Incorporating Reliability Performance Measures into the Transportation Planning and Programming Processes (2013)

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.

The Second S T R A T E G I C H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2014 www.TRB.org REPORT S2-L05-RW-1 Incorporating Reliability Performance Measures into the Transportation Planning and Programming Processes Cambridge SyStematiCS, inC.

Subject Areas Highways Operations and Traffic Management Planning and Forecasting

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 SHRP 2 Report S2-L05-RW-1 ISBN: 978-0-309-27315-2 © 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 publishers or persons who own the copy- right to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to repro- duce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Per- mission 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. Note: SHRP 2 report numbers convey the program, focus area, project number, and publication format. Report numbers 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 monitor 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 committee and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. 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 manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. 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 oppor- tunity to improve the safety and reliability of this important national resource. Breakthrough resolution of significant trans- portation 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 multiple 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 highway 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, published 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 Highway Research Program, is a focused, time- constrained, management-driven program designed to com- plement 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; Reliability, to reduce congestion through incident reduction, management, response, and miti- gation; and Capacity, to integrate mobility, economic, environ- mental, and community needs in the planning and designing of new transportation 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 program is managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) on behalf of the National Research Council (NRC). SHRP 2 is conducted under a memorandum of understanding among the American Associa- tion of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the National Academy of Sciences, 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.

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 achieve- ments 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, on 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 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, interdisci- plinary, 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 transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transporta- tion, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It was conducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program, which is administered 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 members. The authors would also like to acknowledge the contributions of staff at several transportation agencies who sup- ported the research by providing data and information for several case studies, including the Knoxville Metro- politan Planning Organization, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Washington State Department of Transportation, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority, the Southeast Michigan Council of Gov- ernments, the Colorado Department of Transportation, and the Denver Regional Council of Governments. 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 Jo Allen Gause, Senior Program Officer, Capacity 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 Reena Mathews, Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Matthew Miller, Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Michael Miller, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity and Reliability David Plazak, Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Rachel Taylor, Senior Editorial Assistant Dean Trackman, Managing Editor Connie Woldu, Administrative Coordinator

F O R EWO R D William Hyman, SHRP 2 Senior Program Officer, Reliability The objective of Project L05, Incorporating Reliability Performance Measures into the Trans- portation Planning and Programming Processes, was to provide guidance to transportation planning agencies about how to incorporate reliability into the transportation planning, programming, and budgeting processes. This report reviews domestic and international literature describing current research and state of the practice in using travel time reliability in transportation planning; summarizes case studies from agencies working to incorporate reliability into their transportation 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. Virtually all transportation agencies 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. Nonrecurring congestion is unexpected and is due to crashes, weather, unfamiliar work zones, special events, failure of traffic control devices, surges in demand, and the interaction of inadequate base capacity with these factors. All these sources of congestion affect travel time reliability. In the past decade or two, agencies have begun to collect 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 program- ming that embraces measures and targets for travel time reliability along with safety, infra- structure condition, congestion reduction, sustainability, freight movement and economic vitality, and reduced project delivery delays. Performance-based planning and program- ming is expected to address future highway and other transportation needs and how to obtain better results, provide a feedback mechanism for assessing progress, and provide a framework for undertaking expenditure decisions—in particular, steering resources toward improving an agency’s performance. Over many decades transportation decision making has become increasingly challenging and complex for reasons ranging from technological change to growing environmental con- cerns. Erosion in gas tax revenues has exacerbated the problem. Many transportation agencies continue to emphasize major highway construction, either new construction or large recon- struction 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 benefits 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, avoid- able 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 aver- age 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 Project L05 has resulted not only in a report but also in a guide; a technical ref- erence; a case study report; and three spreadsheets. The guide is an easy-to-read explanation aimed at managers and others about how to incorporate travel time reliability into planning and programming through a collaborative process. The guide introduces the concept of travel time reliability, identifies various reliability measures, explains how to incorporate reliability in 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. The technical reference amplifies the information in the guide and is aimed at analysts. Highlights include tools and methods for estimating reliability suitable for planning, con- ducting a reliability analysis, incorporating reliability into benefit-cost analysis, and improv- ing an agency’s planning and programming capability. 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. The L05 case study report is actually a series of case studies from the L05 research. The case studies depict much of the process for incorporating reliability into planning and program- ming and also serve to validate portions of the material in the guide and in the technical reference. The L05 researchers also prepared three simple spreadsheets for several of the case studies. These spreadsheets are instructive regarding how to incorporate reliability into sketch planning methods.

C O N T E N T S 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1 Literature Review 2 State of the Practice 2 Validation Case Studies 3 Reliability Measures and Strategies 3 Framework for Incorporating Reliability into Planning and Programming 4 Reference 5 CHAPTER 2 Literature Review 5 Travelers Value Travel Time Reliability 6 Planning for Reliability 15 Measuring Reliability 19 Freight Reliability 20 Estimating and Forecasting Reliability 23 Summary 25 References 28 CHAPTER 3 State of the Practice 28 Approach 28 Findings 35 CHAPTER 4 Validation Case Studies 35 Approach 35 Selection Criteria 36 Case Studies 41 CHAPTER 5 Summary of Technical Reference 43 CHAPTER 6 Incorporating Reliability into Planning and Programming 43 Framework for Incorporating Reliability into Planning and Programming 49 Reference 50 Appendix A. State of the Practice Survey 50 Introduction 50 Questions 55 Appendix B. Incorporating Reliability into PlanWorks 55 How Institutions Help Incorporate Reliability 61 Long-Range Planning 67 Programming 71 Corridor Planning 76 Congestion Management Process 80 Operations Planning