2016 freeway congestion & reliability report - michigan.gov · relies on roadside sensors to...

Chapter 1 FREEWAYPERFORMANCE MEASURES

2016 Freeway Congestion & Reliability Report

SUPERIOR

NORTH

GRAND BAY

SOUTHWESTUNIVERSITY

METRO

AcknowledgementsJason Firman – Congestion & Mobility Manager

John Engle – Operations Engineer

Tyler Hunt – Operations Engineer

Kayla Smith – Student Assistant

ContentsIntroduction .................................................................1

Probe Data ...................................................................3

Total Delay ...................................................................3

User Delay Cost ............................................................6

Average Speeds ...........................................................8

Congestion .................................................................10

Reliability ...................................................................19

Conclusion .................................................................20

Contact Info ...............................................................20

> FREEWAY CONGESTION & RELIABILITY REPORT > Freeway Performance Measures

1

Chapter 1

Introduction Performance measures are growing in the transportation arena to better monitor traffic conditions, improve traveler information, and identify congested areas with the aim of im-proving operations on roadways. MDOT initially used probe data to show travel time infor-mation to the public. Due to the enormous amount of data collected, it made it difficult to use for any other type of analysis. The University of Maryland Center for Advanced Transpor-tation Technology Lab developed a visual analytics and information visualization tool called the Regional Integrated Transportation Information System (RITIS). With this tool, MDOT is able to monitor speed, incidents, weather, events, and many other types of data.

This report expands the performance measures to all freeway routes in Michigan and offers additional measures (except some small segments due to data quality issues). This document is for internal use to help MDOT regions, Transportation Service Centers (TSC), and planners expand their knowledge on how Michigan freeways are operating over time and how they compare to each other. This information helps identify congested areas, when congestion occurs and how often, corridor rankings, cause of delay, and more. This report is only a starting point, with the potential for a more in depth analysis. If your area has plans to share this information externally, please contact the Congestion and Mobility Unit to ensure the correct measures are being used.

In 2014, we began showing travel time reliability for most urban area freeways. Two routes could have relatively the same amount of delay but could be experienced by the public very differently. Knowing a route always experience 10 minutes of delay consistently can be planned for. Another route that goes from no delay to 20 minutes of delay frequently can be frustrating.

Figure 1. Travel time average and reliability improvements

Worst dayof the month

Small improvement inaverage travel times

Large improvement intravel time reliability

Before

Trave

l tim

e

Trave

l tim

e

After Before After

2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005

Average day

Worst dayof the month

Average day

Each performance measure provides a view of how freeways may be operating. Looking at it from many perspectives can give a more complete picture and better understanding of what is going on.

Project management services for RITIS deployment and operation were provided by Atkins North America. Atkins also produced the final report package, based upon content generat-ed by MDOT staff.

2

Chapter 1


ACTUAL SPEED

POSTED SPEED

AVERAGE SPEED

60 MPH

Non-recurring

Recurring

Recurring

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.012

:00

AM

1:00

AM

2:00

AM

3:00

AM

4:00

AM

5:00

AM

6:00

AM

7:00

AM

8:00

AM

9:00

AM

10:0

0 AM

11:0

0 AM

12:0

0 PM

1:00

PM

2:00

PM

3:00

PM

4:00

PM

5:00

PM

6:00

PM

7:00

PM

8:00

PM

9:00

PM

10:0

0 PM

11:0

0 PM

Min

utes

Time of Day

Northbound Travel Times Avg 75th % 95th %

Small di�erence between average and 95th percentile travel times

Large di�erence between average and 95th percentile travel times

Reliable Unreliable

Introduction (continues)Figure 2. Travel Time Reliability

Travel Time Reliability > A measure of travel time consistency over a period of time. When travel times are unreliable, customers are more likely to experience unexpected delays. Travel times are shown to be reliable when the 95th percentile travel time remains close to the average travel time.

75th Percentile Travel Time > The amount of time a customer should budget to be on-time three out of four days (75% of the time).

