I-95 Corridor Coalition. I-95 Corridor Coalition Vehicle Probe Project: Validation of INRIX Data Monthly Report Virginia

Similar documents
I-95 Corridor Coalition. I-95 Corridor Coalition Vehicle Probe Project: Validation of INRIX Data Monthly Report Virginia

I-95 Corridor Coalition. I-95 Corridor Coalition Vehicle Probe Project: Validation of INRIX Data Monthly Report North Carolina

I-95 Corridor Coalition

I-95 Corridor Coalition Vehicle Probe Project: HERE, INRIX and TOMTOM Data Validation. Report for North Carolina (#08) I-240, I-40 and I-26

I-95 Corridor Coalition Vehicle Probe Project: HERE, INRIX and TOMTOM Data Validation

Sample Validation of Vehicle Probe Data Using Bluetooth Traffic Monitoring Technology

Evaluation of Renton Ramp Meters on I-405

Traffic Engineering Study

TxDOT TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT UPDATE. ITS Texas 2016

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION... 3 PROJECT STUDY AREA Figure 1 Vicinity Map Study Area... 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS... 5 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS...

Transportation & Traffic Engineering

Project Title: Using Truck GPS Data for Freight Performance Analysis in the Twin Cities Metro Area Prepared by: Chen-Fu Liao (PI) Task Due: 9/30/2013

2002 Virginia Department of Transportation Daily Traffic Volume Estimates Including Vehicle Classification Estimates. Special Locality Report 129

Project Title: Using Truck GPS Data for Freight Performance Analysis in the Twin Cities Metro Area Prepared by: Chen-Fu Liao (PI) Task Due: 7/31/2013

TRAFFIC SIMULATION IN REGIONAL MODELING: APPLICATION TO THE INTERSTATEE INFRASTRUCTURE NEAR THE TOLEDO SEA PORT

RTE. 1 at RTE. 637 & RTE. 639

Road User Cost Analysis

The 2011 Congested Corridors Report -- Chicago

Proposed location of Camp Parkway Commerce Center. Vicinity map of Camp Parkway Commerce Center Southampton County, VA

Interstate Operations Study: Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area Simulation Output

March 2, 2017 Integrating Transportation Planning, Project Development, and Project Programming

Introduction and Background Study Purpose

Freight Performance Measures Using Truck GPS Data and the Application of National Performance Measure Research Data Set (NPMRDS)

Bennett Pit. Traffic Impact Study. J&T Consulting, Inc. Weld County, Colorado. March 3, 2017

Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study

April 7, Mr. Blake Shutler Compass Homes Development LLC Summit Homes Construction, LLC PO Box 6539 Dillon, CO 80435

2016 North Trunk Highway 65 Corridor Coalition Manufacturers Survey

APPENDIX F VISUM AND VISSIM RESULTS AND CALIBRATION DATA

Background Information about the Metrobus 29 Lines Study

STH 60 Northern Reliever Route Feasibility Study Report

SmartSensor HD Performance Test Results

Effect of Speed Monitoring Displays on Entry Ramp Speeds at Rural Freeway Interchanges

New Jersey Turnpike Authority Interchange 6 to 9 Widening Program

MEMO VIA . Ms. Amy Roth DPS Director, City of Three Rivers. To:

Interstate Operations Study: Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area Simulation Results

WORK ZONE SAFETY TOOLBOX

Evaluation of the Impact of the I-66 Active Traffic Management System: Phase II

MILLERSVILLE PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND

Basic Project Information

King Soopers #116 Thornton, Colorado

APPENDIX C1 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DESIGN YEAR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

JOINT FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION. ART and APS Bus Parking Informational Session July 27, :30 pm

Reduction of Vehicle Noise at Lower Speeds Due to Quieter Pavement. By Paul R Donavan

February 2012 Caltrain Annual Passenger Counts Key Findings

Performance Measure Summary - Boise ID. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Washington DC-VA-MD. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Figure 1 Map of intersection of SR 44 (Ravenna Rd) and Butternut Rd

Safety Assessment. Intersection of Route 29 (Seminole Trail) and Ashwood Blvd (Route 1670). Albemarle County

Transit City Etobicoke - Finch West LRT

Public Meeting: Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) TNC (Transportation Network Company) Lot on S. Eads Street

KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CENTER

APPENDIX B. Origin Destination Study Data

Scalable Methods for Monitoring Limited Access Roadways Using Crowd-Sourced Probe Data

Oregon DOT Slow-Speed Weigh-in-Motion (SWIM) Project: Analysis of Initial Weight Data

Performance Measure Summary - Louisville-Jefferson County KY-IN. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

To: File From: Adrian Soo, P. Eng. Markham, ON File: Date: August 18, 2015

Southern Windsor County 2016 Traffic Count Program Summary April 2017

Regional Transportation System The regional transportation system is discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.7.

