TTI Data - Chicago - Performance Measure Summary There are...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 Performance Measure Summary There are several inventory and performance measures listed in the pages of this Urban Area Report for the years from 1982 to 2005. There is no single performance measure that experts agree “says it all.” The best comparison of congestion levels and trends is done between regions of similar size, over several years, and with a few measures of congestion aspects. Examining a few measures over many years reduces the chance that data variations or the estimating procedures may have caused a “spike” in any single year. A few key points should be recognized by users of the Urban Mobility Report data. Use the Trends – The multi-year performance measures are better indicators, in most cases, than any single year. ( 5 years is 5 times better than 1 year ). Use several measures – Each performance measure illustrates a different element of congestion. ( The view is more interesting from the top of a few measures ). Compare to similar regions – Congestion analyses that compare areas with similar characteristics (for example population, growth rate, road and public transportation system design) are usually more insightful than comparisons of different regions. ( Los Angeles is not Peoria ). Compare ranking changes and performance measure values – In some performance measures a small change in the value may cause a significant change in rank from one year to the next. This is the case when there are several regions with nearly the same value. ( 15 hours is only 1 hour more than 14 hours ). Consider the scope of improvement options – Any improvement project in a corridor within most of the regions will only have a modest effect on the regional congestion level. ( To have an effect on areawide congestion, there must be significant change in the system or service ). Comparison of Several Key Mobility Performance Measures Very Large Group – over 3 million population urban areas Urban Area Delay per Traveler Travel Time Index Total Delay 1982 to 2005 Delay per Traveler Total Delay New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT L 0 H+ 0 F+ Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA H+ H+ H+ S F+ Chicago, IL-IN L H+ H 0 F+ Miami, FL L 0 L 0 0 Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD L- L- L- S- S- Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX H L L F+ F Washington, DC-VA-MD H 0 L F+ S- Atlanta, GA H L L 0 S- San Francisco-Oakland, CA H H L F S- Boston, MA-NH-RI L L- L- 0 S- Detroit, MI 0 L- L- S S- Houston, TX H 0 L- S S- Phoenix, AZ L L L- S- S- Seattle, WA L- L- L- 0 S- 0 – Average congestion levels or average congestion growth H Higher congestion; H+ Much higher congestion; F Faster congestion growth; F+ Much faster growth L Lower congestion; L- Much lower congestion; S Slower congestion growth; S- Much slower growth
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
2 Performance Measures and Definition of Terms Travel Time Index – A measure of congestion that focuses on each trip and each mile of travel. The ratio of travel time in the peak period to travel time in free-flow. A value of 1.30 indicates a 20-minute free-flow trip takes 26 minutes in the peak.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 06/29/2009 for the course CEE 3000 taught by Professor Meyer during the Spring '07 term at Georgia Institute of Technology.

Page1 / 8

TTI Data - Chicago - Performance Measure Summary There are...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online