Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
NATIONAL NCHRP REPORT 535 COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Predicting Air Quality Effects of Traffic-Flow Improvements: Final Report and User's Guide

OCR for page R1
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2004 (Membership as of July 2004) OFFICERS Chair: Michael S. Townes, President and CEO, Hampton Roads Transit, Hampton, VA Vice Chair: Joseph H. Boardman, Commissioner, New York State DOT Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS MICHAEL W. BEHRENS, Executive Director, Texas DOT SARAH C. CAMPBELL, President, TransManagement, Inc., Washington, DC E. DEAN CARLSON, Director, Carlson Associates, Topeka, KS JOHN L. CRAIG, Director, Nebraska Department of Roads DOUGLAS G. DUNCAN, President and CEO, FedEx Freight, Memphis, TN GENEVIEVE GIULIANO, Director, Metrans Transportation Center and Professor, School of Policy, Planning, and Development, USC, Los Angeles BERNARD S. GROSECLOSE, JR., President and CEO, South Carolina State Ports Authority SUSAN HANSON, Landry University Professor of Geography, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University JAMES R. HERTWIG, President, CSX Intermodal, Jacksonville, FL GLORIA J. JEFF, Director, Michigan DOT ADIB K. KANAFANI, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley RONALD F. KIRBY, Director of Transportation Planning, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments HERBERT S. LEVINSON, Principal, Herbert S. Levinson Transportation Consultant, New Haven, CT SUE MCNEIL, Director, Urban Transportation Center and Professor, College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs and Department of Civil and Materials Engineering, University of Illinois, Chicago MICHAEL D. MEYER, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology CAROL A. MURRAY, Commissioner, New Hampshire DOT JOHN E. NJORD, Executive Director, Utah DOT DAVID PLAVIN, President, Airports Council International, Washington, DC JOHN H. REBENSDORF, Vice President, Network Planning and Operations, Union Pacific Railroad Co., Omaha, NE PHILIP A. SHUCET, Commissioner, Virginia DOT C. MICHAEL WALTON, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin LINDA S. WATSON, Executive Director, LYNX--Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Orlando, FL MARION C. BLAKEY, Federal Aviation Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio) SAMUEL G. BONASSO, Acting Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio) REBECCA M. BREWSTER, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA (ex officio) GEORGE BUGLIARELLO, Chancellor, Polytechnic University and Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering (ex officio) THOMAS H. COLLINS (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard (ex officio) JENNIFER L. DORN, Federal Transit Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio) EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads (ex officio) JOHN C. HORSLEY, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ex officio) RICK KOWALEWSKI, Deputy Director, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S.DOT (ex officio) WILLIAM W. MILLAR, President, American Public Transportation Association (ex officio) BETTY MONRO, Acting Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio) MARY E. PETERS, Federal Highway Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio) SUZANNE RUDZINSKI, Director, Transportation and Regional Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (ex officio) JEFFREY W. RUNGE, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio) ANNETTE M. SANDBERG, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio) WILLIAM G. SCHUBERT, Maritime Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio) JEFFREY N. SHANE, Under Secretary for Policy, U.S.DOT (ex officio) CARL A. STROCK (Maj. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ex officio) ROBERT A. VENEZIA, Program Manager of Public Health Applications, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (ex officio) NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Transportation Research Board Executive Committee Subcommittee for NCHRP MICHAEL S. TOWNES, Hampton Roads Transit, Hampton, VA JOHN C. HORSLEY, American Association of State Highway (Chair) and Transportation Officials JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN, New York State DOT MARY E. PETERS, Federal Highway Administration GENEVIEVE GIULIANO, University of Southern California, ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., Transportation Research Board Los Angeles C. MICHAEL WALTON, University of Texas, Austin

OCR for page R1
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP REPORT 535 Predicting Air Quality Effects of Traffic-Flow Improvements: Final Report and User's 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 S UBJECT A REAS Planning and Administration Energy and Environment Highway and Facility Design Research Sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in Cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2005 www.TRB.org

OCR for page R1
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH NCHRP REPORT 535 PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective Project 25-21 FY'99 approach to the solution of many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local ISSN 0077-5614 interest and can best be studied by highway departments ISBN 0309088194 individually or in cooperation with their state universities and Library of Congress Control Number 2004117941 others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to 2005 Transportation Research Board highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Price $28.00 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 NOTICE Department of Transportation. The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies Highway Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the was requested by the Association to administer the research approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval program because of the Board's recognized objectivity and reflects the Governing Board's judgment that the program concerned is of national understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely importance and appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee National Research Council. structure from which authorities on any highway transportation The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research, and, while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical committee, research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation they are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in Research Council, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation a position to use them. Officials, or the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The program is developed on the basis of research needs Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical committee identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation according to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed Council. 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. Published reports of the The needs for highway research are many, and the National NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of are available from: mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or Transportation Research Board duplicate other highway research programs. Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: 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 http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore states participating in the National Cooperative 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 this report. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
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 Academy's 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 Board's 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 Board's 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

OCR for page R1
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 Planning--Area 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 AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Proj- Ms. Gail Payne prepared Section 3.3, "Modeling Non-Motorized ect 25-21 by Dowling Associates, Inc., in Oakland, California. Travel," and Section 3.4, "Modeling Truck Traffic." Dr. David Dr. Richard G. Dowling, Principal, was the principal investigator. Gillen prepared the majority of Chapter 6, "Land Use Models." The other authors of this report are Dr. Robert Ireson, a self-employed Dr. Alexander Skabardonis prepared major portions of Chapter 8, consultant; Dr. Alexander Skabardonis, Adjunct Professor of Civil "Traffic Operations Models." Dr. Robert Ireson prepared the major- and Environmental Engineering at the University of California, ity of Chapter 9, "Mobile Emission Models." Berkeley; Dr. David Gillen, YVR Professor of Transportation Policy The following research team members provided advice and at Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia; and review at key stages of the research: Dr. Alan Horowitz, University Dr. Peter Stopher, Professor of Transport Planning at the Institute of of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Dr. John Bowman, Massachusetts Insti- Transport Studies at the University of Sydney, Australia. tute of Technology; Dr. Elizabeth Deakin, University of California, In the final report, Dr. Stopher prepared major portions of Chap- Berkeley; and Mr. Robert Dulla, Sierra Research. ter 2, "The Impacts of Traffic Improvements on Emissions."