95th Percentile Travel Time > The amount of time a customer should budget to be on-time 19 out of 20 days (95% of the time). The 95th percentile travel time is also known as the planning time.


3

Chapter 1Probe Data MDOT utilizes probe vehicle data from HERE (a Nokia company) to calculate freeway per-formance measures across the state of Michigan. In contrast to detector-based data, which relies on roadside sensors to collect vehicle speed information, probe data uses location information generated by GPS-equipped fleet vehicles, cell phones, and connected naviga-tion devices. Companies such as HERE process location data from their connected vehicle partners to compute real-time speed and travel time information, which is then provided to agencies on a subscription basis.

Probe data provides a consistent view of how MDOT freeways operate across the state, but the data does have some limitations. Some freeway segments, particularly those in rural areas, can have a minimal number of probe data collections during low volume peri-ods or overnight hours. During these periods, the speeds reported by the system are more heavily weighted toward the historical average speed, which may occasionally miss speed reductions caused by minor incidents on those segments of freeway. These data limitations should be reduced over time as the number of probes on the roadway increases. Michigan is one of only a few states that have different speed limits for commercial and passenger vehicles on the freeways. The posted speed limit for commercial vehicles is 60 mph; for pas-senger vehicles it’s 70 mph. This results in lower average speeds during free-flow conditions.

Total Delay Delay is calculated by taking the difference between actual speeds when they fall below 60 mph and the speed limit for freeways posted at 70 mph. This is to take out the delay caused by the lower average speeds from commercial vehicles. Figure 3 is an illustration of when delay is calculated.

Figure 3. Calculated delay

60 MPH

POSTED SPEEDNo Delay DelayDelay

ACTUAL SPEED

ACTUAL SPEED

POSTED SPEED

AVERAGE SPEED

60 MPH

Non-recurring

Recurring

Recurring

*

* On segments with a speed limit of 55 mph, delay is calculated when speeds fall below 55 mph.

4

Chapter 1


Table 1. Total user delay costs

2012-2015 Average

Rank Total UDC Location (Route, County)

1 $60,343,000 I-75 Oakland Co.

2 $47,105,000 I-696 Oakland Co.

3 $37,153,000 I-94 (55mph) Detroit TSC

4 $34,837,000 I-96 plus Local Detroit TSC

5 $33,275,000 I-75 (55mph) Detroit TSC

6 $26,048,000 I-96 Oakland Co.

7 $22,108,000 US-131 Kent Co.

8 $19,722,000 I-94 Taylor TSC

9 $19,242,000 I-94 Macomb Co.

10 $18,305,000 M-39 (55mph) Detroit TSC

11 $17,646,000 I-96 Taylor TSC

12 $16,046,000 US-23 Washtenaw Co.

13 $14,628,000 I-275 Wayne Co.

14 $14,281,000 I-696 Macomb Co.

15 $13,945,000 I-94 Washtenaw Co.

16 $13,099,000 M-10 (55mph) Detroit TSC

17 $11,050,000 I-75 Taylor TSC

18 $10,992,000 M-59 Oakland Co. (70 mph section)

19 $10,969,000 I-196 Kent Co.

20 $9,042,000 I-94 Berrien Co.

21 $7,695,000 I-75 Monroe Co.

22 $6,576,000 I-96 Kent Co.


24 $6,260,000 US-23 Livingston Co.

25 $6,014,000 M-14 Taylor TSC

26 $5,826,000 I-96 Livingston Co.

27 $5,807,000 M-53 Macomb Co. (70 mph section)

28 $5,645,000 I-94 Kalamazoo Co.

29 $5,033,000 M-14 Washtenaw Co.

30 $5,026,000 I-94 Calhoun Co.

2016

Rank Total UDC Location (Route, County)

1 $77,465,000 I-75 Oakland Co.

2 $52,509,000 I-696 Oakland Co.

3 $48,460,000 I-94 (55mph) Detroit TSC

4 $38,832,000 I-75 (55mph) Detroit TSC

5 $32,715,000 I-96 Oakland Co.

