Incorporating Reliability Performance Measures into the Transportation Planning and Programming Processes: Technical Reference (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.

Incorporating Reliability Performance Measures into the Transportation Planning and Programming Processes Technical Reference S2-L05-RR-3 Incorporating R eliability P erform ance M easures into the Transportation P lanning and P rogram m ing P rocesses S H R P 2 TR B

THE SECOND STRATEGIC HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Anita Vandervalk Hugh Louch Joseph Guerre Rich Margiotta TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD Washington, D.C. 2014 www.TRB.org Incorporating Reliability Performance Measures into the Transportation Planning and Programming Processes: Technical Reference SHRP 2 Report S2-L05-RR-3

SUBSCRIBER CATEGORIES Highways Operations and Traffic Management Planning and Forecasting

THE SECOND STRATEGIC HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM America’s highway system is critical to meeting the mobility and economic needs of local communities, regions, and the nation. Developments in research and technology—such as advanced materials, communications technology, new data collection technologies, and human factors science—offer a new opportunity to improve the safety and reliability of this important national resource. Breakthrough resolution of significant transportation problems, however, requires concentrated resources over a short time frame. Reflecting this need, the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) has an intense, large-scale focus, integrates mul- tiple fields of research and technology, and is fundamentally different from the broad, mission-oriented, discipline-based research programs that have been the mainstay of the high- way research industry for half a century. The need for SHRP 2 was identified in TRB Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, pub- lished in 2001 and based on a study sponsored by Congress through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). SHRP 2, modeled after the first Strategic High- way Research Program, is a focused, time-constrained, management-driven program designed to complement existing highway research programs. SHRP 2 focuses on applied research in four areas: Safety, to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes by understanding driver behavior; Renewal, to address the aging infrastructure through rapid design and construction methods that cause minimal disruptions and produce lasting facilities; Reli- ability, to reduce congestion through incident reduction, management, response, and mitigation; and Capacity, to integrate mobility, economic, environmental, and commu- nity needs in the planning and designing of new transporta- tion capacity. SHRP 2 was authorized in August 2005 as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The pro- gram is managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) on behalf of the National Research Council (NRC). SHRP 2 is conducted under a memorandum of understand- ing among the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the National Academy of Sci- ences, parent organization of TRB and NRC. The program provides for competitive, merit-based selection of research contractors; independent research project oversight; and dissemination of research results. SHRP 2 Report S2-L05-RR-3 ISBN: 978-0-309-27319-0 Library of Congress Control Number: 2014946506 © 2014 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from pub- lishers 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 educa- tional and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate ac- knowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from SHRP 2. Note: SHRP 2 report numbers convey the program, focus area, project number, and publication format. Report num- bers ending in “w” are published as web documents only. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report 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 members of the technical committee selected to moni- tor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical commit- tee and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the Na- tional Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the re- search and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the pro- gram sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Acad- emies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the second Strategic Highway Research Program do not en- dorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered es- sential to the object of the report. SHRP 2 REPORTS Available by subscription and through the TRB online bookstore: www.TRB.org/bookstore Contact the TRB Business Office: 202.334.3213 More information about SHRP 2: www.TRB.org/SHRP2

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. 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 advis- ing 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. C. D. 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 ser- vices 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 Academy’s 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 Sci- ences 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. 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, interdis- ciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s 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 transpor- tation 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

SHRP 2 STAFF Ann M. Brach, Director Stephen J. Andrle, Deputy Director Neil J. Pedersen, Deputy Director, Implementation and Communications Cynthia Allen, Editor Kenneth Campbell, Chief Program Officer, Safety JoAnn Coleman, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity and Reliability Eduardo Cusicanqui, Financial Officer Richard Deering, Special Consultant, Safety Data Phase 1 Planning Shantia Douglas, Senior Financial Assistant Charles Fay, Senior Program Officer, Safety Carol Ford, Senior Program Assistant, Renewal and Safety James Hedlund, Special Consultant, Safety Coordination Alyssa Hernandez, Reports Coordinator Ralph Hessian, Special Consultant, Capacity and Reliability Andy Horosko, Special Consultant, Safety Field Data Collection William Hyman, Senior Program Officer, Reliability Linda Mason, Communications Officer Matthew Miller, Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability David Plazak, Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Rachel Taylor, Senior Editorial Assistant Dean Trackman, Managing Editor Connie Woldu, Administrative Coordinator