OR 217 Active Traffic Management

Clean Harbors Canada, Inc.

D-25 Speed Advisory System

Open House. Highway212. Meetings. Corridor Access Management, Safety & Phasing Plan. 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. - Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition

Metropolitan Freeway System 2013 Congestion Report

FIELD APPLICATIONS OF CORSIM: I-40 FREEWAY DESIGN EVALUATION, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK. Michelle Thomas

IRSCH REEN Hirsch/Green Transportation Consulting, Inc.

Metropolitan Freeway System 2007 Congestion Report

Utilizing High Resolution Bus GPS Data to Visualize and Identify Congestion Hot-spots in Urban Arterials

Act 229 Evaluation Report

Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study Update

CENTRAL VIRGINIA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN. Appendix F

Regional Transportation System The regional transportation system is discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.7.

Travel Time Savings Memorandum

Alpine Highway to North County Boulevard Connector Study

BROWARD BOULEVARD CORRIDOR TRANSIT STUDY

LAWRENCE TRANSIT CENTER LOCATION ANALYSIS 9 TH STREET & ROCKLEDGE ROAD / 21 ST STREET & IOWA STREET LAWRENCE, KANSAS

February 2011 Caltrain Annual Passenger Counts Key Findings

Daviess County Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Study

Dallas Integrated Corridor Management System Lessons Learned. June 2, 2014

Spatial and Temporal Analysis of Real-World Empirical Fuel Use and Emissions

EXCEPTION TO STANDARDS REPORT

1 On Time Performance

APPENDIX C ROADWAY BEFORE-AND-AFTER STUDY

Final Series of Public Meetings

TRAFFIC AND SAFETY NOTE 907B. Incentive/Disincentive Clause

WIM #37 was operational for the entire month of September Volume was computed using all monthly data.

Performance Measure Summary - Large Area Sum. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Medium Area Sum. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Interstate 85 Widening Traffic Analysis Report

Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

WIM #41 CSAH 14, MP 14.9 CROOKSTON, MINNESOTA APRIL 2014 MONTHLY REPORT

WIM #41 CSAH 14, MP 14.9 CROOKSTON, MINNESOTA MAY 2013 MONTHLY REPORT

Shirk Road at State Route 198 Interchange Analysis Tulare County, California

Louisville / Jefferson County Hazardous Material Commodity Flow Analysis

APPENDIX A Interstate 26 Widening Traffic Analysis Report

Subarea Study. Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) Corridor Management and Safety Improvement Project. Final Version 1. Washington County.

Performance Measure Summary - Austin TX. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Pittsburgh PA. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - New Orleans LA. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Portland OR-WA. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Oklahoma City OK. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Transcription:

I-95 Corridor Coalition I-95 Corridor Coalition Vehicle Probe Project: Validation of INRIX Data Monthly Report Virginia June 2009

I-95 CORRIDOR COALITION VEHICLE PROBE PROJECT: VALIDATION OF INRIX DATA JUNE 2009 Monthly Report Prepared for: I-95 Corridor Coalition Sponsored by: I-95 Corridor Coalition Prepared by: Ali Haghani, Masoud Hamedi, Kaveh Farokhi Sadabadi University of Maryland, College Park Acknowledgements: The research team would like to express its gratitude for the assistance it received from the state highway officials in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Virginia during the course of this study. Their effort was instrumental during the data collection phase of the project. This report would not have been completed without their help. June 2009 I-95 Corridor Coalition Vehicle Probe Project Evaluation 1

