California Department of Transportation
Transportation System Performance Measures:
Status and Prototype Report
Transportation System Information Program
October 2000
Prepared by
Booz · Allen & Hamilton Inc.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES- 1
A. INTRODUCTION A- 1
A. 1 Performance Measurement Initiative A- 1
A. 2 Prototype Report A- 3
A. 3 Report Organization A- 5
B. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES B- 1
B. 1 Challenges B- 1
B. 2 Opportunities B- 4
C. PROTOTYPE REPORT
C1. SELECTED RESULTS C1- 1
1.1 Safety/ Security C1- 1
1.2 Mobility/ Accessibility C1- 20
1.3 Reliability C1- 43
1.4 Environmental Quality C1- 54
C2. THE MULTI- MODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM C2- 1
2.1 Highways C2- 1
2.2 Inter- Regional Bus C2- 3
2.3 Inter- Regional Rail C2- 9
2.4 Intermodal Facilities C2- 15
C3. THE TRANSPORTATION MARKET C3- 1
3.1 Demographics C3- 1
3.2 Employment C3- 3
3.3 Vehicle Registrations C3- 7
3.4 Mode Share and Major Origin- Destination Flows C3- 11
3.5 Annual Statistics C3- 22
C4. NEXT STEPS C4- 1
APPENDIX App- 1
Inter- Regional Road System App- 1
High Emphasis Routes App- 3
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
REFERENCE Ref- 1
Index of Exhibits Ref- 1
Acronyms Ref 4
Glossary Ref- 6
List of Sources Ref- 8
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit Page
iii
ES- 1 Transportation Outcomes ES- 3
A- 1 Transportation Outcomes A- 4
B- 1 Highway Data Access by Caltrans District B- 3
1- 1 Roadway Accident Totals in California C1- 3
1- 2 State Highway Accident Totals in California C1- 3
1- 3 Non- State Highway Accident Totals in California C1- 4
1- 4 County Accident Rates by Vehicle Type ( Total, Auto, and Truck) C1- 6
1- 5 County Accident Rates by Accident Type ( Total, Fat., and Injury) C1- 7
1- 6 High Emphasis Route Accident Rates ( Route- Level Averages) C1- 8
1- 7 High Emphasis Route Accident Rates ( County Line- County Line Detail) C1- 9
1- 8 Inter- Regional Bus Providers C1- 10
1- 9 Amtrak Accident Totals, 1998 C1- 13
1- 10 Commuter Railroad Accident Totals, 1998 C1- 13
1- 11 Freight Railroad Accident Totals C1- 14
1- 12 Inter- Regional Rail Accident Totals and Rates in California
Four- Year Trend C1- 15
1- 13 County Rail Casualties, 1998 C1- 16
1- 14 Amtrak Accident Rates in California, 1998 C1- 17
1- 15 Commuter Rail Accident Rates in California, 1998 C1- 17
1- 16 Freight Rail Accident Rates in California, 1998 C1- 18
1- 17 Average Daily Vehicle- Hours of Delay in District 3 C1- 23
1- 18 Average AM Peak Period Vehicle- Hours of Delay in District 3 C1- 24
1- 19 Average PM Peak Period Vehicle- Hours of Delay in District 3 C1- 25
1- 20 Average Daily Vehicle- Hours of Delay in District 11 C1- 27
1- 21 Average AM Vehicle- Hours of Delay in District 11 C1- 28
1- 22 Average PM Vehicle- Hours of Delay in District 11 C1- 29
1- 23 Average Daily Vehicle- Hours of Delay in District 12 C1- 31
1- 24 Average AM Vehicle- Hours of Delay in District 12 C1- 32
1- 25 Average PM Vehicle- Hours of Delay in District 12 C1- 33
1- 26 Average Delay for Inter- Regional Transit Travel C1- 35
1- 27 County Pairs Experiencing the Ten Highest Delays C1- 36
1- 28 State Highway System C1- 37
1- 29 Inter- Regional Transit Accessibility by Census Tract at Three
Representative Distances C1- 38
1- 30 County- Wide Inter- Regional Transit Accessibility Compared
to the State Median C1- 39
1- 31 Percent of Californians Living Within a Given Distance of an
Inter- Regional Transit Facility C1- 40
1- 32 AM Peak Period Travel Time Variability in District 3 C1- 43
1- 33 PM Peak Period Travel Time Variability in District 3 C1- 44
1- 34 AM Peak Period Travel Time Variability in District 11 C1- 46
1- 35 PM Peak Period Travel Time Variability in District 11 C1- 47
1- 36 AM Peak Period Travel Time Variability in District 12 C1- 49
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit Page
iv
1- 37 PM Peak Period Travel Time Variability in District 12 C1- 50
1- 38 Criteria Air Pollutants Monitored for State & Federal Attainment C1- 52
1- 39 California Air Basins C1- 53
1- 40 Number of Days Exceeding National Standards by Air Basin C1- 54
1- 41 Number of Days Exceeding State Standards by Air Basin C1- 55
1- 42 Federal Carbon Monoxide Area Attainment Status C1- 56
1- 43 Federal Ozone Area Attainment Status C1- 57
1- 44 Federal Particulate Matter10 Area Attainment Status C1- 58
1- 45 State Carbon Monoxide Area Attainment Status C1- 59
1- 46 State Ozone Area Attainment Status C1- 60
1- 47 State Particulate Matter10 Attainment Area Status C1- 61
1- 48 State Sulfates Area Attainment Status C1- 62
1- 49 State Hydrogen Sulfide Area Attainment Status C1- 62
1- 50 Summary Attainment Chart C1- 63
2- 1 State Road Miles in California C2- 1
2- 2 State Highway System C2- 2
2- 3 California's Inter- Regional Bus System C2- 4
2- 4 Frequency of Inter- Regional Bus Service C2- 5
2- 5 Rail Feeder Bus System C2- 6
2- 6 Inter- Regional Bus Providers C2- 7
2- 7 Private Intercity Bus Routes C2- 8
2- 8 Detailed California Rail Map C2- 10
2- 9 Inter- Regional Passenger Rail C2- 11
2- 10 California Freight Rail System – Base Map C2- 14
2- 11 Major Airports, Ports, Freight Facilities, and Tanker Terminals C2- 18
3- 1 Population by County C3- 1
3- 2 Counties with the Highest Population C3- 2
3- 3 Population per Square Mile by County C3- 2
3- 4 California Job Summary C3- 3
3- 5 California Jobs by Industry C3- 3
3- 6 Number of Jobs by County C3- 4
3- 7 Jobs per Square Mile by County C3- 5
3- 8 Top Industries by County C3- 5
3- 9 Top Employment Counties by Industrial Sector C3- 6
3- 10 Unemployment by County C3- 6
3- 11 Vehicle Registrations C3- 7
3- 12 Auto Registrations by County C3- 8
3- 13 Auto Registration Density by County C3- 9
3- 14 Truck Registrations by County C3- 10
3- 15 Truck Registration Density C3- 11
3- 16 Total Surveyed Person- Trips for Inter- Regional Travel by Mode C3- 12
3- 17 Share of Total Person- Trips for All Modes C3- 12
3- 18 Demand for Inter- Regional Travel within California C3- 14
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit Page
v
3- 19 Interstate Travel Patterns at the Regional Level C3- 15
3- 20 Inter- Regional Travel Between California Regions and Cities
in Other States C3- 16
3- 21 Freight Origin- Destination Flows in California C3- 17
3- 22 Total Annual Freight Tons by Origin C3- 19
3- 23 Counties with the Highest Rail Mode Share for Freight Exports C3- 19
3- 24 Total Annual Freight Tons by Destination C3- 21
3- 25 Counties with the Highest Rail Mode Share for Freight Imports C3- 21
3- 26 Annual Freight Tons – Top Importing and Exporting Counties C3- 22
3- 27 Annual Vehicle Miles of Travel on State and Non- State Highways
within California C3- 23
3- 28 Vehicle Miles Traveled by State Route C3- 24
3- 29 Truck Miles Traveled by County C3- 25
4- 1 Status of Current Four Outcomes C4- 2
4- 2 Monitoring and Forecasting for Outcomes C4- 2
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
Executive Summary ES- 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report documents the progress of the Transportation System Performance
Measures initiative as the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) embarks
on implementation of the concepts and methodologies developed to date. The report
documents data detection and access issues on State Highways and data issues of
various transportation modes. The report also includes a prototype of a performance
measures monitoring document. This prototype demonstrates how the tested
performance measures work, and how the performance measures information can be
communicated. The prototype is not intended as a statewide decision- making tool,
since it does not cover the entire State or contain performance trends. Rather, it serves
as a vehicle to solicit feedback and advice to ensure the usefulness and acceptance by
decision makers and transportation stakeholders.
The conclusions of the efforts conducted over the last year include:
• The tested performance measures provide meaningful and decisive monitoring
information where data are available.
• Significant data detection and access gaps exist that hinder comprehensive
reporting and analyses for the State Highway System. Data for other modes serving
the inter- regional transportation market have other gaps related to bus ridership.
• Many initiatives are underway to address these gaps not only for performance
measurement, but for transportation operations and traveler information purposes.
HOW DID WE GET TO THIS POINT?
The Performance Measurement initiative was initiated by the Business, Transportation,
and Housing Agency ( BT& H) and led by the California Department of Transportation
( Caltrans) to achieve two broad goals:
• To develop indicators/ measures to assess the performance of California's multi- modal
transportation system and support informed transportation decisions by transportation
officials, operators, service providers, and system users; and
• To establish a coordinated and cooperative process for consistent performance
measurement in California.
Over the last two years, Caltrans’ efforts to develop and implement performance
measurement, in coordination with public partners and private stakeholders, have
demonstrated significant progress:
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
Executive Summary ES- 2
• Defining the outcome- based performance objectives influenced by transportation-related
decisions and felt by the public and society;
• Identifying candidate indicators to reflect these outcomes;
• Testing these candidate indicators to ensure that they can be supported by standard
transportation data detection methods, add value to decision makers, and can be
communicated easily to the public;
• Developing strategies to integrate the fully tested measures and indicators into
existing planning and programming processes/ products; and
• Collecting sample transportation system data to develop a prototype report that
illustrates how the monitoring component of this initiative can be developed once data
issues are addressed.
Consistent with the original guiding principles set forth by the Policy Advisory
Committee ( PAC), all indicators tested to date are multi- modal in nature and reflect the
customer experience, while improving the quality of transportation information available
to transportation professionals and decision makers. The three outcomes fully tested to
date ( i. e., safety/ security, mobility/ accessibility, and reliability) meet these requirements
and can be implemented to the degree supported by existing data practices and
availability.
PROTOTYPE REPORT
The prototype report illustrates how the fully tested outcomes can be measured and
communicated for the existing system. As data challenges are addressed via several
initiatives already underway, this prototype can be augmented to represent a truly
comprehensive System Performance monitoring report. Such a report would then
represent the " monitoring" component of the performance measurement initiative. A
comprehensive monitoring report would provide state and local decision makers an
easy- to- understand assessment of how well the state's transportation systems are
performing. Over time, it would also address trends of performance.
This prototype document is the first of its kind and addresses system performance for a
subset of California’s transportation system, which includes the statutorily- identified
inter- regional state highway system, as well as other elements of the inter- regional
transportation system, such as intercity buses, commuter rail, intercity rail and freight
railroads.
The performance measurement areas covered in this prototype include measures
corresponding to four transportation outcomes:
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
Executive Summary ES- 3
Exhibit ES- 1: Transportation Outcomes
Outcome Definition
Safety/ Security Minimizing the risk of accidents, death, injury, or
property loss
Mobility/ Accessibility
Reaching desired destinations with relative ease
within a reasonable time, at a reasonable cost with
reasonable choices
Reliability
The level of variability in transportation service
between anticipated ( based on scheduled or
normal travel) and actual travel
Environmental Quality Helping to maintain and enhance the quality of the
natural and human environment
The following describes the status of the measures and how they fit into the prototype
performance monitoring document. Sample detail and analysis is provided in the body
of the prototype.
Safety/ Security
The primary safety indicator computed and presented is accident rates. Summaries of
findings by mode are:
Highway Safety – Comprehensive data exist for highway safety rates. Accident
rates are computed and presented by route within each county. Accident rates
can be broken down by vehicle type ( e. g., auto, bus, truck) and by severity ( e. g.,
fatality, property damage). Over time, trends of such data can be analyzed to
evaluate priorities and successes.
Bus Safety – Inter- regional bus statistics are also examined in this report.
Accident rate data, including accidents on highways, was obtained from the
same central database used for highway safety analysis ( i. e., TASAS). No urban
transit accidents are addressed in the prototype.
Rail Safety – The report considers Amtrak, commuter railroads, and freight
railroads separately. Inter- regional rail accident data is reported by severity ( e. g.,
fatality, property damage) and by grade- crossing incidents.
Security – Inter- regional bus and rail crime rates are computed for the security
analysis. Security relates primarily to criminal activity at transit stations, bus/ train
depots and on transit vehicles rather than how busses and trains operate.
Mobility/ Accessibility
Mobility is measured in terms of delay experienced by travelers. Summaries of findings
by mode include:
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
Executive Summary ES- 4
Highway Mobility - Highway mobility was computed for District 3 ( Sacramento),
District 11 ( San Diego) and District 12 ( Orange County) using loop detector data.
