Process for Congestion Relief Link and Project Priority Ranking for CIS FY 1322

Process for Congestion Relief Link and Project Priority Ranking for CIS FY 1322 Congestion Management System (CMS) congestion link priority rankings were developed for all the links in the CMS. These link rankings serve two purposes. First is to rank the links so that priority can be established by location so that the highest priority congested locations can be identified. Second, for highway projects that have already been identified, they can be prioritized for congestion. The link rankings were developed using scores from “0” to “10” for each measure and the weighted by the percent for each measure to obtain a 100% score. A score of “10” was given for the highest priority values for each given measure used. The Congestion Relief priority rankings are primarily based on congestion performance measures, with consideration also given to related roadway usage characteristics. Congestion performance measures include volume to capacity (V/C) ratios and delays. Roadway usage characteristics include AADT traffic volumes, function class and strategic network. The congestion performance measures comprise 70% of the ranking while the roadway usage characteristics comprise the remaining 30%. As V/C ratios have been the most common performance measure used for congestion priority rankings, the V/C ratio scores were given 40% of the overall weight for the overall score, split evenly between AM and PM V/C ratios. The highest one‐way AM V/C was given 20% of the overall weight, while the highest one‐way PM V/C was also given 20% of the overall weight. Delays were given 30% of the overall weight, split by two types of delays. Recurring delays which are regular daily delays peaked by commuter traffic to and from work were given 20% of the overall weight. Non‐recurring or incident delays which result from crashes and other type of incidents where disabled vehicles block the traffic flow were given 10% of the overall weight. These delays occur less frequently and amount to less total delay during the year. Therefore are given less weight. In giving scores for delays, they need to be normalized for comparison. As delays are important to consider on both a user perspective (How much extra time does it take to get to work?) and a system perspective (How much overall delay occurs at a specific intersection or interchange?), measures for both were used. The user measure is delay per vehicle mile. The system measure is delay per roadway mile. The percentage weights for the overall score for each delay measure are as follows: Recurring delay per vehicle mile ‐ 10%, Recurring delay per roadway mile ‐ 10% Non‐recurring delay per vehicle mile ‐ 5%, Non‐recurring delay per roadway mile ‐ 5% 1 Most of the individual category scores are based on a scale in proportion to a high end value being assigned a score of “10”. The cutoff value to be assigned a score of “10” is not the highest value, but some value in the top 1%. The highest values were not used so that the scores are not scaled to very high outliers and at least some links would be given a score of “10” for the given category. All scores for links with values below the cutoff value are taken as “10 * link value / cutoff value. In general, most of the data values are skewed with few very high values and high concentrations of lower values. To score the categories and have reasonable overall scores, it was desirable to have average scores somewhere around a “5” to achieve a good balance of high, medium and low scores for the overall CMS network. To achieve a desirable range of scores for each category, most of the category values were rescaled by using the value to the Nth power, where N ranged from 0.2 to 0.4. The more extreme the data is skewed from high to low, the lower the value is for the exponent. For the V/C ratios no rescaling was done. For AADTs, an exponent of 0.4 was used. For all delay measures, an exponent of 0.2 was used. For the categories representing roadway usage characteristics, function class was scored such that expressways and divided principal arterials would have almost the same priority value as Interstate highways and freeways having geometric characteristics similar to Interstates. The scoring also accounts for whether the roadway is a National Highway System (NHS) route. Almost all of the roadways that are classified as principal arterials or higher were designated as NHS routes. Interstate and selected non‐Interstate freeway routes including the GSP, NJTPK, ACE, NJ 24, and NJ 55 were given a score of “10”. To treat these non‐interstate routes as Interstates in the CMS, they were reassigned an Interstate function class code. Expressways and divided principal arterials were given a score of “9” if they are NHS routes, and