6 $28,602,000 I-96 plus Local Detroit TSC

7 $26,157,000 US-131 Kent Co.

8 $24,230,000 M-39 (55mph) Detroit TSC

9 $22,646,000 I-94 Washtenaw Co.

10 $20,664,000 I-94 Taylor TSC

11 $20,132,000 US-23 Washtenaw Co.

12 $15,815,000 I-94 Macomb Co.

13 $15,293,000 I-96 Taylor TSC

14 $14,895,000 I-696 Macomb Co.


16 $11,916,000 M-10 (55mph) Detroit TSC

17 $11,366,000 I-275 Wayne Co.

18 $9,833,000 I-196 Kent Co.

19 $9,416,000 US-23 Livingston Co.

20 $7,055,000 I-75 Taylor TSC

21 $6,250,000 I-75 Monroe Co.

22 $6,056,000 I-96 Kent Co.

23 $6,003,000 I-96 Livingston Co.

24 $5,658,000 I-94 Berrien Co.

25 $5,415,000 I-94 Jackson Co.

26 $5,402,000 I-94 Kalamazoo Co.


28 $4,226,000 M-14 Washtenaw Co.

29 $4,068,000 I-75 Genesee Co.

30 $3,574,000 I-96 Ingham Co.

The following tables rank the top 30 locations for delay statewide. Table 1 highlights the total user delay cost per year, while Table 2 shows the user delay cost per mile. Each freeway segment is presented on a countywide or TSC basis, as appropriate.

Chapter 1

5


Table 2. User delay costs per mile

2012-2015 Average

Rank UDC Per Mile Location (Route, County)

1 $2,355,000 I-696 Oakland Co.

2 $1,161,000 I-94 (55mph) Detroit TSC

3 $1,000,000 I-75 (55mph) Detroit TSC

4 $893,000 I-96 plus Local Detroit TSC

5 $764,000 I-96 Taylor TSC

6 $763,000 I-96 Oakland Co.

7 $656,000 I-75 Oakland Co.

8 $654,000 M-39 (55mph) Detroit TSC

9 $582,000 M-10 Oakland Co. (70 mph section)


11 $518,000 M-10 (55mph) Detroit TSC

12 $438,000 I-94 Taylor TSC

13 $401,000 M-14 Taylor TSC

14 $345,000 I-75 Taylor TSC

15 $343,000 I-196 Kent Co.

16 $337,000 I-75 Newberry TSC

17 $325,000 I-275 Wayne Co.

18 $310,000 I-94 Macomb Co.

19 $310,000 I-696 Macomb Co.

20 $306,000 M-53 Macomb Co. (70 mph section)

21 $292,000 US-23 Washtenaw Co.

22 $280,000 US-131 Kent Co.

23 $215,000 I-94 Washtenaw Co.

24 $148,000 M-14 Washtenaw Co.

25 $142,000 I-75 Monroe Co.

26 $137,000 I-496 Eaton/Ingham Co.

27 $125,000 US-23 Livingston Co.

28 $109,000 I-94 Kalamazoo Co.

29 $106,000 I-96 Kent Co.

30 $104,000 I-96 Livingston Co.

2016

Rank UDC Per Mile Location (Route, County)

1 $2,625,000 I-696 Oakland Co.

2 $1,514,000 I-94 (55mph) Detroit TSC

3 $1,168,000 I-75 (55mph) Detroit TSC

4 $958,000 I-96 Oakland Co.

5 $865,000 M-39 (55mph) Detroit TSC

6 $842,000 I-75 Oakland Co.

7 $733,000 I-96 plus Local Detroit TSC

8 $662,000 I-96 Taylor TSC


10 $471,000 M-10 (55mph) Detroit TSC

11 $459,000 I-94 Taylor TSC


13 $366,000 US-23 Washtenaw Co.

14 $348,000 I-94 Washtenaw Co.

15 $331,000 US-131 Kent Co.

16 $324,000 I-696 Macomb Co.

17 $307,000 I-196 Kent Co.

18 $255,000 I-94 Macomb Co.

