ADOPTED APRIL 2012

Southern California Association of Governments

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

APPENDIX
PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Introduction 1

RTP/SCS Alternatives Analysis Measures 6

Location Efficiency 6

Mobility and Accessibility 7

Safety and Health 13

Environmental Quality 13

Investment Effectiveness 14

RTP/SCS On-Going System Monitoring Measures 15

Location Efficiency 15

Mobility and Accessibility 16

Reliability 17

Safety and Health 18

Productivity 20

Environmental Quality 21
Introduction

The 2012–2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/

SCS) is a performance-based plan, and this technical appendix expands upon the performance results presented in Chapter 5 of the RTP/SCS main document. The performance 

measures are used to evaluate how well the RTP/SCS addresses the adopted goals and 

performance outcomes. SCAG encourages, but does not require, agencies to be consistent with the RTP/SCS performance measures to the extent practical in their subregional 

and project-level planning studies.

SCAG has a relatively long history of using performance measurement in developing the 

RTP, going back to the 1998 RTP. For the 2004 RTP, SCAG developed a set of measurable 

goals and outcomes that included the principal of sustainability, which is not limited only 

to the environment and the transportation-land use connection, but also has important 

implications on how the region meets its critical system preservation needs.

SCAG has been committed to building on past successes by refining and enhancing 

performance measures to meet the region’s expanding policy outcomes. In the Spring of 

2011, the SCAG Plans and Programs Technical Advisory Committee (P&P TAC) formed 

a subcommittee to review and expand performance measures as needed for the 2012–

2035 RTP/SCS. The subcommittee reviewed other performance measurement studies 

from around the state and relied on extensive feedback from regional stakeholders and 

advocacy groups, including:

 American Lung Association (with a health coalition of 11 other organizations),

 Gateway Cities Council of Governments (GCCOG),

 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro),

 National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Move LA,

 Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA),

 San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG),

 South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG), and

 Southern California Safe Routes to School Network and Los Angeles County 

Bicycle Coalition.

With this input, SCAG developed revised performance goals, outcomes, and supporting 

performance measures. Major changes to the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS goals include a focus 

on outcomes that strengthen the land-use transportation connection and the physical 

health of the region’s residents. In September 2011, the P&P TAC-recommended goals 

and outcomes for the RTP/SCS were presented to the Transportation Committee of the 

Regional Council. The Regional Council will formally adopt the goals and outcomes as part 

of the final 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS goals are listed in TABLE 1.

TABLE 1 RTP Goals

RTP Goals

 Align the plan investments and policies with improving regional economic development and competitiveness

 Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region

 Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region

 Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system 

 Maximize the productivity of our transportation system

 Protect the environment and health for our residents by improving air quality and 

encouraging active transportation (non-motorized transportation, such as bicycling 

and walking)

 Actively encourage and create incentives for energy efficiency, where possible

 Encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and non-motorized 

transportation

 Maximize the security of the regional transportation system through improved system 

monitoring, rapid recovery planning, and coordination with other security agencies

The P&P TAC also reviewed the RTP guiding policies that help to focus future investments 

on the best-performing projects and strategies that seek to preserve, maintain, and 

optimize the performance of the existing system policies (see Chapter 1 of the RTP/SCS 

main document for a detailed discussion of these system policies). The first of those policies states that “transportation investments shall be based on SCAG’s adopted Regional 

Performance Indicators.”

Performance Measures 1
The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS recognizes that two general types of performance measures 

are needed. One type of measure relies on readily available data that can be forecasted 

into the future, and can be used for evaluating 2012–2035 RTP/SCS alternatives. A 

second type of measure is valuable for on-going system monitoring. This type of measure typically cannot be readily forecast, but allows the region to monitor how well goals 

are being met. In this group are additional measures that will be investigated for future 

integration into SCAG’s performance monitoring efforts when data becomes available to 

reliably use the measure.

The regional performance outcomes and associated measures are presented in TABLES 2

and 3 below. TABLE 2 lists the outcomes and measures used to forecast performance 

using the SCAG Regional Travel Demand Model (RTDM). TABLE 3 shows the additional 

measures that will be used for on-going monitoring of the transportation system. Each 

measure will be discussed below with results presented where data is available.

In addition to enhancements to existing measures from the 2008 RTP, two new outcomes 

have been included in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS: location efficiency and public health. The 

location efficiency outcome reflects the degree to which improved land use and transportation coordination measures impact efficient movement of people and goods. The health 

outcome captures the physical well-being of residents in Southern California by monitoring access to parks and open space as well as transportation related pollution impacts on 

asthma and pre-mature deaths.

Note that some regionally important measures are discussed in other areas of the RTP. 

Transportation market measures (e.g., mode shares, vehicle and truck demand) are discussed in the mode-specific technical appendices. Other measures (e.g., percent funding 

used for transit and non-motorized transportation) are addressed as part of the investment allocations descriptions in the RTP financial plan.

In the discussion of performance and outcomes, three scenarios are referenced: Base 

Year, Baseline, and Plan. The 2008 Base Year represents existing conditions, and is 

based on the transportation system on the ground and in service in 2008. The 2035 

Baseline assumes current land use trends and represents a future in which only committed programs and projects are implemented, based on projects in the 2011 Federal 

Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) that have received environmental clearance. 

The 2035 Plan represents future conditions in which the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS investments and strategies are fully realized. The specific projects associated with Baseline and 

Plan are identified in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Project List report.

TABLE 2 2012 RTP Outcomes and Performance Measures/Indicators

Outcome Performance Measure/ 

Indicator Definition Performance Target Data Sources Used

Location

Efficiency

Share of growth in High Quality 

Transit Areas (HQTAs)

Share of the region's growth in households and employment in 

HQTAs

Improvement over No Project 

Baseline

Census (including annual 

American Community Survey), 

InfoUSA

Land consumption Additional land needed for development that has not previously 

been developed or otherwise impacted, including agricultural 

land, forest land, desert land, and other virgin sites

Improvement over No Project 

Baseline

Rapid Fire Model

Average distance for work or 

non-work trips

The average distance traveled for work or non-work trips 

separately 

Improvement over No Project 

Baseline

Travel Demand Model

Percent of work trips less than 

3 miles

The share of total work trips which are fewer than 3 miles Improvement over No Project 

Baseline

Travel Demand Model

Work trip length distribution The statistical distribution of work trip length in the region Improvement over No Project 

Baseline

Travel Demand Model

2 Performance Measures
Outcome Performance Measure/ 

Indicator Definition Performance Target Data Sources Used

Mobility and 

Accessibility

Person delay per capita Delay per capita can be used as a supplemental measure 

to account for population growth impacts on delay

Improvement over No Project 

Baseline

Travel Demand Model

Person delay by facility type 

(mixed flow, HOV, arterials)