Results can be shown in a variety of formats, including morning and afternoon
aggregation levels, worst hour, duration, and intensity. Several of these are
presented in the prototype report included in this document. As data issues are
addressed, the mobility results can add significant value to planning and decision
making and can be used to inform management of trends, seasonality impacts,
and effectiveness of operational and expansion strategies.
Transit Mobility – Transit mobility was computed for all inter- regional bus and
rail services. Data does not exist consistently for ridership. Therefore delay is
presented in terms of delay per trip and as a percentage of the total trip time.
Highway Accessibility - Highway accessibility is defined as the percent of the
population living within a reasonable distance to the State Highway System. The
249 routes that comprise the state highway system provide nearly universal
accessibility for Californians. Over 29.6 million ( 99.5 percent of all) Californians
live in census tracts within 3 miles of a state highway. This report includes no
information on the accessibility to desired travel locations.
Transit Accessibility - Accessibility is defined as the percent of the population
living within a reasonable distance to an inter- regional transit station, both rural
and urban. Nearly half of the state population ( 13.5 million) lives in a census
tract more than 3 miles from an inter- regional transit facility. Accessibility is
generally lower in mountainous or rural areas as well as small geographic areas
within major metropolitan areas.
Reliability
Reliability is presented in terms of variability in travel time and presented as a
percentage of variation from average travel time. As such, it reflects the predictability of
a given trip. When variability is high, travel time is less predictable.
Reliability is critical for traffic operations because to some extent, it reflects how well
incidents are managed. The combination of mobility and reliability offer a powerful new
analysis framework for planners as well. Summary of reliability findings by mode
include:
Highway Reliability - Highway reliability was computed for District 3
( Sacramento), District 11 ( San Diego) and District 12 ( Orange County) using loop
detector data available from traffic management centers. Similar to mobility,
results can be shown in different formats. Maps and tables related to reliability in
the prototype section of this report can be very useful because they can help
identify reliability problems. However, the best value can be derived through an
analysis of reliability and mobility combined.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
Executive Summary ES- 5
Transit Reliability – Transit reliability was not computed because detailed on-time
performance statistics are not available for most operators.
Environmental Quality
The report summarizes data on the number of days exceeding California and Federal
air quality standards for criteria pollutants and explains the State's current attainment
status for both. The California Air Resources Board ( ARB) tracks attainment against
nine pollutants. Portions of the state are in nonattainment for five pollutants: carbon
monoxide, ozone, particulate matter10, sulfates, and hydrogen sulfide. The State also
monitors nitrogen dioxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, and visibility reducing particles. The
Federal Government, through the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), tracks six
pollutants: carbon monoxide, ozone, particulate matter10, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and
sulfur. The ARB and U. S. EPA have determined that California is not in attainment for
three pollutants: carbon monoxide, ozone, particulate matter10. However, the State and
national thresholds, time periods, and designation areas for evaluating levels of the
three pollutants differ somewhat.
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES AHEAD
The two major challenges for full implementation of performance measurement over the
next couple of years are:
• Data availability and accessibility, and
• Integration with existing processes.
The data challenge relates to technology, resources, and time. The last section of this
report discusses the current status of the detection and accessibility of traffic data by
district. As mentioned before, several initiatives have recently started to address most
of the data needs for performance measurement. The resources for these initiatives
must be secured to the extent possible. In the interim, all available data sources will be
utilized.
The integration challenge relates more to culture and training. For performance
measurement to become truly effective, it has to permeate the entire organization, from
management to staff, from planning to project development to operations. It must be
incorporated into existing products ( e. g., Project Study Reports or PSRs) and future
strategies ( e. g., Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan or ITSP).
Despite all these challenges, everyone recognizes the opportunities ahead. All involved
in this initiative from managers to staff and consultants, from within Caltrans to external
stakeholders understand and appreciate the value of this initiative. Making better
decisions, communicating to the public, and establishing accountability are the long-term
legacy of this study.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
Introduction A- 1
A. INTRODUCTION
This report documents the progress of the Transportation System Performance
Measures Initiative as the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) begins to
implement the concepts and methodologies developed to date. The report documents
data detection and access issues on State Highways as well as data issues for various
transportation modes.
The report also includes a prototype of a performance monitoring document. This
prototype demonstrates how performance measures work and how performance
information can be communicated. The prototype is not intended as a statewide
decision- making tool, since it does not cover the entire State nor establishes
performance baselines. Instead, it serves as a vehicle to solicit feedback and advice to
ensure its usefulness and acceptance by decision makers and transportation
stakeholders.
The remainder of this introduction provides a background on the performance
measurement initiative, describes the performance monitoring prototype more fully, and
outlines the organization of this report.
A. 1. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT INITIATIVE
The statewide Performance Measurement Initiative was established by the Business,
Transportation, and Housing Agency ( BT& H) and led by Caltrans to achieve two broad
goals:
• To develop indicators/ measures to assess the performance of California's multi- modal
transportation system and support informed transportation decisions by transportation
officials, operators, service providers, and system users; and
• To establish a coordinated and cooperative process for consistent performance
measurement in California.
Performance measurement allows us to understand how the transportation system is
performing today and how it is likely to perform in the future given anticipated changes
in population, the impacts of today's investments, and other critical factors, such as
land- use patterns and economic conditions.
The State began the Transportation System Performance Measures Initiative in
response to several national and state- level policy developments. The passage of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ( ISTEA) of 1991 shifted transportation
decision- making responsibility from the federal government to the State and local level
and directed the adoption of a multi- modal approach to transportation planning and
decision making. The 1993 California Transportation Plan ( CTP) affirmed this system
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
Introduction A- 2
approach and the CTP update initiated the development of a systematic performance
measurement framework. Senate Bill 45, enacted into law in 1997, divided authority for
State Transportation Improvement Plan funding between the State and regions.
System performance measures provide some of the tools necessary for consistently
comparing projects.
Over the last two years, Caltrans' efforts to develop and implement performance
measurement, in coordination with public partners and private stakeholders, have
demonstrated significant progress by:
• Defining the outcome- based performance objectives influenced by transportation-related
decisions and felt by the public and society;
• Identifying candidate indicators to reflect these outcomes;
• Testing these candidate indicators to ensure that they can be supported by standard
transportation data detection methods, add value for decision makers, and can be
communicated easily to the public;
• Developing strategies to integrate the fully tested measures and indicators into
existing planning and programming processes/ products; and
Collecting sample transportation system data to develop a prototype report that
illustrates the monitoring component of this initiative. Recent efforts have led to three
primary conclusions:
• The tested performance measures provide meaningful and decisive monitoring
information where data are available.
• Significant data detection and access gaps exist that hinder comprehensive reporting
and analyses for the State Highway System. Data for other modes serving the inter-regional
transportation market have other gaps related to bus ridership.
• Many initiatives are underway to address these gaps not only for performance
measurement, but also for transportation operations and traveler information
purposes.
Consistent with the original guiding principles set forth by the Policy Advisory
Committee ( PAC), all indicators tested to date are multi- modal in nature and reflect the
customer experience, while improving the quality of transportation information available
to transportation professionals and decision makers. The three outcomes fully tested to
date ( i. e., safety/ security, mobility/ accessibility, and reliability) can be implemented to
the degree supported by existing practices and data availability.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
Introduction A- 3
A. 2. PROTOTYPE REPORT
The prototype report illustrates how the fully tested outcomes can be measured and
communicated for the existing system. As data challenges are addressed via several
initiatives already underway, this prototype can be augmented to represent a truly
comprehensive System Performance monitoring report.
A comprehensive monitoring report would provide state and local decision makers with
an easy- to- understand assessment of how well the state's transportation systems are
performing. Over time, it would also address trends of performance. A comprehensive
monitoring report is not intended to replace or replicate detailed planning analyses,
since other tools exist for these purposes.
This prototype document is the first of its kind and addresses system performance for a
subset of California’s transportation system, which includes the statutorily- identified
inter- regional state highway system, as well as other elements of the inter- regional
transportation system, such as intercity buses, commuter rail, intercity rail and freight
railroads.
The prototype relies on available data even when those data are not complete. It is
recognized that this report has data gaps, but consolidating this report is the best way to
discover and address shortcomings in data collection. The sources used to compile this
prototype are listed in the Appendix. In addition, the underlying data source for each
chart and graph is identified under the exhibit and again in the text in the main body of
the report.
The statewide Performance Measurement Initiative identified nine performance
outcomes to consider in multi- modal transportation performance evaluation:
• Cost Effectiveness
• Customer Satisfaction
• Economic Well- Being
• Environmental Quality
• Equity
• Mobility/ Accessibility
• Reliability
• Safety/ Security
• Sustainability.
Four of these outcomes are covered in this prototype document, as illustrated in Exhibit
A- 1.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
Introduction A- 4
Exhibit A- 1: Transportation Outcomes
Outcome Definition
Safety/ Security Minimizing the risk of death, injury, or property loss
Mobility/ Accessibility
Reaching desired destinations with relative ease
within a reasonable time, at a reasonable cost with
reasonable choices
Reliability Providing reasonable and dependable levels of
service by mode
Environmental Quality Helping to maintain and enhance the quality of the
natural and human environment
A comprehensive monitoring report would include all performance outcomes for which
monitoring is appropriate. The exhibit below addresses some of the main questions
regarding the contents and uses of this report.
Exhibit A- 2: Summary Questions on this Report
Why A Prototype Transportation System Performance Measures Report?
Transportation System Performance Measures are not yet implemented; however, significant
progress has been made. This prototype report rolls up the progress made in developing
system performance measures and presents the results of transportation outcomes. The
intent is to solicit feedback and advice from transportation agencies, decision makers,
stakeholders and others regarding the usefulness and continued acceptance of performance
measures. A prototype report is appropriate now as four of the nine performance outcomes
are ready for implementation and analysis.. As data challenges are addressed and the
remaining performance outcomes are fully tested, this prototype will serve as the structure for
a complete State of the System Report.
What This Prototype Report Is and What It Is Not.
This prototype report demonstrates how the tested performance measures can be organized
and communicated in a report format for use by transportation agencies, decision makers and
stakeholders. Report organization is in a format consistent with how transportation system
performance for California's multi- modal transportation system would be reported and
documented after full implementation of performance measures. This report, due to
incomplete nature of the data, can be viewed as a limited sample of performance measures
documentation and its communication. Despite these limitations, the analysis processes
employed in this report are valid. The format, information and analysis are all representative of
what would be presented after full implementation.
What is Contained in this Prototype Report and What Is Not?
The prototype report contains some performance outcomes analysis based on research
conducted to date by Caltrans. The report considers the following outcomes: safety,
mobility/ accessibility, reliability and environmental quality. It also contains sections on the
transportation system and transportation market, intended to provide depth and background in
evaluating overall system performance. This report does not contain information on
transportation outcomes still in the research stage, such as system transportation preservation
and customer satisfaction.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
Introduction A- 5
How Should the Prototype Report Be Used?
This prototype report is intended for a wide audience of transportation system decision makers
and stakeholders. The report serves as a vehicle to solicit feedback on the overall structure for
achieving the most useful statewide decision- making tool possible. As Caltrans expands its
research efforts and increases the analysis coverage to include the remaining outcomes and
achieve true statewide coverage, the prototype report will evolve into the State of the System
Report. The goal is a statewide performance monitoring tool that provides decision makers,
stakeholders and the public a true " state of the system" report.
A. 3. REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report is organized into two sections in addition to the introduction:
• Challenges and Opportunities Ahead ( Section B) describes the efforts needed to
address data availability and accessibility as well as to integrate performance
measurement with existing internal and external processes.
• The Prototype Report ( Section C) is the main body of the comprehensive monitoring
report prototype. It consists of four elements:
− Selected Results ( Section C1) contains the results of performance
measurement calculations for each mode and all four categories of
performance.
− The Multi- Modal Transportation System ( Section C2) addresses key
elements of the transportation system supply: infrastructure and service
provision.
− The Transportation Market ( Section C3) summarizes the demand placed
upon the system in terms of person movement and freight movement.
− Next Steps ( Section C4) provides a brief description of efforts
anticipated in the near future
The appendix sections contain information on the Caltrans High Emphasis Routes
( HERs) as well as general reference materials ( i. e., list of acronyms, glossary and list of
sources).
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
Challenges and Opportunities B- 1
B. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Caltrans faces several challenges to implement performance measurement for
California’s transportation system and to integrate it within the organization. As these
challenges are met, the resulting opportunities are more than promising. This section
addresses the main challenges that impede full implementation of system performance
measures, describes how these challenges can be overcome, and outlines some of the
resulting benefits expected in the near future.
B. 1. CHALLENGES
Two primary sets of challenges exist for full implementation of performance
measurement.
B. 1.1 Data
The first set of challenges relates to data availability and access. To date, highway data
has been collected and analyzed using Transportation Management Center ( TMC)
operations data. In order to streamline this process, several issues or implementation
strategies remain:
• Connecting TMCs to PeMS – It is critical that urban TMCs be connected to the
Performance Measurement System ( PeMS) which has been developed by Partners
for Advanced Transit and Highways ( PATH) on behalf of Caltrans. This system has
been fully tested with District 7 and District 12. Once connected, data are transferred
real- time to PATH on the wide area network ( WAN) and stored for historical and real-time
analysis. A major next step is to develop a “ module or interface” that allows
users to access the PeMS data in order to calculate performance measures such as
mobility and reliability. In addition a world wide web interface would provide access to
Caltrans districts, programs, and others as required.
