Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders (2020)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

36 Identifying performance metrics of interest to corridor operators and stakeholder entities is key to initiating conversations for enhanced two-way data and information sharing. Which Performance Metrics Should We Use to Evaluate How Well Our ICM Project Meets Our Goals and Objectives? NCHRP Web-Only Document 97: Guide to Effective Freeway Performance Measurement11 pro- vides transportation engineers and planners help in developing and maintaining a comprehen- sive freeway performance-monitoring program. Multiple aspects of freeway performance were considered, including congestion, mobility, safety, operational efficiency, ride quality, environ- mental, and customer satisfaction. This report’s guidance can lend itself to ICM projects where freeway congestion is often the driver for these types of project implementations. Adapted from NCHRP Web-Only Document 97, the performance measures presented in Table 5 provide a wide variety of potential performance measures that can be used to evaluate how well an ICM project meets its goals and objectives. In the table, “Quality of Service” denotes a more intuitive term for the outcome category of measures, while “Activity-Based” is more apt for the output category of measures. Quality of service (outcome) and activity-based (output) performance measures must be linked together and tied into the mission of the transportation agency. More information is available in Appendix D, Performance Measure Guidance, with addi- tional information such as description of each metric, units of measurement, geographic scale, and temporal scale. Also included are relevant statistical tests that can be used to help determine whether the changes observed are “real” or if they are simply due to chance. Crosscutting stakeholder considerations include the following: • Travel times are a highly relevant performance metric across most stakeholder groups. • Post-deployment analysis of ICM outcomes (such as those after new signal strategies are implemented, or after a major incident) can help each stakeholder group appreciate the benefits of ICM and/or identify areas that continue to need improvement. • Performance measures that provide insight into investment prioritization can be valuable to broad cross sections of stakeholders. • Current cost-benefit project ranking methods are designed for capital improvement projects; the benefits and costs of TSMO projects and ICM are not always reliably captured by these processes, making it harder to secure funding and resources for ICM at various agencies. C H A P T E R 6 Designate Performance Metrics & Data Sources 11 NCHRP, Guide to Effective Freeway Performance Measurement: Final Report and Guidebook, Document 97, 2006.

Type of Performance Metric Performance Metric Category Examples Quality of Service Average Congestion Conditions Travel time; travel time index; total delay (vehicles, persons); delay per vehicle; spatial extent of congestion; temporal extent of congestion; density Reliability Buffer index; planning time index Throughput Throughput (vehicle, persons); vehicle-miles of travel; truck vehicle-miles of travel; lost highway productivity Customer Satisfaction Worst aspect of freeway congestion; satisfaction with time to make long-distance trips using freeways Safety Total crashes; fatal crashes; overall crash rate; fatality crash rate; secondary crashes Ride Quality Present Serviceability Rating (PSR); International Roughness Index (IRI) Environment Nitrous oxides (NOx) emissions rate; Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emission rate; Carbon Monoxide (CO) emission rate; fuel consumption per vehicle miles traveled Activity-Based Capacity Bottleneck Geometric deficiencies related to traffic flow; major traffic-influencing bottlenecks Incident Characteristics Number of incidents by type and extent of blockage; incident duration; blockage duration; lane-hours lost due to incidents Work Zones Number of work zones by type of activity; lane-hours lost due to work zones; average work zone duration by type of activity; lane-miles lost due to work zones Weather Extent of highways affected by snow, ice, rain, or fog Operational Efficiency Percent freeway directional miles with equipment coverage; percent of equipment in “Good” condition; percent of total device-days out-of-service by type of device; number of service patrol assists Table 5. Freeway performance measure examples.