Evaluation Results for the State of Virginia Summary Travel time samples were collected along approximately 14 miles of freeways in Virginia from Thursday, May 7, 2009 to Wednesday, May 20, 2009 and compared against travel time and speed data reported by INRIX as part of the I-95 Vehicle Probe project. The validation data represents approximately 1415 hours of observations along nine freeway segments in Northern Virginia. The table below summarizes the result of the comparison between the validation data and the INRIX data for the same period. Both the absolute average speed error and the speed error bias as measured against the SEM band are within the acceptable limits of the contract specifications. Northern VA Evaluation Summary Absolute Speed Error (<10mph) State Comparison with SEM Band Comparison with Mean Speed Error Bias (<5mph) Comparison with SEM Band Comparison with Mean Number of 5 Minute Hours of Data Samples Collection 0-30 MPH 4.20 5.20 1.90 2.00 942 78.5 30-45 MPH 7.00 8.50 2.00 2.40 936 78.0 45-60 MPH 2.40 4.10-0.10 0.50 5399 449.9 > 60 MPH 2.00 3.80-1.80-3.00 9698 808.2 All Speeds 2.53 4.23-0.84-1.31 16975 1414.6 Based upon data collected in May 2009 Data Collection Bluetooth sensor deployments in Virginia started on Thursday, May 7, 2009. The actual deployments in Virginia were performed with the assistance of Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) personnel. Due to lack of shoulder and or existence of blocked construction zones at some locations of interest along I-66 and parts of the beltway, deployment locations had to be readjusted in the field to maintain the required level of safety in deployments and also to minimize the interference with the operations of passing traffic. In fact, one segment (TMC id 110+04176) on westbound I-66 had to be eventually skipped because of the lack of shoulder. Sensors remained in the same position until they were retrieved two weeks later on Wednesday, May 20, 2009. This round of data collections in Virginia was designed to cover segments of the highways along which both recurrent and non-recurrent congestions could be expected during both peak and off-peak periods. Figure 1 presents snapshots of the roadway segments over which Bluetooth sensors were deployed in Virginia. I-95 Corridor Coalition Vehicle Probe Project Evaluation 2

Table 1 presents a list of specific TMC segments that were selected as the validation sample in Virginia. In total, results of validation on nine freeway TMC segments are reported in this document. These segments cover a total length of about 14 miles. The coordinates of the locations at which the Bluetooth sensors were deployed throughout the state of Virginia are reported in Table 2 which also presents the distances that have been used in the estimation of Bluetooth speeds based on travel times. Analysis of Results Table 3 summarizes the data quality measures obtained as a result of comparison between Bluetooth and all reported INRIX speeds. In all speed bins, INRIX data passes the data quality measures set forth in the contract when errors are measured as a distance from the 1.96 times the standard error band. Table 4 shows the percentage of the time intervals that fall within 5 mph of the SEM band and the mean for each speed bin for all TMC segments in Virginia. Tables 5 and 6 present detailed data for individual TMC segments in Virginia in similar format as Tables 3 and 4 respectively. Note that for some TMC segments in some speed bins the comparison results may not be reliable due to small number of observations. Figures 2 and 3 show the overall speed error bias for different speed bins, and the average absolute speed errors for all segments in Virginia, respectively. These figures correspond to Table 3. I-95 Corridor Coalition Vehicle Probe Project Evaluation 3

Figure 1 TMC segments selected for validation in Virginia I-95 Corridor Coalition Vehicle Probe Project Evaluation 4

Figure 1 (Cont d) TMC segments selected for validation in Virginia I-95 Corridor Coalition Vehicle Probe Project Evaluation 5

Table 1 Traffic Message Channel segments picked for validation in Virginia LENGTH TYPE TMC HIGHWAY STARTING AT ENDING AT COUNTY DIRECTION (mile) Freeway 110+04155 I 95 EXIT 163 HWY 7100/EXIT 166 FAIRFAX NORTHBOUND 2.4 Freeway 110+04156 I 95 HWY 7100/EXIT 166 BACKLICK RD/EXIT 167 FAIRFAX NORTHBOUND 1.2 Freeway 110-04154 I 95 HWY 7100/EXIT 166 EXIT 163 FAIRFAX SOUTHBOUND 2.6 Freeway 110-04155 I 95 BACKLICK RD/EXIT 167 HWY 7100/EXIT 166 FAIRFAX SOUTHBOUND 1.1 HWY 243/NUTLEY Freeway 110-04175 I 66 ST/EXIT 62 I 495/EXIT 64 FAIRFAX EASTBOUND 1.4 Freeway 110+04604 I 495 I 95/EXIT 57 BRADDOCK RD/EXIT 5 FAIRFAX CLOCKWISE 1.3 Freeway 110+04647 I 495 HWY 241/TELEGRAPH RD/EXIT 2 EISENHOWER AVE/EXIT 3 ALEXANDRIA CLOCKWISE 1.3 Freeway 110-04603 I 495 BRADDOCK RD/EXIT 5 I 95/EXIT 57 FAIRFAX COUNTERCLOCKWISE 1.4 Freeway 110-04646 I 495 EISENHOWER AVE/EXIT 3 HWY 241/TELEGRAPH RD/EXIT 2 ALEXANDRIA COUNTERCLOCKWISE 1.1 TOTAL 13.9 I-95 Corridor Coalition Vehicle Probe Project Evaluation 6