Delay – excess travel time resulting from the difference 

between a reference speed and actual speed

Improvement over No Project 

Baseline

Travel Demand Model

Truck delay by facility type (Highway, Arterials)Delay – excess travel time resulting from the difference 

between a reference speed and actual speed

Improvement over No Project 

Baseline

Travel Demand Model

Travel time distribution for 

transit, SOV, HOV for work and 

non-work trips

Travel time distribution for transit, SOV, HOV for work and 

non-work trips

Improvement over No Project 

Baseline

Travel Demand Model

Safety and 

Health

Collision/accident rates by severity by modeAccident rates per million vehicle miles by mode (all, bicycle/pedestrian and fatality/killed)Improvement over Base Year CHP Accident Data Base, 

Travel Demand Model Mode 

Split Outputs

Criteria pollutants emissions CO, NOX, PM2.5, PM10, and VOC Meet Transportation Conformity 

requirements

Travel Demand Model /ARB 

EMFAC Model

Environmental 

Quality

Criteria pollutant and greenhouse 

gas emissions

CO, NOX, PM2.5, PM10, and VOC 

Per capita greenhouse gas emissions (CO2)

Meet Transportation Conformity 

requirements and SB 375 per 

capita GHG reduction targets

Travel Demand Model /ARB 

EMFAC Model

Economic 

Well Being

Additional jobs supported by 

improving competitiveness

Number of jobs added to the economy as a result of improved 

transportation conditions which make the region more competitive

Improvement over No Project 

Baseline

Regional Economic Model 

REMI

Additional jobs supported by 

transportation investment

Total number of jobs supported in the economy as a result of 

transportation expenditures

Improvement over No Project 

Baseline

Regional Economic Model 

REMI

Net contribution to Gross Regional ProductGross Regional Product due to transportation investments and 

increased competitiveness

Improvement over No Project 

Baseline

Regional Economic Model 

REMI

Investment 

Effectiveness

Benefit/Cost Ratio Ratio of monetized user and societal benefits to the agency 

transportation costs

Greater than 1.0 California Benefit Cost Model

System 

Sustainability

Cost per capita to preserve 

multi-modal system to current 

and state of good repair conditions

Annual costs per capita required to preserve the multi-modal 

system to current conditions

Improvement over Base Year Estimated using SHOPP Plan 

and recent California Transportation Commission 10-Year 

Needs Assessment

HOV = high occupancy vehicle, SOV = single occupancy vehicle

Performance Measures 3
TABLE 3 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Outcomes and Performance Measures/Indicators for On-Going Monitoring

Outcome Performance Measure/ Indicator Definition Performance 

Target Data Sources Used

Location

Efficiency

Annual household transportation 

cost

Annual household spending on transportation Including costs of vehicle ownership, operation and maintenance, and public transportationImprovement over 

Base Year

Center for Neighborhood Technology

Daily amount of walking and 

biking related to work and nonwork trips

New measure, but further research needed Improvement over 

Base Year

N/A

Annual household energy use 

(transportation + space heating)

Annual household energy consumption in transportation and residential uses Improvement over 

Base Year

Pending availability 

of data

Annual household water 

consumption

Annual household water consumption in number of gallons Improvement over 

Base Year

Pending availability 

of data

Number of acres of parks/open 

space for every 1,000 residents

Number of parks (including beach parks and developed local and regional parks) 

for every 1,000 residents

Improvement over 

Base Year

SCAG GIS database

Share of growth in High Quality 

Transit Areas

Share of the region's households and employment in High Quality Transit Areas Improvement over 

Base Year

SCAG GIS database

Percent of households with walk 

access to neighborhood services

New measure, but further research needed Improvement over 

Base Year

N/A

Percent of existing and new 

below-market rental housing units 

in Transit Oriented Development 

(TOD) area

New measure, but further research needed Improvement over 

Base Year

N/A

Percent of income spent on 

housing and transportation

The share of household income spent on both housing and transportation Improvement over 

Base Year

U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics and 

American Community 

Survey

Percent of jobs within 15 minutes’ 

walk of transit

Pending availability of data Improvement over 

Base Year

N/A

Percent of population within 1⁄2 

mile (or 10 minute walk) of high 

frequency transit stop (every 10 

minutes during peak periods)

Pending availability of data Improvement over 

Base Year

SCAG GIS database

Percent of residents within 1⁄2 mile 

walk to parks and open space

Pending availability of data Improvement over 

Base Year

N/A

4 Performance Measures
Performance Measures 5

Outcome Performance Measure/ Indicator Definition Performance 

Target Data Sources Used

Mobility and 

Accessibility

Highway non-recurrent delay for 

mixed flow and high occupancy 

lanes

Delay that is caused by accidents, incidents, weather, planned lane closures, 

special events, or other atypical traffic patterns

Improvement over 

Base Year

Caltrans Performance 

Measurement System 

(PeMS)

Reliability Variability of travel time for auto Day-to-day change in travel times experienced by auto travelers Improvement over 

Base Year

Caltrans Performance 

Measurement System 

(PeMS)

Variability of travel time for trucks Day-to-day change in travel times experienced by trucks Improvement over 

Base Year

Caltrans Performance 

Measurement System 

(PeMS)

Safety and 

Health

Collision/accident rates by 

severity by mode

Injury and fatality rates per million vehicle miles “0” for all accident 

types and modes

Caltrans Performance 

Measurement System 

(PeMS), Traffic 

Accident Surveillance 

and Analysis System 

(TASAS)

Asthma incidence and exacerbationsThe share of population in the region who are ever diagnosed with asthma Improvement over 

Base Year

California Health 

Interview Survey

Percent of households living >65 

decibels noise

New measure, but further research needed Improvement over 

Base Year

N/A

Percent of households living <500 

feet from high-volume roadways

The share of total households that live within 500 feet from a high volume roadway 

which is defined as traffic volume of over 100,000 vehicles per day in urban areas and 

50,000 vehicles per day in rural areas. 

Improvement over 

Base Year

SCAG GIS database

Pre-mature deaths due to PM2.5 The number of pre-mature deaths due to long-term population exposure to PM2.5 which 

is estimated from monitored or modeled concentration of PM2.5

Improvement over 

Base Year

California Air 

Resources Board

Percent of residents within 1⁄2 mile 

walk to parks and open space

New measure, but further research needed Improvement over 

Base Year

N/A

Productivity Lost lane miles for highways, percent seat miles utilized for transitPercent utilization during peak demand conditions Improvement over 

Base Year

N/A

Environmental 

Quality

Ambient air quality conditions The existing condition of air quality in the various air basins Improvement over 

Base Year

Pending availability 

of data 
6 Performance Measures

The following sections describe each of the performance outcomes in detail along with 

the associated performance measures. The first section discusses the performance 

outcomes and measures used to evaluate alternatives and to forecast the performance 

of the system as a result of implementing the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. The second section 

discusses the outcomes and measures used for on-going system monitoring. 

RTP/SCS Alternatives Analysis Measures

Location Efficiency

This is a new outcome for the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. This outcome has several associated 

performance measures that reflect the impact of improved land use and transportation 

coordination in support of the Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS) required under 

SB 375.