OCR for page R1
This report contains a user's guide and case studies, providing a recommended FOREWORD methodology to predict the long- and short-term mobile source emission impacts of By Martine Micozzi traffic-flow improvement projects. Guidance is provided to evaluate the magnitude, Staff Officer scale, and duration of such impacts for a variety of representative urbanized areas. Transportation Research Board 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.

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS 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

OCR for page R1
90 CHAPTER 9 Mobile Emission Models 9.1 Background--Vehicle 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

OCR for page R1
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 USER'S GUIDE 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 Objectives of the NCHRP 25-21 Methodology, 1 1.2 Organization of User's 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 Lane--Rural 9.1 Application, 33 9.2 Case Study Results, 33

OCR for page R1
36 CHAPTER 10 Case Study 2: Close Freeway Lane--Urban 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

OCR for page R1
156 The potential impact on the overall growth of a metro- model upon which the NCHRP 25-21 methodology is based politan region of significantly different levels of invest- (CMEM). FINAL REPORT ment in traffic-flow improvements between regions and The potential indirect impact of traffic-flow improve- ments on actual or perceived accessibility (via nonmo- 18.3 ACCOMPLISHMENT OF NCHRP 25-21 torized modes) for transit, pedestrian, and bicycle modes. METHODOLOGY OBJECTIVES The accomplishment of the NCHRP 25-21 methodology The potential impacts of major deviations in infrastructure objectives by the proposed methodology is outlined in investment levels on interregional competitiveness have been Table 56. excluded because of the added data requirements of model- ing variations in growth between the metropolitan regions of the United States. 18.4 VALIDATION OF THE NCHRP 25-21 The potential indirect impacts of traffic-flow improvements METHODOLOGY on nonmotorized modes have been excluded because of a lack of data on these effects and project resource limitations. The NCHRP 25-21 methodology was applied to a series The emission estimates are limited to running exhaust of case studies, and the results were compared with more emissions because of the limitations of the modal emission general results reported in the literature. TABLE 56 Accomplishment of NCHRP 25-21 methodology objectives NCHRP 25-21 Methodology Accomplishment by Proposed Methodology Objectives Predict short- and long-term The methodology predicts traveler behavior response for the short effects term and growth redistribution impacts for the long term. Be accurate Available data sets do not generally support determination of the accuracy of the methodology. The methodology employs generally advanced techniques, which are expected to be more accurate than less sophisticated and more aggregate approaches. Cover a wide geographic scale The methodology covers highway segment, corridor, and regional of impacts impacts. Predict the duration of impacts The methodology does not directly predict duration, but duration can be inferred from the short-term and long-term "snapshots" provided by the methodology. Be suitable for small and large The methodology requires a regional transportation network (with MPOs transit) and a regional OD table. As such, the methodology can best be employed by medium to large MPOs. Cover a range of projects The methodology is best suited to projects that change capacity or speed. Include land-use effects Land-use effects are included in the Long-Term Response Module, but no explicit land-use model is included. Include pedestrian/bicycle/transit The impacts of traffic-flow improvements on nonmotorized use are access/safety effects not currently included in the methodology because of a lack of data on the subject. Because of the same lack of data, the methodology does not incorporate perceived or actual safety effects. Use commonly available data All of the required data (regional highway network and regional OD table) are routinely gathered by large MPOs in the region. The required data exceed the capabilities of small MPOs. Be implementable in commonly The methodology can be implemented in commonly used software used software for travel demand modeling. Be compatible with modal The methodology is specifically designed to use a light-duty vehicle emission model modal emission model. Include heavy-duty vehicle Because of a lack of data on modal emissions for heavy-duty emissions vehicles, the methodology does not include a specific heavy-duty vehicle demand response model, modal activity, or emission model. Include PM emissions The methodology does not address PM emissions because of a lack of emission rate data compatible with the CMEM methodology.

OCR for page R1
157 The facility-specific results showed travel time and volume This section presents the recommended implementation changes for the specific facility that were quite consistent with plan for disseminating the results of this research project to FINAL REPORT theory and expectation. It was difficult, though, to validate the the community of practitioners. methodology's predictions for system level (regionwide) per- formance. Some of the results fell within the broad range of results that have been reported in the literature. Other results 18.6.1 Research Product fell outside the range of results reported in the literature. The research product is a comprehensive methodology to Indeed, application of the methodology to the same traffic predict the short-term and long-term effects of corridor-level, improvement to different locations in the region showed a traffic-flow improvement projects on CO, VOCs, and NOX). wide range of predicted system impacts. An HOV lane was (PM is not estimated because of a lack of data.) The method- added at two locations. In both cases, the HOV lane caused ology can be used to evaluate the magnitude, scale (such as net increases in traffic volumes on the facility. However, at regionwide, corridor, or local), and duration of the effects for one location, the systemwide result was a net decrease in a variety of representative urbanized areas. The methodology VMT for the region, while the other location caused a net is documented in this final research report and user's guide. increase in regional VMT. The validation was limited because of the data require- ments of the new methodology and the lack of the necessary 18.6.2 Expected Audience and Market data in available "before and after" studies of traffic-flow for the Research Product improvements. More work could and should be done to val- idate the methodology in other regions of the United States The target audience for the new methodology is all agen- and against datasets gathered specifically for the purpose of cies currently performing air quality conformity analyses and validating the NCHRPH 25-21 methodology. project-level environmental impact analyses. These agencies are primarily the 350 MPOs and 50 state DOTs in the United States, plus cities, counties, and private consultants. 18.5 CASE STUDY RESULTS The NCHRP 25-21 methodology was applied to 10 case 18.6.3 Possible Impediments to Successful studies. The impacts of individual traffic-flow improvement Implementation projects on regional daily VMT were on the order of a few hundredths of 1 percent. A 30-year improvement program Most MPOs and state DOTs already have a significant impacted VMT by less than 1 percent. The impacts varied investment in existing transportation and air quality analysis from a reduction in VMT to an increase in VMT, depending methodologies and software. This fact represents a significant upon the specifics of each case study. The variation in the amount of institutional inertia, but the inertia can be overcome predicted VMT impacts for the same traffic-flow improve- by training and dissemination of the NCHRP air quality ment (HOV lanes) applied at different locations was greater analysis methodology to public agencies. Further validation than the magnitude of the predicted impact itself. information is necessary to demonstrate the superior accuracy The case study results suggest that more applications of of the methodology over current conventional methods. each traffic-flow improvement type on different facility types Another likely impediment to general application of the (i.e., radial and peripheral facilities), in different area types NCHRP 25-21 methodology is that the methodology is likely (i.e., urban, suburban, and rural), and at different congestion to estimate more adverse air quality impacts than current levels are needed to better understand the conditions under simplistic methods. If this happens, then there may be sig- which traffic-flow improvements contribute to an overall net nificant institutional resistance to adoption of a more accu- increase or decrease in vehicle emissions. rate methodology that results in more conformity problems. This resistance can be overcome by FHWA and EPA adopt- ing the NCHRP 25-21 methodology as one of the methods 18.6 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN that constitute the state of the practice for evaluating the air The NCHRP 25-21 research makes a critical contribution to quality impacts of highway projects. current practice, providing a model of how to analyze the long- and short-term air pollutant emission impacts of corridor-level 18.6.4 Likely Institutional Leaders transportation projects. The methodology is implementable in Application within a stand-alone software product or can be incorporated as a postprocessor (or preprocessor) for current transportation The FHWA and EPA, by specifying acceptable method- network analysis and air quality analysis software. Applica- ologies for use in conformity analyses, will be the institutional tion of the methodology to the study of the impacts of traffic- leaders in promoting the application of the recommended flow improvements will contribute to the accomplishment of methodology. These two agencies are already promoting the national air quality goals. TRANSIMS research package of programs as the ultimate

