Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N R E S E A R C H B O A R D WASHINGTON, D.C. 2005 www.TRB.org NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP REPORT 535 Research Sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in Cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration SUBJECT AREAS Planning and Administration â¢ Energy and Environment â¢ Highway and Facility Design Predicting Air Quality Effects of Traffic-Flow Improvements: Final Report and Userâs Guide RICHARD DOWLING Dowling Associates Oakland, CA ROBERT IRESON Greenbrae, CA ALEXANDER SKABARDONIS Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA DAVID GILLEN Sauder School of Business University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada PETER STOPHER Institute of Transport Studies University of Sydney Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective approach to the solution of many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Boardâs recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. The needs for highway research are many, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway research programs. Note: The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the individual states participating in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturersâ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America NCHRP REPORT 535 Project 25-21 FYâ99 ISSN 0077-5614 ISBN 0309088194 Library of Congress Control Number 2004117941 Â© 2005 Transportation Research Board Price $28.00 NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing Boardâs judgment that the program concerned is of national importance and appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and, while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical committee, they are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical committee according to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol- ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni- cal matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Acad- emy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academyâs purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad- emy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Boardâs mission is to promote innovation and progress in transportation through research. In an objective and interdisciplinary setting, the Board facilitates the sharing of information on transportation practice and policy by researchers and practitioners; stimulates research and offers research management services that promote technical excellence; provides expert advice on transportation policy and programs; and disseminates research results broadly and encourages their implementation. The Boardâs varied activities annually engage more than 5,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Proj- ect 25-21 by Dowling Associates, Inc., in Oakland, California. Dr. Richard G. Dowling, Principal, was the principal investigator. The other authors of this report are Dr. Robert Ireson, a self-employed consultant; Dr. Alexander Skabardonis, Adjunct Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley; Dr. David Gillen, YVR Professor of Transportation Policy at Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia; and Dr. Peter Stopher, Professor of Transport Planning at the Institute of Transport Studies at the University of Sydney, Australia. In the final report, Dr. Stopher prepared major portions of Chap- ter 2, âThe Impacts of Traffic Improvements on Emissions.â Ms. Gail Payne prepared Section 3.3, âModeling Non-Motorized Travel,â and Section 3.4, âModeling Truck Traffic.â Dr. David Gillen prepared the majority of Chapter 6, âLand Use Models.â Dr. Alexander Skabardonis prepared major portions of Chapter 8, âTraffic Operations Models.â Dr. Robert Ireson prepared the major- ity of Chapter 9, âMobile Emission Models.â The following research team members provided advice and review at key stages of the research: Dr. Alan Horowitz, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Dr. John Bowman, Massachusetts Insti- tute of Technology; Dr. Elizabeth Deakin, University of California, Berkeley; and Mr. Robert Dulla, Sierra Research. COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 535 ROBERT J. REILLY, Director, Cooperative Research Programs CRAWFORD F. JENCKS, NCHRP Manager MARTINE MICOZZI, Senior Program Officer EILEEN P. DELANEY, Director of Publications BETH HATCH, Assistant Editor KRISTIN SAWYER, Contract Editor NCHRP PROJECT 25-21 PANEL Field of Transportation PlanningâArea of Impact Analysis EDWARD A. MIERZEJEWSKI, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL (Chair) MARK LOMBARD, AASHTO Monitor LAWRENCE W. BLAIN, Puget Sound Regional Council, Seattle, WA RONALD COLLETTE, Quebec Ministry of Transportation, Montreal, Quebec, Canada KAREN HEIDEL, Tucson, AZ ROBERT B. NOLAND, Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine, London, United Kingdom MARION R. POOLE, Raleigh, NC E. JAN SKOUBY, Missouri DOT DOUGLAS R. THOMPSON, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA CECILIA HO, FHWA Liaison Representative KIMBERLY FISHER, TRB Liaison Representative
