PERFORMANCE MEASURES PROGRESS REPORT€¦ · performance measures to evaluate progress over time....

PERFORMANCE MEASURES PROGRESS REPORT

June 2013

Mid-America Regional Council

Transportation Department

MID-AMERICA REGIONAL COUNCIL | TRANSPORTATION OUTLOOK 2040 | Performance Measures Progress Report 2013 2

Introduction In June 2010, the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) adopted a new long-range transportation plan, Transportation Outlook 2040. The plan provides a socially, environmentally, and economically sustainable vision for Kansas City area. Transportation Outlook 2040 also guides regional decisions as it identifies transportation needs in the Kansas City bi-state region and outlines $18 billion in multimodal investments over the next three decades. Transportation Outlook 2040 includes a set of goals that serve as the foundation for the plan’s vision. In order to track our progress towards achieving these goals, MARC has incorporated a series of performance measures to evaluate progress over time. This progress report serves as an annual snapshot of the region which helps MARC and its planning partners better understand how we exist today and how well we’re moving towards achieving the goals stated in Transportation Outlook 2040. Since the 2012 progress report update, MARC staff have held internal discussions on ways to improve our performance measure efforts. Over the past year we’ve revised measures, added additional measures, approached our transportation modal committees for suggestions, and examined how well our measures actually address the strategies outlined in Transportation Outlook 2040. We’ve also improved the reliability of our data sources, improved year-to-year reporting consistency, and moved towards measures that better capture activity occurring within our metropolitan planning organization (MPO) boundary, which Transportation Outlook 2040 directly affects. Resulting performance measure trends displayed in this report help inform decisions, alternative strategies, and investment priorities for our region’s transportation network. The following page displays a list of performance measures outlined in this report.


GOAL FACTOR MEASURE

- Service

- Ridership

Bicycle/Pedestrian

Accessibil ity- TIP projects

Environmental Justice - Percent of Federal funds invested in environmental justice tracts

Freight Movement - Goods moved

Activity Centers - TIP projects

Transportation Costs - Congestion cost

Vehicle Miles Traveled - Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita

Vehicle Occupancy - Vehicle occupancy rate

MetroGreen® Network - Miles of MetroGreen® trails and greenways network

- Pounds of system-wide CO2 emitted during Congestion only (mill ions)

- Pounds (mill ions) per Auto Commuter (CO2 Produced During Congestion Only)

- Percent of people driving alone to work

- Ground-level ozone

- The number of annual Ozone pollution violations

- Obesity levels

- Physical Inactivity levels

Crash Fatalities - Roadway crash fatalities

Disabling Injuries - Roadway disabling injuries

- Percent of structurally deficient bridges

- Percent of functionally obsolete bridges

- Percent of Kansas roads in "poor" condition

- Percent of Missouri roads in "not good" condition

Travel Speeds - Travel speed

Congestion - Network congestion

Travel Time - Travel delay

System

Performance

Accessibility

Transit Service

Economic Vitality

Climate Change/

Energy Use

Environment

Carbon Dioxide

- Percent of work trips using alternative modes of transportation

Place Making Multimodal Options

Ozone Pollution

Safety & Security

System Condition

Physical Health

Public Health

Bridge Condition

Pavement Condition


Accessibility

Accessibility, one of the goals of Transportation Outlook 2040, aims to improve mobility and access to opportunity for all area residents. This means being able to access a variety of goods, services, and destinations. Accessibility is influenced by the region’s range of travel options, how well the transportation system’s connected, and how easy it is for people to move about.

Transit Service Transit service relates to the number of travelers that utilize transit service in the region, as well as investment in the transit system itself by how efficiently the system is running. It’s measured by counting the number of passengers who board public transportation vehicles and hours that public transportation vehicles are utilized for serving those passengers. More people using transit results in better air quality for the region and less congestion on the roads. Transit users in the Kansas City region benefit from three of its main transit agencies: The Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA), Unified Government Transit, and Johnson County Transit (The JO). These agencies have been providing bus and paratransit services to area residents for years. The following performance measures utilize ridership and service data from both transit agencies.

Measure Data Goal Actual Trend

Total revenue service hours 2010: 904,850 hours

↑ ↑ +6.14% 2011: 960,439 hours

Average transit boardings per revenue service hour

2010: 17.38 boardings ↑ ↑ +.61%

2011: 17.48 boardings

Source: National Transit Database (NTD) – Annual Transit Profiles


Conclusions Since 1996 the total number of transit service hours provided in the region has steadily increased. Conversely, average transit boardings per route mile have steadily decreased over this same time period. This year has saw a rise in total revenue service hours and ridership. This last decade has had lower ridership than the previous decade except for a few specific years: 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2008. In 2008 in particular, the Kansas City MSA saw a rise in transit ridership because of the economic recession and an irregular rise in gas prices. Transit ridership across the nation has been on the rise the last few years will continue to rise with major investment being made into public transportation thanks to programs such as TIGER grants and MARC’s Transportation Improvement Program. For future reports, we may continue to see a rise in ridership once certain projects are finished and more progressive efforts are made to encourage alternative transportation modes for commuters.

Source: National Transit Database (NTD) – Annual Transit Profiles


Bicycle/Pedestrian Accessibility Bicycle/pedestrian accessibility reflects access, convenience, and opportunity for bicycling and walking as alternative modal choices. Bicycling and walking are environmentally-friendly modes of transportation; their facilities link jurisdictions, mitigate major barriers to non-motorized travel such as rivers or highways, and connect gaps between existing facilities. These facilities are often intertwined with regional activity centers, livable communities, and transit routes. As local and regional transportation needs continue to grow, it’s important that MARC and its planning partners promote bicycling and walking modal options and that regional biking and walking needs are addressed. One of the ways MARC does this is through its Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP documents how the Kansas City region prioritizes the limited transportation resources available for the various needs of the region. It includes all federally-funded surface transportation projects and regionally-significant surface transportation projects for the MARC region. The following performance measure displays the number of TIP projects that contain bicycle/pedestrian elements for each fiscal year, as well as the total programmed federal funds obligated towards these projects.


Number of obligated Transportation Improvement Program projects with

bicycle/pedestrian elements

2011: 65 ↑ ↑ +76.92%

2012: 115

Source: Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) – Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Annual Listing of Obligated Projects


Conclusions Since 2006 the number of obligated TIP projects containing bicycle/pedestrian elements has dramatically increased along with the amount of federal funding obligated for bicycle/pedestrian projects. This means that the region will be able to include new roadways, addition of through lanes to existing streets and interchange construction or modification. The TIP identifies or safety improvements to intersections, such as new traffic signals and adding turn lanes. Transit projects, transportation enhancement projects, bike and pedestrian projects, and planning projects funded with sub-allocated Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Bridge funds are also included in the TIP.


Environmental Justice In 1994, Presidential Executive Order 12898 mandated federal agencies incorporate environmental justice analysis in their missions by analyzing and addressing the effects of all programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. Drawing from the framework established by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the U.S. Department of Transportation set forth the following three principles to ensure nondiscrimination in its federally-funded activities:

To avoid, minimize or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations.

To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process.

To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations.

