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.
SHRP 2 Reliability Project L38A Pilot Testing of SHRP 2 Reliability Data and Analytical Products: Southern California
SHRP 2 Reliability Project L38A Pilot Testing of SHRP 2 Reliability Data and Analytical Products: Southern California Chris Williges, Bill McCullough, and Yu Ying Chu System Metrics Group, Inc. San Francisco, California Naresh Amatya, Ryan Kuo, and Margaret Lin Southern California Association of Governments Los Angeles, California Lianyu Chu CLR Analytics Inc. Irvine, California TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD Washington, D.C. 2015 www.TRB.org
© 2015 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Acknowledgments This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in cooperation with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). It was conducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. This project was managed by William A. Hyman, Senior Program Officer for SHRP 2, Reliability. The research described in this report was performed by System Metrics Group, Inc. (SMG), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and CLR Analytics, Inc. (CLR). Chris Williges, System Metrics Group, was the principal investigator. Other authors of this report are Bill McCullough and Yu Ying Chu of SMG, Naresh Amatya, Ryan Kuo, and Margaret Lin of SCAG, and Lianyu Chu of CLR. The authors acknowledge the contributions to the research from Tarek Hatata and Anthony Conti of SMG, as well as Guanqi Liu of CLR.COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, or FHWA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing material in this document for educational and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from SHRP 2. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this document was a part of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the second Strategic 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 the report.
DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this document are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the authors. This material has not been edited by the Transportation Research Board. SPECIAL NOTE: This document IS NOT an official publication of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the National Academies.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars 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 Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy 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 achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., 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, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau 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 Academy, 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 Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C.D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Boardâs varied activities annually engage about 7,000 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
Contents 1 Executive Summary 16 CHAPTER 1 Background 16 1.1 Introduction 17 1.2 Southern California Pilot Site 20 1.3 Organization of the Report 22 CHAPTER 2 Research Approach 25 CHAPTER 3 Selection and Description of Test Facilities 25 3.1 Selection of Facilities 27 3.2 Final Test Facilities 42 CHAPTER 4 Data Compilation and Analysis of Existing Conditions 42 4.1 Introduction 42 4.2 Overview of the L02 Guide 43 4.3 Evaluation of the L02 Guide 44 4.4 Average Route Travel Times Based on Infrastructure Sensor Data 54 4.5 See What Factors Affect Reliability (AE1) 68 4.6 Assess the Contributions of the Factors (AE2) 70 CHAPTER 5 C11 Reliability Analysis Tool 70 5.1 Overview of the C11 Reliability Analysis Tool 71 5.2 Limitations of the C11 Reliability Analysis Tool 76 5.3 Baseline Condition Estimation of the C11 Reliability Analysis Tool 80 5.4 Results of the I-5 Scenario Testing 91 5.5 Results of the I-210 Scenario Testing 100 CHAPTER 6 L07 Analysis Tool 100 6.1 Overview of the L07 Analysis Tool 101 6.2 Limitations of the L07 Analysis Tool 110 6.3 Baseline Condition Estimation of the L07 Analysis Tool 113 6.4 Results of the I-5 Scenario Testing 120 6.5 Results of the I-210 Scenario Testing 132 CHAPTER 7 L08: FREEVAL-RL 132 7.1 Overview of FREEVAL-RL
132 7.2 Limitations of FREEVAL-RL 138 7.3 Base Model Development 142 7.4 Model Calibration 148 7.5 Scenario Testing 174 CHAPTER 8 Benefit-Cost Findings 174 8.1 Use of the C11 Tool 176 8.2 Procedure for Estimating Reliability Benefits 180 8.3 Benefit-Cost Results 187 8.4 Implications for Decision Making 189 CHAPTER 9 Functionality Assessment and Research Outcome 190 9.1 Technical Feasibility of Products 194 9.2 Decision Maker Perceptions 196 9.3 Impacts on Decision Making 197 CHAPTER 10 Conclusions and Suggested Research 197 10.1 Conclusions 200 10.2 Suggested Research 201 REFERENCES