This outcome reflects the degree to which improved land use and transportation coordination measures impact the efficient movement of people and goods. The measures used 

to describe this outcome include:

 Share of growth in High Quality Transit Areas,

 Land consumption (total and per capita),

 Average distance for work and non-work trips,

 Percent of work trips less than three miles, and

 Work trip length distribution.

There are several additional measures that will be used for on-going monitoring, and 

these will be discussed in the technical appendix.

SHARE OF GROWTH IN HIGH-QUALITY TRANSIT AREAS (HQTA)

This is a new measure for the 2012 RTP, and it will also be used in an on-going manner to 

assess land use in the region.

Between 2008 and 2035, growth in both household and employment in the HQTAs are 

projected to increase from the Baseline scenario to the Plan scenario. Specifically, the 

share of growth in households in HQTAs increases from 24 percent under the Baseline to 

51 percent under the Plan. During the same period, the share of growth in employment in 

HQTAs increases from 31 percent under the Baseline to 53 percent under the Plan.

LAND CONSUMPTION

This is a new measure for the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS that examines the amount of land 

used in total and per person for transportation. This measure will also be used in an ongoing manner to assess land use in the region. 

Greenfield land consumption refers to development that occurs on land that has not 

previously been developed or otherwise impacted, including agricultural land, forest land, 

desert land, and other virgin sites. As discussed above, the Plan directs more growth into 

the HQTAs than the Baseline. The vast majority of HQTAs are within the existing urbanized 

areas. Accordingly, the Plan consumes 408 square miles less “greenfield” land than the 

Baseline, 334 square miles compared to 742 square miles.

AVERAGE DISTANCE FOR WORK AND NON-WORK TRIPS

The average distance for work trips is projected in 2035 to decrease from 14.8 miles 

under the Baseline to 14.7 miles under the Plan. The average distance for non-work trips 

is projected to increase from 7.3 miles under the Baseline to 7.5 miles under the Plan.

PERCENT OF WORK TRIPS LESS THAN THREE MILES

The vast majority of work trips in Southern California have consistently relied on the 

single-occupant automobile. When the work trip length becomes shorter, particularly 

within a few miles, it increases the likelihood of using alternative modes such as transit 

or biking. By 2035, the share of work trips less than three miles is projected to increase 

from 14.8 percent under the Baseline to 15.4 percent under the Plan, which accounts for 

effects of landuse and investment in active transportation.

WORK TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION

Under the Plan, more than half (51 percent) of the total work trips are less than 10 miles 

(TABLE 4). Thirteen percent of the total work trips are longer than 25 miles.
TABLE 4 Work Trip Length Distribution (Plan 2035)

Distance (miles) Work Trips Percent of Total

 0.0 <= DIST < 5.0 3,286,000 27.01%

 5.0 <= DIST < 10.0 2,954,000 24.28%

10.0 <= DIST < 15.0 1,805,000 14.84%

15.0 <= DIST < 20.0 1,148,000 9.44%

20.0 <= DIST < 25.0 786,000 6.46%

25.0 <= DIST < 30.0 559,000 4.60%

30.0 <= DIST < 35.0 438,000 3.60%

35.0 <= DIST < 40.0 352,000 2.89%

40.0 <= DIST < 45.0 265,000 2.18%

45.0 <= DIST < 50.0 200,000 1.65%

50.0 <= DIST < 55.0 139,000 1.14%

55.0 <= DIST < 60.0 85,000 0.70%

60.0 <= DIST < 65.0 47,000 0.39%

65.0 <= DIST < 70.0 23,000 0.19%

70.0 <= DIST < 75.0 13,000 0.10%

75.0 <= DIST < 80.0 10,000 0.08%

80.0 <= DIST < 85.0 8,000 0.07%

85.0 <= DIST < 90.0 7,000 0.06%

90.0 <= DIST < 95.0 6,000 0.05%

95.0 <= DIST < 100.0 4,000 0.04%

DIST >= 100.0 30,000 0.25%

Total 12,165,000 100.00%

Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding.

Mobility and Accessibility

In the 1998 California Transportation Plan, this outcome is defined as, “Reaching desired 

destinations with relative ease within a reasonable time, with reasonable choices.” 

In prior RTPs, mobility and accessibility were included as separate outcomes. For the 

2012–2035 RTP/SCS, these have been combined into a single outcome with multiple 

performance measures. This section discusses the mobility and accessibility performance 

indicators and provides results based on outputs from the SCAG RTDM.

MOBILITY

The mobility performance measure relies on the commonly used measure of delay. Delay 

is the difference between the actual travel time and the travel time at some pre-defined 

reference or “optimal” speed for each mode alternative under analysis. It is measured 

in vehicle-hours of delay (VHD), which can then be used to derive person hours of delay. 

This is a relatively straightforward measure to calculate using real-world and modeled 

data, is understandable by both transportation professionals and the general public, and 

can be forecasted for the 2035 future scenarios.

The mobility measures used to evaluate alternatives for this outcome are:

 Person movement delay by facility type,

 Person delay per capita, and

 Truck delay by facility type.

One additional measure for delay that is readily available for on-going monitoring, but that 

cannot be readily forecast, is non-recurrent delay. Recurrent congestion is the day-to-day 

congestion that occurs because too many vehicles are on the road at the same time. Nonrecurrent congestion is the delay that is caused by accidents, incidents, weather, planned 

lane closure, special events, or other atypical traffic patterns”

Non-recurrent congestion can be mitigated or reduced by improving incident management 

strategies. Other smart uses of technologies such as traffic signal coordination and the 

provision of real-time information about unexpected delays allows travelers to make better decisions about available transit or other alternatives.

Performance Measures 7
8 Performance Measures

Person Delay by Facility Type (Mixed Flow Freeways, HOV, Arterials)

For the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, this measure has been expanded to differentiate between 

single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) delay. As shown in 

FIGURE 1, person-hours of delay is expected to increase from Base Year to Baseline, but 

overall the Plan will improve on Baseline conditions by 45 percent, to conditions that are 

better than what is experienced today.

FIGURE 1 Daily Person-Hours of Delay by Facility Type

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Freeway/Expressway HOV Arterial Regional Average

Millions

2008 Base Year 2035 Baseline 2035 Plan

Person Delay per Capita

FIGURE 2 shows the person-hours of delay per capita for each of the six counties in the 

region and for the SCAG region as a whole. Normalizing delay by the number of people 

living in an area provides insight as to how well the region is mitigating traffic congestion 

in light of increasing population growth. Delay per capita is expected to grow considerably, particularly in the Inland Empire counties of Riverside and San Bernardino, under 

the Baseline conditions. However, implementation of the Plan is expected to reduce delay 

substantially, to below 2008 levels. The regional average delay per capita is expected 

to improve from over 20 minutes under the Baseline, to over 10 minutes under the Plan. 