vii This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It was con- ducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), which is admin- istered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. The project was managed by William Hyman, Senior Program Officer for SHRP 2 Reliability. The authors would like to acknowledge the many useful contributions of the project panel. The authors would also like to acknowledge the contributions of staff at several transportation agencies that supported the research by providing data and information for several case studies, including the Knoxville Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Washington State Department of Transportation, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, the Colorado Department of Transpor- tation, and the Denver Regional Council of Governments. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., supported by Texas A&M Transportation Institute, Sharp & Company, Inc., PB Americas, and Arun Chatterjee, performed the research reported. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ix FOREWORD Virtually all transportation agencies today have a strong customer orientation. An important concern of road users is congestion that is both recurring and nonrecurring. Recurring congestion is periodic in nature, such as rush hour or holiday travel. Non- recurring congestion is unexpected and is due to crashes, weather, unfamiliar work zones, special events, failure of traffic control devices, surges in demand, and the inter- action of inadequate base capacity with these factors. All these sources of congestion affect travel time reliability. Just in the past decade or two, agencies have begun to col- lect data and measure reliability; in other words, they are measuring how travel time varies over time. A critical question is how agencies should use their limited funds to achieve more cost-effective outcomes, such as improved congestion, and consequently reduce delay and less-reliable travel times. A related, critical question is, can greater collaboration both within and outside their agencies result in better programs and projects that achieve agency objectives, including improving travel time reliability? With the enactment of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), state and metropolitan transportation agencies must adopt performance-based planning and programming that embraces measures and targets for travel time reliability along with safety, infrastructure condition, congestion reduction, sustain- ability, freight movement and economic vitality, and reduced project delivery delays. Performance-based planning and programming is expected to strengthen how to address future highway and other transportation needs, obtain better results, provide a feedback mechanism for assessing progress, and provide a framework for undertaking expenditure decisions, including, in particular, steering resources toward improving an agency’s performance. Over many decades transportation decision making has become increasingly chal- lenging and complex for reasons ranging from technological change to growing envi- ronmental concerns. Erosion in gas tax revenues has exacerbated the problem. Many William Hyman Senior Program Officer for SHRP 2 Reliability

xINCORPORATING RELIABILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES INTO THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING PROCESSES: TECHNICAL REFERENCE transportation agencies continue to emphasize major highway construction, either new construction or large reconstruction projects. Other transportation agencies give the highest priority to maintaining the transportation system they now have, both its physical condition and operational functionality. Whatever their posture and priorities, transportation agencies will need to carry out their work within the context of MAP-21. To do this will often require revised policy, more foresight, organizational change, and a willingness to determine the best use of money, to the extent that laws and regulations allow, across stovepipes as opposed to sticking with customary divisions of resources. Also, agencies will need a process for allocating their limited funds across the huge number of competing demands on the transportation network. It will be imperative to identify and illuminate for all key stakeholders trade-offs among the key goal areas, including those of MAP-21, as well as to account for ben- efits that should be monetized. The categories of benefits that have been monetized and compared to costs have historically consisted of avoidable accidents, avoidable vehicle operating costs, avoidable travel time, and sometimes avoidable emissions. As a result of research from many parts of the world, including SHRP 2 in the United States, it appears that drivers on many types of trips value improvements equal to a substantial fraction of improvements in average travel time. It is likely that improvements in travel time reliability will increasingly be included among the benefits expressed in terms of money. While the benefits of all types of improvements, including major projects, will increase, overall operational improvements will be more cost-effective. SHRP 2 Reliability Project L05, Incorporating Reliability Performance Measures into the Transportation Planning and Programming Processes, has resulted in a report, a guide, a technical reference, case studies, and some simple spreadsheets. The report reviews domestic and international literature describing current research and state of the practice in using travel time reliability in transportation planning; summa- rizes case studies from agencies working to incorporate reliability into their transpor- tation planning processes; summarizes travel time reliability performance measures, strategies for improving travel time reliability, and tools available for measuring the impacts strategies have on travel time reliability; and describes the framework for incorporating reliability performance into transportation planning processes. The guide is an easy-to-read explanation aimed at managers and others regarding how to incorporate travel time reliability into planning and programming through a collaborative process. The guide introduces the concept of travel time reliability, iden- tifies various reliability measures, explains how to incorporate reliability into policy statements, describes how to evaluate reliability needs and deficiencies, and, finally, offers suggestions on how to incorporate reliability measures into program and project investment decisions. This technical reference amplifies the information in the guide and is aimed at analysts. Highlights include tools and methods for estimating reliability suitable for planning, steps for conducting a reliability analysis, incorporating reliability into benefit–cost analysis, and improving an agency’s planning and programming capability.