Transportation Outlook 2040 ensures nondiscrimination through its planning and programming processes. The plan was developed around the belief that public participation in the transportation-planning process is central to environmental justice. This is reflected in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as it’s developed in consistency with MARC’s Public Participation Plan which utilizes strategies for involving traditionally underserved segments of the population and minority populations in the transportation planning process. MARC has historically analyzed federal funding in the TIP to ensure that minority and low-income populations are receiving benefits from federal transportation investments and are not experiencing disproportionate adverse impacts from these investments. MARC defines environmental justice areas as census tracts that: 1) Contain a greater percentage of minority populations than the Kansas City MPO area average (24.72%); and/or 2) Contain more than 20% of households in poverty. The following performance measure displays the percent of total federal funds (by TIP) invested in environmental justice tracts for projects that can be mapped Additional information about environmental justice and federal funding is included in the 2012-2016 TIP. The 2012–2016 TIP was developed in consistency with the MARC Public Participation Plan. The plan uses a number of strategies to involve traditionally underserved segments of the population in the transportation planning process. MARC analyzed the projects in the 2012–2016 TIP to ensure that adequate levels of federally funded transportation investments were being made in areas with higher concentrations of low-income and minority populations. The 2012–2016 TIP also includes a safety analysis that seeks to determine whether a relationship exists between environmental justice areas, crash injury severity, and potential crash causes based on the regional high-priority transportation safety issues, which include unbelted motorists, aggressive driving, youth and young adults, impaired driving and pedestrians


Percent of total federal transportation funds invested in environmental justice tracts

2010-2014 TIP: 41.82% ↑ ↑ +7.60%

2012-2016 TIP: 49.42%


Source: MARC 2006-2010 TIP, 2008-2012 TIP, 2010-2014 TIP, and 2012-2016 TIP

Source: MARC 2006-2010 TIP, 2008-2012 TIP, 2010-2014 TIP, and 2012-2016 TIP


Conclusions Since the 2006-2010 TIP, the percent of total federal funds invested in environmental justice tracts has decreased yet continues to remain higher than the proportion of population within those environmental justice tracts; the most recent 2012-2016 TIP saw an increase in percentage of funding. The per capita funding in Environmental Justice areas indicates that minority and low-income populations are receiving more benefits from transportation investment dollars per capita than non-minority and non-low-income populations. There does not appear to be disproportionate adverse impacts to protected populations from transportation investment per capita. It should be noted that only projects that can be mapped to specific locations are included in this analysis. Due to the difficulties associated with determining specific community benefits from such programs as RideShare, education programs or alternative fuel vehicles, these projects are not included in the analysis. Additionally, any federal funding for those projects that cross EJ/non- EJ boundaries is included in overall federal funding numbers for both, as both populations may benefit from these projects. Finally, only projects for which federal funding has been received is included in the analysis. In 2010, MARC committees programmed Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Bridge funds in Kansas and Missouri and Transportation Enhancements (TE) funds in Missouri.


Economic Vitality Economic vitality, another goal of Transportation Outlook 2040, aims to support our region’s economy into one that’s both innovative and competitive. This means having our regional transportation network create and sustain high-quality places for commerce, providing access to jobs, strong connections between economic centers inside and outside the region, and fostering innovation regardless of shifts in the national economy. Our region’s economic vitality is strongly influenced by the fact we’re located in the heart of America and at the intersection of three major interstate highways.

Freight Movement The Kansas City region, as a vital national freight transportation hub, owes much of its historical growth to its strategic position as a major freight transshipment point. It remains an important center for truck, rail, barge, and airfreight industries. The metropolitan area currently ranks as the second largest rail center (based on the number of car loads and largest amount of pass through tonnage) in the nation. It’s also among the top five trucking centers in the country, and Kansas City International Airport ranks as one of the most important airfreight hubs in the six-state region in terms of total volume. Freight movement continues to play an important role in institutional planning since federal surface transportation legislation (ISTEA, TEA-21, MAP-21, and SAFETEA-LU) emphasized freight as an integral part of transportation planning. The following performance measure displays the total amount of freight (in tons) moved throughout the Kansas City Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) for all modes of transportation. This includes movement by truck, rail, water, air (includes truck-air), multiple modes & mail, pipeline, other, and unknown. Although Transportation Outlook 2040 does not directly include rail, water, air, mail, and pipeline modes in its transportation planning and programming processes, the region’s established transportation infrastructure supports freight movement by these modes in both domestic and international trade lanes.


Tonnage of goods moved 2007:62,247,040

↑ ↔ -3.88% 2010:59,833,028


Source: Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) – Import/Export Report Freight Analysis Framework (FAF3)

Source: Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) – Import/Export Report Freight Analysis Framework (FAF3)


Conclusions Since 2007, the tonnage of goods moved throughout the Kansas City MSA has slightly decreased. It’s important to note that the national economy experienced a recession beginning December 2007 that subsequently affected commodities’ demand and distribution via regional freight networks. Also this data includes freight of all kinds and intermodal freight excluding coal tons for rail. If the amount of coal transported by rail was included in the data then it would inhibit the data overall because it would not be on a comparable scale to the rest of the modes. As a planning organization, MARC is more concerned about how to influence truck efficiency rather than rail efficiency because through plans and studies we are able to help determine how money for the region’s road network should be spent. Most of the railway network is private therefore MARC does not have a say in how those networks are maintained or built.


Activity Centers Activity centers are focal points/destinations within a community; they are vibrant areas containing a concentration of mixed land uses, diversity of demographics, and face-to-face social interaction. This includes housing, retail, offices, restaurants, medical care, and other services. Their scale ranges from large regional centers to mid-size community centers, down to neighborhood-level convenience centers. In terms of transportation planning, activity centers provide a variety of mobility options and serve as connection points helping people find their destinations. MARC believes it’s in the best interest of the Kansas City region to integrate transportation and land-use planning through a targeted centers and corridors strategy. This is achieved through focusing development near existing activity centers which increases property values, creates a better sense of place, and improves the overall quality of living for area residents. MARC does this through its transportation planning and programming processes including the TIP. The MARC TIP encourages surface transportation projects that support compact development, walkable communities with mixed uses, complete streets elements, and transit-oriented development. The following performance measure displays the number of annual TIP projects geographically located within MARC region activity centers based on the year their construction began. Under federal regulations, the TIP must be consistent with the long-range transportation plan for the region, and must incorporate all federally funded projects and all regionally significant projects regardless of funding source. These projects are described in the TIP project listings with the type of work, termini, and phase of work identified. Cost estimates and the year of implementation of each phase are also clearly stated. The TIP project listings also indicate the amount and sources of federal funds proposed to be obligated during each program year, as well as the amounts and sources of non-federal funds proposed for the project. Additionally, all recipients of federal funds, and the state and local agencies responsible for implementing the project are identified.


Number of annual Transportation Improvement Program projects within activity centers

2011: 12 ↑ ↑ +75.0%

2012: 21 *No change from the 2012 Update


Conclusions Since 2010 the number of annual TIP projects geographically located within MARC region activity centers has decreased. However, the number of annual TIP projects increased in 2012.

Source: Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) – Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

Database


Transportation Costs Owning and utilizing an automobile for transportation purposes can be expensive and time consuming. Along with the cost of the vehicle itself, insurance, and maintenance, drivers also have to account for purchasing fuel and the value of their time commuting. Congestion (i.e., where the average travel speeds of traffic are less than desirable) on roadways causes vehicles to travel slower than they normally would, which results in both a loss of time and extra fuel being consumed. This in turn places a higher transportation cost burden on the user and affects the economic vitality of a region. An efficient transportation network allows vehicles to travel closer to their optimal free-flow travel speeds, getting its users quickly to their homes, places of work, and other important destinations. The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), an agency of The Texas A&M University System, develops an annual Urban Mobility Report that provides useful data pertaining to congestion of 439 of the nation’s urban areas. One data element TTI calculates is congestion cost, which is the annual cost of congestion which combines the cost due to travel delay and wasted fuel to determine the annual cost due to congestion resulting from incident and recurring delay. This is new methodology used in the 2012 Urban Mobility Report and differs from the old methodology. INRIX speed data is combined with traffic fleet and volume data for both passenger vehicles and commercial vehicles along with fuel cost (average price for each state) to output a calculation for congestion cost. The following performance measure displays the annual cost of congestion per auto commuter in the Kansas City urban area.

