOVA IPC
TRUNG VO, P.E. KIMLEY-HORN

2. OUTLINE
 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
 KYOVA Performance Measurement
 A Case Study in Highway Capacity Decision Making
2

3. MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS
IN THE 21ST CENTURY
PERFORMANCE ELEMENTS . NATIONAL GOALS . PERFORMANCE MEASURES
3

4. PERFORMANCE ELEMENTS
1. National Goals
2. Measures
3. Targets
4. Plans
5. Reports
6. Accountability and Transparency
4

5. NATIONAL GOALS
5
Goal Area National Goal
Safety Reduce fatalities & serious injuries on all public roads
Infrastructure condition Maintain a state of good repair
Congestion reduction Significantly reduce congestion on the NHS
System reliability Improve the efficiency of the surface system
Freight movement &
economic vitality
Improve the national freight network, access of rural communities to
markets, & economic development
Environmental sustainability
Enhance system performance while protecting and enhancing the
environment
Reduced project delivery delays
Accelerate project completion by eliminating delays in the project
delivery process

6. PERFORMANCE MEASURES
 Safety Performance
 Number of fatalities and number of serious injuries
 Rate of fatalities and rate of serious injuries
6

7. PERFORMANCE MEASURES
 Pavement and Bridge
 Percentage of pavements in the Interstate System in good and poor condition
 Percentage of pavements of the non-Interstate NHS in good and poor condition
 Percentage of NHS bridges classified as being in good and poor condition
7

8. KYOVA PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
STRATEGIC HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM 2 . 2040 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS . SPATIAL DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM
8

9. STRATEGIC HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM 2 (SHRP 2)
 SHRP 2 was created to
 Improve highway safety
 Reduce congestion
 Improve methods for renewing roads and bridges
 KYOVA will use its SHRP 2 grant to establish a process that
 Conforms to national and state standards
 Is easily repeatable
 Coordinates with available data and data gathering practices
9

10. STRATEGIC HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM 2 (SHRP 2)
TIMELINE OF EVENTS
 January-March 2015 – KYOVA applied for and was awarded funding for C02: Performance
Measures for Highway Capacity Decision-Making
 May 2015 – Kickoff Conference Call with FHWA and completion of Statement of Work
 August 2015 – Notification to proceed with work
 September-November 2015 – Identify stakeholders and prepare for FHWA workshop
 November 2015 – Stakeholder workshop
 June 2016 – Complete SHRP 2 Implementation Assistance project
10

11. STRATEGIC HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM 2 (SHRP 2)
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Task # Deliverable/Activity Timeframe
1 Identify stakeholders 1 week
2
Kickoff meeting with stakeholders (merged with FHWA
workshop)
2 weeks
3 Data needs coordination 4 weeks
4 Preparation for FHWA workshop 4 weeks
5 Conduct workshop with FHWA and stakeholders 1 week
6 Summarize feedback from FHWA workshop 2 weeks
7 Additional data gathering and coordination 4 weeks
8 Develop action plan for C02 tool application 4 weeks
9 Prepare C02 tool performance documentation 2 weeks
10 Presentation to agency stakeholders 2 weeks 11

12. STRATEGIC HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM 2 (SHRP 2)
FHWA WORKSHOP
 Stakeholders will hear from representatives from FHWA, KYOVA, WVDOT, KYTC, and
ODOT about current and forthcoming work on performance measures
 Break-out group brainstorming to generate ideas on future “action steps”
 Group dialogue on the framework and components of the Action Plan
 Discussion of next steps for developing and implementing the Action Plan
12

13. 2040 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN
PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
 Efficiency
 Reduction in Delay
 Reduction in Excess Demand
 Support of Freight Priorities
 Support of Transit Service
 Support of Bicycle and Pedestrian
Mobility
 Safety
 Growth Management
 Economic Development
 Existing Deficiency
 Cost Effectiveness
 State Priority
13

14. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
 Intensity
 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
 Level of Service
 Travel Time Index
 Duration
 Extent
 Number of Vehicle Miles Traveled at
LOS E or F
 Total Delay
 Variability
 Crash Rate
 Planning Time Index
 Multimodal
 Fixed-Route Transit Coverage
 Bicycle/Pedestrian Routes/Facilities
 Proportion of CMP Network that
Includes Fixed-Route Transit or
Bicycle/Pedestrian Routes/Facilities
14

15. SPATIAL DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM (SDSS)
 A GIS-based system of relational databases, computational tools, and
information sources used to
 Store transportation system attribute and performance data
 Perform technical analyses that identify/quantify congestion and assess the effectiveness
of congestion reduction/mitigation strategies
 Provide themes maps and system performance reports for stakeholders and decision
makers
15

16. SPATIAL DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM (SDSS)
Map Figures
KYOVA Transportation Management Area Boundary Volumes from Traffic Model Assignments
CMP Network Capacities from Traffic Model Assignments
Major River Crossings V/C Ratios from Traffic Model Assignments
Fixed Route Transit Coverage Levels of Service
Computed Crash Rates Compared to Statewide Average Travel Time Indices
Congested Locations from Stakeholder Workshops Planning Time Indices
Downtown Railroad Underpass/Viaduct Locations
16

17. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
 Providing both consistency and flexibility
 Finding the right balance of national measures
 Managing performance across jurisdictions
 Data requirements and management
 Linking performance measures to investments
 Advancing technologies
17

18. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
 Improved communication link between investments and results
 Increased consistency
 Increased coordination across jurisdictions
 Greater understanding of what works
 Spur discussions on the value of future performance management
 Improved data collection, integration, reporting, and visualization
18

19. A CASE STUDY IN
HIGHWAY CAPACITY DECISION MAKING
NCDOT PRIORITIZATION PROCESS . BENEFIT/COST CRITERIA
TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS ANALYSIS . OPPORTUNITY FOR KYOVA
19

20. NCDOT PRIORITIZATION PROCESS
 Strategic Transportation Investments Law passed in 2013
 Replaces Equity Formula with Strategic Mobility Formula
 New data-driven process based on specific criteria
 Equity Formula would have funded 175 highway projects
 Mobility Formula will fund 478 highway projects
20

21. BENEFIT/COST CRITERIA
 Highway projects compete in three categories – all include Benefit/Cost
criteria
 Division Needs – 20%
 Regional Impact – 25%
 Statewide Mobility – 30%
 Benefit/Cost is based on travel time savings
21

22. TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS ANALYSIS
 TransModeler 4.0 is the selected microsimulation software to measure travel
time savings for every highway project
 Currently analyzing 98 projects – to be completed by end of October
 Long-term byproduct is statewide microsimulation model
22

23. OPPORTUNITY FOR KYOVA
 Integrate microsimulation with regional travel demand model
 How could microsimulation be used to inform KYOVA’s MTP prioritization
process?
 Potential performance measures
 Travel time savings
 Congestion reduction
 Queue spillback mitigation
23

24.  Saleem Salameh
KYOVA Interstate Planning Commission
ssalameh@kyovaipc.org
 Trung Vo
Kimley-Horn
trung.vo@kimley-horn.com
24