This report contains a userâs guide and case studies, providing a recommended methodology to predict the long- and short-term mobile source emission impacts of traffic-flow improvement projects. Guidance is provided to evaluate the magnitude, scale, and duration of such impacts for a variety of representative urbanized areas. The report is based on an in-depth exploration of methodologies used to estimate the impacts of traffic-flow improvement projects on mobile source emissions. It eval- uates varying strategic approaches used to develop such methodologies, reviews advanced methodologies used by leading metropolitan planning agencies, and offers suggestions to improve conventional travel models. With major metropolitan areas striving to meet increasing travel demand while improving mobility and maintaining conformity with air quality regulations, this report offers guidance of special interest to metropolitan planning agencies, transportation engineers, urban designers, and public officials and policymakers. The report offers analysts considering a proposed traffic-flow improvement a com- prehensive methodology composed of five modules to assess potential impacts on air quality. The analysis of the effects of traffic-flow improvements on mobile source emis- sions focuses on four areas: operational improvements, travel time savings impacting traveler behavior, travel time savings increasing total demand for travel, and travel time savings stimulating growth and new development in specific areas within the metro- politan region. This report, prepared by Dowling Associates, features a sound methodology that was created, applied, and tested in a dozen case studies. This methodology improves the prediction model for assessing impacts of corridor-level transportation projects and provides an effective tool for estimating the range of impacts possible when traffic-flow improvements are considered in metropolitan areas. FOREWORD By Martine Micozzi Staff Officer Transportation Research Board
FINAL REPORT 1 SUMMARY 3 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 Organization of this Report, 3 1.2 Summary of Problem Being Researched, 3 1.3 Objectives of the Research, 4 1.4 Overview of the Work Plan, 4 5 CHAPTER 2 The Impacts of Traffic Improvements on Emissions 2.1 Problem Statement, 5 2.2 Relationship Between Traffic-Flow Improvements and Emissions, 11 2.3 Empirical Studies of the Impact of Highway Improvements on Travel Demand, 11 2.4 Behavioral Studies of the Impact of Travel Time on Travel Demand, 16 2.5 Studies of the Urban Form Impacts of Transportation Improvements, 18 2.6 Examples of the Impacts of Traffic-Flow Improvements on Emissions, 19 2.7 Conclusion, 21 24 CHAPTER 3 State of the Practice 3.1 Review of Conventional Practice, 24 3.2 Critique of Conventional Practice, 29 3.3 Modeling Nonmotorized Travel, 31 3.4 Modeling Truck Traffic, 32 3.5 NCHRP Project 8-33 Recommendations for Improved Procedures, 34 3.6 Environmental Protection Agency Analysis, 35 37 CHAPTER 4 Available Methodologies 4.1 Typology, 37 4.2 Overview of Available Methods, 37 41 CHAPTER 5 Sketch-Planning Approaches 5.1 HERS, 41 5.2 Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes Interim Handbook, TCRP Project B-12, 41 5.3 SPASM, SMITE, and Other Sketch-Planning Tools, 42 5.4 Sketch-Planning Postprocessors, 42 5.5 Assessment, 43 44 CHAPTER 6 Land-Use Models 6.1 Integrated Land-Use and Transportation Models, 45 6.2 The Highway Land-Use Forecasting Model, 47 6.3 The UrbanSim Model, 48 6.4 The Ideal Model, 51 6.5 Model Review, 52 6.6 Assessment, 54 6.7 Summary and Recommendations: Land-Use Models, 60 6.8 Demographics: A Brief Discussion, 63 66 CHAPTER 7 Travel Demand Models 7.1 TRANSIMS, 66 7.2 Portland Tour-Based Model, 66 7.3 The STEP Model, 70 7.4 Assessment, 75 76 CHAPTER 8 Traffic Operation Models 8.1 The BPR Equation, 76 8.2 Highway Capacity Manual, 76 8.3 Planning Model to HCM Link, 77 8.4 Microsimulation Models, 79 8.5 Linkages Between the Planning Model and the Microsimulation, 84 8.6 Assessment of Methods for Estimating Modal Activity, 85 8.7 Conclusions, 89 CONTENTS