38 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders • Agencies and stakeholders may be more proactive and responsive about getting involved in ICM if they were positioned to receive significant benefits from the arrangement, and understood/ recognized those benefits. Which Performance Metrics Are Important to This Stakeholder Group? Based on interviews with non-traditional stakeholders, below is a summary of some of the high-priority performance metrics expressed by each non-traditional stakeholder group. Freight Stakeholders Interviews with freight stakeholders across multiple states revealed unanimously that travel time reliability is the top priority of freight operators (as opposed to the travel times them- selves). Anticipated or real-time delays on roadways during overnight periods, as these often disproportionately affect freight users due to their off-peak driving patterns, are useful in terms of trip planning. Truck operators can plan to leave earlier to reach their destinations if they are aware of delays on their routes ahead of time, but on-time delivery is heavily dependent on travel time reliability. Truck-specific travel times (accounting for slower travel speeds, required weigh scale stops, wait times at ports of entry, hours of service limitations, etc.) are particularly valuable to freight, although not currently available from existing trip planner applications. In terms of performance measures of interest, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) performance measures (freight reliability measure12 in particular) are a priority to DOT freight planners. However, the scale of ICM is often much smaller than the scale of truck trips; thus, the performance measures provided may need to be reported for longer segments than just the ICM corridor extents. For planning purposes, freight community stakeholders are interested in the end-to-end costs of shipping between various origins and destinations by different routes and modes. Safety measures (common ones include crash severity, crash cost, and risk) for different routes and modes are useful for cost evaluations and decision support by freight stakeholders (e.g., comparing rail and highway shipping routes between Los Angeles and Chicago).13 Transit Stakeholders Transit agencies are primarily concerned with improving customer service for their riders. Real-time transit-specific occupancy data, delays, travel times, travel time reliability, vehicle locations, and parking availability at transit facilities all help provide users with a better assess- ment of transit as an attractive travel option. Equally critical is the accuracy of the information provided to users (e.g., real-time arrival estimates, amount of remaining capacity on transit vehicles, etc.). If these forecasts are inaccurate, users may stop paying attention to these types of alerts. Similar types of real-time data can be provided to operators to monitor the effects and extents of mode shift that occurs during incident situations so as to proactively inform appropriate actions to take (e.g., dispatching additional vehicles if passenger loads are nearing capacity). 12 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/rule/pm3/freight.pdf. 13 Because this is a performance category of interest to freight stakeholders and because these data are often available to other ICM stakeholders (e.g., incident responders and/or transportation agencies), this may be used as an additional incentive for freight involvement in ICM planning.

Designate Performance Metrics & Data Sources 39 In addition to real-time transit-specific data, transit planners are also interested in metrics such as parking demand at transit facilities, frequencies and causal factors for incidents that cause transit delays (e.g., traffic attempting to cut into high-occupancy toll [HOT] lanes), fare violations (e.g., places and times of the largest noncompliance rates), system health monitoring (e.g., reliability of communications and data), and cost savings achieved by ICM strategies. Cost savings that can be achieved through improved system efficiency enable transit agencies to reduce the price of services which can in turn attract more users and revenues. Impacts of an ICM project may reach beyond the arterials included in the formal project definition/scope, but because transit agencies are still likely to operate on other impacted arterials outside the project area, they need performance data for those as well. Incident Response Stakeholders First and foremost, incident responders are committed to safeguarding the motoring public and those responding to traffic incidents as well as those directly impacted by traffic incidents. Reducing congestion and traffic delays that occur as a result of an incident is a secondary, but still critical, priority of incident responders. Safe, quick clearance of incidents helps incident responders achieve both objectives. At an operational level, these stakeholders want any type of information that can help them reach the scene of the incident as quickly as possible while being properly prepared. Traffic management center operators who verify the reported incident may be able to provide incident responders with location information, type of incident, involvement of hazardous materials, number of vehicles involved and estimated severity level, anticipated threats or hazards that incident responders might expect, as well as the most appropriate route they can take to access the incident. On a planning and performance measure level, TIM programs use the following measures to determine the program’s effectiveness: roadway clearance time, incident clearance time, and impacts of incident management on reductions in secondary incidents. Data needed to calculate these measures typically reside in at least two separate agency databases – transportation and law enforcement. To accurately measure performance, these databases need to be integrated to include all responder activities, not just those of a single agency.14 ICM projects promote multi- agency data sharing and may be used to fill the gaps in TIM performance measurement. Non-Motorized Roadway Users Non-motorized roadway users are the most vulnerable of all parties on the roadway net- work. Safety is their utmost concern. If involved in an incident with a high-speed motorized vehicle, bicyclists’ and pedestrians’ chances of survival are minimal. Compared to motorists, non-motorized roadway users are especially sensitive to detours, delays, and natural elements (e.g., rain, snow, etc.). Detour routes of even a quarter mile require significantly more effort for pedestrians (especially if they have disabilities) compared with motorists. Delays at inter- sections where green time has been extended to flush vehicles through can incidentally expose bicyclists and pedestrians to negative environmental factors such as vehicle emissions or inclement weather. Seldom do non-motorized roadway users embark on an entire trip by foot or bicycle. Typically non-motorized transport makes up only one leg of a larger trip; therefore, delays can cause non-motorized roadway users to miss transit connections. Currently, traveler information services (e.g., 511, roadway message signs, etc.) are tailored for motorists. Pedestrians and bicyclists tend not to check these sources before they leave or 14 https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop10010/presentation.htm.