• Ensuring Detector Fitness – Caltrans is currently evaluating the status of automatic
detectors to ensure that they communicate with their respective TMCs and that the
data transferred are " clean". This initiative may require significant resources and field
equipment upgrades. For example, detectors developed to collect traffic census data
require upgrading to process speed information and transmit data. The end result is
that detectors will collect data for various data uses including operational analysis,
incident identification and response, and ultimately, performance measurement.
• Extending Coverage and Providing Connections – This point addresses two major
challenges. The first is the lack of detector coverage in many rural, and some urban
areas. The second is the lack of, or operational inadequacy of, the connection
between detectors and TMCs. Where no local TMC is present, there may be other
technologies that can be considered. To ensure greater coverage, it will be
necessary to install more loops or deploy different technologies to collect the traffic
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
Challenges and Opportunities B- 2
data in those areas. Working with the districts, a “ best mix” of existing and new
technologies needs to be developed. The resulting data must also be transferred to
PeMS, either on the Caltrans WAN or via different communication methods. Once
completed, this effort will ensure adequate coverage throughout the State and enable
a truly statewide analysis.
Exhibit B- 1 on the next page illustrates the status of the aforementioned issues by
district. It has been developed in cooperation with the Traffic Operations Program.
This chart is intended to further discussions with individual districts and headquarters
programs to implement the data strategies.
Inter- regional rail and bus data availability also poses a continuing challenge. This
prototype performance measures report has highlighted several weaknesses in the data
availability and/ or reporting processes for non- highway modes:
• Inter- regional transit schedule and on- time performance information is not consistently
available, which complicates the transit mobility and reliability analysis. The Mass
Transportation Program is currently examining options for sharing transit mobility-related
data electronically and is considering the development of a mobility analysis
tool.
• Due to established reporting processes and the broad range of regulatory agencies
and operators involved, " current" performance data span a range of several years.
For example, the timeframe for the latest available transit safety data may be different
than that for highways.
• Availability of detailed performance data from the private sector ( e. g., freight railroads)
also poses a continuing challenge.
Ultimately, aviation should be addressed in system performance measures given the
importance of its role in the movement of people and goods in California.
B. 1.2 Integration
Full implementation of system performance measures faces a second set of challenges,
namely to integrate performance measurement into the planning, programming,
operations, and project development processes. Ultimately, decisive information
generated through performance measurement will influence decision making within
Caltrans. For performance measurement to truly become effective, it has to permeate
the entire organization and be incorporated into short and long range planning products,
operational analysis techniques and documents, priority setting for programming, and
project development activities. A key challenge is the continued management support
for performance measurement.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
Challenges and Opportunities B- 3
Exhibit B- 1: STATUS OF DATA STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION
Connect TMCs
To PeMS
Complete Detector
Fitness Initiative
Extend Detector
Coverage And Connect
To PeMS
District 1 ! ! "
District 2 ! ! "
District 3 # $ #
District 4 " " $
District 5 ! ! "
District 6 ! ! "
District 7 % $ $
District 8 # # $
District 9 ! ! "
District 10 " # #
District 11 # # $
District 12 $ # $
CONNECT TO PeMS
! = District does not have a TMC and does not receive real- time loop data continuously.
" = District has a TMC, but does has not have transportation management software ( TMS)
# = District has a TMC and TMS, but no linkage to PeMS yet
$ = District has a TMC and TMS, did have linkage to PeMS that is currently being restored
% = District has a TMC and TMS and live linkage to PeMS
COMPLETE DETECTOR FITNESS INITIATIVE
! = Not applicable ( little or no loops in district -- able to collect speed data)
" = Less than 50 percent of the loop data is accessible by the TMS ( Estimate)
# = Less than 75 percent ( but more than 50 percent of the loop data is accessible by the TMS
$ = More than 75 percent of the loop data is accessible by the TMS
EXTEND DETECTOR COVERAGE AND CONNECT TO PEMS ( gaps may be addressed by additional
loops or alternative technologies, connection to PEMS to be determined)
" = Gaps cover the majority of the system.
# = Considerable gaps exist, but the majority of the system is covered
$ = Few gaps exist
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
Challenges and Opportunities B- 4
B. 2. OPPORTUNITIES
While the challenges appear daunting, performance measurement offers opportunities
and benefits at all levels. In the future, decision makers, staff and eventually the public
will be able to obtain performance information for all modes on a regular basis and
ultimately make better transportation decisions. Project Study Reports can include
detailed operational strategies over and beyond the traditional expansion descriptions.
The combination of mobility and reliability offers great promise to enable Caltrans to
maximize the use of its current infrastructure. Performance trends can be
communicated periodically and in real- time to the public, which will allow the public to
be a full partner in managing the system. In geographic areas where performance
measures indicate success, strategies can be shared with other geographic areas with
similar characteristics to facilitate “ learning exchange.” Performance measures can
help to forge consensus among transportation stakeholders and decision makers in
areas such as system goals and objectives. These are but a few of the opportunities
the performance measurement initiative can help provide.
That is why everyone involved to date with the initiative, from staff to consultants, from
the Policy Committee and staff within Caltrans to external stakeholders, understand and
appreciate the value of this initiative. Making better decisions, communicating more
effectively to the public, and establishing accountability should be the long- term impacts
of this study.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 1
C. PROTOTYPE REPORT
This section contains a prototype report that illustrates how the performance
outcomes that are fully tested can be measured and communicated for select
portions of the existing system. As data challenges are addressed via several
initiatives already underway and the performance measures are fully tested, this
prototype can be augmented to represent a truly comprehensive System
Performance monitoring report. Such a report would then represent the
" monitoring" component of the performance measurement initiative.
This prototype presents a limited snapshot of how the transportation system is
performing today. It addresses system performance for a subset of California's
transportation system, which includes the statutorily- identified inter- regional state
highway system, as well as other elements of the inter- regional transportation
system, such as intercity buses, commuter rail, and freight railroads.
The Policy Advisory Committee identified nine multi- modal performance measure
outcomes for the inter- regional transportation system, and these are undergoing
proof- of- concept testing. Three outcomes have already been tested, and this
section addresses system performance results for these. In addition to the three
outcomes, this section discusses air quality attainment as monitored by federal
and State agencies. Performance measures addressed include:
• Safety/ security
• Mobility/ accessibility
• Reliability
• Environmental quality
The focus of the report is on current system performance ( i. e., for the most
recent year available). Selected trends in performance that go back three to five
years are also presented, where appropriate. Over time, a comprehensive
performance- monitoring document would address performance trends in a more
encompassing manner as a performance monitoring history is built.
C1. SELECTED RESULTS
1.1. SAFETY/ SECURITY
The safety/ security outcome addresses minimizing the risk of death, injury, or
property loss on California transportation infrastructure. Separate, multimodal
indicators ( i. e., the same indicator can be used across modes) were chosen to
represent the safety/ security outcome. The monitoring of these indicators
provides an indication of the improvement or decline of safety and security over
time.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 2
For all modes, safety accident information is reported as " totals" and " rates".
Totals relate to the total number of accidents, fatalities, and injuries experienced
by that mode. Rates represent the indicator for safety. Indicators for safety
include accident, fatality, and injury rates. Rates are simply the " totals" divided
by a common measure of use of the system for each mode ( e. g., vehicle miles
traveled)
Security information is reported also as " totals" and " rates". Totals relate to the
total number of violent and property crimes experienced for each mode. Rates
represent the indicator for security. Indicators for security include crime rates
( i. e., violent and property crimes per trip).
1.1.1. Safety Information
All safety information is presented by mode and by source of data. Mode
accident totals and rates are presented in the following order:
• Roadway ( all roads and highways in California, State Highways Only, and
Non State Highways ( Local Streets and Roads)) accident totals
• Roadway accident rates
• Inter- regional bus accident totals
• Inter- regional bus accident rates
• Rail ( i. e., Amtrak, commuter railroads, and freight railroads) accident totals
• Rail accident rates.
Accident rates are calculated by dividing the total number of accidents by the
" use" of the respective mode. For example, the number of vehicle miles traveled
( VMT) is a good proxy for the use of the highway by automobiles, buses and
trucks. In this section, three main accident rates are reported:
• Total Accidents per VMT ( property damage, fatality, injury accidents)
• Fatality Accidents per VMT
• Injury Accidents per VMT.
For the rail mode, million train- miles was used as the denominator.
Roadway Accident Totals
The California Highway Patrol ( CHP) reports collisions on the entire roadway
system ( State Highways and local streets and roads). Information at this level of
aggregation is useful for analyzing broad safety trends on roadways. More
detailed or micro level analysis and additional information is required to develop
conclusions related to the trends.
The data itself contains collisions ( fatality, injury and property damage
accidents), as well as fatalities and injuries reported. The data is limited to
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 3
what is actually reported. For example, property damage and injury
accidents are likely to be under- reported.
Summary statistics are shown below.
Exhibit 1- 1: All Roadway Accident Totals in California
Type of Accident
And YEAR
Ratio to VMT 1995 1996 1997 1998
Total Collisions 471,758 475,685 463,894 482,608
Fatal Collisions 3,636 3,555 3,252 3,075
Injury Collisions 196,569 193,805 185,952 189,007
Fatalities 4,165 3,972 3,671 3,459
Injuries 304,941 300,106 284,871 290,698
Fatalities per Million VMT 1 per 66 1 per 70 1 per 78 1 per 84
Injuries per Million VMT 1 per 0.91 1 per 0.93 1 per 1.0 1 per 1.0
Source: TABLE 8A - Annual Report of Fatal and Injury Motor Vehicle Traffic Collisions,
Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System Department of California Highway Patrol
While total collisions increased slightly along with the population growth in
California, the fatal and injury collisions on all roadways decreased between
1995 and 1998. Total fatalities and injuries decreased as well.
Exhibit 1- 2: State Highway Accident Totals in California
Type of Accident
And YEAR
Ratio to VMT 1995 1996 1997 1998
Total Collisions 156,245 164,114 165,065 173,549
Fatal Collisions 1,506 1,606 1,483 1,394
Injury Collisions 57,031 58,343 57,377 58,625
Fatalities 1,810 1,855 1,763 1,601
Injuries 91,917 94,266 91,837 94,192
Fatalities per Million VMT 1 per 81 1 per 81 1 per 87 1 per 97
Injuries per Million VMT 1 per 1.59 1 per 1.59 1 per 1.67 1 per 1.65
Source: Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System Department of California Highway
Patrol
Overall, collisions on State highways increased by about 17,300 between 1995
and 1998. During this same time period, fatalities decreased by 11.5 percent
despite the increase both in population, amount of travel, and the increase in
collisions. Injuries increased slightly.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 4
Exhibit 1- 3: Non- State Highway Accident Totals in California
Type of Accident
and YEAR
Ratio to VMT 1995 1996 1997 1998
Total Collisions 315,513 311,571 298,829 309,059
Fatal Collisions 2,130 1,949 1,769 1,681
Injury Collisions 139,538 135,462 128,575 130,392
Fatalities 2,385 2,117 1,908 1,858
Injuries 213,024 205,840 193,034 196,506
Fatalities per Million VMT 1 per 55 1 per 61 1 per 69 1 per 73
Injuries per Million VMT 1 per 0.61 1 per 0.62 1 per 0.68 1 per 0.69
Source: TABLE 8A - Annual Report of Fatal and Injury Motor Vehicle Traffic Collisions,
Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System Department of California Highway Patrol
Annual Vehicle Mile Travel ( VMT) Summary, in Billions
1995 1996 1997 1998
VMT on State Highways 146.2 149.6 153.1 155.4
VMT on Other Public
Roads 130.2 128.5 131.7 135.1
VMT on All Public Roads 276.4 278.0 284.8 290.5
Source: Caltrans, Transportation System Information Program, Office of Travel Forecasting
and Analysis, Statewide Travel & Analysis Branch " California Motor Vehicle Stock, Travel,
and Fuel Forecast" November 1999, Appendix B.
Trends on California non- State highways mirror trends on the roadway system as
a whole, with fatality and injury collisions declining. Overall collisions are down
slightly between 1995 and 1998.
In 1995, 33 percent of all fatal collisions in California occurred on State Highways
and 67 percent occurred on Local Streets and Roads. This distribution is
changing. By 1998, 36 percent of all fatal collisions in California occurred on
State Highways and 64 percent occurred on Local Streets and Roads. At the
same time, the absolute number of fatal collisions and resulting fatalities is
decreasing in all three categories.
The 1999 Caltrans Route Segment Report ( RSR) provides safety data pertaining
to the interstate and State highway system, at a segment level. The RSR
contains roughly 4,000 segments, most of which are short – about 0.4 miles.
The RSR smoothes out widely varying annual safety statistics by reporting total
accidents and average annual accident rates over the three- year period from
1996 through 1998.
Roadway Accident Rates
Roadway accident rates are reported in the prototype only on State Highways.
Information is provided by county, and a subset of the State Highways by county
and by High Emphasis Routes ( HERs). The HERs system represents 34 major
inter- regional corridors in California and the backbone of Caltrans inter- regional
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 5
strategic plan. Examples of HERs corridors include Interstate Route 5 in its
entirely; State Route 99 in its entirety, and the portion of State Route 1 and State
Route 17 that connects Carmel to San Jose. The entire HERs network is
depicted in Exhibit 2- 2 in Chapter C2 of this document.
