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
