9

Click here to load reader

Testing and validating commercial speed data for cmp los monitoring 20130117

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Brief presentation delivered on Jan. 17, 2013 on the SFCTA's experience comparing commercial speed data to speed data collected using the traditional floating car method

Citation preview

Page 1: Testing and validating commercial speed data for cmp los monitoring 20130117

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Testing and Validating Commercial Speed Data for CMP LOS Monitoring

The SFCTA’s Experience

Meeting at ACTC

January 17, 2013

Page 2: Testing and validating commercial speed data for cmp los monitoring 20130117

2011 CMP Data Approach

LOS Methodology

• Based on mean segment speed for arterials and freeways

Data Collection Methodology

• Floating car used for reported speeds and LOS

• INRIX data analyzed on experimental basis

• Compared to floating car results

• Considered for future implementation

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 2

Page 3: Testing and validating commercial speed data for cmp los monitoring 20130117

2011 CMP INRIX Coverage

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 3

SF CMP Network Commercial Data Sample Size

Page 4: Testing and validating commercial speed data for cmp los monitoring 20130117

2011 CMP Data Comparison

Findings

• Difference in average speeds throughout CMP network

• Arterials: approx. 5% diff.

• Freeways: <9% diff.

• Indicated that “private commercial data would provide an

equally acceptable data source to meet the requirements

of the CMP legislation.”

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 4

Category

LOS Monitoring

Results

(Floating Car)

INRIX

Arterials (PM) 16.6 mph 17.5 mph

Freeways (PM) 31.4 mph 34.2 mph

Page 5: Testing and validating commercial speed data for cmp los monitoring 20130117

2011 CMP Data Comparison

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 5

y = 0.9598x

R² = 0.691

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

INR

IX

Floating Car

Weighted Average Speed Plot (mph), 2011

n=213

Page 6: Testing and validating commercial speed data for cmp los monitoring 20130117

2011 CMP Data Comparison

Distribution of Differences Between Means

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 6

63

51

45

21

17 14

2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

<0.2 0.2 to 0.4 0.4 to 0.6 0.6 to 0.8 0.8 to 1 1 to 2 >2

Fre

qu

en

cy

of

Se

gm

en

ts

Difference / INRIX Std. Dev.

n=213

Page 7: Testing and validating commercial speed data for cmp los monitoring 20130117

2011 CMP Weaknesses

Example: Duboce Ave below the Central

Freeway

• Floating Car mean speed: 18.5mph

• INRIX mean speed: 37.0 mph

Other challenging locations for private

commercial data:

• Downtown (canyon effect)

• Low sample size segments

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 7

Thanks Google!

Page 8: Testing and validating commercial speed data for cmp los monitoring 20130117

2013 CMP Data Approach

LOS Methodology

• Still using mean segment speed for arterials and freeways

Data Collection Methodology

• INRIX as primary data source

• Limited number of floating car surveys

• Target locations where commercial data is least effective

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 8

Page 9: Testing and validating commercial speed data for cmp los monitoring 20130117

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Thanks!

Questions?

Daniel Tischler

dan [dot] tischler [at] sfcta [dot] org

(415) 593-1661