Pilot Testing of SHRP 2 Reliability Data and Analytical Products: Southern California (2014)

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.

L07 and C11 provide methods for estimating the value of the travel time reliability benefits, but they differ in the performance measures used to estimate the value of benefits. If FREEVAL-RL is to include a value for travel time reliability benefits, it will need to adopt one of these two methods. Clearly, the process could benefit from standardization in the measures used to identify reliability problems, test solutions, and calculate user benefits. 10.2 Suggested Research SHRP 2 implementation should involve testing of the SHRP 2 tools at additional pilot sites after the tools are modified to address the quick fixes suggested by the four pilot sites. The Southern California pilot site developed a 30 percent rule to estimate reliability benefits. This rule is based on a limited number of observations. A useful test would be to see if this rule holds true across different pilot sites and for different types of projects. Additional pilot sites could also test the various calibration methods proposed by the four pilot sites. Most of these calibration methods are a function of changing capacity. Further research could test whether similar capacity adjustments are warranted at other sites. The SHRP 2 tools are currently unable to test many of the common operational strategies used in Southern California. The SHRP 2 program could collect a list of operational strategies from the four pilot sites and conduct research on the impacts of these types of projects on travel time reliability following the approach adopted for L07. It is the opinion of the Southern California Pilot Study team that integrating reliability into decision making requires additional outreach, testing, and marketing. This project (L38A) has introduced the different products developed under SHRP 2 to two agencies for two corridors in Southern California, which is not likely enough to change the decision-making process in the region. The study should be extended to additional corridors and with additional outreach to staff and management from county transportation commissions. Doing so would leverage the momentum created so far with Caltrans and SCAG, extend the use of tools for more than two corridors, and help decision makers understand the ramifications of their investment decisions on reliability. 200

References Caltrans (2012). System Metrics Group, Inc., and CLR Analytics, Inc. Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP) Orange County I-5 Corridor. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation, Final Report, May 2012. Caltrans (2014). California Department of Transportation, Economic Analysis Branch. Life- Cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis Economic Parameters 2012. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/benefit_cost/ LCBCA-economic_parameters.html. Accessed January 26, 2014. Cambridge Systematics (2013). SHRP 2 Prepublication Draft L05: Guide to Incorporating Reliability Performance Measures into the Transportation Planning and Programming Processes. Unpublished report. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, March 2013. Cambridge Systematics et al. (2013a). Cambridge Systematics, Inc.; Weris, Inc.; and Economic Development Research Group, Inc. SHRP 2 C11: Reliability Analysis Tool: User’s Guide. Unpublished report, document represents Section 2.2 of SHRP 2 Final Report C11: Development of Tools for Assessing Wider Economic Benefits of Transportation. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, January 2013. Cambridge Systematics et al. (2013b). Cambridge Systematics, Inc.; Weris, Inc.; and Economic Development Research Group, Inc. SHRP 2 Project C11: Reliability Analysis Tool: Technical Documentation. Unpublished report, document represents Section 2.1 of SHRP 2 Final Report C11: Development of Tools for Assessing Wider Economic Benefits of Transportation. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, January 2013. ITRE (2013). Sajjadi, S., S. Aghdashi, N. Rouphail, A. Hajbabaie, and B. Schroeder (Institute for Transportation Research and Education). SHRP 2 Working Paper L08: User Guide for the Freeway Reliability Methodology Computational Engine. Unpublished report. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, March 18, 2013. ITRE and CMT (2011). Rouphail, N., and B. Schroeder (Institute for Transportation Research and Education) and B. Eads (Crawford, Murphy and Tilly). HCM2010 Chapter 10 Freeway Facilities User’s Guide to FREEVAL2010. Unpublished report. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, February 2011. ITRE et al. (2012). Institute for Transportation Research and Education; Iteris/Berkeley Transportation Systems, Inc.; Kittelson & Associates, Inc.; National Institute of Statistical Sciences; University of Utah; Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; J. Schofer (Northwestern University), and A. Khattak (Planitek). SHRP 2 Final Validated Guidebook L02: Establishing Monitoring Programs for Travel Time Reliability. 201

Unpublished report. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, September 10, 2012. MRIGlobal (2013a). SHRP 2 L07 Annotated Graphical User’s Guide: Analysis Tool for Design Treatments to Address Nonrecurrent Congestion. Unpublished report. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, April 2013. MRIGlobal (2013b). SHRP 2 Draft Final Report L07: Identification and Evaluation of the Cost- Effectiveness of Highway Design Features to Reduce Nonrecurrent Congestion. Unpublished report. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, April 2013. SCAG (2012). Southern California Association of Governments. 2013–2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy: Performance Measures Appendix. April 2012. SCAG and Caltrans (2010). Southern California Association of Governments and California Department of Transportation. Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP) Los Angeles I-210 Corridor. Final Report, September 2010. System Metrics Group (2012). California Life-Cycle Benefit/Cost Analysis Model (Cal-B/C), Technical Supplement to User’s Guide, Volume 3: Traffic Operations Consistency, Network and Corridor Analysis, New Capabilities, and Economic and Parameter Value Updates. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation, Revision 2, February 2012. TTI (2012). Schrank, D., B. Eisele, and T. Lomax (Texas A&M Transportation Institute). 2012 Urban Mobility Report. December 2012. 202