19 $253,000 I-275 Wayne Co.

20 $220,000 I-75 Taylor TSC

21 $188,000 US-23 Livingston Co.

22 $187,000 M-14 Taylor TSC

23 $184,000 M-53 Macomb Co. (70 mph section)

24 $124,000 M-14 Washtenaw Co.

25 $116,000 I-75 Monroe Co.

26 $107,000 I-96 Livingston Co.

27 $105,000 I-75 Newberry TSC

28 $104,000 I-94 Kalamazoo Co.

29 $98,000 I-96 Kent Co.

30 $94,000 US-131 Kalamazoo Co. (70 mph Section)

6

Chapter 1


User Delay Cost Cost is calculated by multiplying delay x hourly volume x hourly user cost. Delay is calculated by taking the difference between actual speeds when they fall be-low 60 mph and the posted speed limit. Hourly volumes are derived from Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and Commercial Average Daily Traffic (CADT). Hourly user costs are based on Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) publication number FHWA-SA-98-079, “Life-Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design.” Currently, MDOT updates these costs yearly using the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which follows the same methodology as detailed in the FHWA publication. This can be located at: http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-9625_54944-227053--,00.html

Table 3. Total delay statewide. The following rates were used for 2014, 2015, and 2016.

Hourly User Costs

2014 2015 2016

Passenger $17.70 $17.98 $18.00

Commercial $31.22 $31.73 $31.76

Probe data does not include volumes as it is cost prohibitive to have traffic counters on every mile of freeway. This necessitates the use of ADT and CADT and an hour-ly profile created for each day of week. Although the calculations are not actual volumes, most trends and comparisons are useful and valid. UDC calculations do not start until speeds are below 60 mph. This is to eliminate counting the delay caused by slower commercial vehicles having a speed limit of 60 mph.


7

Chapter 1User Delay Cost (continues)A breakdown per region is shown below for 2016 user delay costs.

Figure 4. 2016 UDCs

MDOT went through an organizational re-alignment that shifted a number of counties into other regions. The pie chart in Figure 4 reflects the current alignment to compare apples to apples. 2016 saw four regions’ UDC increase from 2015, while three regions de-creased. Overall UDC increased by 3 percent. A more in-depth analysis would be required to verify the causes of these changes.

Bay$20,233,000

3%

Grand$55,879,000

9%

Metro$422,448,000

69%

North$1,526,000

0%Southwest

$21,973,0004%

Superior$105,000

0%University$87,484,000

15%

2016 Freeway User Delay CostsTotal UDC: $609,648,000

8

Chapter 1


User Delay Cost (continues)Figure 5 shows what months are incurring the most UDC, and compares how the UDC pat-terns changed from the 2012-15 average with 2016.

Figure 5. Recurring delay per month

Major winter storms had a significant impact on UDC in December 2016 for the Grand Rap-ids TSC area (as shown in Figure 5) and other TSC areas statewide.

Average Speeds Average speed charts were created to compare how peak period speed trends change from year to year, and identify low speed areas. The following criteria were used for these charts:

• Weekday is Monday through Friday

• Morning peak hour is the worst ranked hour between 6 – 9 a.m.

• Evening peak hour is the worst ranked hour between 3 – 7 p.m.

• Worst ranked hour is based on the lowest average speed and minimum speed expe-rienced during the peak hours

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

Kent County I-96 Corridor

2012-2015 Average User Delay Cost 2016 User Delay Cost

User Delay Cost

Total User Delay Cost

Chapter 1

9


15171921232527293133353739414345474951535557596163656769

I-96/I-275/M-5/EXIT 1

ORCHARD LAKE RD/EXIT 5

M-10/JOHN C LODGE…

US-24/TELEGRAPH RD

M-10/EXIT 10

EVERGREEN RD/EXIT 11

SOUTHFIELD RD/EXIT 12

GREENFIELD RD/EXIT 13

10 MILE RD/EXIT 14

M-1/WOODWARD AVE/EXIT…

10 MILE RD/EXIT 17

I-75/EXIT 18

COUZENS AVE/EXIT 19

DEQUINDRE RD/EXIT 20

11 MILE RD/EXIT 21

MOUND RD/EXIT 22

VAN DYKE AVE/EXIT 23

HOOVER RD/EXIT 24

BUNERT RD/EXIT 26

HAYES RD/EXIT 26

GRATIOT AVE/EXIT 27

11 MILE RD/EXIT 28

I-94

Average Speed (mph)