*TTI used different calculation procedures for the 2012 report


Annual cost of congestion per auto commuter 2010: $464

↓ ↑ +25.86% 2011: $584


Conclusions

Since 1982 the annual congestion cost per auto commuter in the Kansas City urban area has steadily increased, though it has substantially decreased since 2006. Compared to other urban areas of similar size (i.e., population between 1-3 million) and density, the Kansas City urban area experiences less cost due to congestion. This is likely due to the region’s extensive roadway network and large number of roadway miles per capita compared to similar regions. However, from 2010 to 2011, the congestion cost rose considerably because of the new calculation procedures used for the 2012 report. The new procedures were used to re-calculate all of the historical values such that the delay and fuel amount and cost trend information is correct. According to the TomTom Congestion Index which compares travel times during non-congested periods (free flow) with travel times in peak hours annually, Kansas City ranks 59th out of 59 major cities analyzed on the North American Continent with a congestion level of only 10 percent. This congestion level represents the average congestion level between highways and non-highways during peak period congestion times.

Source: Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) – Urban Mobility Reports


Climate Change/Energy Use Climate change/energy use, another goal of Transportation Outlook 2040, aims to reduce the transportation sector’s impact on the environment and dependence on energy. This means reducing travel demand and the use of fossil fuels in regional transportation movement, thus affecting carbon dioxide emissions.

Vehicle Miles Traveled Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reflects the extent of motor vehicle operation on roadways. Increases in VMT typically correlate to a region’s growth in population and economic development; however, increases in VMT also contribute to traffic congestion and air pollution. Since regional population growth is inevitable and the fact that MPOs cannot feasibly reduce absolute VMT, it’s important to target per capita VMT. Reductions in VMT per capita will improve air quality and congestion on the transportation system. As the Kansas City region continues to grow, it’s important for MARC via Transportation Outlook 2040 to encourage overall VMT growth, while at the same time implementing policies and supporting alternative modes of transportation that promote fewer VMT per capita. The following performance measure displays the number of VMT per capita in the MARC region.


Vehicle miles traveled per capita (MARC counties) 2010: 24.7 miles

↓ ↑ +.81% 2011: 24.9 miles

Sources: Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) – Roadway Database Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) – Roadway Database

American Community Survey (ACS) – 1-Year Estimates


Conclusions Since 2007, the number of VMT per capita in the MARC region has steadily declined, although the region experienced a slight increase between 2010 and 2011. The Kansas City urban area roadway users travel more vehicle miles on average than roadway users in other urban areas of similar size (i.e., population between 1-3 million) and density. FHWA has not updated their major city VMT data since 2008 so it is difficult to display a recent comparison of DVMT per capita between Kansas City and similar metro areas. Recently, the Kansas City urban area saw a slight decline in VMT per capita between 2010 and 2011. Total regional Daily VMT increased by 1.8% from 46, 813,223 to 47,649,645 over this same period. Per capita vehicle-miles traveled in the United States has dropped by 0.4 percent in 2012, according to the FHWA’s travel trends national data. Per capita VMT peaked in 2004 and has declined each year since then for a total decline of 7.5 percent. At 9,363, VMT per capita in 2012 reached its lowest level since 1996. According to State Smart Transportation Initiative, a variety of factors have been cited for the decline, including retiring Baby Boomers; less enthusiasm for cars among young people; a move in many places toward more compact and mixed-use development; and demand-side policy efforts, including TDM, tolling and market-pricing of parking. In addition, some trends that fueled VMT growth in the last century have eased: The transition toward women working outside the home is essentially complete, car-ownership has gone from rare to common, and people’s time budgets for car travel may have reached their maximum.

Source: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)


Vehicle Occupancy Vehicle occupancy reflects the number of people traveling in each vehicle on roadways. It’s a simple indicator with broad implications for the sustainability of the transportation system. A higher vehicle occupancy rate indicates that more people are traveling in fewer vehicles, resulting in a transportation network being able to handle more passenger travel. This also means fewer GHG emissions per passenger. Additionally, a higher vehicle occupancy rate suggests a more affordable transportation system since ride sharing’s typically cheaper than driving alone. Transportation Outlook 2040 influences vehicle occupancy by supporting public transportation services, special transportation services, alternative modes of transportation, encouraging modes of ridesharing such as carpooling and vanpooling, and supporting programs that help people find shared rides to a common destination such as ride-matching websites. MARC follows a specific methodology to determine the significance of change for certain measures. Please refer to the appendix at the end of the report for more information on how significance is determined. For The following performance measure displays the average vehicle occupancy for work-related trips in the MARC region.


Average number of vehicle occupants

2010: 1.05 occupants ↑ ↔

No Significant

Change 2011: 1.06 occupants

Source: American Community Survey (ACS) – 1-Year Estimates


Conclusions Though there’s been no significant change in vehicle occupancy in recent years, the MARC region experienced a spike in 2008 and 2011. The effectiveness of the regional RideShare program, increasing traffic congestion and gasoline prices, and heightened environmental awareness and concern over air quality may begin to offer some explanation for the recent increase in Vehicle Occupancy rates. Higher automobile occupancy during peak periods can result in system wide benefits such as reduced

traffic congestion, air pollution, fuel consumption, road maintenance costs, and capital investments for

new roadway capacity. The individual benefits of carpooling include lower commuting costs and less

automobile depreciation. Corporate benefits include reduced subsidies for employee parking, a

potentially expanded labor market, and an improved public image. Despite the efforts of MARC and

other local agencies, Vehicle Occupancy rates generally tend to stay the same year-in and year-out. With

more investment in public transit, and a higher awareness of RideShare programs, these rates may

increase more in the future.


Environment Environment, another goal of Transportation Outlook 2040, aims to proactively safeguard a healthy and natural environment to provide our region’s residents a high quality of life. This means protecting and restoring the region’s natural resources (land, water, and air) through proactive environmental stewardship. This is also achieved by sustaining our region’s built landscape, natural resources, green spaces, and wildlife.

MetroGreen® Network The MetroGreen® network is a planned 1,144-mile system of interconnected public and private natural areas. These areas of native landscaping and green infrastructure provide refuge from urbanized areas and serve as a regional network connecting Kansas City’s most valuable natural assets. The connections include series of trails, regional greenways, stream buffers, and other natural corridors. The MetroGreen® network improves the region’s environment in many ways. It sustains native landscaping and green infrastructure, manages storm water, reduces water use for landscape maintenance, mitigates smog by reducing the urban heat island effect, and slows down ozone formation by reducing emissions associated with heating and cooling. The following performance measure displays the mileage of completed MetroGreen® network trails and greenways annually.


Completed miles of MetroGreen® trails and greenways network

2010: 230 miles ↑ ↑ +5.22%

2011: 242 miles

Source: Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) – MetroGreen® Database


Conclusions The Kansas City region is committed to conserving its natural environment and maintaining healthy, vibrant communities as it continues to add more trails, greenways, bikeways, and natural areas to the MetroGreen® network. Since 2002 the network has continued to expand and currently is estimated at 21.2% complete to its planned vision of a 1,144-mile system. In 1990, approximately 40 miles of trails were constructed by Overland Park, Leawood and JCPRD. In 2000, approximately 120 miles of multi-use trails were constructed. In 2010, over 256 miles of paved trails, equestrian trails, single track trails and bike lanes were constructed. As of 2011, Trails have been constructed and maintained by JCPRD, Leawood, Lenexa, Overland Park, Olathe, Merriam, Gardner, Shawnee and Mission.


Carbon Dioxide According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), transportation is the second largest emitting sector of carbon dioxide (CO2) greenhouse gases behind electricity generation. There is increasing interest in the impact of transportation on air quality.