OCR for page R1
158 replacement for the old UTPS package, upon which most of of the NCHRP 25-21 methodology to validate its results today's software and transportation models are based. for different areas of the country. FINAL REPORT TRANSIMS, however, still has a few more years of pilot Publish the research results and user's guide as an offi- testing and refinement before it will be ready for general cial NCHRP research report. distribution. Present the NCHRP 25-21 methodology at the TRB It will be necessary to demonstrate to the EPA and FHWA Annual Meeting. that the NCHRP 25-21 methodology will play a valuable Present a 1-day training course on the NCHRP 25-21 role as a medium between the detailed data and analytical methodology and software for FHWA, TRANSIMS, requirements of TRANSIMS and the simplistic approaches and EPA personnel, perhaps offered in Washington D.C., contained in many available sketch-planning methods. The in coordination with the TRB Annual Meeting and NCHRP 25-21 methodology will also be available to the plan- opened to other professionals as well. ning community in a usable form much sooner than TRAN- Include a regular training course on the NCHRP 25-21 SIMS will, and it will be applicable by the large number of methodology and software in the FHWA's National small and medium-size MPOs that may not have the resources Highway Institute course list. or analytical needs for a more sophisticated package like TRANSIMS. 18.6.6 Indicators of Progress and Success 18.6.5 Recommended Follow-On Activities for Successful Implementation Adoption of the NCHRP 25-21 methodology by the EPA The following follow-on activities are recommended for and FHWA as a state-of-the-practice methodology for per- successful implementation of the NCHRP 25-21 methodology: forming conformity analyses would be an immediate and com- plete indicator of the success of the research project in devel- Demonstrate, through more cases studies and validation oping a methodology for use in general practice. Another data sets in other regions of the United States, that the indicator of success would be adaptation of various modules NCHRP 25-21 methodology gives more reliable results of the NCHRP 25-21 methodology by MPOs and software than currently available methods do. This demonstra- developers to various existing transportation planning models tion would involve data collection tailored to the needs and software packages.