xi INCORPORATING RELIABILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES INTO THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING PROCESSES: TECHNICAL REFERENCE If an agency can climb the ladder to higher levels of organizational capability and maturity, operations is then likely to be treated in an even-handed manner alongside construction, maintenance, safety, and other modes. A third document available as a part of the L05 research consists of a series of case studies. Generally, the case studies were intended to expose a slice of the process for incorporating reliability into planning and programming. Together, the case studies help paint a picture of much of the entire process and serve to validate portions of the material in the guide and the technical reference. The researchers prepared a number of relatively simple spreadsheets for several of the case studies. These spreadsheets are instructive regarding how to incorporate reli- ability in sketch-planning methods.

xiii CONTENTS 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 5 CHAPTER 2 Overview of Travel Time Reliability 5 2.1 How Is Reliability Defined? 8 2.2 How Can Reliability Be Measured? 13 2.3 Why Is Measuring Reliability Important? 15 2.4 Strategies for Improving Reliability 17 2.5 How to Incorporate Reliability into a Benefit–Cost Analysis 18 2.6 References 19 CHAPTER 3 Description of Tools and Methods for Estimating Reliability 20 3.1 Summary of Analysis Tools and Methods 24 3.2 Sketch-Planning Methods 27 3.3 Model Post-Processing Tools and Methods 32 3.4 Simulation or Multiresolution Methods 37 3.5 Monitoring and Management Tools and Methods 44 3.6 Leveraging Other SHRP 2 Reliability Projects and Products 48 3.7 References 49 CHAPTER 4 Tool and Method Selection Process 51 4.1 Step 1. Plan Reliability Analysis 52 4.2 Step 2. Filter by Input Requirements

xiv 54 4.3 Step 3. Identify Resource Availability 55 4.4 Step 4. Apply Scoring Mechanism 59 4.5 Step 5. Review and Reality Check 61 4.6 Reference 63 CHAPTER 5 Conducting a Reliability Analysis 64 5.1 Applying Sketch-Planning Methods 75 5.2 Applying Post-Processing Methods 79 5.3 Applying Simulation Methods 84 5.4 Applying Monitoring and Management Tools and Methods 89 5.5 Developing Multiscenario Alternatives 92 5.6 References 93 CHAPTER 6 Benefit–Cost Analysis 95 6.1 Application to Sketch-Planning Methods 96 6.2 Application to Model Post-Processing Methods 96 6.3 Application to Simulation Methods 96 6.4 Application to Monitoring and Management Tools and Methods 96 6.5 Case Study: Knoxville Applies Benefit–Cost Analysis to Sketch-Planning Results 97 6.6 Case Study: Southeast Michigan Council of Governments’ Use of Representative Corridors to Estimate Regionwide Delay 100 6.7 Reference 101 CHAPTER 7 Improving Planning and Programming Capability 102 7.1 Characteristics of TSM&O 102 7.2 SHRP 2 Research 103 7.3 Limits of the Conventional Regional Planning Process 104 7.4 Learning from Best Practice Examples 104 7.5 Capability Improvement Framework 105 7.6 Key Dimensions of Capability 105 7.7 Levels of Capability 106 7.8 Basic Capability Improvement Framework Guidance Template for TSM&O Planning 106 7.9 Prioritizing Rules of Capability Improvement 108 7.10 Dimension-Specific Strategies for Capability Improvement 108 7.11 Applying the Guidance

xv 109 APPENDIX A Additional Resources 125 APPENDIX B Trends in Reliability 131 APPENDIX C IDAS Travel Time Reliability Rates 137 APPENDIX D Benefits and Costs of Full Operations and ITS Deployment: Technical Appendix 151 APPENDIX E Data Collection Methods 161 APPENDIX F U.S. DOT Guidance on Performance Measures 171 APPENDIX G Guidance To Improve TSM&O Planning and Programming Capability Online version of this report: www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/168856.aspx.