Not only does this represent a 45 percent improvement over Baseline, but a 24 percent 

improvement over Base Year as well.

FIGURE 2 Daily Person Delay per Capita by County (minutes)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Imperial Los Angeles Orange Riverside San

Bernardino

Ventura Regional

Average

2008 Base Year 2035 Baseline 2035 Plan

Truck Delay by Facility Type (Highway, Arterials)

This measure estimates the average daily truck delay by facility type for freeways and 

arterials (FIGURE 3). The RTP/SCS includes significant investments in a regional freight 

corridor and other improvements to facilitate goods movement. The Plan is estimated to 

reduce truck delay by approximately 40 percent over Baseline on the freeway system, 

and by approximately 55 percent on the arterial system. However, the truck delay under 

the Plan will still be above Base Year levels.
FIGURE 3 Daily Heavy-Duty Truck Hours of Delay

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Freeway/Expressway Arterial

Thousands

2008 Base Year 2035 Baseline 2035 Plan

ACCESSIBILITY

Accessibility is used to capture how well the transportation system performs in providing 

people access to opportunities. Opportunities can include anything from jobs, education, 

medical care, recreation, shopping, or another activity that helps improve a person’s life. 

For the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, accessibility is simply defined as the distribution of trips by 

mode by travel time.

As with the 2008 RTP, accessibility is measured by taking afternoon or PM peak period 

travel demand model results for the base and forecast years, and identifying the percentage of commute or home-based work trips that are completed within 45 minutes. 

FIGURE 4 shows these results. In all cases, the 2035 Plan improves accessibility for 

home-based work trips over the baseline.

FIGURE 4 Percentage of PM Peak Period Home-Based Work Trips 

within 45 Minutes

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Transit High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Single-Occupancy Vehicle (SOV)

2008 Base Year 2035 Baseline 2035 Plan

The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS provides a more comprehensive measure of accessibility by 

including transit and HOV accessibility as well as non-work and work trips in the indicator. Results for the following were added to the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS based upon 

stakeholder input:

 Distributions of travel time (i.e., not just percent completed within 45 minutes),

 High occupancy vehicles (HOV) for each of the three modeled years,

 AM, midday, evening and night accessibility for each of the three modeled years for 

all three modes (transit, SOV, and HOV), and

 Non work trips for each of the three modeled years for all three modes (transit, SOV, 

and HOV) for all five time periods.

TABLES 5–7 present the above results. TABLE 5 depicts the transit travel time distribution, 

while TABLE 6 shows the HOV distribution and TABLE 7 shows the SOV distribution.

Performance Measures 9
TABLE 5 Transit Trips – Distribution by Trip Type and Model Run

Trip Type Time Period Model <=5 min. <=10 min. <=15 min. <=30 min. <=45 min. <=60 min. <=90 min. >90 min.

Work

AM

2008 Base Year 0% 0% 0% 9% 30% 51% 78% 100%

2035 Baseline 0% 0% 0% 8% 25% 43% 68% 100%

2035 Plan 0% 0% 0% 9% 29% 50% 76% 100%

Mid-day

2008 Base Year 0% 0% 0% 11% 37% 61% 87% 100%

2035 Baseline 0% 0% 0% 11% 35% 59% 86% 100%

2035 Plan 0% 0% 0% 11% 36% 61% 87% 100%

PM

2008 Base Year 0% 0% 0% 7% 24% 44% 73% 100%

2035 Baseline 0% 0% 0% 6% 22% 40% 67% 100%

2035 Plan 0% 0% 0% 6% 23% 43% 71% 100%

Evening

2008 Base Year 0% 0% 0% 11% 37% 61% 87% 100%

2035 Baseline 0% 0% 0% 10% 34% 58% 85% 100%

2035 Plan 0% 0% 0% 11% 37% 61% 87% 100%

Night

2008 Base Year 0% 0% 0% 11% 37% 61% 87% 100%

2035 Baseline 0% 0% 0% 10% 34% 58% 84% 100%

2035 Plan 0% 0% 0% 11% 36% 61% 87% 100%

Other

AM

2008 Base Year 0% 0% 1% 19% 46% 65% 87% 100%

2035 Baseline 0% 0% 1% 19% 44% 63% 85% 100%

2035 Plan 0% 0% 1% 19% 45% 64% 86% 100%

Mid-day

2008 Base Year 0% 0% 1% 21% 48% 67% 88% 100%

2035 Baseline 0% 0% 1% 21% 47% 66% 88% 100%

2035 Plan 0% 0% 1% 21% 48% 67% 89% 100%

PM

2008 Base Year 0% 0% 1% 15% 36% 54% 78% 100%

2035 Baseline 0% 0% 1% 15% 36% 53% 78% 100%

2035 Plan 0% 0% 1% 15% 36% 53% 78% 100%

Evening

2008 Base Year 0% 0% 1% 22% 48% 66% 88% 100%

2035 Baseline 0% 0% 1% 21% 47% 66% 88% 100%

2035 Plan 0% 0% 1% 21% 48% 67% 88% 100%

Night

2008 Base Year 0% 0% 1% 22% 48% 66% 88% 100%

2035 Baseline 0% 0% 1% 22% 47% 66% 87% 100%

2035 Plan 0% 0% 1% 22% 48% 67% 88% 100%

10 Performance Measures
TABLE 6 HOV Trips – Distribution by Trip Type and Model Run

Trip Type Time Period Model <=5 min. <=10 min. <=15 min. <=30 min. <=45 min. <=60 min. <=90 min. >90 min.