Congestion wastes a massive amount of time, fuel, and money. It also releases tons of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. In 2011, the 498 urban area total CO2 produced by congestion was 56 billion pounds of additional carbon dioxide (CO2) greenhouse gas that were released into the atmosphere by U.S. drivers during urban congested conditions (equivalent to the liftoff weight of over 12,400 Space Shuttles with all fuel tanks full). Note that this is only the additional CO2 production due to congestion–it does not include CO2 production from auto commuters traveling when roadways are uncongested.

Additional carbon dioxide (CO2) greenhouse gas emissions due to congestion were included for the first time in the Urban Mobility Report thanks to research funding from CFIRE and collaboration with researchers at the Energy Institute at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The measure is based on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) modeling procedure. MOVES is a model developed by the EPA to estimate emissions from mobile sources. Researchers for the Urban Mobility Report primarily used MOVES to obtain vehicle emission rates, climate data, and vehicle fleet composition data. The methodology used for this measure used data from three primary data sources: 1) the FHWA’s Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), 2) INRIX traffic speed data, and 3) EPA’s MOVES model.

Estimation of the additional CO2 emissions due to congestion provides another important element to characterize the urban congestion problem. It provides useful information for decision-making and policy makers, and it points to the importance of implementing transportation improvements to mitigate congestion. Some may note that if the congestion were not present, speeds would be higher, throughput would increase, and this would generally result in lower fuel consumption and CO2 emissions – thus the methodology could be seen as overestimating the wasted fuel and additional CO2 produced due to congestion. Similarly, if there is substantial induced demand due to the lack of congestion, it is possible that more CO2 could be present than during congested conditions because of more cars traveling at free-flow. While these are notable considerations and may be true for specific corridors, the UMR analysis is at the area wide level for all principal arterials and freeways and the assumption is that overestimating and underestimating will approximately balance out over the urban area. Therefore, the methodology provides a credible method for consistent and replicable analysis across 498 urban areas. The following performance measure displays pounds of system-wide CO2 emitted during congestion only in millions and pounds of CO2 per peak Auto commuter.


Pounds of system-wide CO2 emitted during Congestion only (millions)

2011: 256 pounds ↓ ↔ N/A

Pounds (millions) per Auto Commuter (CO2 Produced During Congestion Only)

2011: 235 pounds ↓ ↔ N/A





Conclusions

Since is the first year that the Urban Mobility Report has included a measure for Air Quality, there is not a previous year to compare the current pounds of CO2 emitted to. However, for pounds of CO2 emitted system-wide, Kansas City is well below the national average and is ranked 38th out of the 101 urban areas studied for this measure. For pounder per Auto Commuter during congestion, Kansas City ranks 70th out of 101 urban areas. Efforts to lower the CO2 produced during congestion will continue as it is an important goal of the Transportation Outlook 2040 plan. The 498 urban areas analyzed by TTI total CO2 produced by congestion is 56 billion pounds (equivalent to the takeoff weight of 12,400 space shuttles at liftoff with full fuel tanks). Note that this is only the additional CO2 production due to congestion – it does not include CO2 production from auto commuters traveling when roadways are uncongested. Estimation of the additional CO2emissions due to congestion provides another important element to characterize the urban congestion problem. It provides useful information for decision-making and policy makers, and it points to the importance of implementing transportation improvements to mitigate congestion.


Place Making Place making, another goal of Transportation Outlook 2040, aims to create quality places in the Kansas City region through strategic integration of land-use and transportation planning. This includes encouraging pedestrian connections, promoting transit-supportive development, and developing and linking activity centers. These quality places include a mix of uses accommodating the mobility needs of residents, character and sense of community, and ability to sustain longevity.

Multimodal Options Multimodal options reflect the variety of transportation options available for people to move about. A well-rounded transportation network includes a mix of options that suit the needs of the region’s residents. This typically involves economically resilient alternative transportation modes that prevent people from being solely dependent owning an automobile. This includes carpooling, biking, walking, and utilizing public transportation (e.g., bus, trolley bus, streetcar, trolley car, subway, elevated train, railroad, ferryboat, and taxicab). While modal choice depends on the types of transportation options available, it’s also influenced by the built environment. Physical factors such as community design, land-use mix, residential density, street connectivity, and transportation infrastructure. Transportation Outlook 2040 influences modal choice through its transportation planning and programming processes. The plan encourages compact development, walkable communities with mixed uses, complete streets elements, and other forms of transit-oriented development; all of which alternative modes rely upon. Transportation Outlook 2040 also supports public transportation services, special transportation services, encouraging modes of ridesharing such as carpooling and vanpooling, and supporting programs that help people find shared rides to a common destination such as ride-matching websites. The following performance measures display the percentage of people in the MARC region who utilize alternative transportation modes for work trips, and the percentage of people in the MARC region that commute to work driving alone vs. other modal options.


Percent of work trips using alternative modes (transit, bicycling, walking, etc.)

2010: 15.83%

↑ ↑ +1.16% 2011: 16.99%

Percent of people driving alone to work

2010: 84.17%

↓ ↔ No

significant change 2011: 83.01%





Conclusions Since 2006 the percentage of people utilizing alternative modes of transportation commuting to work in the MARC region hasn’t experienced a major change. The region experienced a rise during 2008, but recently experienced a dip in 2010. In 2011, the percentage rose by a little more than 1 percent, which shows that more people are using alternative modes of travel than the previous year. Moreover, the percentage of individuals driving alone for their commute to work experienced a dip in 2008, but rose in 2010. There has not been a significant change in the percentage of people driving alone to work. Ever since the recession in 2007, Americans have been driving less and less. The economy is improving but people are still choosing to find other modes of travel. There are many potential reasons are to why this trend is continuing such as high gas prices, ability to acquire a license, technology, and more people desiring to live in transit-oriented areas.


Public Health Public health, another goal of Transportation Outlook 2040, aims to influence the public’s ability to develop and support active, healthy lifestyles. This includes encouraging design patterns and development standards that support active modes of transportation (e.g., bicycling and walking) and providing clean air for the region’s residents.

Ozone Pollution Ozone (in the earth’s lower atmosphere) is an air pollutant formed by the reaction of sunlight on air containing hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. It’s harmful when breathed and long-term exposure causes adverse health effects. While it’s not emitted directly from automobile engines, ozone is a byproduct from the reaction of sunlight on pathogens found in vehicle exhaust. Ozone’s not only influenced by the region’s transportation system, but also by land-use decisions that shape the built environment. Transportation Outlook 2040 includes a number of ground-level ozone reduction strategies that target the region’s air quality. This includes implementation of the Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP), development of the MetroGreen® network, development and implementation of a regional climate protection and adaptation plan, support of increased vehicle fuel efficiency and the use of alternative fuel vehicles, recommendations outlined in the Linking of Environmental and Transportation Planning Action Plan, and more efficient use of existing roadways through operational improvements and strategies to reduce vehicle trips. MARC’s Environment Department obtains ozone readings from monitors placed throughout the Kansas City region. The following performance measures display ozone pollution data during ozone season (April 1st – October 31st) in the Kansas City region. This includes three-year average ground-level ozone readings (parts per billion) for monitored sites with the highest ozone reading, as well as the number of ozone violations (i.e., days that had Orange or Red SkyCasts, or days where the 8-hour ozone concentrations exceeded the 75 part-per-billion [ppb] standard).


