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
R E P O R T S 2 - C 0 2 - R R Performance Measurement Framework for Highway Capacity Decision Making
OCR for page R2
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2009 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* OFFICERS CHAIR: Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley VICE CHAIR: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS J. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY Allen D. Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg Larry L. Brown, Sr., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA William A.V. Clark, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles David S. Ekern, Commissioner, Virginia DOT, Richmond Nicholas J. Garber, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville Jeffrey W. Hamiel, Executive Director, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, MN Edward A. (Ned) Helme, President, Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington, DC Will Kempton, Director, California DOT, Sacramento Susan Martinovich, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas DOT, Topeka Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore Pete K. Rahn, Director, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson Tracy L. Rosser, Vice President, Corporate Traffic, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Mandeville, LA Rosa Clausell Rountree, CEO-General Manager, Transroute International Canada Services, Inc., Pitt Meadows, British Columbia Steve T. Scalzo, Chief Operating Officer, Marine Resources Group, Seattle, WA Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin Linda S. Watson, CEO, LYNXCentral Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Orlando Steve Williams, Chairman and CEO, Maverick Transportation, Inc., Little Rock, AR EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Thad Allen (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DC Peter H. Appel, Administrator, Research and Technology Administration, U.S.DOT Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA George Bugliarello, President Emeritus and University Professor, Polytechnic Institute of New York University, Brooklyn; Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC James E. Caponiti, Acting Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT Cynthia Douglass, Acting Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.DOT LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC John C. Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC Rose A. McMurry, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT Ronald Medford, Acting Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC Lynne A. Osmus, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT Jeffrey F. Paniati, Acting Deputy Administrator and Executive Director, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT Robert L. Van Antwerp (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC Matthew Welbes, Executive Director and Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT *Membership as of June 2009.
OCR for page R3
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 REPORT S2-C02-RR Performance Measurement Framework for Highway Capacity Decision Making Prepared by CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS, INC. 33 East 33rd Street, Suite 804 New York, NY 10016 with HIGH STREET CONSULTING GROUP TRANSTECH MANAGEMENT, INC. SPY POND PARTNERS ROSS & ASSOCIATES S UBJECT A REAS Planning and Administration · Energy and Environment · Highway and Facility Design TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2009 www.TRB.org
OCR for page R4
The Second Strategic Highway SHRP 2 Report S2-C02-RR Research Program ISBN: 9780309128858 America's highway system is critical to meeting the mobility Library of Congress Control Number: 2009930534 and economic needs of local communities, regions, and the na- tion. Developments in research and technology--such as ad- ©2009 Transportation Research Board vanced materials, communications technology, new data collection technologies, and human factors science--offer a new opportunity to improve the safety and reliability of this im- Copyright Permission portant national resource. Breakthrough resolution of significant Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining writ- transportation problems, however, requires concentrated re- ten permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously pub- sources over a short time frame. Reflecting this need, the second lished or copyrighted material used herein. Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) has an intense, The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to reproduce mate- large-scale focus, integrates multiple fields of research and tech- rial 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, nology, and is fundamentally different from the broad, mission- or FHWA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that oriented, discipline-based research programs that have been the 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 ma- mainstay of the highway research industry for half a century. terial. For other uses of the material, request permission from SHRP 2. Note: SHRP 2 report numbers convey the program, focus area, project number, and pub- The need for SHRP 2 was identified in TRB Special Report 260: lication format. Report numbers ending in "w" are published as Web Documents only. Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, published in 2001 and based on a study NOTICE sponsored by Congress through the Transportation Equity Act 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 for the 21st Century (TEA-21). SHRP 2, modeled after the Board of the National Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing Board's first Strategic Highway Research Program, is a focused, time- judgment that the program concerned is of national importance and appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the National Research Council. constrained, management-driven program designed to comple- ment existing highway research programs. SHRP 2 focuses on The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration for the applied research in four focus areas: Safety, to prevent or reduce balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions expressed the severity of highway crashes by understanding driver behav- or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and, while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical committee, they are not necessarily those of ior; Renewal, to address the aging infrastructure through rapid the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the Federal Highway design and construction methods that cause minimal disrup- Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, or the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. tions and produce lasting facilities; Reliability, to reduce conges- Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical committee according tion through incident reduction, management, response, and to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive mitigation; and Capacity, to integrate mobility, economic, envi- Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council. ronmental, and community needs in the planning and designing Note: The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National of new transportation capacity. Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the individual states participating in the second Strategic Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or SHRP 2 was authorized in August 2005 as part of the Safe, Ac- manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. countable, 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 Na- tional 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 re- SHRP 2 reports search contractors; independent research project oversight; and dissemination of research results. are available by subscription and through the TRB online Bookstore at www.TRB.org/bookstore Contact the TRB Business Office by telephone at 202-334-3213. More information about SHRP 2 is available at: www.TRB.org/SHRP2
OCR for page R5
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 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. Charles M. Vest 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 scien- tific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and the Insti- tute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest 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
OCR for page R6
SHRP 2 STAFF Neil F. Hawks, Director Ann M. Brach, Deputy Director Kizzy Anderson, Senior Program Assistant, Safety Stephen Andrle, Chief Program Officer, Capacity James Bryant, Senior Program Officer, Renewal Kenneth Campbell, Chief Program Officer, Safety JoAnn Coleman, Senior Program Assistant, Reliability Walter Diewald, Senior Program Officer, Safety Jerry DiMaggio, Implementation Coordinator Charles Fay, Senior Program Officer, Safety Ralph Hessian, Visiting Professional William Hyman, Senior Program Officer, Reliability Linda Mason, Communications Officer Michael Miller, Senior Program Assistant David Plazak, Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Robert Raab, Senior Program Officer, Renewal Monica Starnes, Senior Program Officer, Renewal Noreen Fenwick, Senior Program Assistant, Renewal Chrystyne Talley, Financial Associate Charles Taylor, Special Consultant, Renewal Hans van Saan, Visiting Professional Pat Williams, Administrative Assistant Connie Woldu, Administrative Coordinator Patrick Zelinski, Communications Specialist AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Asso- ciation of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It was conducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. The report was prepared for the SHRP 2 Capacity Technical Coordinating Committee to convey the findings of research conducted in Capacity project C02. This project was managed by Stephen J. Andrle, Chief Program Officer for Capacity. The research reported on herein was performed by Cambridge Systematics, Inc., supported by High Street Consulting Group, Ross & Associates, Spy Pond Partners, and Jim Shrouds. Hugh Louch, Cambridge System- atics, Inc., was the Principal Investigator. The other authors of this report are Virginia Smith Reeder of Cam- bridge Systematics, Inc. and Joe Crossett of High Street Consulting Group. The authors acknowledge the contributions to this research from Steve Pickrell, Erik Cempel, Tracy Clymer, Randall Halvorson, and Joanne Potter of Cambridge Systematics; Anna Williams and Tim Larson of Ross & Associates; and Frances Harrison of Spy Pond Partners.