Table 2 TMC segment lengths and distances between sensor deployment locations in the state of Virginia SEGMENT STANDARD TMC SENSOR DEPLOYMENT TYPE TMC Endpoint (1) Endpoint (2) Length Endpoint (1) Endpoint (2) Length Lat Long Lat Long (mile) Lat Long Lat Long (mile) ERROR IN SEGMENT LENGTH (%) Freeway 110+04155 38.70962-77.22181 38.73634-77.19261 2.44 38.71002-77.22145 38.73637-77.19245 2.41-1.1% Freeway 110+04156 38.74354-77.18765 38.76081-77.18312 1.23 38.74327-77.18768 38.76353-77.18285 1.43 16.5% Freeway 110-04154 38.73751-77.19230 38.70868-77.22274 2.60 38.73720-77.19270 38.70850-77.22300 2.58-0.6% Freeway 110-04155 38.76081-77.18365 38.74515-77.18735 1.11 38.75830-77.18392 38.74523-77.18755 0.93-16.2% Freeway 110-04175 38.87901-77.25402 38.88316-77.22807 1.44 38.87905-77.25158 38.88355-77.22635 1.40-2.3% Freeway 110+04604 38.79682-77.19216 38.80468-77.21274 1.28 38.79805-77.19687 38.80530-77.21305 1.05-17.4% Freeway 110+04647 38.80128-77.08362 38.80289-77.10689 1.26 38.80143-77.08375 38.80048-77.11762 1.86 47.0% Freeway 110-04603 38.80610-77.21410 38.79664-77.19220 1.41 38.80162-77.21048 38.79572-77.18990 1.18-16.0% Freeway 110-04646 38.80266-77.10707 38.80147-77.08692 1.09 38.80295-77.10355 38.80127-77.08565 1.00-8.5% TOTAL 13.85 13.84 I-95 Corridor Coalition Vehicle Probe Project Evaluation 7

Table 3 Data quality measures for freeway segments greater than one mile in Virginia SPEED BIN Data Quality Measures for 1.96 SE Band Mean Average Absolute Speed Speed Error Error Bias Speed Error Bias Average Absolute Speed Error No. of Obs. 0-30 1.9 4.2 2.0 5.2 942 30-45 2.0 7.0 2.4 8.5 936 45-60 0.1 2.4 0.5 4.1 5399 60+ 1.8 2.0 3.0 3.8 9698 Table 4 Percent observations meeting data quality criteria for freeway segments greater than one mile in Virginia SPEED BIN Data Quality Measures for 1.96 SE Band Mean Percentage falling inside the band Percentage falling within 5 mph of the band Percentage equal to the mean Percentage within 5 mph of the mean No. of Obs. 0-30 19% 72% 0% 64% 942 30-45 9% 42% 0% 34% 936 45-60 38% 85% 0% 73% 5399 60+ 40% 87% 0% 73% 9698 I-95 Corridor Coalition Vehicle Probe Project Evaluation 8

Table 5 Data quality measures for individual freeway segments greater than one mile in the state of Virginia TMC Standard TMC length Bluetooth distance 110+04155 2.44 2.41 110+04156 1.23 1.43 110+04604 1.28 1.05 110+04647 1.26 1.86 110-04154 2.60 2.58 110-04155 1.11 0.93 110-04175 1.44 1.40 110-04603 1.41 1.18 110-04646 1.09 1.00 SPEED BIN Data Quality Measures for 1.96 SE Band Mean Speed Error Bias Average Absolute Speed Error Speed Error Bias Average Absolute Speed Error No. of Obs. 0-30 -1.6 4.6-1.8 5.5 68 30-45 0.3 6.1 0.5 7.1 144 45-60 -0.7 3.6-0.3 4.9 754 60+ -1.9 2.1-2.8 3.7 2272 0-30 3.4 4.3 3.5 4.9 16 30-45 2.7 5.8 3.3 7.0 47 45-60 -0.1 1.2 0.3 2.4 768 60+ -0.9 1.0-2.0 2.4 979 0-30 32.7 32.7 38.7 38.7 1* 30-45 14.7 14.7 20.3 20.3 14 45-60 1.8 2.5 3.2 4.9 85 60+ -0.4 1.5-0.8 3.3 264 0-30 -0.7 6.2-1.1 7.3 35 30-45 -2.1 5.3-2.7 6.9 69 45-60 -0.7 2.4-0.7 4.3 688 60+ -1.6 1.9-2.8 4.1 576 0-30 2.9 4.5 3.2 5.2 238 30-45 0.7 4.8 0.9 5.8 234 45-60 -0.6 2.7-0.5 4.1 410 60+ -1.8 2.0-3.1 3.8 2213 0-30 3.1 4.8 3.2 6.1 266 30-45 3.3 9.4 4.1 12.6 37 45-60 -2.4 4.1-2.4 6.2 184 60+ -2.3 2.6-3.8 4.6 1656 0-30 1.2 2.5 1.3 3.4 265 30-45 6.2 7.6 7.4 9.1 299 45-60 0.6 2.0 1.6 3.8 1757 60+ -1.7 1.9-3.4 4.2 530 0-30 30-45 -3.9 3.9-5.1 5.1 2* 45-60 -0.4 2.0 0.1 4.1 205 60+ -1.8 2.3-2.9 4.1 1012 0-30 0.0 6.6-0.2 8.0 53 30-45 -6.1 12.1-7.0 14.4 90 45-60 0.1 3.0 1.0 5.3 548 60+ -1.9 2.4-3.0 4.8 196 *Results in the specified row may not be reliable due to small number of observations I-95 Corridor Coalition Vehicle Probe Project Evaluation 9