Three-year average of ground-level ozone readings (parts per billion)

2009-11: 75 ppb ↓ ↑ +6.67%

2010-12: 80 ppb

Number of annual ozone pollution violations 2011: 9 violations

↓ ↑ +155.56% 2012: 23 violations


Air Quality Index (AQI) – 2008 Ozone Standards

Category AQI Value 8-hour ozone (ppb)

Good (Green) 0 – 50 0 – 59

Moderate (Yellow) 51 – 100 60 – 75

Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups (Orange) 101 – 150 76 – 95

Unhealthy (Red) 151 – 200 96 – 115

Very Unhealthy (Purple) 201 – 300 116 – 374

Hazardous (Maroon) 301 – 500 > 374

Source: Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) Air Quality Reports – Ozone Season Summaries

Source: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – Air Quality Index (AQI)


Conclusions The ozone average for the Kansas City region has fluctuated over the years, though since 1984 has shown decline. In recent years the region’s ozone average has fallen below the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 75 ppb national standard for ground-level ozone. A new 60-70 ppb ozone standard has been proposed but isn’t scheduled for review until 2013. The number of ozone pollution violations in the Kansas City region has varied as well, showing an increase the last two years especially in 2012, with the most violations in over 15 years. Throughout the season, ozone concentrations are measured in air samples taken at monitoring stations around the region over eight-hour periods. Due in part to a particularly hot, dry summer, ozone concentrations in the region’s Air Quality Maintenance Area exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 75 part-per-billion (ppb) standard 29 times in 2012. The EPA uses a three-year average to determine if a region is in violation of air quality standards. Violations can result in additional air quality controls.

Source: Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) Air Quality Reports – Ozone Season Summaries


Physical Health Physical health reflects how active and healthy of a lifestyle the residents of a region are living. It also relates to the amount of exercise and level of physical activity people incorporate into their daily lives. Utilizing alternative modes of transportation such as bicycling and walking allow people to incorporate physical activity into their daily routines. The goal of these measures would be to increase physical activity and decrease the amount of people living sedentary lifestyles. Transportation Outlook 2040 supports active modes of transportation (e.g., bicycling, walking, and transit) that allow individuals healthier options as opposed to driving in automobiles. The following performance measures display the percentage of adults in the Kansas City MSA reporting doing no leisure time exercise or physical activity in the past 30 days (i.e., physical inactivity) and the percent if Adults that are obese in the Kansas City region.

*Added in 2013 report


Percent of Adults Obese in Kansas City Region*

2009: 26.9% ↓ ↑ +2.60%

2010: 29.5%

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – Selected Metropolitan/Micropolitan Area Risk Trends (SMART): Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance

System (BRFSS) City and County Data



Percent of Adults Physically Inactive in Kansas City Region*

2009: 22.7% ↓ ↑ +0.30%

2010: 23.0% *Data has not changed since 2012 report.

Conclusions Since 2002 the percentage of adults in the Kansas City MSA reporting doing no leisure time exercise or physical activity has steadily decreased despite seeing a spike in 2008 whereas the Obesity levels have been increasing since 2005 with the lone decrease coming in 2009. The relationship between sedentary travel and health outcomes can be misleading when additional contributing factors are not taken into account. While it is not our intent to claim a direct causal link between transportation modes and obesity rates, it is hard to deny the existence of some patterns between the two. In addition to commute mode, these geographic patterns might be explained in part by factors such as: food choices, sedentary hobbies, stress, unemployment rates, and regional culture. It is the goal of MARC to decrease obesity levels and physical inactivity levels by promoting alternative modes of travel, ridesharing, and other factors that correlate between how one travels and their health.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – Selected Metropolitan/Micropolitan Area Risk Trends (SMART): Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance

System (BRFSS) City and County Data


Safety and Security Safety and security, another goal of Transportation Outlook 2040, aims to improve the safety and security of all transportation users throughout the region. This means reducing the number of roadway fatalities and disabling injuries that result from crashes occurring on the transportation network. Safety and security is influenced by the region’s existing transportation infrastructure as well as educational, enforcement, engineering, and emergency services strategies. The costs associated with crashing, measured in both physical pain and dollars lost, are staggering. Accident victims’ medical bills paid under employer-provided health insurance have reached $32.6 billion, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s economic study of motor-vehicle crashes.

Crash Fatalities and Disabling Injuries Ideally roadways on the transportation network would be 100% safe but this is not the case; automobile crashes occur daily throughout the region. Traffic crashes involve multiple contributing factors, whether infrastructure/engineering-related or behavioral. They have tremendous financial consequences and cause emotional hardship. Transportation Outlook 2040 lays the groundwork for area planning and policy makers to implement educational, enforcement, engineering, and emergency services strategies to combat roadway accidents. The plan establishes a goal of cutting the total number of annual crash fatalities in half by 2040 (from 2010 levels). Furthermore, Transportation Outlook 2040 supports the region’s Destination Safe Coalition, a partnership of local agencies and various safety advocates, which coordinates priority efforts to improve the overall safety of the transportation system by reducing roadway fatalities and injuries. The following performance measure displays the total number of annual crash fatalities and disabling injuries, as well as the total number of annual crash fatalities and disabling injuries per 100,000 vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The rationale is that, due to the random nature of traffic crashes, Kansas City will likely experience annual increases in the number of vehicle crashes due to the continual growth and expansion of the region. Nevertheless, breaking down crash data by VMT provides an additional perspective for analyzing the region’s safety and security.


Number of annual crash fatalities (cut 2010 number in half by 2040)

2010: 182 fatalities ↓ ↓ -16.48%

2011: 152 fatalities

Number of annual crash fatalities per 100,000,000 vehicle miles traveled

2010: 1.09 fatalities ↓ ↓ -11.93%

2011: .96 fatalities

Number of annual disabling injuries 2010: 1,384 injuries

↓ ↓ -0.29% 2011: 1,380 injuries

Number of annual disabling injuries per 100,000,000 vehicle miles traveled

2010: 8.30 injuries ↓ ↓ -2.17%

2011: 8.12 injuries


Sources: Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) – Traffic Databases Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) – Traffic Databases

Sources: Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) – Traffic Databases Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) – Traffic Databases


Conclusions Since 2000 the total number of annual crash fatalities in the MARC region has steadily decreased, though the number of fatalities per 100,000,000 VMT has remained steady since 2007. Since 2000 the number of disabling injuries has substantially decreased, as well as the number of disabling injuries per 100,000,000 VMT since 2007. This suggests that regional education and safety prevention measures programmed through MARC’s Destination Safe Coalition, Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) and Missouri Coalition for Roadway safety have been effective towards improving the transportation system’s safety & security. The fatalities and disabling injuries for all four measures have decreased from 2010 to 2011 marking a step in the right direction for the Kansas City MSA. General crash trends reveal that more crashes involved drivers 20–24 years old than any other age group; furthermore, drivers under the age of 25 demonstrated risky behaviors, such as impaired driving and aggressive driving, more than other age groups. This tells us that safety programs/projects specifically targeting younger drivers are needed throughout the region to combat transportation‐related fatalities and disabling injuries.


System Condition System condition, another goal of Transportation Outlook 2040, aims to keep the existing transportation system maintained in a state of good condition. A quality transportation network ensures efficient performance and reliability in moving users about. A system that’s not maintained can pose barriers to performance as well as safety.

Bridge Condition Bridge condition reflects the relative condition of Federal-aid highway system bridges via the National Bridge Inventory (NBI). Federal regulations require states to maintain an inventory of these bridges, as well as follow National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) inspection procedures for reporting bridge condition data. The purpose is so the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is able to locate and evaluate bridge deficiencies to ensure the safety of the highway system’s users. The conditions of pavement and bridges on the transportation network directly impact safety, performance, and economic vitality of the Kansas City region. MARC tracks these conditions via data collection and sharing to help its planning partners, state agencies, and local agencies manage and maintain a regional system in good condition. Transportation Outlook 2040 supports keeping transportation infrastructure in a state of good condition in order to avoid higher maintenance costs associated with deterioration in the future. A highway bridge is classified as structurally deficient if the deck, superstructure, substructure, or culvert is rated in "poor" condition (0 to 4 on the NBI rating scale). A bridge can also be classified as structurally deficient if its load carrying capacity is significantly below current design standards or if a waterway below frequently overtops the bridge during floods. Highway bridges classified as functionally obsolete are NOT structurally deficient, but their design is outdated. They may have lower load carrying capacity, narrower shoulders or less clearance underneath than bridges built to the current standard. The following performance measure displays the percentage of Federal-aid highway system bridges in the MARC region deemed structurally deficient and functionally obsolete.