OCR for page R1
159 REFERENCES FINAL REPORT 1. Sierra Club vs. Metropolitan Transportation Commission et 17. Noland, R.B. "Relationships between Highway Capacity and al., Civil No. C-89-2064-TEH. Induced Vehicle Travel," paper presented to the 78th Annual 2. Oi, W.Y. and P.W. Shuldiner. An Analysis of Urban Travel Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, Demand, Evanston Illinois, Northwestern University Press, D.C., 1998. Chapter II, 1962. 18. Litman, T. "Generated Traffic: Implications for Transport 3. Wohl, M. and B.V. Martin. Traffic Systems Analysis. New Planning," unpublished paper, Victoria Transport at Policy York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967. Institute, Victoria, B.C., Canada, 2000. 4. Quarmby, D.A. "Choice of Travel Mode for the Journey to 19. Marshall, N.L., "Evidence of Induced Demand in the Texas Work." Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. Vol. 1, Transportation Institute's Urban Roadway Congestion Study No. 3, pp. 273314, 1967. Data Set," paper presented to the 79th Annual Meeting of the 5. Lisco, T.E. "The Value of Commuters' Travel Time: A Study Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., January in Urban Transportation," Ph.D. dissertation, Department of 913, 2000. Economics, University of Chicago, 1967. 20. Chu, X. "Highway Capacity and Areawide Congestion," paper 6. Haney, D.G. "The Value of Time for Passenger Cars: A The- presented to the 79th Annual Meeting of the Transportation oretical Analysis and Description of Preliminary Experi- Research Board, Washington, D.C., January 913, 2000. ments," Final Report, Vol. 1, Menlo Park California, Stanford 21. Zahavi, Y. Urban Travel Patterns. Report prepared for the Research Institute, 1967. World Bank Economic Development Institute, Washington, 7. Groneau, R. "The Effect of Traveling Time on the Demand for DC, 1979. Passenger Transportation." Journal of Political Economy. Vol. 22. Stopher, P.R. and H.M.A. Metcalf. "Household Activities, 78, No. 2, 1970. Lifecycle, and Role Allocations: Tests on Data Sets from 8. Hensher, D.A. "The Consumer's Choice Function: A Study of Boston and Salt Lake City," Transportation Research Record Traveler Behavior and Values," Unpublished Ph.D. disserta- 1676, Transportation Research Board, pp. 95102, 1999. tion, School of Economics, University of New South Wales, 23. Gordon, P. and H.W. Richardson. "Congestion Trends in Met- Kensington, NSW, Australia, 1972. ropolitan Areas," Curbing Gridlock: Peak Period Fees to 9. Watson, P. L. The Value of Time, Behavioral Models of Mode Relieve Traffic Congestion. Vol. 2, National Research Council, Choice. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Washington, DC, National Academy Press, pp. 131, 1994. Co., 1974. 24. Travel Model Improvement Program (TMIP). The Effects of 10. de Donnea, F.X. The Determinants of Transport Mode Choice Added Transportation Capacity, Proceedings of a Confer- in Dutch Cities: Some Disaggregate, Stochastic Models. Rot- ence held in Bethesda, Maryland, December 1617, 1991, terdam, The Netherlands: Rotterdam University Press, 1971. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, Report 11. Lancaster, K.J. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Jour- DOT-T-94-12, 1994. nal of Political Economy. Vol. XXIV, pages 132157, 1966. 25. "Highway Capacity Expansion and Induced Travel: Evidence 12. Wunderlich, Karl, James Bunch, and James Larking, "Seattle Metropolitan Model Deployment Initiative Evaluation: Results and Implications." Transportation Research Circular 481, and Key Findings from Modeling," Transportation Research Committee on Transportation Planning Applications, Trans- Record 1739, Transportation Research Board, pp. 3543, 2000. portation Research Board, National Research Council, Wash- 13. Stopher, P.R. "Travel and Longitudinal Impacts of Added ington, D.C., 1998. Transportation Capacity: Experimental Designs," The Effects 26. TRB Special Report 245: Expanding Metropolitan High- of Added Transportation Capacity. Proceedings of a Confer- ways: Implications for Air Quality and Energy Use, Trans- ence held in Bethesda, Maryland, December 1617, 1991, portation Research Board, National Research Council, Wash- U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, Report ington, D.C., 1995. DOT-T-94-12, pp. 113125, 1991. 27. Shunk, Gordon A. (editor), The Effects of Added Transporta- 14. Waddell, P. "An Urban Simulation Model for Integrated Pol- tion Capacity, DOT-T-94-12, U.S. Dept. of Transportation: icy Analysis and Planning: Residential Location and Housing Distributed in cooperation with Technology Sharing Program, Market Components of UrbanSim," paper presented at 8th Research and Special Programs Administration, Washington, World Conference on Transport Research, Antwerp, Belgium, D.C., 1994. July 1217, 1998. 28. Surface Transportation Policy Project, "Do New Roads Cause 15. Noland, R.B. and W.A. Cowart. "Analysis of Metropolitan Congestion?" Progress, Vol. VIII, No. 2, March 1998. Highway Capacity and the Growth in Vehicle Miles of Travel," 29. Special Issue on the Northridge Earthquake, Journal of Trans- paper presented to the 79th Annual Transportation Research portation Statistics. Vol. I, No. 2, ISSN 1094-8848, Bureau of Board Meeting, Washington, DC, January 913, 2000. Transportation Statistics and U.S. Department of Transporta- 16. Fulton, L.M., D.J. Meszler, R.B. Noland, and J.V. Thomas. tion, May 1998. "A Statistical Analysis of Induced Travel Effects in the U.S. 30. Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment Mid-Atlantic Region," paper presented to the 79th Annual (SACTRA). Transport and the Economy: Full Report. August Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, 1999. Available at http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/ DC, January 913, 2000. dft_econappr/documents/page/dft_econappr_022512.hcsp.