40 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders while en route to their destinations. As a result, non-motorized roadway users generally have poor situational awareness of the dynamic traffic conditions on roadways. In situations where freeway incidents cause vehicles to divert to arterial detour routes, pedestrians and bicyclists have no way of anticipating the effects that these actions will have on their safety or travel time. Non-motorized roadway users would benefit from having access to information such as changes in vehicle volumes and speeds on arterials or delays at signalized intersections so that such users can react accordingly. Currently, automated pedestrian and bicyclist counting technology is limited. In our increas- ingly multimodal transportation network, added visibility of bicyclist and pedestrian activity (volumes, origins and destinations) will be valuable to bicycle and pedestrian planners. This information will help them with route planning and identifying connectivity, accessibility, and comfort factor (e.g., roadway lighting) gaps in the roadway network. Most non-fatal incidents involving bicyclists and pedestrians go unreported. Such information needs to be captured in order to identify locations of risk for non-motorized roadway users. What Data Can Be Used to Measure Performance Metrics of Interest? Tables 6 through 9 categorize data and performance measures desired by non-traditional stakeholders alongside metrics that ICM teams may wish to collect from non-traditional stake- holders. Data from other sources such as weather services or local agencies are not included in the tables. To use Tables 6 through 9, follow these steps: 1. Identify which data sources listed in the left column are available within your agency or partner agencies. 2. Determine the high-priority non-traditional stakeholder data elements of interest for this ICM project, using the right column for guidance. 3. Use the data sources that you can offer to non-traditional stakeholders as leverage in exchange for data you want from them.

