Highway Capacity Manual 2000 CHAPTER 28

ASSESSMENT OF MULTIPLE FACILITIES

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 28-1 Purpose ............................................................................................................ 28-1 Organization ..................................................................................................... 28-1 Scope ............................................................................................................... 28-1 Terminology...................................................................................................... 28-1 II. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MEASURES ............................................................... 28-1 Performance-Based Planning .......................................................................... 28-2 System Performance Measurement ................................................................. 28-2 Quantity of Service .................................................................................... 28-3 Intensity of Congestion ............................................................................. 28-3 Duration of Congestion ............................................................................. 28-3 Extent of Congestion ................................................................................. 28-3 Variability ................................................................................................... 28-3 Accessibility ............................................................................................... 28-3 System Performance Report Card ................................................................... 28-3 III. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 28-4 APPENDIX A. MEASUREMENTS OF TRAVELER PERCEPTIONS ........................... 28-4 Utility Equations ............................................................................................... 28-4 System LOS ..................................................................................................... 28-5 I.

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 28-1. Example System Performance Report Card ........................................... 28-4

28-i

Chapter 28 - Assessment of Multiple Facilities

Highway Capacity Manual 2000

I.

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents a framework for analyzing areawide and corridor transportation systems with multiple facility types and multiple modes. Chapters 29 and 30 provide specific procedures for the analyses. PURPOSE The methodological framework for analyzing the performance of transportation systems is intended for application in major investment studies, air quality conformity studies, and in the development of congestion management programs and long-range transportation plans (LRTP). ORGANIZATION The chapter defines a structure for analyzing ground transportation systems in an area or a corridor and then develops performance measurements for transportation systems. Appendix A provides appropriate measures of traveler satisfaction and level-ofservice (LOS) for systems. SCOPE This chapter is applicable to the analysis of multiple facilities of a multimodal ground transportation system in a defined area. The framework is limited to performance measures of mobility, computed through extensions of the procedures in earlier chapters. Other performance measures also may be valid but are not discussed, because the Highway Capacity Manual does not provide the basis for estimating them. Methods for measuring traveler satisfaction are discussed, but the chapter does not recommend a letter-grade scale for characterizing the results. Because traveler satisfaction is strongly influenced by expectation, local agencies must determine their own standards. TERMINOLOGY Performance measures apply to system outcomesfor example, travel time or delay. They often are measures of traveler perception or satisfaction but are not limited to that. Quality-of-service measures apply to the travelers perceived satisfaction with their trip. They are a subset of the set of all performance measures. Service measures are quality-of-service measures used by the Highway Capacity Manual and assigned a letter grade of A through F. LOS measures are a subset of quality-of-service measures. Utility is an ordinal measure of how a traveler values trip choice. A higher value of utility for one option over another indicates the travelers preference. Traveler satisfaction, however, differs from utility. Satisfaction means that the quality of the trip has met the needs and desires of the traveler. A corridor is characterized by a set of generally parallel transportation facilities designed to move people between two points; this distinguishes it from a general analysis area. For example, a freeway corridor may consist of a freeway and one or more parallel arterial streets; there also may be rail or bus transit service on either or both the freeway and the arterial, or on a separate right-of-way.

Traveler satisfaction Corridors

II. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MEASURES Performance measures for areawide and corridor analysis of transportation systems typically are selected as part of the performance-based planning process.
28-1
Chapter 28 - Assessment of Multiple Facilities Introduction

Highway Capacity Manual 2000 PERFORMANCE-BASED PLANNING Performance-based planning relates agency planning and project implementation to public benefits. Its intent is to go beyond the simple measurement of agency output such as number of kilometers of road constructedto measure agency performance in terms of outcomessuch as improvements in travel time. One difficulty is that outcomes usually depend on factors external to the agencys actions. However, the ability to relate agency activities to the accomplishment of public goals has made performance-based planning a valuable tool for communicating agency accomplishments to public policy makers. Basic public goals adopted by policy makers and planning agencies fall into three categories: efficiency, effectiveness, and externalities ( 1). Efficiency relates to the utilization of system capacity; a typical performance measure is the ratio of demand to capacity. Effectiveness relates to user perception of the value of the trip; typical performance measures include the proportion of the population served and the cost per trip or ton moved. Externalities relate to the environmental impacts of the system; typical performance measures are vehicle emissions, noise, and accident rates. The estimation and application of performance measures to the agencys goals of efficiency and effectiveness are described here. Some procedures in this manual, however, also may provide inputs for calculating performance measures related to externalities. Analysis of a transportation system starts with estimates of travel times and delays at the segment and point levels, using the methods described in Part III. Segment and point delays and travel times then are converted to total person-hours of delay or travel time and added together to obtain facility estimates. The sum of the facility estimates yields subsystem estimates. Mean delays or trip times for each subsystem are then computed by dividing the total person-hours by the total number of trips on the subsystem. Subsystem estimates of travel time and delay can be combined into total system estimates, but typically the results for each subsystem are reported separately. Equation 28-1 shows the aggregation of point and segment results to obtain an estimate of mean subsystem delay.
Dm =
x ,p

Results of analyses of segments and points are converted to personhours of delay or travel time and aggregated to system levels

(D xT x + D pT p )
x ,p

(T x + T p )

(28-1)

where
Dm Dx Dp Tx Tp

= = = = =

delay per person-trip for the modal subsystem, delay per person-trip for Segment x, delay per person-trip for Point p, number of person-trips using Segment x, and number of person-trips using Point p.