Table 6 Observations meeting data quality criteria for individual freeway segments greater than one mile in the state of Virginia TMC 110+04155 110+04156 110+04604 110+04647 110-04154 110-04155 110-04175 110-04603 110-04646 SPEED BIN Data Quality Measures for 1.96 SE Band Mean Speed Error Bias Average Absolute Average Absolute Speed Error Bias Speed Error Speed Error No. % No. % falling falling No. % falling falling within within No. % within within inside inside 5 mph 5 mph equal equal 5 mph 5 mph the the of the of the to the to the of the of the band band band band mean mean mean mean No. of Obs. 0-30 10 15% 41 60% 0 0% 38 56% 68 30-45 13 9% 70 49% 0 0% 63 44% 144 45-60 176 23% 584 77% 0 0% 509 68% 754 60+ 801 35% 1993 88% 0 0% 1710 75% 2272 0-30 4 25% 12 75% 0 0% 11 69% 16 30-45 7 15% 25 53% 0 0% 21 45% 47 45-60 418 54% 727 95% 1 0% 703 92% 768 60+ 526 54% 940 96% 0 0% 882 90% 979 0-30 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1* 30-45 0 0% 1 7% 0 0% 0 0% 14 45-60 31 36% 71 84% 0 0% 52 61% 85 60+ 124 47% 237 90% 2 1% 206 78% 264 0-30 3 9% 21 60% 0 0% 18 51% 35 30-45 10 14% 38 55% 0 0% 33 48% 69 45-60 276 40% 596 87% 0 0% 490 71% 688 60+ 276 48% 508 88% 1 0% 397 69% 576 0-30 26 11% 153 64% 0 0% 137 58% 238 30-45 22 9% 144 62% 0 0% 120 51% 234 45-60 122 30% 324 79% 0 0% 287 70% 410 60+ 880 40% 1940 88% 0 0% 1604 72% 2213 0-30 59 22% 192 72% 0 0% 164 62% 266 30-45 9 24% 15 41% 0 0% 11 30% 37 45-60 59 32% 137 74% 0 0% 104 57% 184 60+ 577 35% 1376 83% 2 0% 1067 64% 1656 0-30 70 26% 229 86% 0 0% 212 80% 265 30-45 13 4% 64 21% 0 0% 41 14% 299 45-60 723 41% 1535 87% 2 0% 1317 75% 1757 60+ 260 49% 458 86% 0 0% 376 71% 530 0-30 30-45 1 50% 1 50% 0 0% 1 50% 2* 45-60 74 36% 177 86% 2 1% 144 70% 205 60+ 380 38% 843 83% 0 0% 690 68% 1012 0-30 6 11% 32 60% 0 0% 26 49% 53 30-45 10 11% 37 41% 0 0% 31 34% 90 45-60 192 35% 452 82% 0 0% 345 63% 548 60+ 90 46% 165 84% 0 0% 125 64% 196 *Results in the specified row may not be reliable due to small number of observations I-95 Corridor Coalition Vehicle Probe Project Evaluation 10

Figure 2 Speed error bias for freeway segments greater than one mile in Virginia Figure 3 Average absolute speed error for freeway segments greater than one mile in Virginia I-95 Corridor Coalition Vehicle Probe Project Evaluation 11