Value of Travel Time Reliability in Transportation Decision Making: Proof of Concept—Portland, Oregon, Metro (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2015 www.TRB.org 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-L35A-RW-1 Value of Travel Time Reliability in Transportation Decision Making: Proof of Concept— Portland, Oregon, Metro University of ArizonA in collaboration with PortlAnd Metro rst internAtionAl inc.

Subject Areas Economics Highways Operations and Traffic Management Planning and Forecasting

SHRP 2 Reports Available by subscription and through the TRB online bookstore: www.mytrb.org/store Contact the TRB Business Office: 202-334-3213 More information about SHRP 2: www.TRB.org/SHRP2 The Second Strategic Highway Research Program America’s highway system is critical to meeting the mobility and economic needs of local communities, regions, and the nation. Developments in research and technology—such as advanced materials, communications technology, new data collection tech- nologies, and human factors science—offer a new opportunity to improve the safety and reliability of this important national resource. Breakthrough resolution of significant transportation problems, however, requires concentrated resources over a short time frame. Reflecting this need, the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) has an intense, large-scale focus, integrates multiple fields of research and technology, and is fundamentally different from the broad, mission-oriented, discipline-based research programs that have been the mainstay of the highway research industry for half a century. The need for SHRP 2 was identified in TRB Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, published in 2001 and based on a study sponsored by Congress through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). SHRP 2, modeled after the first Strategic Highway Research Program, is a focused, time- constrained, management-driven program designed to com- plement existing highway research programs. SHRP 2 focuses on applied research in four areas: Safety, to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes by understanding driver behavior; Renewal, to address the aging infrastructure through rapid design and construction methods that cause minimal disruptions and produce lasting facilities; Reliability, to reduce congestion through incident reduction, management, response, and mitigation; and Capacity, to integrate mobility, economic, environmental, and community needs in the planning and designing of new trans- portation capacity. SHRP 2 was authorized in August 2005 as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The program is managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) on behalf of the National Research Council (NRC). SHRP 2 is conducted under a memo- randum of understanding among the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the National Academy of Sciences, parent organization of TRB and NRC. The program provides for competitive, merit-based selection of research contractors; independent research project oversight; and dissemination of research results. SHRP 2 Report S2-L35A-RW-1 ISBN: 978-0-309-27427-2 © 2015 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Copyright Information Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copy- right to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to repro- duce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, or FHWA endorsement of a particular prod- uct, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing material in this document for educational and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from SHRP 2. Note: SHRP 2 report numbers convey the program, focus area, project number, and publication format. Report numbers ending in “w” are published as web documents only. Notice The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical committee and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the second Strategic Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisci- plinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transporta- tion, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American 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. This project was managed by Stephen J. Andrle, SHRP 2 Deputy Director; William Hyman, Senior Program Officer for SHRP 2 Reliability; and Matthew Miller, Program Officer for SHRP 2 Reliability. Ralph Hessian, Special Consultant for SHRP 2 Capacity and Reliability, also contributed to this report. The primary authors are Yi-Chang Chiu (principal investigator), Xiaoyu Zhu, and Andisheh Ranjibari of the University of Arizona; Hyunsoo Noh at Pima Association of Governments, Tucson (at the University of Arizona during this research); Robert Tung of RST International Inc.; Peter Bosa, Dick Walker, and Matt Bihn of Portland Metro; and Alireza Khani of the University of Texas at Austin. SHRP 2 STAFF Ann M. Brach, Director Stephen J. Andrle, Deputy Director Neil J. Pedersen, Deputy Director, Implementation and Communications Cynthia Allen, Editor Kenneth Campbell, Chief Program Officer, Safety JoAnn Coleman, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity and Reliability Eduardo Cusicanqui, Financial Officer Richard Deering, Special Consultant, Safety Data Phase 1 Planning Shantia Douglas, Senior Financial Assistant Charles Fay, Senior Program Officer, Safety Carol Ford, Senior Program Assistant, Renewal and Safety James Hedlund, Special Consultant, Safety Coordination Alyssa Hernandez, Reports Coordinator Ralph Hessian, Special Consultant, Capacity and Reliability Andy Horosko, Special Consultant, Safety Field Data Collection William Hyman, Senior Program Officer, Reliability Linda Mason, Communications Officer David Plazak, Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Rachel Taylor, Senior Editorial Assistant Dean Trackman, Managing Editor Connie Woldu, Administrative Coordinator