The source of the data is the 1999 Caltrans RSR. Accident rates represent a
three- year average. Only a limited sampling of Accident Rate information for
Local Streets and Roads is available. The source of this information is the
Highway Performance Monitoring System. This information is not included in this
prototype. It will be included in the future Performance Monitoring Report.
The results of the highway accident rate analysis are shown at two main levels of
aggregation – county- level and route- level – for the HERs Routes.
The county safety analysis shows highway accident rates for the following:
• County Accident Rates by Vehicle Type ( Total, Auto and Truck)
• Count Accident Rates by Accident Type ( Total, Fatality and Injury)
• High Emphasis Route Accident Rates ( Route Average)
• High Emphasis Route Accident Rates ( Average Within Each County)
This information is depicted in Exhibits 1- 4 through 1- 7 on the following pages.
In this report prototype, the year 1999 serves as the base year. In the future, the
intent is to show trends spanning several time periods ( e. g., 2000- 2004). The
information be displayed as illustrated below. This type of display will allow each
county to monitor its accident information over time to determine where more
detailed safety analysis may be necessary.
2000
T = Total Accident Rate
F = Fatality Accident Rate
I = Injury Accident Rate
County X
T
F
I
T
F
I
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 6
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 7
Exhibit 1- 4: County Accident Rates by Vehicle Type
( Total, Auto, and Truck)
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
# #
#
#
#
# #
#
#
# #
#
#
#
# #
# #
AMADOR
SACRA-MENTO
SUT-TER
CALAVERAS
ORANGE
DEL NORTE
ALPINE
SAN
JOAQUIN
SAN
BENITO
NEVADA
YUBA
STANISLAUS
SIERRA
MARIPOSA
COLUSA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
VENTURA
SAN LUIS
OBISPO
YOLO
PLACER
GLENN
TUOLUMNE
KINGS
MERCED MADERA
BUTTE
LAKE
LOS ANGELES
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
PLUMAS
HUMBOLDT
SAN
DIEGO
TEHAMA
TRINITY
IMPERIAL
SHASTA
MONO
MODOC
TULARE
LASSEN
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
FRESNO
SAN BERNARDINO
KERN
INYO
Legend - County Level Safety Rates
Total Accident Rate
Truck Accident Rate
Auto Accident Rate
All Rates in accidents per
million Vehicle Miles Traveled
SAN
FRANCISCO
SAN
MATEO
CONTRA
COSTA
SAC
MEN
ALAMEDA
MARIN
SANTA
CLARA
SOLANO
STA
NAPA
SONOMA
N
W E
S
See Inset
Source: Caltrans 1999 Route Segment Report, Booz · Allen analysis
Exhibit 1- 4 shows the total accident rate for each County ( in light blue
bars) and the truck/ auto shares ( in green and black, respectively). All
accident rates are expressed in accidents per total million VMT, which
includes both trucks and automobiles. The accident rates reflect total
number of accidents divided by VMT. The accident rates shown represent a
three- year average between 1996 and 1998.
The exhibit shows that the accident rate for Alpine County is higher than
the accident rate for Los Angeles County. The higher accident rate in a
rural area such as Alpine County is due to factors such as roadway
curvature in mountainous terrain, predominant undivided roads rather than
freeways, weather conditions and relatively low vehicle miles of travel.
After several time periods are monitored, this type of information could be
useful for trend analysis for individual counties. However, more detailed
analysis is required to draw conclusions for planning, programming and
project development decision- making.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 8
The accident rates shown in the exhibit reflect accidents divided by VMT, not
total accidents. For each county, the accident rate shown is a function of several
variables, such as the number of vehicle miles traveled in the county, the terrain,
weather, and other factors. If Alpine County has a higher accident rate than Los
Angeles County, this does not mean that there are more accidents in Alpine
County. The higher accident rate may be due to curvature in the roads, icy
conditions, or other factors. On the other hand, Los Angeles County has a lower
accident rate due primarily to its high total of vehicle miles traveled.
Exhibit 1- 5: County Accident Rates by Accident Type
( Total, Fatality, and Injury)
AMADOR
SACRA-MENTO
SUT-TER
CALAVERAS
ORANGE
DEL NORTE
ALPINE
SAN
JOAQUIN
SAN
BENITO
NEVADA
YUBA
STANISLAUS
SIERRA
MARIPOSA
COLUSA
SANTA
BARBARA
EL DORADO
VENTURA
SAN LUIS
OBISPO
YOLO
PLACER
GLENN
TUOLUMNE
KINGS
MERCED MADERA
BUTTE
LAKE
LOS
ANGELES
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
PLUMAS
HUMBOLDT
SAN
DIEGO
TEHAMA
TRINITY
IMPERIAL
SHASTA
MONO
MODOC
TULARE
LASSEN
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
FRESNO
SAN BERNARDINO
KERN
INYO
Legend - County Level Safety Rates
Total Accident Rate
Injury Accident Rate
Fatality Accident Rate
All Rates in accidents per
million Vehicle Miles Traveled
N
W E
S
See Inset
SAN
FRANCISCO
SAN
MATEO
CONTRA
COSTA
ALAMEDA
MARIN
SANTA
CLARA
SOLANO
S
NAPA
SONOMA
Source: Caltrans 1999 Route Segment Report, Booz · Allen analysis
Exhibit 1- 5 shows the total accident rate for California compared to fatality and
injury accident rates. The intent is also to show trends of these county accident
rates so that each county can better assess how their safety outcome is evolving
over time.
The same comments for the magnitude of accident rates made for Exhibit 1- 4
apply here also.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 9
Exhibit 1- 6: High Emphasis Route Accident Rates
( Route- Level Averages)
SAN
FRANCISCO
SANTA
CRUZ
SAN
MATEO
CONTRA
COSTA
AMADOR
SACRA-MENTO
ALAMEDA
SUT-TER
MARIN CALAVERAS
ORANGE
SANTA
CLARA
DEL
NORTE
SOLANO
ALPINE
SAN
JOAQUIN
SAN
BENITO
NEVADA
YUBA
STANISLAUS
SIERRA
MARIPOSA
COLUSA
NAPA
SANTA
BARBARA
SONOMA EL DORADO
VENTURA
SAN LUIS
OBISPO
YOLO
PLACER
GLENN
TUOLUMNE
KINGS
MERCED
MADERA
BUTTE
LAKE
LOS
ANGELES
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
PLUMAS
HUMBOLDT
SAN
DIEGO
TEHAMA
TRINITY
IMPERIAL
SHASTA
MONO
MODOC
TULARE
LASSEN
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
FRESNO
SAN BERNARDINO
KERN
INYO
)}
)}
)}
<= D
<= D
<= ¿
!"#
B
<= ñ<= ñ
<= ñ
<= d
!"#
@
<= Ô
!"#
@
!"#
E
<= »
)¤
<= ß
!"#
@
<= c
<= Ö
<= Ñ
<= p
!"#
C
)}
!"#
B
)£
<= ë
) u
<= ¿
<= D
!"#
A
<= ù
<= K
!"#
C
<= Ã
<= W
!"#
B
)}
)¤
)¤
<= Ù
% &'
P
% &'
P
<= ¯
<= s
<= ¼
<= ¯
<= ß
<= ¹
<= Q
!"#
D
) t
0.00 - 0.50
0.50 - 0.75
0.75 - 1.00
1.00 - 1.50
1.50 - 2.00
Total Accident Rate by High Emphasis Routes
( Accidents per million Vehicle Miles Traveled)
N
W E
S
Note: Accident Rate is a 3 year average from 1996 - 1998.
Comparison to prior safety data was not feasible.
Source: Caltrans 1999 Route Segment Report, Booz · Allen analysis
The HERs route- level aggregation for total accidents is analyzed in two different
ways: first for the route ( corridor) as a whole, then for each route with county line
breaks. Exhibit 1- 6 shows the entire HERs route level accident rates. The
routes shown in green and blue have the highest overall accident rates ( i. e., total
accidents per vehicle mile traveled).
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 10
Exhibit 1- 7: High Emphasis Route Accident Rates
( County Line to County Line Detail)
Total Accident Rate by High Emphasis Routes
( Accidents per million Vehicle Miles Traveled)
0.00 - 0.50
0.50 - 0.75
0.75 - 1.00
1.00 - 1.50
1.50 - 2.00
N
W E
S
SAN
FRANCISCO
SANTA
CRUZ
SAN
MATEO
CONTRA
COSTA
AMADOR
SACRA-MENTO
ALAMEDA
SUT-TER
MARIN CALAVERAS
ORANGE
SANTA
CLARA
DEL
NORTE
SOLANO
ALPINE
SAN
JOAQUIN
SAN
BENITO
NEVADA
YUBA
STANISLAUS
SIERRA
MARIPOSA
COLUSA
NAPA
SANTA
BARBARA
SONOMA EL DORADO
VENTURA
SAN LUIS
OBISPO
YOLO
PLACER
GLENN
TUOLUMNE
KINGS
MERCED
MADERA
BUTTE
LAKE
LOS
ANGELES
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
PLUMAS
HUMBOLDT
SAN
DIEGO
TEHAMA
TRINITY
IMPERIAL
SHASTA
MONO
MODOC
TULARE
LASSEN
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
FRESNO
SAN BERNARDINO
KERN
INYO
) t
!"#
D
<= Q
<= ¹
<= ß
<= ¯
<= ¼
<= s
<= ¯
% &'
P
% &'
P
<= Ù
)¤
)¤
)}
!"#
B
<= W
<= Ã
!"#
C
<= K
<= ù
!"#
A
<= D
<= ¿
) u
<= ë
)£
!"#
B
)}
!"#
C
<= p
<= Ñ
<= Ö
<= c
!"#
@
<= ß
)¤
<= »
!"#
E
!"#
@
<= Ô
!"#
@
<= d
<= ñ
<= ñ<= ñ
!"#
B
<= ¿
<= D
<= D
)}
)}
)}
Note: Accident Rate is a 3 year average from 1996 - 1998.
Comparison to prior safety data was not feasible.
Source: Caltrans 1999 Route Segment Report, Booz · Allen analysis
Exhibit 1- 7 shows the same HERs route- level accident rates as on the preceding
map, this time broken down by county. The highway segments in green and in
blue exhibit the highest overall accident rates. This map provides additional
detail on each route with a county focus.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 11
Inter- Regional Bus Accident Totals
The Caltrans Traffic Accident and Surveillance Analysis System ( TASAS)
database provides total bus accidents reported on the State Highway System.
The Federal Transit Administration ( FTA) also reports on inter- regional bus
service safety throughout the state. Information at this level of aggregation is
useful for analyzing broad inter- regional bus safety trends on roadways in
California.
The data itself contains bus collisions as well as fatalities and injuries reported.
The data is limited to what is actually reported. One limitation in the data is the
absence of specific reporting for Greyhound Lines, the largest inter- regional bus
carrier in California. The company does not track accident statistics for specific
states ( districts span multiple states), hence this prototype cannot show
Greyhound safety measures using California data reported directly by
Greyhound.
For the year 1998, TASAS reported 960 accidents involving buses. As defined in
the TASAS database, buses include all buses except for school buses.
A number of smaller agencies provide inter- regional bus services throughout the
state. Safety data is available for the agencies listed in Exhibit 1- 8 from the
Federal Transit Administration ( FTA) through its National Transit Database
( NTD).
Exhibit 1- 8: Inter- Regional Bus Providers
Agency Extent of Inter- Regional Service
Antelope Valley ( AVTA) Lancaster – Los Angeles
Fairfield- Suisan Transit Davis – Fairfield
Golden Gate Transit San Francisco – Santa Rosa
Modesto Area Express ( MAX) Lathrop – Modesto – Pleasanton
Monterey- Salinas Transit ( MST) Monterey – Salinas – Santa Cruz
Riverside Transit ( RTA) Hemet – Riverside
Roseville Transit Sacramento – Roseville
San Joaquin RT Centered in San Joaquin County
Santa Barbara MTD Hollister – Santa Barbara
Santa Clara ( SCVTA) San Jose – Santa Cruz
Santa Clarita ( SCT) Lancaster – Santa Clarita
Santa Cruz Metro San Jose – Santa Cruz
Sunline Transit Palm Springs – Riverside
Vallejo Transit Sacramento – Vallejo
Victor Valley Transit Helendate – Hesperia
Yolobus Davis – Vallejo
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 12
These inter- regional bus service providers reported 367 collisions to the FTA for
1998. Individual provider totals ranged from zero for the service provider with the
lowest number of accidents to 159 for the carrier with the highest.
These collisions resulted in a total of 4 fatalities and 179 injuries. None of the
fatalities involved a passenger, but 148 of the injuries were passengers. Note
that collisions accounted for 80 percent of the total fatalities and 26 percent of the
total injuries reported by these operators. Other casualties occurred primarily
while patrons were boarding/ alighting, waiting at the bus stop, or inside the
vehicle.
Most of the inter- regional bus operators provide both local ( regional) and inter-regional
bus service. In the case of SCVTA, the majority of the routes are within
or near to San Jose. It is not possible at this time to determine how many of the
collisions and casualties took place on inter- regional, rather than regional,
services.
Inter- Regional Bus Accident Rates
Inter- regional bus accident rates are reported for the service providers who report
to the FTA only ( i. e., bus providers listed in Exhibit 1- 8).