Work

AM

2008 Base Year 35% 56% 67% 83% 91% 95% 98% 100%

2035 Baseline 33% 54% 65% 82% 90% 94% 97% 100%

2035 Plan 34% 55% 67% 85% 93% 97% 99% 100%

Mid-day

2008 Base Year 10% 23% 35% 60% 74% 84% 96% 100%

2035 Baseline 10% 21% 31% 53% 66% 75% 87% 100%

2035 Plan 11% 24% 37% 65% 81% 91% 97% 100%

PM

2008 Base Year 11% 23% 34% 58% 71% 80% 92% 100%

2035 Baseline 11% 21% 31% 53% 64% 73% 84% 100%

2035 Plan 12% 25% 37% 64% 78% 88% 97% 100%

Evening

2008 Base Year 17% 37% 56% 85% 95% 98% 100% 100%

2035 Baseline 17% 36% 55% 82% 93% 97% 99% 100%

2035 Plan 18% 38% 57% 84% 94% 98% 99% 100%

Night

2008 Base Year 14% 34% 53% 84% 95% 99% 100% 100%

2035 Baseline 14% 33% 52% 81% 93% 98% 99% 100%

2035 Plan 15% 34% 53% 83% 94% 98% 99% 100%

Other

AM

2008 Base Year 35% 56% 67% 83% 91% 95% 98% 100%

2035 Baseline 33% 54% 65% 82% 90% 94% 97% 100%

2035 Plan 34% 55% 67% 85% 93% 97% 99% 100%

Mid-day

2008 Base Year 31% 52% 64% 85% 93% 97% 99% 100%

2035 Baseline 31% 53% 65% 85% 93% 97% 99% 100%

2035 Plan 32% 53% 65% 87% 94% 97% 99% 100%

PM

2008 Base Year 30% 49% 60% 76% 85% 91% 96% 100%

2035 Baseline 29% 49% 60% 77% 85% 90% 96% 100%

2035 Plan 30% 50% 61% 80% 90% 94% 98% 100%

Evening

2008 Base Year 31% 52% 65% 86% 94% 97% 99% 100%

2035 Baseline 31% 53% 66% 87% 95% 97% 99% 100%

2035 Plan 31% 53% 66% 87% 95% 97% 99% 100%

Night

2008 Base Year 30% 52% 65% 87% 95% 97% 99% 100%

2035 Baseline 31% 53% 66% 88% 95% 98% 99% 100%

2035 Plan 31% 53% 66% 88% 95% 97% 99% 100%

Performance Measures 11
TABLE 7 SOV Trips – Distribution by Trip Type and Model Run

Trip Type Time Period Model <=5 min. <=10 min. <=15 min. <=30 min. <=45 min. <=60 min. <=90 min. >90 min.

Work

AM

2008 Base Year 10% 26% 41% 69% 83% 90% 98% 100%

2035 Baseline 10% 26% 41% 69% 82% 89% 96% 100%

2035 Plan 11% 28% 44% 74% 88% 95% 99% 100%

Mid-day

2008 Base Year 12% 31% 49% 81% 93% 98% 100% 100%

2035 Baseline 12% 30% 48% 79% 91% 97% 100% 100%

2035 Plan 12% 32% 52% 84% 95% 99% 100% 100%

PM

2008 Base Year 11% 25% 39% 66% 80% 88% 96% 100%

2035 Baseline 11% 25% 38% 66% 79% 87% 95% 100%

2035 Plan 11% 27% 42% 72% 86% 93% 99% 100%

Evening

2008 Base Year 16% 39% 59% 88% 97% 99% 100% 100%

2035 Baseline 16% 39% 59% 86% 95% 99% 100% 100%

2035 Plan 17% 40% 61% 89% 97% 99% 100% 100%

Night

2008 Base Year 14% 37% 59% 89% 98% 99% 100% 100%

2035 Baseline 14% 38% 59% 88% 97% 99% 100% 100%

2035 Plan 14% 39% 60% 89% 97% 99% 100% 100%

Other

AM

2008 Base Year 39% 63% 75% 91% 97% 99% 100% 100%

2035 Baseline 40% 65% 77% 92% 97% 99% 100% 100%

2035 Plan 41% 66% 79% 94% 99% 100% 100% 100%

Mid-day

2008 Base Year 44% 71% 82% 96% 99% 100% 100% 100%

2035 Baseline 45% 72% 84% 96% 99% 100% 100% 100%

2035 Plan 47% 74% 86% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100%

PM

2008 Base Year 39% 63% 75% 90% 96% 98% 100% 100%

2035 Baseline 39% 65% 77% 92% 97% 99% 100% 100%

2035 Plan 41% 67% 80% 94% 98% 99% 100% 100%

Evening

2008 Base Year 44% 71% 84% 97% 99% 100% 100% 100%

2035 Baseline 45% 73% 85% 97% 99% 100% 100% 100%

2035 Plan 47% 74% 86% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Night

2008 Base Year 43% 70% 82% 97% 99% 100% 100% 100%

2035 Baseline 44% 72% 85% 97% 99% 100% 100% 100%

2035 Plan 45% 72% 85% 97% 100% 100% 100% 100%

12 Performance Measures
Safety and Health

The safety outcome for evaluating projects has been carried over from the 2008 RTP, but 

the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS effort also includes a new health outcome. Safety addresses 

how well the transportation system minimizes accidents and is measured in fatalities, 

injuries, and property damage accidents per million vehicle miles by mode.

Safety and health impacts of regional transportation improvements cannot be easily forecast, but total accidents can show a reduction in future years if people shift from higher 

accident modes to lower accident modes. Total number of accidents is generally used as 

the performance measure, and can be partially projected by using mode specific accident 

rates (e.g., for highways, arterials, transit). This approach is used for the 2012–2035 

RTP/SCS, but it is important to note that this approach does not take into account safety 

improvements for each mode. It just reflects the changes based on modal or facility 

shifts. It is not possible to forecast this measure by ethnicity or income group.

Health is a new outcome to the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. There are health measures that 

will be used for on-going monitoring for the region, but to evaluate alternatives, the 

health measure will be the tons of pollutants since these are highly correlated to health 

problems such as asthma. This measure supports both the Health outcome as well as the 

Environmental Quality outcome. Pollutant emissions are reported in detail as part of the 

Transportation Conformity technical appendix.

Environmental Quality

This outcome is defined as “Helping to maintain and enhance the quality of the natural 

and human environment.” For the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, the measures include criteria pollutant and GHG emissions, with the target of meeting transportation conformity 

and SB 375 requirements. The detailed emissions analysis for the Region’s 14 nonattainment or maintenance areas is included as part of the Transportation Conformity 

technical appendix.

Pursuant to SB 375, ARB set per capita GHG emission reduction targets from passenger 

vehicles for each of the state’s 18 MPOs. For the SCAG region, the targets set are eight 

percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2020 and 13 percent below 2005 

per capita emissions levels by 2035. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS achieves per capita GHG 

reductions relative to 2005 of nine percent in 2020 and 16 percent in 2035 (TABLE 8).

TABLE 8 RTP/SCS Per Capita Greenhouse Gas Reductions

Year CO2 Per Capita

(lb/day)

CO2 Per Capita Reductions Compared to 2005

Travel Demand 

Model* 4D Model** Total

2005 23.8 N/A N/A N/A

2020 21.6 -9% N/A -9%

2035 20.5 -14% -2% -16%

*Includes Transportation Demand Management (TDM), Transportation Systems Management (TSM), 

active transportation

**4D Model captures the benefits of land use and transportation coordination that are not captured 

directly by the Travel Demand Model.

DEVELOP AN ENHANCED SCAG LOCAL SUSTAINABILITY 

PLANNING TOOL 

Like all of California’s Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), SCAG is currently 

engaged in an effort to prepare its RTP and SCS within the context of the requirements 

of SB 375. As part of this effort, SCAG has developed the 4D- based Local Sustainability 

Planning Tool (LSPT) to analyze the performance of various land use and transportation strategies related to GHG reduction and help local jurisdictions to assess impacts 

from different land use configurations and scenarios.1

 The LSPT is a GIS-based sketch 

planning tool that allows users to create land use scenarios and analyze their impacts. 