Transportation agencies have traditionally used average travel times and travel time sav- ings to measure system performance and benefits of improvement investments. The reli- ability of travel times from day to day has recently emerged as an important component of system performance for agencies and, of equal importance, for users who may rely on the roadway system for on-time arrival at their destinations. Unreliable travel can have sig- nificant negative consequences for individuals and businesses and thus requires that the value of reliability be considered in the selection of performance improvement projects. There is a need to understand the benefits of providing reliable travel time, establishing appropriate monetary values, and incorporating the additional dimension of travel time reliability into the economic analysis methods that support alternative project investment evaluations and programming decisions that will lead to better operational performance. This report will be of interest to transportation agencies and professionals involved in the analysis and selection of highway improvement projects for operational and capital programming. Traffic congestion continues to grow on the nation’s highways, increasing the concerns of transportation agencies, the business community, and the general public. Congestion includes recurring and nonrecurring components. Recurring congestion reflects routine day-to-day delays during specific time periods where traffic demand exceeds available roadway capacity. Road users come to expect these daily traffic patterns and adjust their travel plans accordingly to achieve timely arrivals. Nonrecurring congestion results from random incidents such as crashes, weather, and work zones, which cause unexpected extra delays. Road users are frustrated by these unexpected delays, which can make for late arrival times at their destination. The SHRP 2 Reliability research objective focuses on reduc- ing nonrecurring congestion through incident reduction, management, response, and mitigation. Achieving this objective will improve travel time reliability for both people and freight. This report documents and presents a pilot approach at the regional planning level to develop, justify, apply, and assess the impact of travel time reliability as a dimension in the economic analyses that support project investment evaluations. The pilot approach had a multimodal focus that addressed both automobile and public transit trip reliability impacts. Background research was conducted to select the travel time reliability metrics for use in the pilot, as well as to establish an understanding of the value of reliability. The research results served as the basis to engage the regional stakeholder agencies in a collaborative exercise to establish a locally agreeable value of reliability as an input to analytical modeling applica- tion. The modeling framework involved replacing the common static traffic and transit assignment with a dynamic transportation network assignment for both traffic and tran- sit. This network assignment could measure travel times and reliability for both modes to serve the development of generalized cost estimates and establish monetary values for the value of travel time and reliability. The model framework was applied to a single corridor, F O R EWO R D Ralph Hessian, P.Eng., FITE, SHRP 2 Special Consultant, Capacity and Reliability

under baseline and future traffic conditions. The cost-benefit impacts of various competing improvement scenarios were assessed considering both travel time and travel time reliabil- ity. Business processes that compare operational alternatives with more traditional capital improvements were evaluated and ranked. The approaches, methods, and findings of this pilot application could be informative to other agencies and jurisdictions that have an inter- est in adopting and incorporating travel time reliability into their project development and programming decision-making process.

C O N T E N T S 1 Executive Summary 2 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Research Goals and Scope 3 1.2 Overview of the Research Framework 3 1.3 Modeling Platform and Framework 6 1.4 Report Structure 7 CHAPTER 2 Overview of DynusT–FAST-TrIPs Integrated Model 7 2.1 DynusT 10 2.2 FAST-TrIPs 12 2.3 DynusT and FAST-TrIPs Integration 14 CHAPTER 3 Local Method for Determining Reliability Measures and Value of Travel Time Reliability 14 3.1 Definition of Travel Time Reliability 14 3.2 Brief Review of Reliability Studies 17 3.3 First Workshop: Early Stage Project Planning and Coordination 19 3.4 General Concepts for Travel Time Reliability Measure and Value of Reliability 20 3.5 Survey for Estimating Reliability Ratio 23 3.6 Reliability Measure Calculation 27 CHAPTER 4 Process for Prioritizing Operational and Capital Improvements 29 CHAPTER 5 Analysis Model Preparation 29 5.1 Metro DynusT Dynamic Traffic Assignment Model Establishment and Calibration 32 5.2 FAST-TrIPs Model Preparation and Coding 33 5.3 DynusT and FAST-TrIPs Integration 35 5.4 Base Model Evaluation 40 CHAPTER 6 Scenario Descriptions 40 6.1 Study Area 40 6.2 Descriptions of Scenarios 40 6.3 Scenario Coding 43 6.4 Model Feedback Framework 45 CHAPTER 7 Scenario Analysis 45 7.1 Route Options 45 7.2 Impact of Reliability on Perceived Travel Times 45 7.3 Impact of Reliability on Transit Mode Shares 45 7.4 Transit Mode Shares by Scenarios

46 7.5 Impact of Variable Message Signs on Transit Mode Shares 46 7.6 Impact of Reliability on Scenario Analysis 52 CHAPTER 8 Policy-Maker Engagement Workshop 52 8.1 Second Workshop Summary 53 8.2 Verifying SHRP 2 L05 Literature Review 54 CHAPTER 9 Lessons Learned and Concluding Remarks 55 CHAPTER 10 References 57 Appendix A. Southwest Corridor Work Plan 59 Appendix B. DynusT and FAST-TrIPs Integration Run in DynuStudio