Currently, significant limitations to reporting bus accident rates exist. The first is
the absence of vehicle mile traveled ( VMT) information for the TASAS bus data.
The second is the lack of Greyhound- specific accident and VMT data to be able
to cross- reference the FTA and TASAS accident information.
The inter- regional bus providers listed in Exhibit 1- 8 reported 58.47 million VMT
to the FTA for 1998. The collision rate of the inter- regional buses was 6.28 per
million VMT. There were 0.07 fatalities per million VMT related directly to
collisions, and 3.06 injuries per million VMT.
In the future, these bus safety trends can be monitored over time.
Inter- Regional Rail Accident Totals
Rail accident totals are reported at the statewide level for Amtrak, the commuter
railroads and the freight railroads. Information at this level of aggregation is
useful for analyzing broad safety trends on the railroads. Rail is a unique
transportation mode in that for safety, trends can be analyzed for grade-crossings
and along the traditional right of way. In most cases, the rail safety
data is reported at the county level ( e. g., Federal Railroad Administration on
grade crossing incidents, Amtrak accident data). In all cases, the data is
reported for the rail system as a whole ( e. g., Metrolink).
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 13
Overall Rail Statistics – Unique to the rail mode, most rail- related casualties are
among employees or non- passengers, rather than passengers on board
vehicles. Rail accidents involving casualties are categorized into hjghway- rail
grade crossing incidents, train incidents, and other incidents. The latter includes
incidents involving employees that are not a result of the first two incident
categories.
The Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis ( FRAOSA) defines
a highway- rail grade- crossing incident as any impact between a rail and highway
user ( both motor vehicles and other users of the crossing) at a designated
crossing site. Grade- crossing incidents are particularly important in rail safety
because they occur at a higher frequency than other types of accidents, and
because of the high probability for casualties when incidents take place.
FRAOSA defines a train accident as a safety- related event involving on- track rail
equipment ( both standing and moving), excluding grade- crossing incidents,
causing monetary damage to rail equipment and track above a prescribed
amount ( threshold was $ 6,600 in 1998).
In 1998, there were 190 grade- crossing incidents, 135 train accidents, 114 rail-related
fatalities, and 795 rail- related injuries in California. In 1998, there was an
average of one grade- crossing incident every 1.9 days and one train accident
every 2.7 days. There was one rail- related fatality every 3.2 days and 2.2 rail-related
injuries every day. These safety totals have remained generally
unchanged over the past four years1.
Most rail- related casualties occur in situations not considered as accidents or
grade- crossing incidents, and most are not among rail passengers:
• In 1998, only one of the fatalities ( 1 percent) and 38 of the injuries ( 5 percent)
within California actually took place among passengers of the rail system.
• The largest category of rail- related fatalities were those hit while being on a
rail right- of- way ( 79 in 1998, or 69 percent). Some fatalities were suicides.
• The largest category of rail- related injuries was rail employees in situations
not considered to be accidents or grade- crossing incidents ( 624 in 1998, or
78 percent). Common injuries were bruises, sprains, and cuts.
• In 1998, grade- crossing incidents accounted for 32 of the rail- related fatalities
( 28 percent) and only 64 of the injuries ( 8 percent). Train accidents
accounted for zero of the fatalities and 14 of the injuries ( 2 percent). All other
casualties came about from other situations.
1 These numbers do not include data from local rail systems such as BART, LACMTA, and MUNI. The FRA data
also do not include Caltrain and Metrolink statistics.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 14
In 1998, ten counties ( out of 58) reported 54 percent of rail- related fatalities and
69 percent of rail- related injuries in California.
Amtrak – Amtrak serves as the primary inter- regional passenger rail carrier in
California. In 1998, about 21 percent of rail- related fatalities and 24 percent of
rail- related injuries involved Amtrak trains. Safety statistics for Amtrak, shown in
Exhibit 1- 9, include all of primary California services ( i. e., Capital Corridor, San
Diegan, and San Joaquin). They also include the portion of national services
( i. e., Coast Starlight, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, and Sunset Limited)
that operate on California right- of- way. Note that Amtrak feeder bus services are
not included in these statistics.
Exhibit 1- 9: Amtrak Accident Totals, 1998
Safety Category Events Fatalities Injuries
Grade- crossing incidents 30 11 22
Train accidents 8 0 0
Other situations N/ A 15 141
Totals N/ A 26 163
Source: Public Utilities Commission
Commuter Railroads – Two commuter railroads are included in this accident
analysis:
• Caltrain: operates between San Francisco and Gilroy
• Metrolink: also known as the Southern California Regional Rail Authority
( SCRRA), operates primarily in the Los Angeles area but also connects to
San Diego.
Exhibit 1- 10 summarizes safety totals for the commuter railroads.
Exhibit 1- 10: Commuter Railroad Accident Totals, 1998
Commuter Railroad Accident Category Events Fatalities Injuries
Grade- crossing incidents 4 2 2
Caltrain Train accidents 25 8 6
Other situations N/ A 8 20
Grade- crossing incidents 2 2 3
Metrolink Train accidents 6 6 16
Other situations N/ A 0 20
Totals N/ A 26 69
Source: Public Utilities Commission
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 15
Accident data for the newly instituted Altamont Commuter Express ( ACE) was
not available for this prototype report. ACE service formally began in October
1998. Statistics for the ACE would be included in future comprehensive
performance monitoring reports.
Freight Railroads – Of the thirty freight railroads that operate within California,
two provide the majority of the inter- regional service. Both are Class 1 railroads:
• Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway ( BNSF): operates on about 1,800
railroad miles in California
• Union Pacific Railroad ( UP): operates on about 3,800 railroad miles in
California.
Exhibit 1- 11 presents summary safety statistics for the freight railroads.
Exhibit 1- 11: Freight Railroad Accident Totals
Freight Railroad Safety Category Events Fatalities Injuries
Grade- crossing incidents 46 9 7
BNSF Train accidents 49 0 7
Other situations N/ A 19 127
Grade- crossing incidents 96 8 31
UP Train accidents 82 0 7
Other situations N/ A 43 323
Totals N/ A 79 502
Source: Public Utilities Commission, 1998 Data
The two railroads account for most of the statewide rail- related casualties. These
casualties tend to occur in Southern California:
• 31.4 percent of BNSF 1997- 98 casualties were in San Bernardino County,
12.4 percent were in Los Angeles, 11.1 percent were in Contra Costa, and
7.8 percent were in Kern.
• 23.5 percent of Union Pacific casualties were in Los Angeles County, 12.1
percent were in San Bernardino, 7.6 percent were in Placer, and 7.5 percent
were in Alameda.
By comparison, 31.4 percent of Amtrak casualties were in Los Angeles County,
7.4 percent were in Orange, 6.9 percent were in Riverside, and 6.9 percent were
in San Diego.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 16
The other 29 " short line" freight railroads combined accounted for less than 10
percent of the total rail fatalities and less than 20 percent of the total rail injuries
in 1998. None operate on more than 400 railroad miles within California.
Inter- Regional Rail Accident Rates
Rail accident rates are reported in the prototype for Amtrak, Commuter
Railroads, and Freight Railroads. The sources are the Federal Railroad
Administration and the California Public Utilities Commission.
Overall, inter- regional rail accident rates have remained steady over the past four
years. There is a slight downward trend for fatality and injury rates. Summary
statistics for the inter- regional rail providers are provided in Exhibit 1- 12.
Exhibit 1- 12: Inter- Regional Rail2 Accident Totals and Rates in California
Four- Year Trend
Year
Totals 1995 1996 1997 1998
Grade- crossing incidents 200 201 159 190
Train accidents 112 127 105 135
Fatalities, rail total 106 96 109 114
Fatalities from grade- crossing incidents 28 24 22 32
Fatalities from train accidents 1 2 1 0
Fatalities, other situation: struck on the right-of-
way 73 69 83 79
Fatalities, other situation: passengers on train 0 0 0 1
Fatalities, other situation: employees 4 1 3 2
Injuries, rail total 793 731 724 795
Injuries from grade- crossing incidents 70 56 65 64
Injuries from train accidents 11 9 13 14
Injuries, other situation: struck on the right- of-way
52 55 59 62
Injuries, other situation: passengers on train 1 11 39 31
Injuries, other situation: employees 659 600 548 624
Rates 1995 1996 1997 1998
Grade- Xing incidents per million train- miles 7.63 9.27 6.20 6.48
Train accidents per million train- miles 4.27 5.86 4.09 4.60
Fatalities per million train- miles 4.04 4.43 4.25 3.89
Injuries per million train- miles 30.25 33.73 28.24 27.13
Source: Federal Railroad Administration
2 Does not include local rail, such as BART, MTA, and MUNI. Also does not include Caltrain and Metrolink,
which are considered to be inter- regional services. Numbers for Caltrain and Metrolink are provided separately.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 17
Exhibit 1- 13 contains information on the distribution of population, grade
crossings and rail casualties by county. Only counties with 50 or more casualties
over the 1997- 1998 time period are shown.
Exhibit 1- 13: 1998 County Rail Casualties
County % of State
Population
% of Grade
Crossings
% of Rail
Fatalities, 1998
% of Rail
Injuries, 1998
Alameda 4.3% 6.3% 2.6% 5.3%
Contra Costa 2.7% 3.9% 4.4% 4.0%
Fresno 2.3% 5.0% 4.4% 3.0%
Kern 1.9% 3.7% 3.5% 3.6%
Los Angeles 28.8% 14.2% 13.2% 24.2%
Orange 8.3% 3.0% 5.3% 2.3%
Placer 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 4.8%
Riverside 4.4% 2.6% 6.1% 4.3%
San Bernardino 4.9% 4.3% 7.0% 13.1%
San Joaquin 1.6% 5.9% 6.1% 4.8%
Others ( 48) 28.1% 50.3% 46.5% 30.7%
California 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Federal Railroad Administration
The rest of this section on rail accident rates addresses:
• Amtrak
• Commuter Railroads
• Freight Railroads.
Amtrak - Amtrak accident statistics are summarized in Exhibit 1- 14 ( the rates are
highlighted in bold). Amtrak safety rates for grade- crossing incidents per train-mile
traveled in California are high compared to the rest of the inter- regional rail
providers. Their safety rate in accidents per million train- miles is the lowest of
the providers.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 18
Exhibit 1- 14: 1998 Amtrak Accident Statistics in California
Annual Train- Miles Traveled ( in millions): 2.30*
Grade- Crossing Incidents: 30
Train Accidents: 8
Total Fatalities 26
- Fatalities from Grade- Crossing Incidents 11
- Fatalities from Train Accidents 0
Total Injuries: 163
- Injuries from Grade- Crossing Incidents 22
- Injuries from Train Accidents 0
Grade- Crossing Incidents per million train- miles: 13
Train Accidents per million train- miles: 3.5
Fatalities per million train- miles: 11.3
Injuries per million train- miles: 70.9
Source: Public Utilities Commission
* Train- Miles Traveled Source: Estimate based on Amtrak Schedules,
Caltrans Rail Program Forecasting Model, and Booz · Allen analysis
Commuter Railroads – Safety statistics for the two commuter railroads are
summarized in Exhibit 1- 15 ( accident rates are shown in bold). For 1998,
Caltrain's train accident rate was the highest in the industry. Metrolink's safety
rates were low for both grade crossings and overall accidents.
Exhibit 1- 15: Commuter Rail Accident Statistics in California, 1998
Caltrain Metrolink
Annual Train- Miles Traveled ( in millions): 1.02* 1.61*
Grade- Crossing Incidents: 4 2
Train Accidents: 25 6
Fatalities, Total:
- Fatalities from Grade- Crossing Incidents:
- Fatalities from Train Accidents:
18
28
826
Injuries, Total:
- Injuries from Grade- Crossing Incidents:
- Injuries from Train Accidents:
28
26
39
3
16
Grade- Crossing Incidents per million train- miles: 3.9 1.2
Train Accidents per million train- miles: 24.5 3.7
Fatalities per million train- miles: 17.6 5.0
Injuries per million train- miles: 27.5 24.2
Source: Public Utilities Commission
* Train- Miles Traveled Source: Estimate based on 1998 National Transit Database
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 19
Freight Railroads – Overall freight safety statistics are reported to both the FRA
and the PUC. Train- miles traveled by individual railroads could not be estimated.
However, by subtracting passenger rail numbers from the rail total, freight
railroad train miles could be calculated as a whole. Summary safety statistics for
the freight carriers are shown in Exhibit 1- 16, with the accident rates highlighted.
Exhibit 1- 16: 1998 Freight Rail Accident Statistics in California
Annual Train- Miles Traveled ( millions): 25.4*
Grade- Crossing Incidents: 152
Train Accidents: 123
Fatalities, Total:
- Fatalities from Grade- Crossing Incidents:
- Fatalities from Train Accidents:
82
17
0
Injuries, Total:
- Injuries from Grade- Crossing Incidents:
- Injuries from Train Accidents:
616
42
14
Grade- Crossing Incidents per million train- miles: 6.0
Train Accidents per million train- miles: 4.8
Fatalities per million train- miles: 3.2
Injuries per million train- miles: 24.3
Source: Public Utilities Commission
* Train- Miles Traveled Source: Estimate based on 1998 National Transit Database
1.1.2. Security Information
Crimes committed on the transportation infrastructure are considered part of the
safety/ security outcome that should be monitored over time. While crime rates
are the performance measure for the outcome, crime events provide additional
insight into the magnitude of the problem.