SCAG made the LSPT available to each of its jurisdictions, trained hundreds of users, 

and worked one-on-one with planners to assist in their use of the tool. Provided with 

preliminary scenarios of their planning areas for the years 2008, 2020 and 2035, local 

planners were then able to create, modify and compare a variety of scenarios, and 

their subsequent impacts on vehicle ownership, vehicle miles traveled, mode-use, and 

GHG emissions. 

1 SCAG’s Local Sustainability Planning Tool (LSPT) is a GIS based planning tool with built in travel 

behavior, vehicle ownership/uses, VMT and GHG related to the surrounding “D” variables (Density, 

Diversity, Accessibility, and Design) related to General Plan, Zoning and different land use 

designations.

Performance Measures 13
14 Performance Measures

SCAG evaluated potential strategies including changes to land use, transportation demand 

management, transit, and other related methods to reduce VMT through the Regional 

Travel Demand Model. The current SCAG travel demand model is an advanced 4-step 

model that currently includes a variety of “4D” factors such as transit and pedestrian 

accessibility to employment as well as housing and density. However, additional factors 

such as the impacts of mixed-use development (diversity) are not explicitly accounted for 

in the current model.

Therefore, an assessment was needed to better understand how well the Travel Demand 

Model accounts for or is sensitive to changes in land use at the local level. Further, the 

California Transportation Commission (CTC) 2010 California Regional Transportation Plan 

Guidelines recommend that on-model or off-model calculations be formulated to produce 

realistic sensitivities to these localized land use variations. 

To better understand the co-benefits of mixed land uses and address the CTC’s recommendation, an enhanced module based on National Household Travel Survey data (NHTS) 

was developed for the LSPT, as a supplement to SCAG’s Regional Travel Demand Model. 

This enhanced NHTS module was derived from travel survey, land use, and travel model 

data to quantify the impacts of changes in local land use form related to vehicular travel. 

The enhanced NHTS module provides key input to the SCAG Local Sustainability Planning 

Tool such as the VMT and GHG impacts of land use variations. The module is also a tool 

to augment the Travel Demand Model to account for the potential impacts of changes 

in local land use conditions, which might result in changes in travel behavior. Based on 

analysis conducted with the NHTS Model, SCAG will adjust (subtract) between 2 percent 

to 3 percent of VMT estimated through the 4-step regional Travel Demand Model, which 

was not accounted for in the Regional Travel Demand Model.2

In addition to supplementing the Regional Travel Demand Model, this tool can help and 

address some environmental justice concerns. SCAG will also work with our partners in 

the region to apply the enhanced LSPT module, as feasible, to better understand how 

VMT reduction measures could impact minority and low-income groups, as well as additional Environmental Justice Communities.

2 The technical report entitled, “Southern California Association of Governments NHTS Model 

Documentation,” prepared by Fehr & Peers, (December 2011) is provided as a sub-appendix to 

this Appendix.

Economic Well-Being

This outcome is measured in terms of additional jobs created and net contribution to 

Gross Regional Product. An annual average of 174,500 new jobs will be generated 

by the construction and operations expenditures in the RTP/SCS, and an additional 

354,000 annual jobs will be created in a broad cross-section of industries by the region’s 

increased competitiveness and improved economic performance as a result of the 

improved transportation system. The economic benefits of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS are 

discussed in further detail in Chapter 8 of the RTP/SCS.

Investment Effectiveness

The cost-effectiveness outcome indicates the degree to which the Plan’s expenditures 

generate benefits that transportation users can experience directly. This outcome is 

important to the public because it describes how the Plan’s transportation investments 

make productive use of scarce funds.

The benefit-cost ratio is the indicator for the cost-effectiveness outcome, and it compares 

the incremental benefits to the incremental costs of the modal investments. The benefits 

are divided into several categories, including:

 Delay savings,

 Air quality improvements, and

 Reductions in vehicle operating costs.

For these categories, travel demand and air quality models are used to estimate the 

benefits of the Plan compared to the Baseline. Most of these benefits are a function of 

changes in Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) and Vehicle-Hours Traveled (VHT). For example, 

a highway project that increases VMT would negatively impact air quality and vehicle 

operating costs, while a transit project that decreases VMT would have the opposite 

effect. Not all impacts are linear, so reductions in congestion can increase or decrease 

vehicle operating costs and emissions. Delay savings are reflected directly in the 

VHT statistics.

To estimate the benefit-cost ratio, the benefits in each category are converted into dollars and added together. These are divided by the total incremental costs of the Plan’s 
Performance Measures 15

transportation improvements to produce a ratio. FIGURE 5 summarizes the results of 

this analysis.

The investments in the 2012 RTP provide a return of $2.90 for every dollar invested. For 

this analysis, all benefits and costs are expressed in 2011 dollars. Benefits are estimated over the 25-year RTP planning period from 2011 to 2035. The user benefits are 

estimated using California’s Cal-B/C benefit-cost framework and incorporate SCAG’s 

RTDM outputs. The costs include the incremental public expenditures over the entire 

RTP planning period.

FIGURE 5 Results of Regional Benefit/Cost Analysis

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

1

Benefits Accrued per Dollar Invested

B/C Ratio

$2.90

Benefits of 

RTP greater 

than costs

System Sustainability

A transportation system is sustainable if it maintains its overall performance over time 

with the same costs for its users. Sustainability, therefore, reflects how our decisions 

today affect future generations. The indicator for sustainability is the total inflationadjusted cost per capita to maintain overall system performance at current conditions. 

This outcome reflects the cost per capita of preserving the multi-modal system to current 

conditions. It is also possible to estimate the cost for preserving the system to a state 

of good repair. As such, preservation can be viewed as a subset of sustainability. This 

measure and its trend over time will tell us whether our decisions are placing burdens on 

future generations. If the indicator grows over time, it suggests that our current resource 

limitations and decisions are creating a situation where future generations will have to 

pay more to get the same performance (or live with reduced performance).

The performance measures presented in this report show that the planned transportation system in 2035 will perform better compared to today. This RTP/SCS commits itself 

to maintaining a sustainable system by allocating $217 billion to maintaining the system 

in a state of good repair over the period of the plan. This is an average annual per capita 

investment of more than $400 per person for each year of the plan period.

RTP/SCS On-Going System Monitoring Measures

This section discusses those measures not directly or partially used for evaluating the 

performance of the 2035 RTP/SCS Plan, but rather are used for on-going monitoring of 

the Plan until the next update of the RTP/SCS occurs. The measures used for on-going 

monitoring are presented at the beginning of this technical appendix in TABLE 3. These 

on-going monitoring measures are not typically forecast, but they allow the SCAG region 

to monitor how well goals are being met. In this group are additional measures that will 

be investigated for future integration into SCAG’s performance monitoring efforts when 

data becomes available to reliably use the measure.

Location Efficiency

This is a new outcome for the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, and can be used to evaluate the 

RTP/SCS and for on-going system monitoring. This outcome has several associated performance measures that reflect the impact of improved land use and transportation coordination in support of Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS) required under SB 375.

