University of Virginia
Update for VTrans2025 Technical
Committee
February 13, 2006
Dr. James H. Lambert
Alexander S. Linthicum
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
1
University of Virginia
Contents
• Introduction
• Performance Metrics
• Cost Benefit Analysis / Prioritization Methodology
– Need
– Existing work
– Gaps
– Work Planned
• Discussion of Future Work
• Appendix A – Suggestions of Metrics for Quality of Life and Environmental
Stewardship
• Appendix B – Suggestions of Metrics for Cost Benefit Analysis / Prioritization
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
2
University of Virginia
Introduction
• Last meeting attended by UVA concerning performance metrics
– November 28, 2005 at DRPT
– Discussed metrics for rail and transit
– Charged by Kim to focus on “Quality of Life and
Environmental Stewardship” metrics
• Since November meeting, UVA has focused on
– Quality of Life performance metrics
– Use of performance metrics in an objective prioritization
process
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
3
University of Virginia
Performance Metrics
• Developed a performance metrics that includes
– Metrics distributed by Kathy Graham at January VTrans
meeting
– UVA suggestions for “Quality of Life and Environmental
Stewardship” metrics
• Located in Appendix A
– UVA suggestions for metrics to aid in Cost Benefit Analysis /
Prioritization Process
• Located in Appendix B
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
4
Cost Benefit Analysis /
Prioritization
University of Virginia
• From the VTrans2025 Final Progress Report, December 2005
“Recommendation 15
Continue development of the Multimodal Investment Network (MIN)
approach as a framework for planning and prioritizing multimodal projects
at the state level, giving particular attention to how this new approach to
planning can assist in allocating scarce transportation dollars.
Action Item 15.3 – Establish a mechanism for giving priority to statewide
multimodal corridor components in modal agency prioritization systems.
Action Item 15.4 – Work with regional planning partners and modal
agencies to evaluate the benefits of prioritizing statewide multimodal
corridor components.
Action Item 15.5 – Develop a process for evaluating alternative
transportation modes and/or mode substitutability in development of modal
long-range plans.”
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
5
Cost Benefit Analysis /
Prioritization
University of Virginia
• Differing modes often measured by disparate performance metrics
– Costs and benefits often monetized
• Several tools that monetize costs and benefits for multimodal
initiatives are available from FHWA (SPASM and STEAM)
• These tools apply the concept of “consumer surplus”
– B = (Pb - Pi )(Vb + Vi ) / 2
– Pb and Pi are price per trip and Vb and Vi are the number of
trips in the Base and Improvement Cases
– In Exhibit 2.2, the rectangular area represents benefits to
current users and the triangular area represents benefits to new
users.
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
6
Cost Benefit Analysis /
Prioritization
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
University of Virginia
7
Cost Benefit Analysis /
Prioritization
University of Virginia
• Sketch Planning Analysis Spreadsheet Model (SPASM)
– Great for strategic planning
– Can be used for multimodal corridors
– More work required to
• quantify external costs and benefits
• consider airports and maritime ports
• Surface Transportation Efficiency Analysis Model (STEAM)
– Designed primarily for local and regional planners
– Requires more detailed, initiative-specific information than is
available to statewide planners during the strategic planning
stage
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
8
Cost Benefit Analysis /
Prioritization
University of Virginia
• Existing FHWA tools (SPASM) and methodologies from UVA and
VDOT’s highway cost estimation and prioritization process can be
modified and complemented to help the VTrans2025 Committee
develop an objective, performance metric-based prioritization
methodology
• Future Work
– Define scope
– Define performance metrics required (see Appendix B for
initial list)
– Develop methodology
• Deconstruct existing tools
• Define cost benefit equations
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
9
University of Virginia
Appendix A – Suggestions of Metrics for Quality
of Life and Environmental Stewardship
from “Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Appendix B
- Performance Measures Library”
(still need to identify which document)
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
10
Appendix A Quality of Life
University of Virginia
• Accessibility, Mobility Related
– % population that perceives its environment has become more 'livable'
over the past year with regard to ability to access desired locations
– % of region's unemployed or poor that cite transportation access as a
principal barrier to seeking employment
– % of region's mobility-impaired who can reach specific activities by
public transportation or by walking/wheelchair
– Customer perception of satisfaction with commute time
– Customer perception of quality transit service
– Lost time due to congestion
– Average number of hours spent traveling
– Work trips completed per vehicle hour
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
11
Appendix A Quality of Life
University of Virginia
• Safety Related
– Customer perception of safety while in travel system
– % of population which perceives that response time by police,
fire, rescue, or emergency services has become better or worse,