WB

M-10 Interchange

Hoover Rd Interchange

I-75 Interchange

Figure 6. 2016 Metro Region I-696 westbound

The following figures show how the morning and evening peak speeds can vary by time and magnitude on the same route.

4 Yr Avg AM Peak 2016 AM Peak 2016 PM Peak4 Yr Avg PM Peak

10

Chapter 1


Congestion Severity is calculated based on the worst hourly average speed experi-enced for a given day during either the AM or PM Peak period per traffic message channel (TMC). A TMC is a standard for delivering real-time traffic information. They vary from tenths of a mile to several miles long.

Using speed and segment information provided by the probe data, the following per-formance measures were developed to analyze congestion on Michigan freeways.

• Congestion Severity: Three different categories are used to distinguish severity levels: low (>= 55 mph), moderate (>= 35 mph & < 55 mph), and severe (< 35 mph).

Congestion

Table 4. 2016 Congestion Miles by Severity - AM Peak

Table 5. 2016 Congestion Miles by Severity - PM Peak

Region Low Moderate SevereBay 795.5 0.0 0.0Grand 668.5 27.1 2.4Metro 445.6 144.2 35.0Southwest 498.6 1.7 0.0University 733.6 40.5 8.0North 399.5 0.0 0.0Superior 100.0 2.4 0.0Total 3641.2 215.9 45.3

Region Low Moderate SevereBay 795.5 0.0 0.0Grand 656.0 34.8 7.1Metro 356.8 212.3 55.6Southwest 498.6 1.7 0.0University 704.3 63.2 14.6North 399.5 0.0 0.0Superior 100.0 2.4 0.0Total 3510.7 314.4 77.3