OCR for page R1
160 31. The Government's Response to the SACTRA Reports, The 47. Ben-Akiva, M., and S.R. Lerman, Discrete Choice Analysis: Department of Transport, HMSO Publications, London, Theory and Application to Travel Demand, The MIT Press, FINAL REPORT December 1994. Cambridge, MA, 1985. 32. Coombe, Denvil, John Bates, and Martin Dale. "Modelling 48. Ortuzar, J. de D., and L.G. Willumsen, Modelling Transport, the Traffic Impacts of Highway Capacity Reductions." Traf- Second Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 1994. fic Engineering+Control, JulyAugust 1998. 49. Fujiwara, A., "Prediction Accuracy of SP Models Based on 33. Goodwin, Phil, Carmen Hass-Klau, and Sally Cairns, "Evi- Panel Data," Preprint # 971442, Transportation Research dence on the Effects of Road Capacity Reduction on Traffic Board Annual Meeting, Washington D.C., 1997. Levels," Traffic Engineering+Control, London, United King- 50. Effects of Density on Transit Usage and Residential Trip Gen- dom, June 1998. eration, Final Report, Institute for Metropolitan Studies, San 34. Noland, Robert B., and Lewison L. Lem, "A Review of the Jose State University, California, Prepared for California Evidence for Induced Travel and Changes in Transportation Department of Transportation, October 1994. and Environmental Policy in the United States and the United 51. Pernot, Laurent, Highways and Urban Decentralization, Uni- Kingdom," Transportation Research D, 7(1), 2002, 126. versity of Illinois, Chicago, 1998. Available from www.uic. 35. Noland, Robert B., and William A. Cowart, "Analysis of Met- edu/depts./paff/uicnews. ropolitan Highway Capacity and the Growth in Vehicle Miles 52. A Sensitivity Analysis of Highway and Road Improvements on of Travel," Transportation, 27(4), 2000, 363390. Growth in the San Francisco Bay Area, Association of Bay 36. Noland, Robert B., "Relationships between Highway Capac- Area Governments, Oakland, California, 1991. ity and Induced Vehicle Travel," Transportation Research A, 53. Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade, & Douglas, TCRP Report 16: 35(1), 2001, 4772. Transit and Urban Form Volumes 1 and II, Transportation 37. Marshall, Norman, "Evidence of Induced Demand in the Research Board, National Academy Press, Washington, Texas Transportation Institute's Urban Roadway Congestion D.C., 1996. Study Data Set," Pre-Print, Transportation Research Board 54. Draft Addendum to the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 2000. Environmental Impact Report, Metropolitan Transportation 38. Fulton, Lewis M., Robert B. Noland, Daniel J. Meszler, and Commission, Oakland, CA, May 2000. John V. Thomas, "A Statistical Analysis of Induced Travel 55. NCHRP 8-33 Interim Report, "Task 9: Portland Pilot Test- Effects in the U.S. Mid-Atlantic Region," Journal of Trans- ing," Nov. 1998 (unpublished, but available on request from portation and Statistics, 3(1), 2000, 114. the Transportation Research Board). 39. Chu, Xuehao, "Highway Capacity and Areawide Congestion," 56. Rodier, C. J., J. E. Abraham, and R. A. Johnston "Air Quality Pre-print 001506, Transportation Research Board Annual Analysis Of Transportation: Is It Important To Model The Meeting, Washington, D.C., 2000. Land Use Effects?" Paper 00-1118, Transportation Research 40. Hansen, Mark, "Do New Highways Generate Traffic?" Access, Board Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 2000. No. 7, University of California Transportation Center, Berke- 57. Putman, S. H., et al., "Integrated Transportation and Land Use ley, Fall 1995. Policy Analysis for Sacramento," Paper 00-1059, Transporta- 41. Brodahl, Bjorn, Traffic Volumes and Travel Speed on Adja- tion Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 2000. cent Freeways and Local Streets Before and After the Open- ing of the I-105 Freeway (The Glenn Anderson Freeway), 58. Technical Specifications for the March 1998 Travel Demand State of California Department of Transportation, District 7, Model, Metro, Portland, OR, 1998. December 1994. 59. Purvis, C.L., Travel Demand Models for the San Francisco 42. Downs, Anthony. "The Law of Peak-Hour Expressway Con- Bay Area (BAYCAST-90), Technical Summary, Metropolitan gestion" Traffic Quarterly, Volume XVI, No. 3 (July 1962). Transportation Commission, Oakland, CA, 1997. Westport, Connecticut: The Eno Foundation. 60. DallasFort Worth Regional Travel Model (DFWRTM): 43. Barr, Lawrence, "Testing the Significance of Induced High- Description of the Multimodal Forecasting Process, North way Travel Demand in Metropolitan Areas," Pre-Print 00812, Central Texas Council of Governments, Dallas, TX, Febru- Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, ary 1999. D.C., 2000. 61. 1990 Validation of DVRPC Travel Simulation Models, Dela- 44. Kockelman, K.M., "Application of a Utility Theory Consis- ware Valley Regional Planning Commission, Philadelphia, tent System of Demand Equations Approach to Household PA, October 1997. Travel Choice," Transportation Research Record 1676, Trans- 62. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Review of the Cur- portation Research Board, Washington D.C., 1999. rent CATS Travel Demand Estimation Practices, Chicago 45. Robinson, J.P., and G. Godbey, Time For Life: The Surprising Area Transportation Study, Chicago, IL, January 1994. Ways Americans Use Their Time, 2nd Edition, Pennsylvania 63. Larry Blain, Puget Sound Regional Council, 206-464-5402, State University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania, 1999. telephone conversation, 1/28/00. 46. Dowling, Richard G. and Steven B. Colman, Effects of 64. Litman, Todd Alexander, "Generated Traffic, Implications for Increased Highway Capacity on Travel Behavior, Final Report, Transport Planning," Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Vic- California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources toria, British Columbia, Canada, October 7, 1999. Board, Research Division, Sacramento, California, October 65. Deakin, Elizabeth, and Greig Harvey, A Manual of Regional 1994. This work is also summarized in Transportation Research Transportation Modeling Practice for Air Quality Analysis, Record 1493: "Effects of Increased Highway Capacity: Results National Association of Regional Councils, Washington, D.C., of Household Travel Behavior Survey." July 1993. Available at www.bts.gov/tmip.