*Miami County added to MARC region in 2012.


Percent of structurally deficient bridges*

2010: 10.43% ↓ ↓ -1.13%

2011: 9.30%

Percent of functionally obsolete bridges*

2010: 14.95% ↓ ↓ -0.05%

2011: 14.90%


Conclusions Since 1992 the percentage of structurally deficient bridges in the MARC region has steadily decreased; however, the percentage of functionally obsolete bridges in the MARC region has remained steady. Out of 50 states and the District of Columbia, Kansas ranks 24th nationally in terms of the overall condition of the state’s bridges according Transportation for America (1 being the worst and 51 being the best). Today, one out of every nine bridges that motorists in Kansas cross each day are likely to be deteriorating to some degree; and 11.1 percent of bridges statewide are rated “structurally deficient” according to government standards, compared to 11.5 percent nationwide. Out of 50 states and the District of Columbia, Missouri ranks 7th nationally in terms of the overall condition of the state’s bridges. (1 being the worst, 51 being the best.) Today, one out of every six bridges that motorists in Missouri cross each day are likely to be deteriorating to some degree; and 17.0 percent of bridges statewide are rated “structurally deficient” according to government standards, compared to 11.5 percent nationwide.

Source: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) – National Bridge Inventory (NBI)


Pavement Conditions Information about pavement condition and performance is critical to the decision making that occurs to successfully manage highway pavements. Accurate and timely data is used to assess system performance and deterioration, identify maintenance and reconstruction needs, and determine financing requirements. The Mid-America Regional Council gathers data from the Kansas Department of Transportation as well as the Missouri department of Transportation to determine the percentage of highway roads in acceptable condition. KDOT uses three different distinctions for their pavement condition measure: “good,” “fair,” and “poor.” MoDOT uses two distinctions to determine the pavement condition for their roads which are “good” and “not good.” KDOT examines their entire state system roads for their measure and we included the highway roads for Missouri since Missouri has an extensive highway network comparable to KDOT’s state system roads. Both Departments of Transportation have targets that they would like their roads to meet or surpass. The targets for KDOT are 85 percent for Interstates and 80 percent for Non-interstate roads. MoDOT’s target for major highways is 85 percent. The performance measure below measures the percent of MARC Region Kansas roads in “poor” condition as well as the percent of MARC Region Missouri roads in “not good” condition.


Percent of MARC Region Kansas roads in "poor" condition

2011: 0.2% ↓ ↑ +0.4%

2012: 0.6%

Percent of MARC Region Missouri roads in "not good" condition

2010: 17.9% ↓ ↓ -2.5%

2011: 15.4%

Sources: Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) – Pavement Condition Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) – Pavement Condition


Conclusions Based on the results, it would appear that the roads reported by MoDOT are in bad shape compared to the roads reported by KDOT. However, since there are two different ratings systems, each state’s roads have to be examined independently. If KDOT’s rating system was used for MoDOT roads, there would be a high probability of some of the roads classified as “not good” would fall into Kansas’ “fair” category. In either case, the pavement conditions for both states seem to be improving with both states reporting a lower percentage of roads in “not good” condition and “poor” condition in 2011 compared to 2010.


System Performance System performance, the last goal of Transportation Outlook 2040, aims to improve the reliability and performance of the regional transportation system through efficient management. This means being able to monitor how well the network and its individual parts are doing, identifying malfunctions and inefficiencies, and being able to address these inefficiencies. The transportation system is a complex, interweaving network with millions of moving parts; everything from capacity to congestion to travel delay affects system performance.

Travel Speeds Travel speeds reflect the average speeds vehicles traveling on roadways experience during free-flow conditions. A regional transportation system services relatively large amounts of vehicle trips on its highways (i.e., interstates and freeways/expressways). Ideally, traffic flow on these high capacity roadways should be at higher travel speeds compared to roadways with less capacity on the system hierarchy. High capacity roadways typically have limited access and merge lanes which allows for high travel speeds and steady traffic flow at entry points; furthermore, pedestrian and non-motorized traffic are usually prohibited on these roadways which reduces safety concerns due to high travel speeds. Transportation Outlook 2040 strives to improve reliability and system performance of the Kansas City region’s transportation system through improving travel speeds on its high capacity roadways. One of the ways is by MARC monitoring and sharing travel speed data with its planning partners. Transportation Outlook 2040 also influences travel speeds by supporting transportation investments through its planning and programming processes (e.g., MARC TIP) that improve system performance. The following performance measure displays the average travel speed experienced on the roadway links throughout the MARC region (includes Congestion Management Network [CMN] roadways) during the PM peak period.


Average travel speed (mph) on highways 2006: 57.42 mph

↑ ↓ -3.20% 2010: 55.58 mph

*No change from previous update.


0

10

20

30

40

50

60Sp

eed

(m

ph

) Average Travel Speeds (MARC Region)

Highways Principal Arterials

Minor Arterials TO 2040 Implementation

Conclusions Since 1977, the first year MARC began conducting regional travel time studies, the average travel speeds along regional roadway links has steadily increased; though travel speeds along highways have decreased in recent years. It’s important to note that data collection for travel time studies conducted prior to 2010 utilized the “floating car method”, where a driver drove an automobile into the traffic stream. Data for the 2011 Travel Time Study and future reports have utilized traffic speeds data from INRIX, a private company that provides travel time information to a variety of customers. When the 2013 Travel Time Study is realized we will be able to compare data with the same methodology from INRIX.

Source: Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) – Travel Time Study Reports


Congestion Congestion reflects areas of the transportation network where the average travel speeds of traffic are less than desirable. This can be attributed to two causes: Non-recurring incident congestion (e.g., construction, accidents, and inclement weather) and recurring incident congestion (e.g., peak period travel demand, atypical travel demand fluctuations, and poor signalization). The negative effects of congestion include traffic bottlenecks, reduced roadway capacity, and air pollution due to vehicle idling. Transportation Outlook 2040 supports MARC’s Congestion Management Process (CMP) which is a coordinated effort to monitor and address traffic congestion throughout the Kansas City region. The CMP targets congestion by requiring all MARC region transportation project applicants to incorporate congestion-mitigation strategies listed in the CMP. Priority is then given to projects located on congested segments of the transportation network, and to those projects incorporating multiple congestion-mitigation strategies. The Kansas City region possesses an extensive roadway network and abundant number of roadway miles per capita. Despite this, it’s still important for MARC and its planning partners to look ahead and plan for system expansion in the future. Transportation Outlook 2040 supports efficiently expanding roadway capacity to support the region’s anticipated travel demand; nevertheless, the plan also addresses the need to implement system capacity constraints and operational bottlenecks when necessary. Federal guidelines prohibit MARC region transportation projects that increase capacity for single-occupant vehicles, unless they originate from the CMP. As a result, MARC implements congestion-mitigation strategies at all phases of system capacity expansion to ensure the region develops efficiently. The following performance measures display the percentage of the Kansas City urban area’s roadways that are congested.