and whether that is due to transportation factors
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
12
Appendix A Quality of Life
University of Virginia
• Air Quality Related
– Tons of air pollution emitted by all modes (including energy
used to power METRO and other facilities)
– # of days Pollution Standard Index is in unhealthful range
– Number of urban areas classified as non-attainment status
– Population in areas classified as non-attainment status
Customer perception of satisfaction with air quality
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
13
Appendix A Quality of Life
University of Virginia
• Noise Related
– % of population exposed to levels of transportation noise above
60 decibels
– Number of residences exposed to noise in excess of established
thresholds
– Number of noise receptor sites above threshold
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
14
Appendix A Quality of Life
University of Virginia
• Other Environment Related
– Customer perception of satisfaction with transportation
decisions which impact the environment
– Customer perception of amount of salt used on trunk highways
– Amount of salt used per VMT or per lane-mile
– # of archeological and historical sites that are not satisfactorily
addressed in project development before construction begins
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
15
Appendix A Quality of Life
University of Virginia
• Project Delivery Related
– Customer perception of satisfaction with involvement in preproject planning
– Customer perception of satisfaction with completed projects
– Customer perception of promises kept on project completion
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
16
Appendix A Environmental Stewardship
University of Virginia
• Alternative Modes, Fuels
– Overall mode split
– Mode split by facility or route
– % of change in mode splits
– Public transportation passenger-miles/total vehicle miles
– % of vehicles using alternative fuels
– % use of walking and bicycling for commute trips
– % use of walking and bicycling for all trips
– # of miles of non-motorized facilities
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
17
Appendix A Environmental Stewardship
University of Virginia
• Air Pollution
– Highway emissions levels within non-attainment areas
– Tons of greenhouse gases generated
– Air quality rating
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
18
Appendix A Environmental Stewardship
University of Virginia
• Fuel Usage
– Fuel consumption per VMT
– Fuel consumption per PMT
– Fuel consumption per ton-mile traveled
– Average MPG
– Fuel usage splits
– Average fuel consumption per trip for selected trips (or
shipments)
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
19
Appendix A Environmental Stewardship
University of Virginia
• Land Use
– Sprawl: difference between change in urban household density
and suburban household density
– % of region which is developed
• Pipelines
– degree to which pipeline spills and accidents are minimized
– Number of pipeline spills
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
20
Appendix A Environmental Stewardship
University of Virginia
• Government Actions
– Customer perception of satisfaction with transportation
decisions which impact the environment
– Number of environmental problems to be taken care of
with existing commitments
– Number of transportation control measures (TCMs)
accomplished vs. planned
– Environmentally friendly partnership projects per year
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
21
Appendix A Environmental Stewardship
University of Virginia
• Miscellaneous
– VMT/speed relationships constraints to utilization due to noise
(hours of operation)
– constraints to utilization due to water (dredge fill permits)
– # accidents involving hazardous waste
– Amount of recycled material used in road construction
– # and miles of designated scenic routes
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
22
University of Virginia
Appendix B – Suggestions of Metrics for
Cost Benefit Analysis / Prioritization
from SPASM
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
23
Appendix B – Metrics for Cost
Benefit Analysis / Prioritization
University of Virginia
• Unit Cost Parameters
– Value of Travel Time ($ per person-hour), varies by mode
(auto, truck, carpool, local bus, express bus, rail)
• In-Vehicle
• Excess Time
– Added bus delay on arterials (minutes/mile)
– External Costs (excluding emissions)
• Per vehicle trip (auto, carpool)
• Per vehicle mile (auto, truck, carpool)
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
24
Appendix B – Metrics for Cost
Benefit Analysis / Prioritization
University of Virginia
• Agency Costs
– Capital cost of new initiatives
– Operating and maintenance costs of new initiatives
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
25
Appendix B – Metrics for Cost
Benefit Analysis / Prioritization
University of Virginia
• Base Case and Improvement Cases
– Freeways, arterials, HOV lanes, rail corridors
• Length
• Capacity
• Free-flow Speed
– These can be same for base and improvement cases
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
26
Appendix B – Metrics for Cost
Benefit Analysis / Prioritization
University of Virginia
• Demand Inputs
– Base and Improvement Cases, Peak and Off-Peak Periods
• Person Trips Per Day
• Vehicle Occupancy (persons/vehicle)
• Out-of-pocket cost per person trip ($)
• Wait and transfer time per trip (min.)
• Access Mode Fractions (% of trips)
• Access Mode Distances (miles)
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
27