Transportation Data Desired by Freight Stakeholders Freight Data Desired by Transportation Agencies • Truck travel times • Travel time reliability • Incident information (e.g., any official alternate truck routes, location of the incident, time, duration, nature, expected clearance times, extent of current or predicted delays) • Planned events, such as anticipated lane and roadway closures for scheduled maintenance • Lane closure information (e.g., location, time, duration, nature, and expected delay impacts) • Truck parking availability • Wait times at ports of entry • Oversize/Overweight (OS/ OW) weight and permit information • Impact of traffic congestion on truck-based freight • Safety measures by route or mode (e.g., crash severity, crash cost, and risk) • Freight vehicle location data for vehicle delivery time estimates • Route optimization inputs (e.g., location of appointments, appointment time windows, load characteristics, required equipment and credentials, drivers and equipment available) • Truck origins and destinations • Economic efficiency • Environmental impacts of freight movement • Security and resilience of freight transportation • Drivers: credentials, time-of-day constraints, hours of service, pay rates • Equipment: physical capabilities and limitations, required start/end locations, preferences for use • Customers: location, time preferences, equipment requirements, company-specific assignments, costs of missed appointments • Schedule Planning: expected travel times on road segments, expected wait times, expected travel times between origin/destination pairs • Number of orders filled within scheduled time window • Number of bobtail miles • Total trip time • Total vehicle miles traveled • Stop time • Terminal queue/wait times • Fuel consumption and emissions (through application of fuel and emissions rate tables from the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]) • Long-term freight planning data (used as inputs for optimizing roadway maintenance schedules to mitigate freight delays) Source: FRATIS data archival plan (unpublished), stakeholder interviews. Table 6. Operations and planning data of interest for freight performance measure calculation. Transportation Data Desired by Transit Stakeholders Transit Data Desired by Transportation Agencies • Transit travel times • Transit vehicle location • Occupancy levels • Travel time reliability • Incidents resulting in transit delays (e.g., any official alternate transit routes, location of the incident, time, duration, nature, expected clearance times, extent of current or predicted delays) • Parking availability/demand at transit facilities, park-and-ride lots • Fare violation data • System health monitoring • Frequencies and causal factors for incidents that cause transit delays • Cost savings achieved by ICM strategies • Transit delays and causal factors • Schedule adherence data (AVL) • Automated Passenger Counter (APC) data • Transit vehicle speeds • Transit/paratransit/shuttle/ride-share routes, stops, schedules • Transfer locations • Transit fares and payment mechanisms • Transit ridership/mode share • Accident, incident, and interrupted service occurrence logs Source: San Diego I-15 ICM AMS data collection plan, stakeholder interviews. Table 7. Operations and planning data of interest for transit performance measure calculation.

Transportation Data Desired by Incident Response Stakeholders Incident Response Data Desired by Transportation Agencies • Ingress/egress routes • Emergency vehicle travel times • Lane closures • Incident location (nearest postmile, direction) • Incident severity • Anticipated threats/hazards to incident responders • Personnel, vehicle, and equipment/supplies needed (e.g., towing and recovery, hazardous material spills, coroner, etc.) • Primary incident durations • Incident response times (time to first- on-scene, departure times of first responders, etc.) • Incident clearance times • Secondary incident occurrence rates • Post incident debriefs (what factors, if any, may have delayed incident clearance) • Traffic management needs (e.g., temporary lane or freeway closures/traffic control, incident scene protection) • Notification of incidents that are considered hazardous to the traveling public • Estimated clearance times (for traveler information dissemination) • Number of vehicles involved in the incident, injuries and severity level • Incident classification • Cause of incident • Impacts to traffic (e.g., time of opening of individual lanes, time of opening of all lanes, time of queue clearance, etc.) • Post incident debriefs (what factors, if any, may have delayed incident clearance) Source: http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/tm/docs/TIM_Guidelines_booklet_print.pdf, stakeholder interviews. Table 8. Operations and planning data of interest for incident response performance measure calculation. Transportation Data Desired by Non-Motorized Stakeholders Non-Motorized Roadway User Data Desired by Transportation Agencies • Pedestrian and bicycle-specific travel times • Prevailing vehicle volumes and speeds on arterials, for non- motorized user safety • Expected impacts to bicyclists and pedestrians during incidents (e.g., intersection delays for pedestrians and bicyclists) • Real-time estimates for risk at high frequency crash locations • Roadway comfort and environmental factors (e.g., quality of street lighting and sidewalks) • High-risk locations for non- motorized roadway users • Historical non-motorized roadway user volumes, origins, and destinations • Real-time volumes of non-motorized roadway users for decision support systems • Bicycle and pedestrian origin-destination data for better route planning (separate end points for trip segments between dwellings, transit hubs,etc.) • Historical non-motorized roadway user volumes, origins, and destinations • Incidents involving non-motorized roadway users (usually goes unreported) • Connectivity or accessibility gaps in the non-motorized roadway network Source: Stakeholder interviews. Table 9. Operations and planning data of interest for non-motorized roadway user performance measure calculation.