1. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 1 Update for VTrans2025 Technical Committee February 13, 2006 Dr. James H. Lambert Alexander S. Linthicum

2. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 2 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

3. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 3 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

4. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 4 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

5. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 5 Cost Benefit Analysis / Prioritization 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.”

6. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 6 Cost Benefit Analysis / Prioritization 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 = (P b - P i )(V b + V i ) / 2 –P b and P i are price per trip and V b and V i 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.

7. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 7 Cost Benefit Analysis / Prioritization

8. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 8 Cost Benefit Analysis / Prioritization 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

9. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 9 Cost Benefit Analysis / Prioritization 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

10. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 10 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)

11. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 11 Appendix A - Quality of Life 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

12. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 12 Appendix A - Quality of Life 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

13. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 13 Appendix A - Quality of Life 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

14. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 14 Appendix A - Quality of Life 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

15. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 15 Appendix A - Quality of Life 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

16. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 16 Appendix A - Quality of Life Project Delivery Related –Customer perception of satisfaction with involvement in pre- project planning –Customer perception of satisfaction with completed projects –Customer perception of promises kept on project completion

17. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 17 Appendix A - Environmental Stewardship 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

18. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 18 Appendix A - Environmental Stewardship Air Pollution –Highway emissions levels within non-attainment areas –Tons of greenhouse gases generated –Air quality rating

19. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 19 Appendix A - Environmental Stewardship 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)

20. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 20 Appendix A - Environmental Stewardship 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

21. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 21 Appendix A - Environmental Stewardship 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

22. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 22 Appendix A - Environmental Stewardship 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

23. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 23 Appendix B – Suggestions of Metrics for Cost Benefit Analysis / Prioritization from SPASM

24. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 24 Appendix B – Metrics for Cost Benefit Analysis / Prioritization 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)

25. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 25 Appendix B – Metrics for Cost Benefit Analysis / Prioritization Agency Costs –Capital cost of new initiatives –Operating and maintenance costs of new initiatives

26. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 26 Appendix B – Metrics for Cost Benefit Analysis / Prioritization 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

27. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia 27 Appendix B – Metrics for Cost Benefit Analysis / Prioritization 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)