OCR for page R7
F O R E W O R D Stephen J. Andrle, SHRP 2 Chief Program Officer, Capacity This report describes a performance measurement framework that supports the collabo- rative decision-making framework (CDMF) for additions to highway capacity being devel- oped under the SHRP 2 Capacity research program. Five broad areas of performance are identified: transportation, environment, economics, community, and cost. Under these headings, 17 performance factors are identified and each is linked to key decision points in the CDMF. While the purpose of the performance measurement framework is to establish a systematic approach, the emphasis of the research was on less-developed areas of meas- urement, such as climate change, ecosystems, environmental health, archeological and cul- tural resources, and travel time reliability. Measures for each factor are provided along with a discussion of data needs and data gaps. A companion web tool was also developed. The web tool is intended to be a permanent and dynamic resource and will be updated as addi- tional SHRP 2 and other research is completed. The measures were assembled from inter- views, case studies documented in the report, other SHRP 2 work, and the literature on the subject. Measures of transportation system performance are integral to demonstrating the need for highway capacity expansion, evaluating alternative solutions, and monitoring performance. To date, agencies have generally had greatest success with operations and maintenance- related measures, such as pavement quality, bridge deficiency, and safety; and capacity- related measures such as volume-to-capacity ratio, or level-of-service rating. Well-established data collection and analysis techniques have reinforced the use of these and similar measures as tools for decision making. The public continues to be concerned about the impacts of adding highway capacity and demands even broader analysis. Now measures addressing environmental justice, green- house gas emissions, infrastructure vulnerability to climate change, air toxics exposure, con- sistency with land use and other plans, community cohesion, and visual quality are of interest. Transportation agencies generally do not have well-developed data collection and analysis techniques in these new areas. Even selecting the measures is a matter for public input and debate. Some of the challenges that must be overcome include performance measure design, data collection, target setting, and interpretation and use of results. Better approaches are needed for quantifying transportation system performance in non-traditional areas. The ability to better understand system-level performance in terms of economic, mobility, accessi- bility, safety, environmental, community, and social considerations leads to more collaborative decision making during system planning and project development. Performance measures have communication value as well as analytical value because a better collective understanding is achieved of the transportation problem being addressed. Each constituency can see a measure that relates to its concerns, and each constituency can better see the concerns of others. A fundamental principle of SHRP 2 Capacity research is that the right people must be at the table at the right time with the right information. Per- formance measures that stakeholders help to select that speak to their concerns is a big step toward making the best transportation decision and delivering it with a minimum of delay.
OCR for page R8
The report devotes a chapter to each of the five performance areas, covering for each the background literature, key findings, identification of performance factors, a selection of measures for each factor, and case study references. For example, under the "community cohesion" factor, five measures are suggested: · Number of homes and businesses to be relocated · Forecasted change in walking trips · Change in travel times to neighborhood points of congregation · Key pedestrian routes severed · Key pedestrian routes reconnected. Appendices provide detailed write-ups of case studies conducted as part of the project and a discussion of data sources, data gaps, and high-value data investment opportunities. The information in this report will prove valuable to decision makers in state departments of transportation; planning, operations, and environmental review staff in all transportation agencies; environmental resource agencies; nongovernmental conservation organizations; metropolitan planning organizations; elected officials; and the public.
OCR for page R9
C O N T E N T S 1 Executive Summary 12 C H A P T E R 1 Introduction and Background 12 Motivation and Objectives 12 Intended Users 13 Approach and Organization 15 C H A P T E R 2 Background Research 15 Performance Measurement Framework 17 Literature Review 22 In-Depth Interviews 25 Targeted Case Studies 27 C H A P T E R 3 Performance Measurement Framework 27 Collaborative Decision-Making Context--Who, Why, and How 28 Linking Measures to Decisions--When 29 Measurement of Capacity Impacts--What 31 What is in the Framework 32 C H A P T E R 4 Transportation Factors 32 Background Literature 33 Transportation Performance Factors and Measures 38 C H A P T E R 5 Environmental Factors 38 Background Literature 40 Environmental Performance Factors and Measures 45 Environmental Data Gaps and Opportunities 50 C H A P T E R 6 Economic Factors 50 Background Literature 51 Economic Performance Factors and Objectives 53 C H A P T E R 7 Community Factors 53 Background Literature 54 Community Performance Factors and Objectives 56 Community Data Gaps and Opportunities 60 C H A P T E R 8 Cost Factors 60 Background Literature 60 Cost Performance Factors and Objectives 63 C H A P T E R 9 Conclusions--Using Measures in Decision Making 63 Links to Decision Making 65 Summary of High-Value Opportunities for Data Improvement 69 Bibliography 73 Appendix A. Case Studies 96 Appendix B. High-Value Data Investments
OCR for page R10