The delay, speed, and travel time for segments and points are estimated using the appropriate methods described in Part III of this manual. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT System performance must be measured in more than one dimension. When analyzing a single intersection, it may suffice to compute only the peak-period delay; however, when analyzing a system, one also must deal with the geographic extent, the duration of delay, and any shifts in demand among facilities and modes (2). System performance should be measured in the following dimensions: Quantity of servicethe number of person-kilometers and person-hours produced by the system; Intensity of congestionthe maximum amount of congestion expressed in terms of total delay; Extent of congestionthe physical length of the congested system;
28-2

Dimensions of system performance

Chapter 28 - Assessment of Multiple Facilities System Performance Measures

Highway Capacity Manual 2000 Duration of congestionthe number of hours that congestion persists; Variabilitythe day-to-day variation in the measures; and Accessibilitythe percentage of the populace able to complete a selected trip within a specified time. Quantity of Service Quantity of service measures the utilization of the transportation system, in terms of both the number of people and the distance they are conveyed (person-kilometers of travel, PkmT), and the amount of time required to convey them (person-hours of travel, PHT) . Dividing the PkmT by the PHT gives the mean trip speed for the system. Intensity of Congestion The intensity of congestion is measured using the total number of person-hours of delay and mean trip speed. Other indices, such as mean delay per person-trip, can be used to measure the intensity of congestion. Duration of Congestion The duration of congestion is measured in terms of the maximum amount of time that congestion occurs anywhere in the system. A segment is congested if the demand exceeds the segments discharge capacity. Transit subsystem congestion can occur either when the passenger demand exceeds the capacity of the transit vehicles or when the need to move transit vehicles exceeds the vehicular capacity of the transit facility. Extent of Congestion The extent of congestion is measured in terms of the maximum physical extent of congestion on the system at any one time. It may be expressed in terms of the number of directional kilometers of facilities congested ormore meaningfully for the general publicin terms of the maximum percentage of system kilometers congested at any one time. Variability Variability ideally should be measured in terms of the probability of occurrence or as a confidence interval for the other measures of congestion (intensity, duration, and extent). However, the state of the art does not yet facilitate such a calculation. Instead, a measure of the sensitivity of the results to changes in the demand can be substituted, until better methods for estimating variability become available. Various levels of demand are tested (such as a 5 percent increase or a 5 percent decrease) and the resulting effects on the intensity, duration, and extent of congestion are noted in terms of a percentage increase or decrease in their values. The sensitivity can be expressed in terms of an elasticity, by dividing the percentage change in output by the percentage change in demand. An elasticity greater than 1.0 means the estimated congestion measure is highly sensitive to changes in demand. Accessibility Accessibility examines the effectiveness of the system from a perspective other than intensity. Accessibility is expressed in terms of the percentage of trips (or persons) able to accomplish a certain goalsuch as going from home to workwithin a targeted travel time. Accessibility is particularly useful for assessing the quality of service for transit subsystems (3). SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT CARD Exhibit 28-1 shows the setup of a typical report card for reporting system performance.

28-3

Chapter 28 - Assessment of Multiple Facilities System Performance Measures

Highway Capacity Manual 2000 EXHIBIT 28-1. EXAMPLE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT CARD
Subsystem Quantity Distance (PkmT) Time (PHT) Intensity Delay (p-h) Speed (km/h) Duration (h) Extent (km) Variability Delay Duration Extent Accessibility Freeway Urban Street Rural Highway Transit Pedestrian Bicycle

III. REFERENCES 1. Multimodal Transportation: Development of a Performance-Based Planning Process . NCHRP Research Results Digest No. 226, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., July 1998. 2. Lomax, T., S. Turner, G. Shunk, H. S. Levinson, R. H. Pratt, P. N. Bay, and G. B. Douglas. NCHRP Report 398: Quantifying Congestion. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997. 3. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. Transit Cooperative Research Program Project A-15, TCRP Web Document No. 6, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999.

APPENDIX A.