OCR for page R1
161 66. Stopher, P.R., "Predicting TCM Responses with Urban Travel 82. Battelle Corp., Highway Economic Requirements System, Demand Models," Proceedings of the National Conference on Technical Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, Fed- FINAL REPORT Transportation Planning and Air Quality II, May, 1993, Amer- eral Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. (1999). ican Society of Civil Engineers, New York, New York, 1994. 83. Lee, Douglass B., Lisa Klein, Gregorio Camus, "Modeling 67. Stopher, Peter R., and Haoqiang Fu, "Feasible Improvements Induced Highway Travel Versus Induced Demand," Preprint to Travel Forecasting Procedures for Air Quality Analysis," No. 971004, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Transportation Planning and Air Quality III Conference Pro- Washington D.C., January 1997. ceedings, August 1997, American Society of Civil Engineers, 84. Noland, Robert B., and Lewison L. Lem, "A Review of the New York, NY, 1998. Evidence for Induced Travel and Changes in Transportation 68. Comsis Corporation, Incorporating Feedback in Travel Fore- and Environmental Policy in the United States and the United casting: Methods, Pitfalls and Common Concerns, DOT- Kingdom," Transportation Research D, 7(1), 2002, 126. T-96-14, U.S. Department of Transportation, Travel Model 85. Pratt, R.H., TCRP Web Document 12: The Traveler Response Improvement Program, Washington, D.C., March 1996. to Transportation System Changes Interim Handbook, Trans- 69. Miller, Harvey J., Towards Consistent Travel Demand Esti- portation Research Board, Washington D.C. 2000. Available mation in Transportation Planning: A Guide to the Theory at www4.nationalacademies.org/trb/crp.nsf. and Practice of Equilibrium Travel Demand Modeling, Uni- 86. DeCorla-Souza, Patrick, and Cohen, Harry, Accounting for versity of Utah, Salt Lake City, November 1997. Available at Induced Travel in Evaluation of Urban Highway Expansion www.bts.gov/tmip. 70. Replogle, Michael, "Improving Transportation, Pricing, Land (1998). Available from Patrick deCorla-Souza, contact at Use, Air Quality (TPLUAQ) Models," Presented at Trans- patrick.decorla-souza@fhwa.dot.gov. portation Research Board Annual Meeting (1993). Available 87. Cambridge Systematics Inc., Sketch-Planning Analysis Spread- from www.bts.gov/tmip. sheet Model (SPASM) User's Guide, September 30, 1998. 71. Horowitz, Alan J., Guidebook on Statewide Travel Forecasting, Available from Patrick deCorla-Souza, contact at patrick. Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., March decorla-souza@fhwa.dot.gov. 1999. Available from www.bts.gov/tmip. 88. DeCorla-Souza, Patrick, Using SPASM for Transportation 72. Rossi, Thomas F., "Modeling Non-Motorized Travel," Pre- Decision-Making (1998). Available from Patrick deCorla- Print 000492, Transportation Research Board Annual Meet- Souza, contact at patrick.decorla-souza@fhwa.dot.gov. ing, Washington, D.C., 2000. 89. DeCorla-Souza, Patrick, and Cohen, Harry, "Accounting for 73. Kocur, G., W. Hyman, and B. Aunet. Wisconsin Work Mode- Induced Travel in Evaluation of Urban Highway Expansion," Choice Models Based on Functional Measurement and Dis- Paper No. 980132, Abridged edition taken from 77th Annual aggregate Behavioral Data. Transportation Research Record Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington 895, 1982. D.C., January 1998. 74. Wilbur Smith Associates. Non-Motorized Access to Transit: 90. Coombe, Denvil, Peter Mackie, and Jeremy Toner, "A Critical Final Report. Prepared for the Regional Transportation Author- Comment on the COBACHECK Method of Estimating the ity, Chicago, IL, July 1996. Effects of Induced Traffic on the Economic Benefits of Road 75. Hunt, J., A. Brownlee, and L. Doblanko. Design and Cali- Schemes," Traffic Engineering and Control. Vol. 37, No. 9, bration of the Edmonton Transport Analysis Model. Presented September 1996. at the 1998 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, 91. Methodologies for Estimating Emission and Travel Activity Paper #981076, January 1998. Effects of TCMs, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 76. Stein, W. Pedestrian and Bicycle Modeling in North America's Mobile Sources, Washington, D.C., (1997). Available from Urban Areas: A Survey of Emerging Methodologies and MPO National Transportation Library: http://www.ntl.bts.gov/ntl/ Practices, Thesis: Master of City Planning and Master of Sci- docs/TCM.html. ence, Georgia Institute of Technology, pp. 128, March 1996. 92. Methods to Find the Cost-Effectiveness of Funding Air Qual- 77. Cambridge Systematics, "Review of Current Freight Flow ity Projects, For Evaluating Motor Vehicle Registration Fee Models," unpublished draft, Cambridge, MA, April 2000. Projects and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improve- 78. NCHRP Research Results Digest No. 223, "Development of ment (CMAQ) Projects, California Air Resources Board and an Improved Framework for the Analysis of Air Quality and Other Benefits and Costs of Transportation Control Measures," Caltrans, Sacramento, CA, (1999). Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., March, 93. J.A. Crawford and R.A. Krammes, "Critical Analysis of 1998. Available at http://webservices.camsys.com/nchrp. Sketch Planning Tools Used to Evaluate the Benefits of Trans- 79. Assessing the Emissions and Fuel Consumption Impacts of portation Control Measures," Transportation Research Board, Intelligent Transportation Systems, EPA 231-R-98-007, Paper # 950868, Annual Meeting, January 1995. Energy and Transportation Sectors Division, U.S. Environ- 94. Kuzmyak, J.R., T.R. Carlson, R.G. Dulla, S.D. Decker, C.D. mental Protection Agency, Washington D.C., December 1998. Porter, E.E. Vaca, Procedures Manual for Estimating Emission 80. Technical Methods for Analyzing Pricing Measures to Reduce Reductions from Voluntary Measure and Commuter Choice Transportation Emissions, U.S. Environmental Protection Incentive Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Agency, Policy: U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Washington, Washington, D.C., September 1999. D.C., August 1998. 95. DeCorla-Souza, Patrick, & Hunt T. James, "Use of STEAM 81. Carr, Edward L., Robert G. Johnson, and Robert G. Ireson, in Evaluating Transportation Alternatives," Transportation CRP-CD-32: Intersection Air Quality Model, NCHRP 25-6, Research Record, No. 1649, Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., July 2002. Washington, D.C., 1998.