Security information is therefore reported as " crime events", then as " crime
rates". Crime events relate to the total number of crimes ( e. g., violent or property
crimes) committed for the particular mode, while the crime rates relate to the ratio
of crimes committed to usage of the system. In this analysis, crime rates are
calculated as violent crimes per passenger trip and property crimes per million
passenger trips. For this prototype report, crime events are reported for the bus
and rail modes only. While crime events do take place on the highways ( e. g.,
" carjackings" and shootings), no source was identified that could fully address
this issue.
Inter- Regional Bus Crime Events
The Federal Transit Administration ( FTA) collects annual inter- regional bus crime
events for the following categories:
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 20
• Violent crimes ( assault, homicide, rape, robbery)
• Property crimes ( arson, burglary, larceny, theft).
Other crime events, such as vandalism, disorderly conduct, trespassing, and
loitering are not included in this report.
For the six inter- regional transit agencies that reported crime data to the FTA, the
table below shows the total violent and property crimes for 1997 and 1998.
Inter- regional Bus Crime Events 1997 1998
Violent Crime 35 13
Property Crime 60 53
Inter- Regional Bus Crime Rates
In 1998, the state inter- regional bus violent crime rate was 0.13 crime per million
passenger trips. The property crime rate was 0.53 crime per million passenger
trips. Note that these rates represent crimes reported to the FTA, and may be
less than what actually occurred.
Inter- Regional Rail Crime Events
Statistics on security for Amtrak trains is available from Amtrak's headquarters in
Philadelphia. The latest year data were available is 1998.
Amtrak Crime Events ( in California) 1998
Violent Crime 6
Property Crime 285
The FTA collects rail security data for the commuter railroads, Caltrain and
Metrolink. Over the past two years, there were an average of 29 violent crimes
and 240 property crimes annually on both railroads.
Crime events for freight railroads were not available for this analysis.
Inter- Regional Rail Crime Rates
In 1998, the state commuter rail violent crime rate was 1.55 crimes per million
passenger trips. The property crime rate was 14.88 crimes per million passenger
trips. As with bus crime rates, these rates represent crimes reported to the FTA,
and may be a subset of what actually occurred.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 21
1.2. MOBILITY/ ACCESSIBILITY
The mobility/ accessibility outcome addresses the ability of travelers and goods to
reach desired destinations with relative ease and within a reasonable time.
Travel time delay is the indicator for mobility and it can be measured as the
difference between optimal and actual average travel time. Accessibility to the
transportation system is measured by how easy it is to reach the transportation
system. Accessibility to desired travel destinations is a key indicator that will be
reported in a future report. This indicator will require close coordination regional
and private sector interests.
Highway mobility provides users with an indicator for the level of congestion on a
particular highway segment. Mobility is defined as the portion of the average
point- to- point travel time that is considered to be due to delay. Delay is the
additional travel time that results from less than optimal circumstances. A longer
period of delay indicates a lower level of mobility. Highway mobility is measured
in hours of delay experienced on the facility. The measure is applicable to any
portion of a highway, regardless of how people access the highway ( e. g., by on-ramps,
at intersections), number of lanes, speed limit or other characteristics.
This report only includes selected district highways with the best possible loop
detector data to provide highway mobility analysis.
Inter- regional transit delays are calculated by taking the difference between the
optimal travel time and the average travel time for a trip from a specific origin to a
specific destination. Optimal travel time reflects free- flow conditions along the
transit right- of- way ( i. e., highway or railway). Since most transit agencies do not
collect data on actual travel times, they must be inferred from published
schedules.
Freight rail delay data were not available for the freight railroads. Freight rail
mobility is therefore not included in this prototype.
Accessibility represents the ability of travelers to access the system and is
measured in terms of distance to the system.
1.2.1. Delay
Delay information is presented by mode:
• Highway
• Inter- regional transit ( includes inter- regional bus, Amtrak, and commuter
railroads)
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 22
Highway Delay
Delay along a highway segment is calculated by subtracting the free- flow travel
time from the actual average travel time during a particular period ( i. e., hour of
day, day of week). The free- flow travel time is determined by the posted speed
( i. e., Free- Flow Travel Time = Distance ÷ Posted Speed). For example, if the
distance is 10 miles and the posted speed is 65 mph, then the free flow travel
time is 9.2 minutes. Actual average travel time is determined by the actual travel
speed over the same distance.
Delay is reported as average daily vehicle- hours of delay. That is, the average
travel delay along a segment is multiplied by the number of vehicles experiencing
that delay. A segment with little delay over which many vehicles travel may
measure the same level of delay as a segment with a much larger delay per
vehicle, if the latter segment has fewer vehicles experiencing that delay.
For this report information on highway delays is based on available detection
data provided by Caltrans District Transportation Management Centers ( TMCs).
The availability of detection data is limited by the physical presence of detector
systems and their operating status. Some Caltrans districts lack automatic and
integrated detector coverage for the entire State Highway system. This means
that delay data are not available for some districts. Even in districts with
extensive detector coverage, some routes may not have working loop detectors.
Some highway segments with known traffic congestion may not show delays in
the analyses that follow. Although delay data in rural areas is not included in this
prototype report, the addition of this information is being investigated for future
reports.
This prototype includes delay information for three Caltrans districts:
• District 3 – The Sacramento Area ( State Route 51, or Business Route 80),
• District 11 – San Diego County ( Interstate 5), and
• District 12 – Orange County ( Interstate 5).
The mobility information is presented on maps that contain the following types of
information:
• Average Daily Vehicle- Hours of Delay - This map shows the total average
daily delay for the two time periods described above.
• Average Daily AM/ PM Peak Period Vehicle- Hours of Delay - The AM map
shows delay occurring between 5: 30 AM and 10: 30 AM. These are the
morning hours most likely to experience delays. The PM map shows delays
from 1: 30 PM to 8: 00 PM, which represent the hours of typical afternoon and
early evening delay.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 23
District 3
Exhibit 1- 17 shows the sum of the average daily vehicle- hours of delay occurring
on Route 51 ( Business 80) in the Sacramento area between 5: 30 AM and 10: 00
AM during the morning and from 1: 30 PM to 8: 00 PM in the afternoon.
Exhibit 1- 18 shows the average daily AM peak period vehicle- hours of delay for
Route 51 in the Sacramento area. The hour in which the most delay occurred is
shown for those areas experiencing very high levels of delay. The map
identifies, by route segment, the level of delay that occurs during the morning
commute hours. Note: the entire district was not monitored.
Exhibit 1- 19 shows the average daily delay for the PM peak period.
The tables below shows the most congested segments on Route 51 based on
the analysis of the loop detector data. The tables identify the components for
calculating delay: the free- flow time per vehicle, actual average travel time per
vehicle. Total delay figures for each segment are shown to the right.
AM Peak Period Mobility: Route 51 ( Business 80) Southbound
AM Peak Period Mobility: Route 51 ( Business 80) Northbound
PM Peak Period Mobility: State Route 51 ( Business 80) Southbound
PM Peak Period Mobility: State Route 51 ( Business 80) Northbound
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 24
Exhibit 1- 17: Average Daily Vehicle- Hours of Delay* on Route 51
( Business 80) in District 3
Sacramento
Freeport
Folsom
Florin
Carmichael
Rancho
Cordova
<= »
!"#
E
<= u
) u
!"#
E
19:
d
<= D
<= u
N
W E
S
Average Daily Vehicle
Hours of Delay
0 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 250
250 - 500
500 - 1000
* - Delay is estimated for only those segments on Route 51 from SR- 50 to Interstate 80 that have consistent and reliable
data collected at the District Traffic Management Center.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 25
Exhibit 1- 18: Average AM Peak Period Vehicle- Hours of Delay* on
Route 51 ( Business 80) in District 3
Freeport
Folsom
Florin
Carmichael
Rancho
Cordova
Sacramento
<= »
!"#
E
<= u
) u
!"#
E
<= D
<= u
19:
d
9: 00
5: 00
N
W E
S
AM Daily Vehicle
Hours of Delay
0 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 250
250 - 500
500 - 1000
* - Delay is estimated for only those segments on Route 51 from SR- 50 to Interstate 80 that have consistent and reliable
data collected at the District Traffic Management Center.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 26
Exhibit 1- 19: Average PM Peak Period Vehicle- Hours of Delay* on
Route 51 ( Business 80) in District 3
Sacramento
Freeport
Folsom
Florin
Carmichael
Rancho
Cordova
<= »
!"#
E
<= u
) u
!"#
E
<= u
19:
d
<= D
14: 00
17: 00
17: 00
15: 00
17: 00
19: 00
0 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 250
250 - 500
500 - 1000
PM Daily Vehicle
Hours of Delay
N
W E
S
* - Delay is estimated for only those segments on Route 51 from SR- 50 to Interstate 80 that have consistent and reliable
data collected at the District Traffic Management Center
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 27
District 11
Exhibit 1- 20 shows the sum of the average daily vehicle- hours of delay occurring
on Interstate 5 in District 11 between 5: 30 AM and 10: 00 AM during the morning
commute period, and from 1: 30 PM and 8: 00 PM in the afternoon.
Exhibit 1- 21 shows delay for the PM peak period. The tables below show the
worst I- 5 segments for delay during the PM peak period. The tables identify the
components for calculating delay: the free- flow time per vehicle, actual average
travel time per vehicle.
Exhibit 1- 22 presents the AM peak period vehicle- hours of delay experienced
during a typical weekday commute. The map identifies, by route segment, the
level of delay that occurs during the morning commute hours. The segments
listed below identify the I- 5 segments with the most delay during the AM peak
period. Note: the entire district was not monitored.
AM Peak Period Mobility: Interstate 5 Northbound
AM Peak Period Mobility: Interstate 5 Southbound
PM Peak Period Mobility: Interstate 5 Northbound
PM Peak Period Mobility: Interstate 5 Southbound
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 28
Exhibit 1- 20: Average Daily Vehicle- Hours of Delay* on
Interstate 5 in District 11
!"#
@
!"#
C
%&'
U <= Ú
<= ë
<= A
!"#
C
<= ò
<= ñ
<= è
<= Ü
<= V
<= A
<= ð
<= x
%&'
U
!"#
@
<= ô
!"#
A
<= Â
Coronado
Chula
Vista
Imperial
Beach
El Cajon
La
Mesa
La
Jolla
San
Diego
Del Mar
Oceanside
Carlsbad
Encinitas
Solana Beach
Escondido
<= V
!"#
A
Average Daily
Vehicle- Hours of Delay
N
W E
S
0 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 250
250 - 500
500 - 1000
P A C I F I C O C E A N
* - Delay is estimated for only those segments on Interstate 5 from downtown San Diego to Carlsbad that have
consistent and reliable data collected at the District Traffic Management Center.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 29
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 30
Exhibit 1- 21: Average AM Vehicle- Hours of Delay* on
Interstate 5 in District 11
Escondido
Solana Beach
Encinitas
Carlsbad
Oceanside
Del Mar
San
Diego
La
Jolla
La
Mesa
El Cajon
Imperial
Beach
Chula
Vista
Coronado
8: 00
8: 00
7: 00
7: 00
<= Â <= V
!"#
A
<= ô
!"#
@
%&'
U
<= x
<= ð
<= A
<= V
<= Ü
<= è
<= ñ
<= ò
!"#
C
<= A
<= ë
<= Ú %&'
U
!"#
C
!"#
@
!"#
A
0 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 250
250 - 500
500 - 1000
N
W E
S
Average AM
Vehicle Hours of Delay
P A C I F I C O C E A N
* - Delay is estimated for only those segments on Interstate 5 from downtown San Diego to Carlsbad that have
consistent and reliable data collected at the District Traffic Management Center.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 31
Exhibit 1- 22: Average PM Vehicle- Hours of Delay* on
Interstate 5 in District 11
!"#
@
!"#
C
%&'
U <= Ú
<= ë
<= A
!"#
C
<= ò
<= ñ
<= è
<= Ü
<= V
<= A
<= ð
<= x
%&'
U
!"#
@
<= ô
!"#
A
<= Â
Escondido
Solana Beach
Encinitas
Carlsbad
Oceanside
Del Mar
San
Diego
La
Jolla
La
Mesa
El Cajon
Imperial
Beach
Chula
Vista
Coronado
<= V
17: 00
17: 00
17: 00
17: 00
15: 00
16: 00
17: 00
17: 00
17: 00
16: 00
!"#
A
0 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 250
250 - 500
500 - 1000
N
W E
S
Average PM
Vehicle Hours of Delay
P A C I F I C O C E A N
*- Delay is estimated for only those segments Interstate 5 from downtown San Diego to Carlsbad that have consistent
and reliable data collected at the District Traffic Management Center.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 32
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 33
District 12
State Highways in Orange County are some of the most congested in the state.
Exhibit 1- 23 shows the sum of the average daily vehicle- hours of delay occurring
on Interstate 5 in District 12 between 5: 30 AM and 10: 00 AM during the morning
commute period, and from 1: 30 PM and 8: 00 PM in the afternoon
Exhibit 1- 24 presents delay for the AM peak period in Orange County. The map
identifies, by route segment, the level of delay that occurs during the morning
commute hours. The tables below shows the I- 5 segments that contribute the
most to the delay on the route. The tables identifies the components for
calculating delay: the Free- flow time per vehicle, actual average travel time per
vehicle. Note: the entire district was not monitored.
