1. Incorporating Reliability into Modeling Tools
February 20, 2015
Source = portlandtribune.com

2. Project Team KAI MAG Metro Metropia Xuesong Zhou Kiel Ova
Wayne Kittelson
Shaun Quayle
Anxi Jia
Andy Butsick
MAG
Sarath Joshua
Eric Nava
Metro
Peter Bosa
Dick Walker
Metropia
Yi-Chang Chiu
Robert Tung
Xuesong Zhou
Kiel Ova

3. FHWA Partners John Halkias (Systems Management Team Leader)
Doug Laird (Congestion Management and Pricing)
James Sturrock (ITS Operations Engineer)
Chung Tran (Transportation Operations Specialist)
Tracy Scriba (SHRP2 Reliability Coordinator)

4. Phoenix Pilot Test Stakeholders
MAG
Eric Anderson (Transportation Director)
Monique de los Rios-Urban (Transportation Performance Program Manager)
Bob Hazlett (Senior Engineer)
Sarath Joshua (Senior Program Manager)
Eric Nava (ITS and Safety Engineer)
ADOT
Brent Cain (Deputy State Engineer)
Keith Killough (Director, Transportation Analysis)
Maricopa County
Nicolaas Swart (Traffic Engineering Manager)
City of Phoenix
Marshall Riegel (Senior Civil/Traffic Engineer)
FHWA – Arizona Division
Toni Whitfield (Operations Engineer)

5. Project Overview - Purpose
Demonstrate the usefulness of reliability metrics
Build upon already-completed work
Employ accessible models and methods

6. Why Incorporate Reliability into Planning Models?
Travel time has been the traditional mobility measure for a corridor but it’s not a complete descriptor of the traveler’s experience.

7. More Realistic Assessments to Decision Makers
TRADITIONAL METHOD Analytic Tools That Do Not Incorporate Reliability: The effect of the proposed operational improvement will be to change the weekday pm peak hour LOS from F to D. Often calibrated to a single day’s traffic count VALUE-ADDED METHOD Analytic Tools That Incorporate Reliability: The effect of the proposed operational improvement will be to reduce the number of peak hour failures from 15 per month to 5 per month. Requires more data for baseline and multiple scenarios

8. Project Overview – Role of Stakeholders (you)
Provide input on appropriate test strategies and performance metrics
Objectively assess the credibility and value of the tool output
Become knowledgeable resources for other agencies and peers
Inside and outside of your agency

9. Project Overview – SW Corridor Pilot Test Site
Multimodal analysis opportunities
Includes major arterial and parallel freeway
DynusT already calibrated and operational
VISSIM available for possible use
Sources of unreliability are all in play
Weather
Crashes
Special events
Work zones
Source =

10. Project Overview – Phoenix MAG Pilot Region
Leverages an existing robust crash database
Regional impact assessments of enhanced TIM and ICM strategies
Demonstrates tool applicability to a large subarea

11. Analysis Tools Overview
DynusT:
open-source DTA
in use by many MPO’s
Similar input schema
AMS Data Hub
open-source data integrator
Connects to other analysis tools
VISSIM
Microscopic analysis tool
Could extend tool usefulness

12. Scenario Generator Conceptual Implementation

13. Reliability Performance Metrics

14. Test Plan – MAG Study Area
Calibrate/validate with days of historical data (including weather and crashes)
Test effectiveness of various TSM&O strategies
Report findings/results to Stakeholder group
Solicit feedback on usefulness, credibility, SWOT analysis, etc.
Test Strategy
TSM&O/ITS Treatment
Factors Affecting Reliability
Base Case w/ and w/o Reliability Factors
Incident Response
Rapid Towing
Freeway/Arterial Diversion
Integrated ramp metering

15. Schedule Project work is on schedule
Tool testing and applications work will begin soon
The next Stakeholder meeting is expected to be in late summer

16. Discussion – Test Plan Components
Data Collection
Calibration and Validation
TSM&O Strategies
Analysis Metrics

17. Discussion – Data Collection
Are we missing a useful data source?
What is your assessment of the accuracy and reliability of these data sources?
Other data-related issues?

18. Discussion – Calibration and Validation
Has the right time window been selected?
What are reasonable calibration targets?
What would you consider to be an acceptable turnaround time for a result?
What kind of applications do you have where this tool would be most appropriate to apply?
Other calibration/validation issues?

19. Discussion – TSM&O Strategies
Any proposed strategies that should NOT be tested?
Other test strategies that might offer greater insights?
Other issues related to TSM&O strategies?
Test Strategy
TSM&O/ITS Treatment
Factors Affecting Reliability
Base Case w/ and w/o Reliability Factors
Incident Response
Rapid Towing
Freeway/Arterial Diversion
Integrated ramp metering

20. Discussion – Analysis Metrics
What metric(s) are most helpful in your technical assessments?
What metric(s) will best inform decision makers?
What metrics would define an acceptable analysis process?
Other issues related to performance metrics?

21. Discussion – Feedback Expectations
Credibility
Analysis process
Analysis results
Value
Sensitivity to improvement strategy alternatives
Decision-making process
SWOT Analysis
Strengths
Weaknesses
Opportunities
Threats
Other

22. Next Steps Develop Analysis Framework FEB-MAR
Prepare and Calibrate Analysis Tools MAR-APR
Pilot Test the Analysis Tools on MAG Study Area APR-JUN
Summarize and Present Results JUN-JUL
Solicit Stakeholder Feedback (2-Hr Meeting) JUL-AUG
Contact: Eric Nava
MAG
(602)