90 CHAPTER 9 Mobile Emission Models 9.1 BackgroundâVehicle Emission Processes, 90 9.2 MOBILE6, 92 9.3 The MOVES Model, 92 9.4 The MEASURE Model, 92 9.5 The NCHRP 25-11 Modal Emission Model, 93 9.6 The NCHRP 25-6 Intersection CO Emission Model, 95 9.7 The NCHRP 25-14 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emission Model, 96 9.8 Assessment, 96 97 CHAPTER 10 Strategic Approach to Methodology 10.1 Project Objective and Requirements for Methodology, 97 10.2 Methodology Evaluation Criteria, 97 10.3 Evaluation of Current Practice Against NCHRP 25-21 Objectives, 98 10.4 Evaluation of Strategic Approaches, 98 10.5 Macroscopic Sketch-Planning Approach, 98 10.6 Mesoscopic Conventional Model Approach, 100 10.7 Microscopic Approach, 102 10.8 A Blended Microscopic/Mesoscopic Approach, 102 103 CHAPTER 11 Recommended Methodology 11.1 Research Objectives for Methodology, 103 11.2 Theoretical Foundation, 103 11.3 Outline of Methodology, 104 11.4 HCM Assignment Module, 106 11.5 Traveler Behavior Response Module, 106 11.6 Growth Redistribution Module, 107 11.7 Vehicle Modal Activity Module, 107 11.8 Vehicle Emission Module, 107 109 CHAPTER 12 Derivation of HCM Assignment Module 12.1 HCM/Akcelik Speed-Flow Equation, 109 12.2 Free-Flow Speeds, 111 12.3 Capacities, 112 12.4 Signal Data Required by HCM/Akcelik, 113 12.5 Constraining Demand Downstream of Bottlenecks, 114 116 CHAPTER 13 Derivation of Travel Behavior Response Module 13.1 Overview of Portland Tour-Based Model, 116 13.2 Microsimulation Model Implementation, 116 13.3 Derivation of Elasticities, 121 13.4 Final Elasticities, 125 126 CHAPTER 14 Derivation of Growth Redistribution Module 14.1 Module Description, 126 14.2 Module Application, 127 14.3 Equilibration, 128 130 CHAPTER 15 Derivation of Modal Activity Module 15.1 Methodology Development, 130 15.2 Modal Operations Tables, 132 141 CHAPTER 16 Derivation of Vehicle Emission Module 16.1 Overview of Emission Estimation Methodology, 141 16.2 Estimation of Start Exhaust Emissions, 142 16.3 Estimation of Running Exhaust Emissions, 143 16.4 Estimation of Off-Cycle Emissions, 143 16.5 Estimation of Running Evaporative Emissions, 143 16.6 Estimation of Hot Soak, Diurnal, and Resting Evaporative Emissions, 143 16.7 Estimation of Fuel-Dependent Emissions, 144 16.8 Estimation of PM10 Emissions, 144 16.9 Estimation of Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions, 144 16.10 Final VHT-Based Emission Rates, 144 16.11 Treatment of Emission Rate Updates, 144
149 CHAPTER 17 Validation of Methodology 17.1 Validation Objectives, 149 17.2 Evaluation Against Expectations for Facility-Specific Impacts, 149 17.3 Evaluation Against Prior Studies of Systemwide Elasticities, 151 17.4 Conclusions, 154 155 CHAPTER 18 Conclusions and Recommendations 18.1 Overview of the NCHRP 25-21 Methodology, 155 18.2 Exclusions from the NCHRP 25-21 Methodology, 155 18.3 Accomplishment of NCHRP 25-21 Methodology Objectives, 156 18.4 Validation of the NCHRP 25-21 Methodology, 156 18.5 Case Study Results, 157 18.6 Implementation Plan, 157 159 REFERENCES 164 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS USERâS GUIDE 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 Objectives of the NCHRP 25-21 Methodology, 1 1.2 Organization of Userâs Guide, 1 2 CHAPTER 2 The Methodology 2.1 Theoretical Foundation, 2 2.2 Outline of the Methodology, 3 2.3 HCM Assignment Module, 4 2.4 Traveler Behavior Response Module, 5 2.5 Growth Redistribution Module, 5 2.6 Vehicle Modal Activity Module, 6 2.7 Vehicle Emission Module, 6 7 CHAPTER 3 The HCM Assignment Module 3.1 Free-Flow Speeds, 7 3.2 Capacities, 7 3.3 HCM/Akcelik Speed-Flow Equation, 8 3.4 Signal Data Required by HCM/Akcelik, 10 12 CHAPTER 4 The Travel Behavior Response Module 4.1 Overview of the Portland Tour-Based Model, 12 4.2 Derivation of Elasticities, 12 4.3 Elasticities, 14 4.4 Alternate Methods for Deriving Elasticities, 14 16 CHAPTER 5 The Growth Redistribution Module 5.1 Module Description, 16 5.2 Module Application, 17 19 CHAPTER 6 The Modal Activity Module 6.1 Methodology Development, 19 6.2 Methodology Application, 19 24 CHAPTER 7 The Vehicle Emission Module 7.1 Methodology Development, 24 7.2 Methodology Application, 24 7.3 Nontechnology Updates to Vehicle Emission Module, 24 7.4 Technology Updates to Vehicle Emission Module, 25 7.5 Additions to Vehicle Emission Module, 25 28 CHAPTER 8 Base Case 8.1 Input, 28 8.2 Application of the HCM Assignment Module to the PSRC Data Set, 28 33 CHAPTER 9 Case Study 1: Add Freeway LaneâRural 9.1 Application, 33 9.2 Case Study Results, 33
36 CHAPTER 10 Case Study 2: Close Freeway LaneâUrban 10.1 Application, 36 10.2 Case Study Results, 36 39 CHAPTER 11 Case Study 3a: Remove Freeway HOV Lane 11.1 Application, 39 11.2 Case Study Results, 39 42 CHAPTER 12 Case Study 3b: Remove Freeway HOV Lane 12.1 Application, 42 12.2 Case Study Results, 42 45 CHAPTER 13 Case Study 4: Narrow Street 13.1 Application, 45 13.2 Case Study Results, 45 48 CHAPTER 14 Case Study 5: Access Management 14.1 Application, 48 14.2 Case Study Results, 48 51 CHAPTER 15 Case Study 6: Intersection Channelization 15.1 Application, 51 15.2 Case Study Results, 51 54 CHAPTER 16 Case Study 7: Signal Coordination 16.1 Application, 54 16.2 Case Study Results, 54 57 CHAPTER 17 Case Study 8: Transit Improvement 17.1 Application, 57 17.2 Case Study Results, 57 59 CHAPTER 18 Case Study 9: Remove Park-and-Ride Lot 18.1 Application, 59 18.2 Case Study Results, 59 61 CHAPTER 19 Case Study 10: Long-Range Regional Transportation Plan 19.1 Application, 61 19.2 Results of PSRC Model Runs, 61 19.3 NCHRP 25-21 Methodology Results, 61