OCR for page R1
162 96. IDAS Design Report, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak American Planning Association, Vol. 60, pp. 1729, 1994; Ridge, TN, August 1998. (available at http://www-cta.ornl. and Southworth, F., A Technical Review of Urban Land Use-- FINAL REPORT gov/research/idas/). More information on IDAS can be Transportation Models as Tools for Evaluating Vehicle Travel obtained from www-cta.ornl.gov/cta/research/idas/index.htm. Reduction Strategies, Report ORNL-6881, Oak Ridge, Tenn., 97. Still, B.G., A.D. May, and A.L. Bristow (1999), The Assess- Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1995. ment of Transport Impacts on Land Use: Practical Uses in 109. Southworth, F., A Technical Review of Urban Land Use-- Strategic Planning, Transport Policy, Vol. 6, 8398. Transportation Models as Tools for Evaluating Vehicle Travel 98. Hunt, J.D., David Kriger and Eric Miller, "A Research and Reduction Strategies, Report ORNL-6881, Oak Ridge, Tenn., Development Program for Integrated Land Use Models" (Paper Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1995. presented at the TRB Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 110. Hunt, J.D., David Kriger, and Eric Miller, "A Research and 1999A) "Current Operational Urban Land Use Transport Development Program for Integrated Land Use Models" (Paper Modeling Frameworks" (paper presented to the TRB Annual presented at the TRB Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., Meeting, Washington, D.C., 1999B). 1999A); "Current Operational Urban Land Use Transport 99. Pickrell, Don, Transportation and Land Use: How Strong Is Modeling Frameworks" (paper presented to the TRB Annual the Connection (Paper presented at the TRB Annual Meeting, Meeting, Washington, D.C., 1999B). Washington 1999). 111. Anas, Alex. Mode Choice, Transport Structure and Urban Land 100. NCHRP Report 423A: Land-Use Impacts of Transportation: Use, in Transport and Land Use, Cheltenham, United King- A Guidebook, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, dom: Edward Elgar Publishing, 1996. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1999. 112. Miller, E. J., and P. A. Salvini, "The Integrated Land Use, 101. Harvey, Mark, Urban Transport Models: A Review, Working Transportation, Environment (ILUTE) Modeling System: A Paper 39, Bureau of Transport Economics, Department of Framework," presented at the 77th Annual Meeting of the Transport and Regional Services, Canberra, Australia, Octo- Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., January ber 1998. 1215, 1998. 102. Rosenbaum, Arlene S., and Brett E. Koenig, Evaluation of 113. Miller, E. J., and P. A. Salvini, "The Integrated Land Use, Modeling Tools for Assessing Land Use Policies and Strate- Transportation, Environment (ILUTE) Modeling System: A gies, EPA 420-R-97-007, U.S. Environmental Protection Framework," presented at the 77th Annual Meeting of the Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., January August 1997. (Available from the www.epa.gov/oms/TRAQ 1215, 1998. website.) 114. Barrett, C. L., et. al., Transportation Analysis Simulation Sys- 103. Southworth, Frank, A Technical Review of Urban Land Use-- tem (TRANSIMS), Volume 0--Overview, (LA-UR-99-1658), Transportation Models as Tools for Evaluating Vehicle Travel Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, 1999. Reduction Strategies, ORNL-6881, Center for Transportation Available at http://transims.tsasa.lanl.gov. Analysis, Energy Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 115. Task 9: Portland Pilot Testing, Interim Report, NCHRP Proj- July 1995. (Available from the www.bts.gov/TMIP website.) ect 8-33, Cambridge Systematics and Mark Bradley Research 104. Berechman, Joseph, and Kenneth A. Small, Modeling Land and Consulting, Cambridge, MA, Nov. 1998. Available from Use and Transportation: Interpretive Review for Growth http://webservices.camsys.com/nchrp. Areas, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of Cal- 116. Mark Bradley Research and Consulting, A System of Activity ifornia, Irvine (Revised 1987). 105. Oryani, Kazem, and Britton Harris, Enhancement of DVRPC's Based Models for Portland, Oregon, FHWA PD99-003, Fed- Travel Simulation Models--Task 12: Review of Land Use eral Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., May 1998. Models and Recommended Model for DVRPC, URS Greiner 117. Deakin, Elizabeth, Greig Harvey, Randall Pozdena, and and University of Pennsylvania for Delaware Valley Regional Geoffrey Yarema, Transportation Pricing Strategies for Cali- Planning Commission, Philadelphia, PA, September 1996. fornia: An Assessment of Congestion, Emissions, Energy, and (Available from the www.bts.gov/TMIP website.) Equity Impacts, Final Report for Contract 92-316, California 106. Paul Waddell, "An Urban Simulation Model for Integrated Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, 1996. Policy Analysis and Planning: Residential Location and Hous- 118. Comsis Corp., Urban Transportation Planning System (UTPS) ing Market Components of URBANSIM," paper presented at Highway Network Development Guide, Federal Highway 8th World Conference on Transport Research, Antwerp, Bel- Administration, January 1983, page III-19, Figure III-9. gium, July 1217, 1998. Available for downloading from 119. TRB Special Report 209: Highway Capacity Manual, Trans- http://URBANSIM.org. portation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1997. 107. Pickrell, Don, Transportation and Land Use: How Strong Is 120. Dowling Associates, Travel Model Speed Estimation and Post the Connection (Paper presented at the TRB Annual Meeting, Processing Methods for Air Quality Analysis, DOT-T-98-5, Washington 1999). Travel Model Improvement Program, Metropolitan Planning 108. Hunt, J.D., David Kriger, and Eric Miller, "A Research and Branch, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., Development Program for Integrated Land Use Models" October 1997. (Paper presented at the TRB Annual Meeting, Washington, 121. Dowling, Richard, G., Wayne Kittelson, John Zegeer, and D.C., 1999A) and "Current Operational Urban Land Use Alexander Skabardonis, NCHRP Report 387: Planning Tech- Transport Modeling Frameworks" (paper presented to the niques for Estimating Speed and Service Volumes for Plan- TRB Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 1999B); Wegener, ning Applications, Transportation Research Board, Washing- M., Operational Urban Models: State of the Art, Journal of the ton D.C., 1998.

OCR for page R1
163 122. A.J. Horowitz, "Intersection Delay in Region-Wide Traffic and Service Volumes for Planning Applications, Transporta- Assignment: Implications of 1994 Update of the Highway tion Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1997. FINAL REPORT Capacity Manual," Transportation Research Record 1572, 133. Erera, A., T. Lawson, and C. Daganzo, "A Simple, General- Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1996. ized Method for Analysis of a Traffic Queue Upstream of a 123. Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Bottleneck," Transportation Research Record 1646, Trans- Washington, D.C., 2000. portation Research Board, 1999. 124. Halati, Abolhassan, Henr Liu, and Susan Walker, "Corsim-- 134. Dion, F., et al., "Mesoscopic Fuel Consumption and Vehicle Corridor Traffic Simulation Model," ASCE Conference on Emission Rate Estimation as a Function of Average Speed and Traffic Congestion and Safety for the 21st Century in Chicago, Number of Stops," paper 00-1134, presented at the 79th TRB American Society of Civil Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1997. Annual Meeting, Washington, DC., January 2000. 125. Aycin, M.F., R.F. Benekohal, "Comparison of Car-Following 135. Skabardonis, A., "Arterial Level of Service," paper presented at Models for Simulation," Preprint 99-129, Transportation the 78th TRB Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, January 1988. Research Board, Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 1999. 136. Brzezinski, David J., and Terry P. Newell, MOBILE6, A 126. Hallmark, Shauna L., and Randall Guensler, "Comparison of Revised Model for Estimation of Highway Vehicle Emissions, Speed/Acceleration Profiles from Field Data with NETSIM United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Output for Modal Air Quality Analysis of Signalized Inter- Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, MI, December 1998. sections," Pre-Print 00139, Transportation Research Board 137. Guensler, R., S. Washington, and W. Bachman, "Overview of Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 1999. the MEASURE Modeling Framework," Transportation Plan- 127. Chundury, Sastry, and Brian Wolshon, "Evaluation of the ning and Air Quality III Conference Proceedings, August 1997, CORSIM Car Following Model Using GPS Field Data," Pre- American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, 1998. Print, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Wash- 138. Hallmark, Shauna L., Ignatius Fomunung, Randall Guensler, ington, D.C., 2000. and William Bachman, "Assessing the Impacts of Improved 128. Skabardonis, A., "Modeling Framework for Estimating Emis- sions in Large Urban Areas," Transportation Research Record Signal Timing as a Transportation Control Measure Using 1587, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1997. an Activity-Specific Modeling Approach," Transportation 129. TRB Special Report 209: Highway Capacity Manual, Trans- Research Record 1738. Transportation Research Board, portation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1985. National Research Council. Washington, D.C., pp. 4955, 2000. 130. Dion F., M. Van Aerde, and H. Rahka, "Mesoscopic Fuel 139. Barth, Matthew, "Integrating a Modal Emissions Model into Consumption and Vehicle Emission Rate Estimation as a Various Transportation Modeling Frameworks," Proceedings Function of Average Speed and Number of Stops," Paper 00- of the National Conference on Transportation Planning and 1134, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Wash- Air Quality II, May 1993, American Society of Civil Engi- ington, D.C., 2000. neers, New York, New York, 1994. 131. Fellendorf, Martin, and Peter Vortisch, "Integrated Modeling 140. Barth, Matthew, Presentation at National Conference on Trans- of Transport Demand, Route Choice, Traffic Flow and Traffic portation Planning and Air Quality IV, Atlanta, GA, Novem- Emissions," Pre-Print, Transportation Research Board Annual ber, 1999. Meeting, Washington, D.C., 2000. 141. Barth, Matthew, Presentation at TRB Workshop on "Predict- 132. Dowling, R.G., W. Kittelson, J. Zegeer, and A. Skabardonis, ing Emissions with the Comprehensive Modal Emissions NCHRP Report 387: Planning Techniques to Estimate Speeds Model: Results of NCHRP Project 25-11," January 8, 2000.