a score of “7” if they are not. Undivided principal arterials were given a score of “8” if they are NHS routes, and a score of “6” if they are not. A limited number of routes that have functional classifications below principal arterial are also classified as NHS routes. Minor arterials were given a score of “4” if they are not NHS routes and a score of “6” if they are NHS routes. Urban collectors and rural major collector roads were given a score of “2” if they are not NHS routes, and a score of “4” if they are NHS routes. Rural major collector roads were given a score of “1”, and local routes are given a score of “0”. (None of these lower level roadways are NHS routes.) For the Strategic Network, any roadway facility identified as a Critical Corridor or a Critical Connector was given a score of “10”. All other State routes were given a score of “5” and non‐ state routes a score of “0”. 2 For the AADT volumes, the cutoff for a score of “10” was set to close to a two‐way AADT of 200,000 vehicles a day. (A cutoff value of 130 was used which is equivalent to an AADT of 192,700 ^ 0.4) For the V/C ratios, the cutoff value for a score of “10” was set to 1.50. For the delays measures the following are the cutoff values with the corresponding data values taken to ^ 0.2 Recurring delay per mile: 6.00 which corresponds to 7776 hours per day per mile Recurring delay per vehicle mile: 3.50 which corresponds to 525 seconds per vehicle mile Non‐recurring delay per mile: 5.00 which corresponds to 3125 hours per day per mile Non‐recurring delay per vehicle mile: 2.50 which corresponds to 97.5 seconds per vehicle mile The methodology used for the congestion priority rankings for the CIS FY1322 Capital Plan is summaried as follows: Congestion Relief CMS Scoring Methodology to Rank Capital Projects Scaled Values Exponent Rescaled Cutoff Value for Category Measure Weight Cutoff for "10" Rescaling Value Value AM Peak V/C 20% 1.5 1.0 1.5 PM Peak V/C 20% 1.5 1.0 1.5 2 Way AADT 10% 192,690 0.4 130.0 Recurring Delay per Mile 10% 7776 0.2 6.0 (Vehicle hours per Day) Recurring delay per Vehicle Mile 10% 525.22 0.2 3.5 (seconds per day) Non‐recurring Delay per Mile 5% 3125 0.2 5.0 (Vehicle hours per day) Non‐Recurring delay per Vehicle Mile 5% 97.66 0.2 2.5 (seconds per day) Note: (Cutoff value for a “10”) ^ Exponent for Rescaling Value= Rescaled Cutoff Value 3 Assigned Values Category Measure Weight Score Value Description 10 Critical Corridor on Critical Connector Strategic Network 10% 5 Other State Route 0 County or Municipal Route 10 Interstate, Interstate Type Freeway (on NHS) 9 Expressway or Divided Principal Arterial on NHS 7 Expressway or Divided Principal Arterial not on NHS 8 Undivided Principal Arterial on NHS 6 Undivided Principal Arterial not on NHS Function Class with 10% 6 Minor Arterial on NHS NHS 4 Minor Arterial not on NHS 4 Urban Collector or Rural Major Collector on NHS 2 Urban Collector or Rural Major Collector not on NHS 1 Rural Minor Collector (not on NHS) 0 Local Road (not on NHS) To develop priority scores for each specified CIS project, the link data is gathered for all the relevant project links. The highest overall link score is taken as the project score. The projects are then ranked in the order of the highest link scores. 4 FY 2013-22 Capital Plan Safety Management Projects CMS Ranking Begin End Begin End MPO Project Project Congested On Congested DBNUM SRI ROUTE MP MP SRI_2 ROUTE 2 MP 2 MP 2 Project Name County Region Score Rank Places Type Corridor Route 287/78, I-287/ 202/ 206 04389 00000287__ 287 20.90 22.40 00000078__ 78 30.10 31.21 Interchange Improvements SOMERSET NJTPA 7.19 1 Interchange Yes Route 1, Southbound, Nassau Park Boulevard to Quaker Bridge 01330A 00000001__ 1 7.61 8.69 00000533__ CR 533 7.96 8.16 Mall Overpass MERCER DVRPC 7.17 2 NA Yes Route 46, Main Street to Vicinity of Frederick Place, Safety 93287A 00000046__ 46 69.18 69.80 00000503__ CR 503 3.16 3.36 Improvements BERGEN NJTPA 6.88 3 Intersection Yes Route 22, EB, Auxiliary Lane 02374C 00000022__ 22 52.80 53.00 between U-Turns H and G UNION NJTPA 6.76 4 NA Yes Route 168, I-295 Interchange X227A2 00000168__ 168 7.17 7.73 00000295__ 295 28.02 28.36 Improvements CAMDEN DVRPC 6.71 5 NA Yes Route 40/322, Median Closures, 196A5A 00000040__ 40 54.12 55.58 Ivins Avenue to Spruce Avenue ATLANTIC SJTPO 6.17 6 NA Yes Route 33, Operational and Pedestrian Improvements, N09670 00000033__ 33 40.42 41.82 00000035__ 35 23.35 23.55 Neptune MONMOUTH NJTPA 5.98 7 NA No Route 31, Pennington Circle 159A 00000031__ 31 5.99 6.19 00000546__ CR 546 4.59 4.79 Safety Improvements MERCER DVRPC 5.88 8 NA Yes Route 27, Segment 2: Safety and operational improvements along Route 27 in Roselle Boro, and 10409 00000027__ 27 31.10 33.84 Elizabeth City UNION NJTPA 5.72 9 Intersection Yes Route 30, Evesham

Load more