Percent of urban roadways congested 2010: 23%

↓ ↔ No Change 2011: 23%





Conclusions Since 1982, congestion on urban roadways in the Kansas City region increased before peaking in 2003; since then congestion levels have greatly decreased. Compared to other urban areas of similar size and density, the Kansas City region experiences dramatically lower levels of network congestion. The Annual Congestion Cost per Auto Commuter declined from 2006 to 2009, but is slowly on the rise again. This is partially due to the region’s extensive roadway network. For example, when compared to other urbanized areas of similar size and density, Kansas City has an abundant supply of roadway miles. More miles of transportation infrastructure allows for better system performance; additionally, a region like Kansas City that has plentiful roadway mileage has an economic advantage because it’s able to connect more goods to markets/destinations and more workers/employees to jobs. TTI’s Roadway Congestion Index also displays how Kansas City’s Congestion Index is generally lower than the average for Large Urban Areas.



Travel Time Travel time reflects the average time (min.) it takes for automobiles to travel specific roadway routes during peak periods. It can be affected by the capacity of the roadway network, system congestion, and travel delay. To assess the current level of service and improve efficiency of the regional transportation system, it’s important to analyze travel time. Travel time can be examined through examining delay. Delay is the difference of the amount of time (hrs.) between free-flow travel time (typically the posted speed limit) and the observed travel time. It is observed as the extra travel time due to congestion. The delay calculations are performed at the individual roadway section level and for each hour of the week. Transportation Outlook 2040 strives to improve the reliability and system performance of Kansas City’s regional transportation network. It does so by collecting delay data, then providing the information to MARC’s planning partners; the data in turn is used to support MARC’s CMP efforts and other transportation planning and programming processes (e.g., MARC’s TIP). The following performance measures display delay statistics for the Kansas City MSA and reliability indices for the same geographic area.


Annual hours of delay per auto commuter

2010: 27 hours ↓ ↔

No Change 2011: 27 hours*



Conclusions

Since 1982, annual hours of delay in the Kansas City urban area steadily increased before peaking in 1999; delay has steadily decreased since then, however it has been slowly increasing in 2010 and 2011. When compared to other urban areas of similar size and density, the Kansas City region experiences lower levels of delay, which suggests travel time along Kansas City roadways more similar to its free-flow travel times.



Summary According to recent data, MARC sees positive movement on indicators related to accessibility, place making, safety, and system condition. But many other indicators — such as economic vitality (except for activity centers), public health, and system performance — have either remained the same or have trended in an unfavorable direction over the past year. Looking back on 2013, MARC and its planning partners have been presented an opportunity to focus its planning and programming efforts towards improving these target areas; they will continue efforts to achieve the goals outlined in Transportation Outlook 2040. This includes investing in projects geared towards bringing awareness to public health, advancing the Smart Moves regional transit vision, helping local communities adopt complete streets policies, proposing more allocation of dollars for maintaining our transportation infrastructure, and strengthening key transportation corridors through the Creating Sustainable Places initiative. At first glance, the performance measures analyzed in this report seem to be trending in the positive direction overall, with some measures increasing/decreasing more than others. However, there are specific areas that require the attention of MARC and transportation officials throughout the MARC region. Also in the future, some the goals of measures may to have been reevaluated to determine if they are in fact leading this region in the right direction. The purpose of this update is to annually take an honest look at the transportation system in the MARC region and determine if it is heading in the right direction by providing a safe and efficient transportation experience. MARC will continue to provide an annual progress report to help the Kansas City region track performance toward reaching the goals that have been established, and use pertinent data to for each measure to influence planning work in the positive direction.


Definitions American Community Survey – An ongoing nationwide survey by the U.S. Census Bureau that collects information such as age, race, income, commute time to work, home values, veteran status, and other important data. Annual Delay per Auto Commuter – A yearly sum of all the per-trip delays for those persons who travel in the peak period (6 to 10 a.m. and 3 to 7 p.m.). This measure illustrates the effect of the per-mile congestion as well as the length of each trip. Bus – A transit mode comprised of rubber-tired passenger vehicles operating on fixed routes and schedules over roadway. Carbon Dioxide – A naturally occurring chemical compound and gas in the earth’s atmosphere. It’s produced by the combustion of fossil fuels for energy and transportation, and it’s the primary greenhouse gas emitted by motorized vehicles. Census Block Group – The smallest geographic region for which the Census Bureau tabulates sample data (i.e., data which is only collected from a fraction of all households). Census block groups are a statistical subdivision of a census tract. Census Tract – A small geographic region and statistical subdivision of a county delineated by a local committee of census data users. Census tracts are delineated for the purpose of collecting and presenting census data and are the smallest territorial units for doing so. They typically average about 4,000 inhabitants and are designed to be relatively homogeneous units with respect to population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions. Congestion – Occurs when average travel speeds of traffic are less than desirable. Congestion Management Network – A subset of roadways in the MARC region that include all National Highway System routes, all routes with average daily mid-block traffic volumes of 25,000 or more for segments of 2 miles or more in length, and all routes with high levels of transit service. Cost of Congestion – Value of travel delay and extra fuel consumed in traffic congestion. CO2 per Commuter – represents the pounds of additional CO2 emissions generated by a commuter during a year due to traffic congestion. Crash Fatality – Death to a person (resulting from accident-related injuries) occurring within 30 days of the accident. Delay – Extra travel time compared to some standard. The standard values used in the Urban Mobility Report are supplied with the speeds from INRIX. Density – The population per square mile. Destination Safe Coalition – A partnership of local agencies and various community sectors (e.g., law enforcement, engineers, safety advocates, public health officials, citizens, trauma room nurses, transit coordinators, public works managers, emergency services providers, bicycle/pedestrian advocates, local


officials, planners, and others) involved in improving transportation system safety in the Kansas City region. Disabling Injury (Kansas) – Any injury, other than a fatal injury, which prevents the injured person from walking, driving, or normally continuing the activities he/she was capable of performing before the injury occurred. This includes severe lacerations, broken or distorted limbs, skull or chest injuries, abdominal injuries, unconsciousness at or when taken from the accident scene, or inability to leave the accident scene without assistance. Disabling Injury (Missouri) – When observed at the scene, nonfatal injuries that prevent walking, driving, or continuing activities the person was capable of performing before the accident. Kansas Department of Transportation – A state government organization in charge of maintaining public roadways of the State of Kansas. Federal Highway Administration – An agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) that supports State and local governments in the design, construction, and maintenance of the Nation’s highway system (Federal Aid Highway Program) and various federally and tribal owned lands (Federal Lands Highway Program). Federal-Aid Highway System – A network of interstates and defined roadways selected by each state highway department and approved by the Bureau of Public Roads. Roadways include interstates that form the Interstate Highway System, connected main highways, principal secondary and feeder routes, rural mail and public school bus routes, local rural roads, county and township roads, roads of the county, road class, and their urban extensions. Federal Transit Administration – An agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) that provides financial and technical assistance to local public transit systems. Free-Flow – The average speed a motorist would travel if there were no congestion or other adverse conditions (e.g., inclement weather); usually the posted speed. Functionally Obsolete – A highway bridge with an appraisal rating of 3 or less for deck geometry, underclearances, or approach roadway alignment; or an appraisal rating of 3 for structural condition or water adequacy. Greenhouse Gas – A gas in the earth’s atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. Primary greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Highly Congested – Observed-to-posted speed ratio less than or equal to 50 percent. Highways – Includes roadways functionally classified as “interstates” and freeways/expressways” according to the Federal Highway Administration. Interstate Highway System – A network of limited-access roads, including freeways, highways, and expressways, forming part of the National Highway System (NHS) of the United States.