This outcome reflects the degree to which improved land use and transportation coordination measures impact efficient movement of people and goods. The on-going monitoring measures used to describe this outcome are discussed below.
16 Performance Measures

SHARE OF GROWTH IN HIGH-QUALITY TRANSIT AREAS (HQTA)

In 2008, 40 percent of the households and 49 percent of the employment in the region 

were located within the HQTAs. Because the transit infrastructure and services are concentrated primarily in Los Angeles County, about 63 percent of households and 71 percent of employment in that county were within the HQTAs in 2008. This was followed by 

Orange County, where 20 percent of the households and 30 percent of employment were 

within the HQTAs in 2008.

PERCENT OF INCOME SPENT ON HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION

In 2007, households in the SCAG region were estimated to spend on average 53 percent 

of their incomes on housing and transportation. This is based on consumer expenditures 

survey data available in Los Angeles and Orange Counties and will be refined in the future 

if additional data is available.

ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD TRANSPORTATION COST

Annual household transportation costs range from $8,628 in Los Angeles County to 

$11,364 in Ventura County, with Orange County ($10,296) and Riverside/San Bernardino 

Counties ($10,464) in between.

PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS WITHIN 1⁄2 MILE (OR 10 MINUTE WALK) 

OF TRANSIT STATIONS

In 2008, approximately 5.6 percent of households were within 1⁄2 mile (or 10 minute walk) 

of stations for rail or bus rapid transit.

PERCENT OF JOBS WITHIN 1⁄2 MILE (OR 10 MINUTE WALK) 

OF TRANSIT STATIONS

In 2008, approximately 10.3 percent of jobs were within 1⁄2 mile (or 10 minute walk) of 

stations for rail or bus rapid transit.

MEASURES REQUIRING ADDITIONAL DATA OR RESEARCH

There are several additional measures that have been suggested by stakeholders for 

monitoring use. However, these measures require additional efforts for data collection or 

further research to determine their potential uses for monitoring. They will be included 

in future RTP/SCS updates if additional data and research are completed.

The following measures require additional efforts for data collection:

 Percent of residents within 1⁄2 mile walk to parks and open space,

 Annual household energy use (transportation + space heating),

 Annual household water consumption, and

 Number of acres of parks/open space for every 1,000 residents.

The following measures require further research to determine their potential uses 

for monitoring:

 Daily amount of walking and biking related to work and non-work trips

 Percent of households with walk access to neighborhood services

 Percent of existing and new below-market rental housing units in Transit Oriented 

Development (TOD) area

Mobility and Accessibility

This section discusses the mobility performance measure that will be used for the ongoing monitoring of the regional transportation network. The measure used to monitor mobility is non-recurrent delay. This measure reflects feedback and input from the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) during the development of the 2008 RTP.

Data from the Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS) was used to assess 

the level of non-recurrent delay on regional freeways using the “congestion pie” feature 

of PeMS. This module breaks down congestion into recurrent and non-recurrent congestion, with recurrent congestion being that day-to-day delay that occurs when there are 

simply too many vehicles on the road at the same time. Non-recurrent congestion is 

congestion due to other causes such as accidents, special events, or weather.

For the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, the mobility performance measure is non-recurrent 

congestion. This type of congestion also has two major components—“Accidents” and 

“Miscellaneous.” Accident-related congestion is estimated by using the Caltrans Traffic 

Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS) accident locations and comparing that to congestion levels reported by roadway sensors. If excess congestion beyond 

normal is reported at a location where TASAS reports that an accident occurred, then 
Performance Measures 17

that extra congestion is put in the accident-related congestion bucket. If congestion being 

reported by a sensor is above normal and there was no accident report, then that congestion falls into the miscellaneous bucket.

FIGURE 6 Percent Non-Recurrent Congestion Share by County (2009)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino Ventura Regional

Average

2009

The most recent PeMS congestion classification data is for the year 2009. FIGURE 6

shows the percentage of freeway congestion during a typical day (5:00 AM through 

8:00 PM) for the year 2009. The data is reported for each county and for the region 

as a whole. In 2009, the estimated average percentage of congestion that was due to 

accidents or other incidents was around 45 percent. In San Bernardino County—with 

less congestion overall and more susceptible to incident-causing congestion—the data 

suggested that a majority of congestion was non-recurrent. (The actual percentage is 

likely exaggerated due to the manner in which PeMS handles some data; more research 

is needed to verify this assessment.) In the more urbanized Los Angeles County, the data 

reported that 40 percent of countywide congestion was non-recurrent.

Reliability

Reliability captures the relative predictability of the public’s travel time. Unlike mobility, 

which measures how fast the transportation system is moving people/goods and accessibility which addresses how much time people must spend traveling in total, reliability 

focuses on how much mobility and accessibility vary from day to day. This variability is 

illustrated in FIGURE 7: Highway “A” and Highway “B” both have the same average travel 

time, meaning that they experience the same level of mobility. However, when each day’s 

travel time is taken into account, one sees that Highway “A” has lower variability than 

Highway “B”.

FIGURE 7 Difference Between Reliability and Mobility

Delay

Travel Time

10

5

15

20

Same Mobility (same travel time and delay), but Highway “A” is much more reliable

Delay

Highway “A” Highway “B”

Reliability is the level of variability in transportation service between the expected travel 

time and the actual travel time between OD pairs. Reliability can be calculated by using 

statistical tools. The standard deviation is one such tool that provides an estimate of 

how much the travel time on any given day will “deviate” from the average travel time. It 

provides the probable range of time that a motorist will arrive within his or her scheduled 

time. Dividing the standard deviation by the average time spent traveling produces the 

percent variability for an OD pair.
18 Performance Measures

Reliability can only be monitored and not forecasted. This is because travel demand 

models cannot evaluate variations in travel times, but can only estimate average travel 

times and delay (i.e., mobility). However, TABLE 9 presents the estimated improvements 

in reliability for three different hours during the day. These improvements are expected as 

a result of the TSM investments, especially as they relate to incident management. These 

estimates are based in part on the recently completed Corridor System Management 

Plans (CSMPs) in the SCAG Region. The following CSMPs were used for this analysis: I-5 

(Orange and Los Angeles Counties), I-10 (San Bernardino County), I-210 (Los Angeles 

County), I-405 (Orange and Los Angeles Counties), SR-22 (Orange County), SR-57 

(Orange County), SR-91 (Orange and Riverside Counties).

TABLE 9 Estimated Improvements in Reliability

Hour

Average 

Travel 

Time (minutes)

Variability 

of Travel 

Time

Travel Time Based on Level of 

Confidence of Arriving on Time 

(minutes)

68% 95% 99%

8:00 AM 23 29% 30 37 43 

Noon 20 16% 24 27 30 

5:00 PM 27 38% 38 48 59 

Safety and Health

For monitoring purposes, the safety measure can be reported historically by time period 

month and by mode (including for non-motorized transportation). FIGURE 8 shows the 

accident rate per million vehicle miles for highways. FIGURE 9 shows similar information 

for bicyclists and pedestrians.