Chapter 1

11


Figure 7. 2016 statewide AM peak congestion severity northbound/eastbound

§̈¦75

§̈¦94

§̈¦96

§̈¦196

§̈¦675

§̈¦75

§̈¦496

§̈¦475

§̈¦69

§̈¦275

®231 ®2131

®223

®2127

®210

6

14

42016 Statewide

AM Peak Congestion SeverityNorthbound/Eastbound

2016 Congestion SeveritySevere

Moderate

Low

See Metro Region

12

Chapter 1


Figure 8. 2016 statewide PM peak congestion severity norhbound/eastbound

§̈¦75

§̈¦94

§̈¦96

§̈¦196

§̈¦675

§̈¦75

§̈¦496

§̈¦475

§̈¦69

§̈¦275

®231 ®2131

®223

®2127

®210

6

14

42016 Statewide

PM Peak Congestion SeverityNorthbound/Eastbound


Moderate

Low

See Metro Region

Chapter 1

13


Figure 9. 2016 statewide AM peak congestion severity southbound/westbound

§̈¦75

§̈¦94

§̈¦96

§̈¦196

§̈¦675

§̈¦75

§̈¦496

§̈¦475

§̈¦69

§̈¦275

®231 ®2131

®223

®2127

®210

6

14

42016 Statewide

AM Peak Congestion SeveritySouthbound/Westbound


Moderate

Low

See Metro Region

14

Chapter 1


Figure 10. 2016 statewide PM peak congestion severity southbound/westbound

§̈¦75

§̈¦94

§̈¦96

§̈¦196

§̈¦675

§̈¦75

§̈¦496

§̈¦475

§̈¦69

§̈¦275

®231 ®2131

®223

®2127

®210

6

14

42016 Statewide

PM Peak Congestion SeveritySouthbound/Westbound


Moderate

Low

See Metro Region

Chapter 1

15


Figure 11. 2016 Metro Region AM peak congestion severity northbound/eastbound

§̈¦75

§̈¦94

§̈¦696

§̈¦96

§̈¦275

5359

14

39

§̈¦75

§̈¦94

§̈¦96

10

42016 Metro Region

AM Peak Congestion SeverityNorthbound/Eastbound

2016 Congestion SeveritySevereModerateLow

16

Chapter 1


Figure 12. 2016 Metro Region PM peak congestion severity northbound/eastbound

§̈¦75

§̈¦94

§̈¦696

§̈¦96

§̈¦275

5359

14

39

§̈¦75

§̈¦94

§̈¦96

10

42016 Metro Region

PM Peak Congestion SeverityNorthbound/Eastbound


Chapter 1

17


Figure 13. 2016 Metro Region AM peak congestion severity southbound/westbound

§̈¦75

§̈¦94

§̈¦696

§̈¦96

§̈¦275

5359

14

39

§̈¦96

§̈¦75

§̈¦94

10

42016 Metro Region

AM Peak Congestion SeveritySouthbound/Westbound


18

Chapter 1


Figure 14. 2016 Metro Region PM peak congestion severity southbound/westbound

§̈¦75

§̈¦94

§̈¦696

§̈¦96

§̈¦275

5359

14

39

§̈¦96

§̈¦75

§̈¦94

10

42016 Metro Region

PM Peak Congestion SeveritySouthbound/Westbound



19

Chapter 1Reliability

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

12:0

0 AM

1:00

AM

2:00

AM

3:00

AM

4:00

AM

5:00

AM

6:00

AM

7:00

AM

8:00

AM

9:00

AM

10:0

0 AM

11:0

0 AM

12:0

0 PM

1:00

PM

2:00

PM

3:00

PM

4:00

PM

5:00

PM

6:00

PM

7:00

PM

8:00

PM

9:00

PM

10:0

0 PM

11:0

0 PM

Min

utes

Time of Day

Eastbound Travel Times Avg 75th % 95th %

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

12:0

0 AM

1:00

AM

2:00

AM

3:00

AM

4:00

AM

5:00

AM

6:00

AM

7:00

AM

8:00

AM

9:00

AM

10:0

0 AM

11:0

0 AM

12:0

0 PM

1:00

PM

2:00

PM

3:00

PM

4:00

PM

5:00

PM

6:00

PM

7:00

PM

8:00

PM

9:00

PM

10:0

0 PM

11:0

0 PM

Min

utes

Time of Day

Westbound Travel Times Avg 75th % 95th %

Figure 15. Travel Time Reliability - US-127 between I-96 and I-496

Travel Time Reliability > A measure of travel time consistency over a period of time. When travel times are unreliable, customers are more likely to experience unexpect-ed delays. Travel times are shown to be reliable when the 95th percentile travel time remains close to the average travel time.

20

Chapter 1


Conclusion The main body of this report shows examples of each type of performance metric that was created using probe data and provides an explanation of their meaning. The Region Summary Chapters include all of the performance measures for each MDOT region. These are organized by region, TSC and route to make it easy to get to the information that is most useful.

It is the Congestion and Mobility Unit’s goal that these performance measures are not just numbers and figures, but information to help MDOT personnel understand how traffic is operating on its freeways and make actionable decisions on improving traffic. They could be used to help prioritize projects, determine where and when problems are occurring, and how significant they are.

We intend to provide these performance measures on an annual basis to help identify trends on the system and to keep MDOT up to date on freeway operations. Various performance measures may change due to changing federal requirements or MDOT needs. As probe data improves, this may expand to non-freeway routes as well. The Congestion and Mobility Unit welcomes any feedback on this report to help us improve it in the future and maximize its usefulness.

Contact Info Please contact the Congestion and Mobility unit if you have any questions/com-ments or would like to have the actual data for further analysis.

Jason Firman, Congestion and Mobility Manager 517-636-4547 | [email protected]

2016 freeway congestion & reliability report - michigan.gov · relies on roadside sensors to...

Documents