Johnson County Transit – A public transit operator serving Johnson County, KS; it has 22 local bus routes in 4 Kansas counties including Douglas, Johnson, Miami, and Wyandotte. Kansas City Area Transportation Authority – A public transit operator and bi-state agency serving 7 counties in the Kansas City Metropolitan Area including Cass, Clay, Jackson, Platte, Johnson, Leavenworth, and Wyandotte (Kansas City Area Transportation Authority provides services to the Unified Government of Wyandotte County). Kansas City Metropolitan Area – A 15-county metropolitan area covering the border between the States of Missouri and Kansas. Mid-America Regional Council – A nonprofit association of city and county governments and the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the bi-state Kansas City region. MARC provides transportation-planning services for 7 counties – Johnson, Leavenworth, and Wyandotte in Kansas; and Cass, Clay, Jackson, and Platte in Missouri. Metropolitan Area – Densely populated cities or towns that contain a core area with a large population nucleus and have adjacent communities with a high degree of economic and social integration to their core. Metropolitan Planning Organization – A federally-mandated and funded organization made up of representatives from local government and governmental transportation authorities that develops region-wide plans through intergovernmental collaboration, analysis, and consensus-based decision making. The U.S. government requires urban areas larger than 50,000 people to designate metropolitan planning organizations in order to spend federal highway or transit funds. Metropolitan Statistical Area – Geographic entities that contain a city with a population of at least 50,000 inhabitants and a total population in their region of at least 100,000. Missouri Department of Transportation – A state government organization in charge of maintaining public roadways of the State of Missouri. National Bridge Inventory – A database compiled by the Federal Highway Administration containing information on bridges and tunnels. National Bridge Inspection Standards – Federal bridge inspection program regulations developed to ensure the safety of the traveling public. National Bridge Inspection Standards are limited to bridges on the Federal-Aid Highway System and those bridges greater than 20 feet on all public roads. National Highway System – A network of strategic highways within the United States, including the Interstate Highway System and other roads serving major airports, ports, rail or truck terminals, railway stations, pipeline terminals, and other strategic transport facilities. National Transit Database – The nation’s primary source for information and statistics on transit systems of the U.S. Recipients or beneficiaries of grants from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) are required by statute to submit data to the NTD; the data is then used to apportion over $5 billion of FTA funds to transit agencies in urbanized areas (UZAs).


National Environmental Policy Act – A United States law that establishes national environmental policy and goals for the protection, maintenance, and enhancement of the environment and provides a process for implementing these goals within the federal agencies. Observed-to-Posted Speed Ratio – Average (observed) speed divided by posted speed limit. Other (Transportation) – Other forms of transportation besides public transportation including working at home, motorcycling, bicycling, walking, or other means to travel to work besides car, truck, or van. Ozone – An air pollutant (in the earth’s lower atmosphere) formed by the reaction of sunlight on air containing hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. It’s harmful when breathed and long-term exposure causes adverse health effects. Paratransit – A transit mode that is more flexible than conventional fixed-route transit but is more structured than the use of private automobiles. Paratransit includes demand response (DR) services, shared-ride taxis, car-pooling and vanpooling (VP), and jitney (JT) services. Note: Most DR services via paratransit are wheelchair-accessible. Physical Inactivity – Percent of adults who report doing no leisure time exercise or physical activity in the past 30 days. Public Transit – Forms of public transportation including bus or trolley bus, streetcar or trolley car, subway or elevated train, railroad, ferryboat, or taxicab. Region – A geographic area defined by physical or human characteristics. Reliability – Variation in travel time from day to day. This concept reflects an aspect of congestion that relates to the unpredictability of travel conditions, rather than everyday slowdowns. Revenue Service Hour – The time when a transit vehicle is available to the general public and there’s an expectation of carrying passengers. Ridership – The number of unlinked passenger trips (this is the number of passengers who board public transportation vehicles every year; passengers are counted each time they board vehicles no matter how many vehicles they use to travel from their origin to their destination. Statistical Significance – Statistical evidence that indicates whether an observed difference between two estimates is likely due to chance (i.e., “not statistically significant”), or represents true difference that exists in the data as a whole (i.e., “statistically significant”). Structurally Deficient – A highway bridge with a condition rating of 4 or less for deck, superstructures, substructures, or culvert and retaining walls; or an appraisal rating of 2 or less for structural condition or waterway adequacy. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.


Transportation Outlook 2040 – A long-range transportation plan approved by the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) in 2010 that guides how the Kansas City region will manage, operate, and invest $18 billion in its multimodal transportation system over the next 30 years. Total Delay – Total travel time delay for an urban area. Unlinked Passenger Trip – The number of passengers who board public transportation vehicles. Passengers are counted each time they board vehicles no matter how many vehicles they use to travel from their origin to their destination. Urban Area – Core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile. Urbanized Area – A land area comprising one or more places — central place(s) — and the adjacent densely settled surrounding area — urban fringe — that together have a population of at least 50,000 and an overall population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. U.S. Census Bureau – The government agency responsible for gathering national demographic and economic data for the U.S. Census. As part of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Census Bureau is the leading source of data about America’s people and economy. U.S. Department of Transportation – The federal Cabinet department concerned with transportation. Its mission is to “Serve the United States by ensuring a fast, safe, efficient, accessible, and convenient transportation system that meets our vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of the American people, today and into the future.” Vehicle Revenue Hour – An hour that vehicles are scheduled to or actually travel while in revenue service. Wasted Fuel – Extra fuel consumed due to inefficient operation in slower stop-and-go traffic.


Mode Margin of Error Mode Margin of Error

Drove alone 9,346.275 Drove alone 9,714.208

2-person carpool 4,654.247 2-person carpool 5,006.377



INPUTS Std. Err. Std.Err.2INPUTS Std. Err. Std.Err.2

Drove alone 9,346.275 5681.63 32280872.50 Carpooled 9,714.208 5905.29 34872493.05

2-person carpool 4,654.247 2829.33 8005104.90 Public Transportation 5,006.377 3043.39 9262224.85

3-person carpool 1,503.814 914.17 835711.42 Walked 2,029.254 1233.59 1521742.41

4-person carpool 1,027.759 624.78 390347.10 Other means 1,780.992 1082.67 1172173.58

Sum 41512035.92 Sum 46828633.88

RESULTS RESULTS

Standard Error of Sum 6,442.983 (sqrt(sum)) Standard Error of Sum 6,843.145 (sqrt(sum))

90% Margin of Error of Sum 10,598.708 90% Margin of Error of Sum 11,256.974

INPUTS

2010 - MARC Counties Car Truck, or Van (Total) # of Workers 829,572

90% Margin of Error of Estimate 1 10,598.708

2011 - MARC Counties Car Truck, or Van (Total) # of Workers 834,497

90% Margin of Error of Estimate 2 11,256.974

RESULTS

Difference of Estimates (Absolute Value) 4925

Standard Error of Difference/Sum 9398.971742

90% Margin of Error of Difference/Sum 15461.30852

Conclusion (at 90% confidence level) Not Significantly Different

2011 MARC Counties

Statistical Significance Calculator

2010 MARC Counties

2010 MARC Counties

2011 MARC Counties

Appendix

The significance is determined first by finding the Difference of Estimates or the Absolute Value. The Absolute Value is found in excel by using the function =ABS(previous year-last year). Once this is found, the Standard Error of Difference/Sum is found by using the Square Root function =sqrt((90% Margin of Error of Estimate 1/1.645)^2+(90% Margin of Error of Estimate 2/1.645)^2). Then the Standard Error of Difference/Sum is multiplied by 1.645 to find the 90% Margin of Error of Difference/Sum. Finally, the Difference of Estimates (Absolute Value) is compared to the 90% Margin of Error of Difference/Sum. If the Absolute Value is greater than the Margin of Error, the measure is “Significantly Different,” if the Absolute Value is less than the Margin of Error then the measure is “Not Significantly Different.”

Example of Significance Change

Date post:	12-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

PERFORMANCE MEASURES PROGRESS REPORT€¦ · performance measures to evaluate progress over time....

Documents