FIGURE 8 Total Injury and Fatality Rates per Million Vehicle Miles

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Injury and Fatality Rate per Million VMT

Imperial Los Angeles Orange Riverside

San Bernardino Ventura Regional Average
Performance Measures 19

FIGURE 9 Bicycle and Pedestrian Injury and Fatality Rates 

per Million Vehicle Miles

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Injury and Fatality Rate per Million VMT

Imperial Los Angeles Orange Riverside

San Bernardino Ventura Regional Average

The health measure is new to the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, and for monitoring purposes this 

measure is reflected in terms of health effects of pollutant emissions, noise, and access 

to parks and open space.

ASTHMA INCIDENCE AND EXACERBATIONS

Based on the California Health Interview Survey, the share of population in the region that 

was ever diagnosed with asthma in 2009 was 12.8 percent. Among those who were ever 

diagnosed, over 90 percent had asthma symptoms in the previous 12 months and 10.5 

percent visited the emergency room/urgent care for asthma in the previous 12 months. 

Over half of those were first diagnosed with asthma before nine years old and 42 percent 

take daily medication to control asthma.

PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS LIVING <500 FEET 

FROM HIGH-VOLUME ROADWAYS

High volume roads are defined as those with traffic volumes of over 100,000 vehicles 

per day in urban areas and 50,000 vehicles per day in rural areas. Generally, diesel 

particulate concentrations and the associated cancer risk drop off with distance from the 

pollution source, such as high-volume roadways. Specifically, based on the California Air 

Resources Board studies, air pollution levels can be significantly higher within 500 feet of 

high volume roads and then diminish rapidly.3

 In 2008, there were a total of approximately 

337,000 households in the region living within 500 feet of high-volume roadways. These 

represented 5.8 percent of total households in the region.

PRE-MATURE DEATHS DUE TO PM2.5

Using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s methodology, the estimated number of 

annual PM2.5 related premature deaths in California is 9,200 in 2009 with an uncertainty 

range of 7,300 to 11,000.4

 Mortality estimates reflect the following three causes: 

cardiopulmonary, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality. PM2.5 exposure has 

been most closely associated with cardiopulmonary deaths, which are also the most 

frequent cause of deaths in the U.S. Because of high PM2.5 concentrations and a large 

population (over 16 million), most of the estimated premature deaths (4,900) are in the 

South Coast Air Basin in the SCAG region.

MEASURES REQUIRING ADDITIONAL DATA OR RESEARCH

There are several additional measures that have been suggested by stakeholders for 

monitoring use. However, these measures require additional efforts for data collection or 

further research to determine their potential uses for monitoring. They will be included in 

future RTP/SCS updates if additional data and research are completed.

3 Source: Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning, 

South Coast Air Quality Management District, May 6, 2005 4 Source: “Estimate of Premature Deaths Associated with Fine Particle Pollution (PM2.5) in California 

Using a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Methodology”, California Air Resources Board, 

August 31, 2010
20 Performance Measures

This measure requires additional effort in data collection: percent of residents within 1⁄2 

mile walk to parks and open space. This measure requires additional research: percent of 

households living with noise >65 decibels.

Productivity

The productivity outcome is a system efficiency measure that reflects the degree to 

which the transportation system performs during peak demand conditions. The productivity indicator is defined as the percent utilization during peak demand conditions.

For highways, productivity is particularly important because when we need capacity the 

most, we often get the lowest “production” from our system. On some corridors throughput can decline as much as 50 percent during peak periods, and most congested urban 

corridors typically lose 25 percent of their capacity during rush hour. This lost productivity is depicted in FIGURE 10, which shows how much vehicle throughput declines (i.e., 

productivity is lost) during rush hour.

FIGURE 10 Illustrative Highway Productivity Losses

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

14:0014:3015:0015:3016:0016:3017:0017:3018:0018:3019:0019:3020:0020:30

Flow Rate (VPHPL)

Speed

Time

Speed <35mph

Lost Productivity

Flow

Source: Caltrans Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMS) for Los Angeles I-5 southbound; postmile 11.54, Washington Blvd; 10/19/2011; vehicle detector station 716924.

FIGURE 11 summarizes the current estimate for productivity losses on the region’s freeway system and the expected improvements due to Plan investments. Maximizing the 

system’s productivity is a critical goal of this RTP, and the overall system management 

approach aims to recapture lost productivity. The incremental investment of $6.2 billion 

to implement advanced operational strategies on our freeways and arterials is projected 

to recapture 20 percent of the lost productivity. These projections are based on recent 

studies indicating that investments in ramp metering, arterial signal coordination, traveler 

information, and incident management can achieve such improvements and more.
Performance Measures 21

FIGURE 11 Highway System Productivity (Lost Lane-Miles)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2008 Base Year Plan 2035

AM Peak Period PM Peak Period

The Plan improves productivity by committing to investments in state highway operations discussed in Chapter 2 of the main RTP/SCS document. Transit productivity will 

also improve through increased ridership, which maximizes the number of seats occupied 

during peak demand conditions.

FIGURE 12 shows the percent of transit passenger miles traveled compared to the total 

number of seat miles provided.

FIGURE 12 Ratio of Transit Passenger Miles/Seat Miles

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Passenger Miles/Seat Miles

Imperial Los Angeles Orange Riverside

San Bernardino Ventura Regional Average

Environmental Quality

This outcome is measured in terms of ambient air quality. Ambient air quality monitoring 

is performed by the local air districts and the California Air Resource Board. The following 

are links to these agencies’ websites.

 California Air Resources Board: www.arb.ca.gov/html/ds.htm

 South Coast Air Quality Management District: www.aqmd.gov

 Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District: www.avaqmd.ca.gov

 Imperial County Air Pollution Control District: imperialcounty.net/AirPollution/

 Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District: www.mdaqmd.ca.gov

 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District: www.vcapcd.org/monitoring.htm
REGIONAL OFFICES

Imperial County

1405 North Imperial Avenue

Suite 1 

El Centro, CA 92243 

Phone: (760) 353-7800 

Fax: (760) 353-1877

Orange County

OCTA Building 

600 South Main Street

Suite 906 

Orange, CA 92863 

Phone: (714) 542-3687 

Fax: (714) 560-5089 

Riverside County

3403 10th Street

Suite 805 

Riverside, CA 92501 

Phone: (951) 784-1513 

Fax: (951) 784-3925

San Bernardino County

Santa Fe Depot 

1170 West 3rd Street

Suite 140 

San Bernardino, CA 92410 

Phone: (909) 806-3556 

Fax: (909) 806-3572

Ventura County

950 County Square Drive

Suite 101 

Ventura, CA 93003 

Phone: (805) 642-2800 

Fax: (805) 642-2260 

818 West 7th Street, 12th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90017 

Phone: (213) 236-1800 

Fax: (213) 236-1825

www.scag.ca.gov

please recycle 2347 2012.04.09