Exhibit 1- 25 shows PM congestion for a typical weekday in District 12. The
tables below shows I- 5 segments with PM period congestion.
AM Peak Period Mobility: Interstate 5 Northbound
AM Peak Period Mobility: Interstate 5 Southbound
PM Peak Period Mobility: Interstate 5 Northbound
PM Peak Period Mobility: Interstate 5 Southbound
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 34
Exhibit 1- 23: Average Daily Vehicle- Hours of Delay* on
Interstate 5 in District 12
LOS ANGELES
SAN BERNARDINO
RIVERSIDE
Cypress
Laguna
Beach
Irvine
San Juan
Capistrano
Orange
Lake
Forest
Seal
Beach
Garden
Grove
Fullerton
Santa
Ana
Tustin
Anaheim
!"#
@
<= î
<= Ð
<=^
<= ×
<= Þ
<= ï
<= ¯
<= Ý
<= þ
<= þ
<= Ð
<= ý <= f
<= ¯
!"#
@
%&'
Q
%&'
N
%&'
N
<= À
0 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 250
250 - 500
500 - 1000
1000+
N
W E
S
Average Daily Vehicle
Hours of Delay
P A C I F I C O C E A N
* - Delay is estimated for only those segments on Interstate 5 from San Clemente to Santa Ana that have consistent and
reliable data collected at the District Traffic Management Center.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 35
Exhibit 1- 24: Average AM Vehicle- Hours of Delay* on
Interstate 5 in District 12
Cypress
Laguna
Beach
Irvine
San Juan
Capistrano
Orange
Lake
Forest
LOS ANGELES
SAN BERNARDINO
RIVERSIDE
Seal
Beach
Garden
Grove
Fullerton
Santa
Ana
Tustin
Anaheim
<= À
%&'
N
%&'
N
%&'
Q
!"#
@
<= ¯
<= f
<= ý
<= Ð
<= þ
<= þ
<= Ý
<= ¯
<= ï
<= Þ
<= ×
<=^
<= Ð
<= î
!"#
@
7: 00
7: 00
8: 00
10: 00
8: 00
8: 00
7: 00
10: 00
AM Daily Vehicle
Hours of Delay
N
W E
S
0 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 250
250 - 500
500 - 1000
1000+
P A C I F I C O C E A N
* - Delay is estimated for only those segments on Interstate 5 from San Clemente to Santa Ana that have consistent and
reliable data collected at the District Traffic Management Center.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 36
Exhibit 1- 25: Average PM Vehicle- Hours of Delay* on
Interstate 5 in District 12
LOS ANGELES
SAN BERNARDINO
RIVERSIDE
Cypress
Laguna
Beach
Irvine
San Juan
Capistrano
Orange
Lake
Forest
Seal
Beach
Garden
Grove
Fullerton
Santa
Ana
Tustin
Anaheim
<= À
%&'
N
%&'
N
%&'
Q
!"#
@
<= ¯
<= f
<= ý
<= Ð
<= þ
<= þ
<= Ý
<= ¯
<= ï
<= Þ
<= ×
<=^
<= Ð
<= î
!"#
@
16: 00
17: 00
17: 00
17: 00
15: 00
13: 00
16: 00
16: 00
17: 00
17: 00
18: 00
17: 00
0 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 250
250 - 500
500 - 1000
1000+
N
W E
S
PM Daily Vehicle
Hours of Delay
P A C I F I C O C E A N
* - Delay is estimated for only those segments Interstate 5 from San Clemente to Santa Ana that have consistent and
reliable data collected at the District Traffic Management Center.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 37
Inter- Regional Transit Delay
Inter- regional transit includes buses and rail modes ( e. g., Amtrak and commuter
railroads), which may be used interchangeably or in combination for making
transit trips. Inter- regional transit delays are calculated by taking the difference
between the optimal travel time and the average travel for travel from an origin to
a destination. Optimal travel time reflects free- flow conditions along the transit
right- of- way ( i. e., highway or railway). Most transit agencies do not collect data
on actual travel time so travel time is inferred from published schedules.
Unlike highway travel, trips taken on inter- regional transit may require travelers to
use a combination of vehicles ( due to transfers) and modes. As a result, delays
on inter- regional transit occur for a number of factors:
• Congestion along the travel corridor
• Number of transit stops
• Number of transfers required.
Exhibit 1- 26 shows the average delay ( calculated as the difference between
actual travel time and optimal travel time as a percentage of actual trip time)
experienced for inter- regional transit travel for each county in California. This
map is a composite of the delay experienced for high- demand, inter- regional
travel with origins in the county. The highest delays occur in Northern California,
in the Sierras and along the Central Coast with delays reaching above 50 percent
and up to 80 percent. This means that a two- hour trip would take between four
and ten hours to complete ( at optimum speeds). As the map indicates, six
counties do not have any inter- regional transit service within their borders:
• Alpine
• Amador
• Calaveras
• Modoc
• Sierra
• Trinity.
Although direct service is unavailable, inter- regional services may stop in an
adjacent county. For instance, inter- regional transit serves Placerville in
El Dorado County, which is next to Amador County.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 38
Exhibit 1- 26: Average Delay for Inter- Regional Transit Travel
No
Inter- Regional
Service
30% 30%
35% 23% 28%
50% 33%
48% 45% 45%
50
80%
61% 22% 27%
39%
53%
32%
49% 13%
34%
23%
12% 21% 61%
35% 19% 54%
6%
47% 9%
11%
40%
29%
49%
45%
51% 14%
8%
37%
26% 19%
25%
18%
16%
30%
15%
20% 33%
47%
57%
35%
No Inter- Regional Service
Delay as a Percentage of Actual Travel Time
Less than 20%
20% - 30%
30% - 40%
40% - 50%
50% - 80%
N
W E
S
Source: Caltrans Mass Transportation Program, 1999
Inter- regional transit delays can also be calculated separately by origin and
destination. Delay represents how scheduled travel times compare to an optimal
travel time, and includes the wait time between connecting services. Exhibit 1- 27
lists the ten county pairs that experience the highest delay as a percentage of the
actual trip time on transit. The travel pairs are generally in Northern California
and the Sierras.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 39
Exhibit 1- 27: County Pairs Experiencing the Ten Highest Delays
Route
( Origin- Destination)
Delay
( in Hours)
Delay as Percent of
Actual Travel Time
Tuolumne to Mono 32: 29 98%
Mono to Tuolumne 29: 49 98%
Colusa to Lake 13: 32 96%
Lake to Colusa 9: 47 95%
Butte to Glenn 6: 47 94%
Butte to Plumas 9: 41 92%
Nevada to Plumas 16: 54 91%
Lake to Mendocino 7: 59 90%
Sutter to Glenn 6: 55 90%
Sutter to Colusa 4: 49 80%
Source: Caltrans Mass Transportation Program, 1999
1.2.2. Accessibility
Accessibility is defined as people being a reasonable distance to the
transportation network. Accessibility measures the distance to the system rather
than to desired locations due to the difficulty in establishing a widespread
accepted list of desired locations. A critical indicator of accessibility is system
user's access to desired travel destinations. This accessibility indicator is
planned for inclusion in future monitoring reports.
This report presents information on access to Highways and Inter- regional transit
( i. e., includes inter- regional bus, Amtrak, and commuter railroads).
Highway Accessibility
Highway accessibility is generally excellent throughout California. As shown in
Exhibit 1- 28, the state highway system constitutes the backbone for inter- regional
travel in the state. These routes carry both highway travelers and transit
passengers, who take inter- regional transit operating on the same routes. The
249 routes that comprise the state highway system provide nearly universal
accessibility for Californians. Over 29.6 million ( 99.5 percent of all) Californians
live in census tracts within 3 miles of a state highway.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 40
Exhibit 1- 28: State Highway System
)¤
){
)£
)} )|
)¤
) u
)¤
)¤
) u
)¤
)¤
)}
)¤
)}
)}
)}
)}
)}
)}
)¤)¤
)¤
)¤
)}
)}
){
){
) t
)}
)}
)}
!"#
@
!"#
@
!"#
@
!"#
C
% &'
N !"#
B
!"#
D
!"#
C
!"#
A !"#
A
!"#
B
!"#
C
!"#
@
!"#
@
!"#
@
% &'
P
!"#
E
% &'
O
% &'
R
!"#
E
!"#
@
!"#
A
!"#
@
!"#
@ !"#
E
!"#
E
!"#
E
% &'
P % &'
H
% &'
V
% &'
L
% &'
P
!"#
B
!"#
C
!"#
@
<= ß
<= D
<= ñ
<= Ô Other State Highways
Inter- Regional Roads System
Highways ( IRRS)
High Emphasis Routes ( HERs)
N
W E
S
Source: Caltrans Inter- Regional Transportation Strategic Plan, 1998
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 41
Inter- Regional Transit Accessibility
Accessibility gaps are generally larger for inter- regional transit than they are for
highways. Although inter- regional bus service is supplemented by inter- regional
rail service, inter- regional transit service is limited by demand and the two modes
do not cover all of the corridors served by the state highway system.
Exhibit 1- 29 shows accessibility as measured by distance to the nearest inter-regional
transit facility by census tract for three representative distances. If any
person in a census tract lives within a given distance, the entire census tract is
considered to be within that distance. One in five Californians ( over six million)
live in census tracts more than 5 miles from an inter- regional transit facility.
Nearly half of the state population ( 13.5 million) lives 3 miles beyond a facility.
Exhibit 1- 29: Inter- Regional Transit Accessibility by Census Tract at Three
Representative Distances
Distance of Census Tracts to Nearest Inter- Regional Transit Facility
Less than 3 miles
3 to 5 miles
5 to 10 miles
Greater than 10 miles
Inter- Regional Transit Rail Service
Inter- Regional Transit Bus Service
# S Inter- Regional Transit Rail Stations
# S Inter- Regional Transit Bus Stops
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S # S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
S# S#
# S
# S
# S
# S
S# S#
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S # S
# S
# S
# S
S# S#
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
S# S#
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S # S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
# S
N
W E
S
Source: Caltrans Mass Transportation Program, 1999
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 42
Areas of lower accessibility are scattered across the state. However,
accessibility is generally lower in mountainous or rural areas as well as small
geographic areas within the major metropolitan areas. The accessibility results
for urban areas do not consider the intra- regional urban transit networks that
provide local connections to inter- regional facilities. In some cases, these local
networks can be quite extensive.
The statewide median distance to an inter- regional transit facility is 3 miles.
Exhibit 1- 30 shows how transit accessibility compares in each county to the
statewide median. Most counties above the statewide median have accessibility
measured at four or five miles. However, Calaveras, Modoc, and Tuolumne
counties have accessibility more than 20 miles.
Exhibit 1- 30: County- Wide Inter- Regional Transit Accessibility
Compared to the State Median
N
W E
S
< 1 4 52
1 20 3 4
2 13
4
2
5 8
2 5 4 3 2 3
2 2 3 5 2 6
< 1
5 52 3 1626 33
3 3 3 2
3 4
2
6
4
2
3 1
2 3
2
3
3 5
2
3
3
3 3
5 3
Average Access Distance to Inter- Regional Transit Facilities in County
Less than statewide median ( 3 miles)
4 to 5 miles
6 to 20 miles
Greater than 20 miles
Source: Caltrans Mass Transportation Program, 1999
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 43
As Exhibit 1- 31 illustrates, accessibility to inter- regional transit facilities does not
vary substantially by mode. Inter- regional rail accessibility is improved by the
presence of rail services in major urban areas, such as Metrolink in Southern
California, that make frequent stops and also provide inter- regional service.
Overall transit accessibility is higher than that for the modes individually, since
bus and rail stations are often located in different areas.
Exhibit 1- 31: Percent of Californians Living Within a Given Distance of
an Inter- Regional Transit Facility
Bus Stops
41%
25%
27%
7%
Rail Stations
24% 45%
11%
21%
Bus and Rail Facilities
55%
24%
19%
2%
Legend
Distance from Residence
to Transit Facility
< 3 miles
3- 5 miles
5- 10 miles
> 10 miles
Source: Caltrans Mass Transportation Program, 1999
1.3. RELIABILITY
Reliability describes the ability of the transportation system to provide reasonable
and dependable service to system users. Reliability measures the variability in
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 44
actual travel time. The primary indicator for reliability is percent standard
deviation, which indicates the degree to which travel time on a given day
deviates from the average travel time. Reliability helps system users to better
predict their travel times. Reliability also is useful system operators to identify
and deploy strategies to improve system operations.
This prototype report presents reliability statistics only for State Highways. Data
for other modes was not available.
1.3.1. Highway Reliability
Reliability is defined as day- to- day variability between the expected travel time
and the actual travel time. To estimate how much the travel time on any given
day will " deviate" from the average travel time, the statistical tool standard
deviation, is used. It provides the probable range of time that a motorist will
arrive within his or her scheduled time.
Standard Deviation of Travel Time
=( )
Number of Days - 1
Travel Time on Day n - Average Travel Time 2
Reliability ( variability of travel time) on a highway segment is calculated by
dividing the standard deviation by the average time spent traveling produces:
Travel Time Variability ( Reliability) =
AverageTravelTime
Standard Deviation of Travel Time
Information on highway travel time is based on available detection data provided
by Caltrans district Transportation Management Centers ( TMCs). The availability
of detection data is limited by the physical presence of detector systems and their
operating status. Some Caltrans districts do not have adequate automatic
detector coverage of the state highway system. This means that delay data will
not be available for some districts. Where a district does have extensive detector
coverage, some routes in the system may not have working loop detectors in
place. Highway segments with known traffic congestion may not show poor
reliability in this prototype report. Although reliability data in rural areas is not
included in this prototype report, the addition of this information is being
investigated for future reports.