MEASUREMENTS OF TRAVELER PERCEPTIONS

Quality-of-service measures, which indicate the degree of traveler satisfaction with system performance, are a subset of the set of performance measures described in this chapter (1). Part III of this manual identifies various measures for traveler perceptions of performance, designed for individual points, segments, or single facilities. The measures compare traveler satisfaction for various levels of service when there are no other alternative routes. For example, a driver committed to a particular freeway will tend to prefer less dense conditions to more dense conditions. However, this is no longer true if the driver might choose a parallel frontage road instead. Generally, the driver will choose the facility that allows the highest speed of travel, even if the freeway has more dense traffic conditions than the parallel, lightly used frontage road. The drivers choice of route indicates a preference forand a higher degree of satisfaction withthe conditions. A freeway operating at LOS B will be preferred over a lower-speed frontage road operating at LOS A. UTILITY EQUATIONS However, a more comprehensive measure of traveler satisfaction is needed for evaluating transportation systems. Utility models derived from microeconomic consumer
Chapter 28 - Assessment of Multiple Facilities System Performance Measures

28-4

Highway Capacity Manual 2000 behavior theory provide a tested and comprehensive multimodal method for evaluating traveler preferences and satisfaction with different travel choices (2). Utility equations have been used in most metropolitan areas of the United States to predict traveler preferences for different modes of travel. The utility equations identify which combinations of travel times and costs on different modes provide the most value or utility to the traveler. Utility equations are mathematical functions whose numerical values depend on the attributes of the options and on the characteristics of the traveler. The utility function with the greater numerical value indicates the individuals preference. Equation A28-1 is a utility function that can be used as a default if there is no locally developed and calibrated utility function (3, 4).
Utility = 0.025 * IVT 0.050 * OVT 0.005 * Cost (A28-1)

Utility equations

where
Utility IVT OVT Cost

= = = =

measure of the travelers perceived value of an alternative, in-vehicle time (min), out-of-vehicle travel time (min), and out-of-pocket cost for trip (cents).

As indicated by this utility equation, travel time and cost are the two factors that explain the majority of traveler behavior (5). This particular equation, however, does not include other factors also known to influence traveler behaviorsuch as reliability, security, comfort, and scenery. These other factors can be included in a locally calibrated utility equation. More elaborate utility equations designed for the analysis of transit benefits and intermodal passenger transfer facilities also are available (6, 7). Nonetheless, there is no intrinsic meaning to the value generated by the utility function. Utility is an index of customer satisfaction, not a measure of the absolute amount of satisfaction. From a comparison of utility indices, it can be determined which option the traveler prefers, but not that the traveler is actually satisfied. The proportion of travelers preferring one transportation alternative over another is computed according to Equation A28-2.
Pa = e Ua e
j Uj

Utility is useful for comparing alternatives but not for reflecting absolute levels of satisfaction

(A28-2)

where
Pa Ua Uj

= proportion of travelers preferring Option a, = utility function valued for Option a, and = utility function valued for Option j.

This proportion P a also can be thought of as the probability that Alternative a will be preferred over all other Alternatives j. SYSTEM LOS LOS grades convey to the public the general quality of service provided by the transportation system. Numerical resultssuch as the number of seconds of delayare translated into a letter grade of A through F to indicate whether or not the traveler would consider the quality of service satisfactory. Assigning LOS grades to system operations requires an absolute measure of traveler satisfaction. However, consumer behavior theory is based on the concept that traveler satisfaction is relative, not absolute. The degree to which travelers are satisfied with a particular travel experience depends on the options they think are available and on their perception of their own experience. For example, residents in rural areas frequently are dissatisfied with travel conditions acceptable to an urban resident. Travelers also are known to build up
28-5
Chapter 28 - Assessment of Multiple Facilities Appendix A

Highway Capacity Manual 2000 tolerances for congestion. A certain level of congestion still may result in a satisfactory travel experience, if it was better than on the day before. Transit riders tolerate delays better than automobile drivers. No fixed set of values of travel time, speed, delay, or any other measure can ensure a certain percentage of traveler satisfaction with system operations. It can be said only that travelers will prefer one option over another. No single set of quality-of-service threshold values for transportation systems can be expected to apply equally to all geographic regions for all times. Each regions tolerance for congestion must be measured locally. For these reasons, no recommendations are made here for any specific thresholds of travel time, speed, or delay for determining systemwide quality of service. Local agencies should develop their own goals and quality-of-service targets. REFERENCES 1. Meyer, M. Alternative Performance Measures for Transportation Planning: Evolution Toward Multi-Modal Planning. Report #FTA-GA-26-7000-95-1, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C., 1995. 2. Henderson, J. M., and R. E. Quandt. Microeconomic Theory: A Mathematical Approach. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, N.Y., 1971. 3. Sosslau, A. B., A. B. Hassam, M. M. Carter, and G. V. Wickstrom. NCHRP Report 187: Quick-Response Urban Travel Estimation Techniques and Transferable Parameters: Users Guide. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1978. 4. Martin, W. A., and N. A. McGuckin. Travel Estimation Techniques for Urban Planning . Barton Aschman Associates, Washington, D.C., January 1996. 5. Ortuzar, J. D., and L. G. Willumsen. Modeling Transport, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y., 1994. 6. Beimborn, E. Measurement of Transit Benefits. FTA-WI-11-0013-93-1, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C., 1993. 7. Horowitz, A. J., and A. Thompson. Evaluation of Intermodal Passenger Transfer Facilities. Final Report, DOT-T-95-02, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1995.

Chapter 28 - Assessment of Multiple Facilities Appendix A

28-6