Highway Capacity Manual 2000

CHAPTER 28

ASSESSMENT OF MULTIPLE FACILITIES

CONTENTS

I. 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

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-of-
service (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 outcomes—for 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 traveler’s 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 traveler’s preference.
Traveler satisfaction
Traveler satisfaction, however, differs from utility. Satisfaction means that the
quality of the trip has met the needs and desires of the traveler.
Corridors
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.

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
Results of analyses of
segments and points are
converted to person-
hours of delay or travel
time and aggregated to
system levels
Dimensions of system
performance
Chapter 28 - Assessment of Multiple Facilities
System Performance Measures
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 constructed—to measure agency performance in
terms of outcomes—such as improvements in travel time. One difficulty is that outcomes
usually depend on factors external to the agency’s 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 agency’s 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.
∑ (D xT x + D pT p )
x ,p
Dm = (28-1)
∑ (T x + T p )
x ,p
where
Dm = delay per person-trip for the modal subsystem,
Dx = delay per person-trip for Segment x,
Dp = delay per person-trip for Point p,
Tx = number of person-trips using Segment x, and
Tp = 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 service—the number of person-kilometers and person-hours produced
by the system;
• Intensity of congestion—the maximum amount of congestion expressed in terms
of total delay;
• Extent of congestion—the physical length of the congested system;
28-2
 Highway Capacity Manual 2000

• Duration of congestion—the number of hours that congestion persists;

• Variability—the day-to-day variation in the measures; and
• Accessibility—the 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 segment’s 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 or—more meaningfully for the general
public—in 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 goal—such as going from home to work—within 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 Freeway Urban Street Rural Transit Pedestrian Bicycle
Highway
Quantity
Distance (PkmT)
Time (PHT)
Intensity
Delay (p-h)
Speed (km/h)
Duration (h)
Extent (km)
Variability
Delay
Duration
Extent
Accessibility

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 driver’s choice of
route indicates a preference for—and a higher degree of satisfaction with—the
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 28-4

System Performance Measures
 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
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 individual’s 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)
where
Utility = measure of the traveler’s perceived value of an alternative,
IVT = in-vehicle time (min),
OVT = out-of-vehicle travel time (min), and
Cost = 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 behavior—such 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).
Utility is useful for comparing
Nonetheless, there is no intrinsic meaning to the value generated by the utility alternatives but not for
function. Utility is an index of customer satisfaction, not a measure of the absolute reflecting absolute levels of
satisfaction
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.
e Ua
Pa = Uj
(A28-2)
∑e
j

where
Pa = proportion of travelers preferring Option a,
Ua = utility function valued for Option a, and
Uj = 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 results—such as the number of seconds of delay—are
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 region’s 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: User’s 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 28-6

Appendix A