This prototype includes delay information for three Caltrans districts:
• District 3 – The Sacramento Area ( Route 51 ( Business 80)),
• District 11 – San Diego County ( Interstate 5), and
• District 12 – Orange County ( Interstate 5).
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 45
The highway reliability information is presented on two maps showing average
AM and PM peak period travel time variability. The AM map shows areas with
high travel time variability ( i. e., low reliability) occurring between 5: 30 AM and
10: 30 AM. These are the hours of the morning most likely to experience
congestion and substantial reliability problems. The PM map shows high travel
time variability ( i. e., low reliability) for the period from 1: 30 PM to 8: 00 PM, which
represents the hours of afternoon and early evening congestion.
The following sections summarize the results for each of the three districts.
District 3
Exhibit 1- 32 shows the travel time variability on State Route 51 in Sacramento
during the AM peak period. The map shows reliability during a typical weekday.
Variability indices above 60 percent are considered to show poor reliability.
Exhibit 1- 33 shows PM period variability. The tables below show, for each of the
two peak periods, those segments in District 3 that have variability exceeding 60
percent ( i. e., poor reliability). A variability rate exceeding 60% was the threshold
found at which travel times degrade significantly.
Routes 51 from Exposition to Watt Ave show low reliability during both the AM
and PM peak period.
AM Period Reliability: State Route 51 Southbound
AM Period Reliability: State Route 51 Northbound
PM Period Reliability: State Route 51 Southbound
PM Period Reliability: State Route 51 Northbound
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 46
Exhibit 1- 32: AM Peak Period Travel Time Variability* on Route 51
( Business 80) in District 3
<= »
!"#
E
) u
!"#
E
<= u
<= D
19:
d
<= u
Rancho
Cordova
Carmichael
Florin
Folsom
Freeport
Sacramento
5: 00
8: 00
7: 00
9: 00
6: 00
10: 00
7: 00
Less than 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
Greater than 60%
AM Travel Time Variability
( as percent of Travel Time)
N
W E
S
* - Variability is estimated for only those segments on Route 51 from SR- 50 to Interstate 80 that have consistent and
reliable data collected at the District Traffic Management Center.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 47
Exhibit 1- 33: PM Peak Period Travel Time Variability* on Route 51
( Business 80) in District 3
Sacramento
<= u
19:
d
<= D
<= u
!"#
E
) u
!"#
E
<= »
Freeport
Folsom
Florin
Carmichael
Rancho
Cordova
13: 00
16: 00
13: 00
17: 00
20: 00
17: 00
14: 00
16: 00
19: 00
13: 00
N
W E
S
PM Travel Time Variability
( as percent of Travel Time)
Less than 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
Greater than 60%
* - Variability is estimated for only those segments on Route 51 from SR- 50 to Interstate 80 that have consistent and
reliable data collected at the District Traffic Management Center.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 48
District 11
Exhibits 1- 34 and 1- 35 show travel time reliability for San Diego County. The
data for San Diego were collected between 5: 30 AM and 10: 00 AM during the
morning commute period, and from 1: 30 PM and 8: 00 PM in the afternoon during
the fall of 1999. The segments along I- 5 with the most variable travel times from
one day to the next ( i. e., greater than 60 percent) are labeled with the worst hour
for which that variability occurs. These segments are listed in the tables that
follow. A variability rate exceeding 60% was the threshold found at which travel
times degrade significantly.
AM Period Reliability: Interstate 5 Southbound
AM Period Reliability: Interstate 5 Northbound
PM Period Reliability: Interstate 5 Southbound
PM Period Reliability: Interstate 5 Northbound
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 49
Exhibit 1- 34: AM Peak Period Travel Time Variability* on Interstate 5 in
District 11
Coronado
Chula
Vista
Imperial
Beach
El Cajon
La
Mesa
La
Jolla
San
Diego
Del Mar
Oceanside
Carlsbad
Encinitas
Solana Beach
Escondido
!"#
@
!"#
C
%&'
U <= Ú
<= ë
<= A
!"# C
<= ò
<= ñ
<= è
<= Ü
<= V <= A
<= ð
<= x
%&'
U
!"#
@
<= ô
!"#
A
<= Â
<= V
9: 00
7: 00
5: 00
8: 00
9: 00
8: 00
7: 00
9: 00
8: 00
!"# A
P A C I F I C O C E A N
N
W E
S
AM Travel Time Variability
( as percent of Travel Time)
Less than 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
Greater than 60%
* - Variability is estimated for only those segments on Interstate 5 from downtown San Diego to Carlsbad that have
consistent and reliable data collected at the District Traffic Management Center.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 50
Exhibit 1- 35: PM Peak Period Travel Time Variability* on Interstate 5 in
District 11
Coronado
Chula
Vista
Imperial
Beach
El Cajon
La
Mesa
La
Jolla
San
Diego
Del Mar
Oceanside
Carlsbad
Encinitas
Solana Beach
Escondido
!"#
@
!"#
C
%&'
U <= Ú
<= ë
<= A
!"#
C
<= ò
<= ñ
<= è
<= Ü
<= V
<= A
<= ð
<= x
%&'
U
!"#
@
<= ô
!"#
A
<= Â <= V
17: 00
17: 00
16: 00
15: 00
17: 00
15: 00
17: 00
15: 00
16: 00
16: 00
!"# A
Less than 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
Greater than 60%
PM Travel Time Variability
( as percent of Travel Time)
N
W E
S
P A C I F I C O C E A N
* - Variability is estimated for only those segments on Interstate 5 from downtown San Diego to Carlsbad that have
consistent and reliable data collected at the District Traffic Management Center.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 51
District 12
Exhibit 1- 36 shows reliability on Orange County freeways during the AM peak
period. Exhibit 1- 37 presents a reliability map for the PM peak period. The tables
below show segments on I- 5 with particularly poor reliability ( i. e., variability
exceeding 60 percent). A variability rate exceeding 60% was the threshold found at
which travel times degrade significantly.
AM Period Reliability: Interstate 5 Southbound
AM Period Reliability: Interstate 5 Northbound
PM Period Reliability: Interstate 5 Southbound
PM Period Reliability: Interstate 5 Northbound
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 52
Exhibit 1- 36: AM Peak Period Travel Time Variability* on Interstate 5 in
District 12
LOS ANGELES
SAN BERNARDINO
RIVERSIDE
Cypress
Laguna
Beach
Irvine
San Juan
Capistrano
Orange
Lake
Forest
Seal
Beach
Garden
Grove
Fullerton
Santa
Ana
Tustin
Anaheim
8: 00
9: 00
7: 00
8: 00
8: 00
8: 00
8: 00
5: 00
10: 00
5: 00
6: 00
9: 00
!"#
@
<= î
<= Ð
<=^
<= ×
<= Þ
<= ï
<= ¯
<= Ý
<= þ
<= þ
<= Ð
<= ý <= f
<= ¯
!"#
@
%&'
Q
%&'
N
%&'
N
<= À
6: 00
7: 00
6: 00
7: 00
10: 00
6: 00
10: 00
5: 00
P A C I F I C O C E A N
N
W E
S
AM Travel Time Variability
( as percent of Travel Time)
Less than 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
Greater than 60%
* - Variability is estimated for only those segments on Interstate 5 from San Clemente to Santa Ana that have
consistent and reliable data collected at the District Traffic Management Center.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 53
Exhibit 1- 37: PM Peak Period Travel Time Variability* on Interstate 5 in
District 12
LOS ANGELES
SAN BERNARDINO
RIVERSIDE
Cypress
Laguna
Beach
Irvine
San Juan
Capistrano
Orange
Lake
Forest
Seal
Beach
Garden
Grove
Fullerton
Santa
Ana
Tustin
Anaheim
!"#
@
<= î
<= Ð
<=^
<= ×
<= Þ
<= ï
<= ¯
<= Ý
<= þ
<= þ
<= Ð
<= ý <= f
<= ¯
!"#
@
%&'
Q
%&'
N
%&'
N
<= À
16: 00
13: 00
18: 00
15: 00
19: 00
19: 00
19: 00
14: 00
19: 00
14: 00
19: 00
14: 00
14: 00
16: 00
15: 00
15: 00
18: 00
14: 00
18: 00
14: 00
Less than 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
Greater than 60%
PM Travel Time Variability
( as percent of Travel Time)
N
W E
S
P A C I F I C O C E A N
* - Variability is estimated for only those segments Interstate 5 from San Clemente to Santa Ana that have consistent
and reliable data collected at the District Traffic Management Center.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 54
1.3.2. Reliability for Other Modes
The actual travel time data necessary to calculate reliability for other modes ( e. g.,
inter- regional bus and rail) were not available for inclusion in this report.
1.4. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
This section reports on the State's trends and status in areas related to the
environment. For the prototype report, the section includes trends and status
information pertaining to air quality only. Future reports may discuss noise and
other transportation- related environmental quality impacts that transportation
decision- makers and customers identify.
Air quality is assessed in terms of whether individual planning areas meet, or
attain, State and federal regulatory standards for specific pollutants ( e. g., carbon
monoxide, ozone, and particulate matter). Attainment means simply that a
particular region meets pre- defined federal or State thresholds for a criteria
pollutant over a specified time period. A planning area, such as an air basin, can
be designated as nonattainment if it violates the standard more than once in that
time period ( in the case of ozone or PM10). The process of determining whether
a State violation has occurred includes review of possible statistical irregularities
that may be due to highly irregular infrequent events, such as a natural forest fire
or other extreme occurrences. The federal process differs from the State's. For
ozone, it is the fourth highest value of a planning area's pollutant levels for each
year over a three- year period to determine whether a violation has occurred. For
carbon monoxide the determining value is the second highest in two years, while
PM10 statistics are calculated values.
Section 1.4.1 provides trend information for the number of days each regional air
basin exceeds State and federal standards for three criteria pollutants. The
report describes the attainment status of California’s regional air basins in section
1.4.2. The pollutants discussed in this report are those monitored in California by
the State's Air Resources Board and the United States Environmental Protection
Agency ( EPA). Though now under Supreme Court review, new legislation
requires EPA to collect data on PM2.5 in the future. Exhibit 1- 38 shows the
criteria pollutants monitored for attainment by the Air Resources Board and the
U. S. EPA.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 55
Exhibit 1- 38: Criteria Air Pollutants Monitored for
State and Federal Attainment
Pollutant State Federal
Carbon Monoxide ✔ ✔
Ozone ✔ ✔
Particulate Matter10 ✔ ✔
Sulfates* ✔
Hydrogen Sulfide* ✔
Nitrogen Dioxide ✔ ✔
Lead ✔ ✔
Sulfur Dioxide* ✔ ✔
Visibility Reducing
Particles** ✔
* Note: Some pollutant compounds, though related, are the result of different sources and
chemical reactions, such as hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and sulfur dioxide.
** Not actively monitored.
1.4.1. Air Quality Trends
This section reports on the number of days each California air basin recorded
pollutant levels above the State or national standard between 1996 and 1998.
This statistic can be used to compare air quality trends and is provided for three
pollutants: ozone, PM10 ( particulate matter), and carbon monoxide. The exhibits
discussed in this section are drawn from the supplement to the 1999 California
Air Quality and Emissions Almanac on Pollutant Specific Air Quality Trend Data.
The supplement provides trend data on State and national air quality statistics
from 1980 to 1998.
Several factors should be considered when evaluating any trend data on air
quality. According to the California Air Resources Board, air quality trend data is
generally used to examine at air quality in a particular county or air basin.
However, the air quality data used to calculate trend statistics may not be
consistent from year- to- year. Factors that can impact consistency include the
number of monitoring sites in the network, the opening and closing of critical
sites, and the completeness of the data. State and national standards can also
be revised over time, though standards were not revised during 1996- 98. A map
of the air basins in California is provided in Exhibit 1- 39.
Transportation System Performance Measures Report
The Multi- Modal Transportation System C1- 56
Exhibit 1- 39: California Air Basins
SOUTHEAST
DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN
VALLEY
NORTH
COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO
VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN
COUNTIES
SOUTH
COAST
SOUTH
CENTRAL
COAST
SAN
FRANCISCO
BAY
NORTH
CENTRAL
COAST
SAN DIE GO
COUNTY
LAKE
COUNTY
LAKE
TAHOE
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
LAKE COUNTY
LAKE TAHOE
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
SAN FRANCISCO BAY
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SOUTH COAST
SOUTHEAST DESERT
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
Air Basins
N
W E
S
Scale 1: 5,500,000
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2000
Days Above National Standards
Exhibit 1- 40 shows the number of days California air basins exceeded national
standards for three criteria pollutants ( ozone, PM10, and carbon monoxide)
between for each year 1996- 98. Standards for the three pollutants are more
stringent at the state level than those set at the national level. Statewide, total
days by air basin exceeding the national standard for ozone and carbon
monoxide declined during the three- year period, while days with PM10
concentrations exceeding the standard increased. The days above the national
standard for ozone decreased from 246 to 182 and for carbon monoxide from 28
to 18. Days exceeding the nation