OCR for page R1
164 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS FINAL REPORT ABAG = Association of Bay Area Governments LEV = low-emission vehicle AirQ = Air Quality LOS = level of service API = application program interface LRTP = long-range transportation plan BART = Bay Area Rapid Transit LUTRAQ = Land Use Transportation Air Quality BEA = Bureau of Economic Affairs LUTRIM = Land Use Transportation Interaction Model BPR = Bureau of Public Roads MEASURE = Mobile Emission Assessment System for BTS = Bureau of Transportation Statistics Urban and Regional Evaluation CARB = California Air Resources Board MEPLAN = Marcial Echenique Plan CATS = Chicago Area Transportation Study METROPILUS = Metropolitan Integrated Land Use CMEM = Comprehensive Modal Emission Model System CMSA = Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area MOBILE = EPA vehicle emission factor model CO = carbon monoxide MOVES = Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator CORSIM = Corridor Simulation MPO = metropolitan planning organization CTA = Chicago Transit Authority MSA = method of successive averages CUF = California Urban Futures MTC = San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation DoT = U.K. Department of Transport Commission DRAM/ EMPAL = Disaggregate Residential Allocation MWCOG = Metropolitan Washington Council of Model/Employment Allocation Model Governments DVRPC = Delaware Valley Regional Planning NCTCOG = North Central Texas Council of Governments Commission NEMA = National Electrical Manufacturers Association E/I/E = external/internal/external NETSIM = Network Simulation EMFAC = Emission Factor NOX = oxides of nitrogen NYMTC-LUM = New York Metropolitan Transportation EMME/2 = Equilibre Multimodal, Multimodal Equilibrium Council Land Use Model EPA = Environmental Protection Agency OD = origin-destination FORTRAN = Formula Translation OMSI = Oregon Museum of Science and Industry FREESIM = Freeway Simulation Model ORNL = Oak Ridge National Laboratory FTP = Federal Test Procedure PART5 = Particulate Emission Factor Model GIS = geographic information systems PCE = passenger car equivalent GUI = graphical user interface PM = particulate matter HC = hydrocarbons POLIS = Projective Optimization Land Use Information HCM = Highway Capacity Manual System HERS = Highway Economic Requirements System PSRC = Puget Sound Regional Council HLFM II+ = Highway Land Use Forecasting Model PUMA = Public Use Microdata Area HOV = high-occupancy vehicle PUMS = Public Use Microdata Sample HPMS = Highway Performance Monitoring System QRS = Quick Response System HYROAD = Hybrid Roadway Intersection Model RTP = regional transportation plan IDAS = ITS Deployment Analysis System SACMET = Sacramento Metropolitan Travel Demand ICC = Interstate Commerce Commission Model I/I = internal/internal SACOG = Sacramento Area Council of Governments ILUTE = Integrated Land Use, Transportation, SACTRA = Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Environment Assessment INTRAS = Integrated Traffic Simulator SAFD = speed and acceleration frequency distribution IO = input output SCAG = Southern California Association of Governments IPF = iterative proportional fit SIC = Standard Industrial Classification ISTEA = Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act SMD = strategic model database of 1991 SMITE = Spreadsheet Model for Induced Travel ITLUP = Integrated Transportation and Land Use Package Estimation ITS = intelligent transportation systems SOV = single-occupancy vehicle LANL = University of California Los Alamos National SP = stated preference Laboratory SPASM = Sketch Planning Analysis Spreadsheet Model

OCR for page R1
165 STEAM = Surface Transportation Efficiency Analysis Model TRANSYT-7F = Traffic Network Study Tool, Release #7 STEP = Short-Range Transportation Evaluation Program TRANUS = an integrated land-use and transportation FINAL REPORT SUE = static user equilibrium model developed by Dr. Tomas de la Barra (formerly TCM = transportation control measure known as "Transporte y Uso del Suelo," or TDM = transportation demand management "Transportation and Land Use") TEAPAC = Traffic Engineering Application Package Tranplan = Transportation Planning TEA-21 = Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century TSM = transportation system management THC = total hydrocarbons TTI = Texas Transportation Institute TIP = Transportation Improvement Program UTPS = Urban Transportation Planning System TLUMIP = Transportation and Land Use Model Integration VDF = volume-delay function Project VHT = vehicle-hours traveled TMIP = Travel Model Improvement Program VMT = vehicle-miles traveled TRAF-NETSIM = Traffic Network Simulation VOC = volatile organic compound TRANSIMS = Transportation Analysis Simulation System WTP = willingness to pay

OCR for page R1
User's Guide