Processing math: 100%
Skip to main content
null
Findings
  • Menu
  • Articles
    • Energy Findings
    • Resilience Findings
    • Safety Findings
    • Transport Findings
    • Urban Findings
    • All
  • For Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • About
  • Blog
  • covid-19
  • search

RSS Feed

Enter the URL below into your favorite RSS reader.

http://localhost:39917/feed
Transport Findings
March 12, 2019 AEST

Modeling Reliability Benefits

Jonas Eliasson,
congestion pricingcost benefit analysisreliabilitytravel time variability
Copyright Logoccby-nc-4.0 • https://doi.org/10.32866/7542
Photo by Micael Widell on Unsplash
Findings
Eliasson, Jonas. 2019. “Modeling Reliability Benefits.” Findings, March. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.32866/​7542.
Save article as...▾
Download all (1)
  • Appendix: Estimation Results
    Download

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

If this problem reoccurs, please contact Scholastica Support

Error message:

undefined

View more stats

Abstract

This article compares the performance of several models forecasting travel time variability for road traffic using before and after data from the introduction of the Stockholm congestion charges. Models are estimated on before-data, and the models’ forecasts for the after-situation are compared to actual after-measurements. The accuracy of the models varies substantially, but several models can be used to forecast the benefits from reduced travel time variability with sufficient accuracy to make them useful for decision-making.

Research Question and Hypotheses

Reduced travel time variability can be an important benefit when road congestion is reduced by policies or projects. A considerable amount of literature on the valuation of reliability has emerged over the last decades, together with a smaller literature on predicting travel time variability for road traffic (de Jong, G. C. and Bliemer 2015). This article focuses on the latter issue, specifically estimating relationships between the mean and standard deviation of travel time.

Several different functional specifications have been used in the past, and there appears to be little consensus about what works best. This article therefore aims to compare the performance of a number of different model specifications on a particularly interesting data set: travel time measurements made before and after the introduction of congestion charges in Stockholm. The charges caused traffic to and from the inner city to decrease by approximately 20%, resulting in substantial congestion reductions (Eliasson 2008). The two data sets hence represent significantly different traffic situations on the exact same set of links, making it ideal for evaluating and comparing the predictive performance of the models.

The fundamental question of concern in this article is whether models for forecasting travel time variability are sufficiently good to be useful for applied policy-making. This is explored through estimating models on data collected before the congestion charges, and using them to forecast travel time variability in the situation with the charges. Forecasts and outcome can then be compared to see which (if any) of the different model specifications give a sufficiently correct magnitude of the reliability benefits.

Methods and Data

The data consist of average travel times for 15-minute periods, collected from 41 major urban streets and arterials in and around Stockholm’s inner city during six weeks in the spring of 2005 (before the charges) and the corresponding weeks in the spring of 2006 (with charges). Only data from Monday–Thursday, 6:00 a.m.–8:00 p.m. is used. Estimations are based on 41*14*4 = 2296 observations of standard deviations and average travel times, and standard deviations and average travel times for each link/time combination are calculated based on 6*4 = 24 measurements each.

The links are between 0.38 and 4.82 km long, most of them with two lanes per direction, and with speed limits either 50 km/h or 70 km/h. Most of the links also include at least one intersection. Traffic volumes vary between 15,000 and 50,000 vehicles per day.

When congestion charges were introduced in Stockholm in the spring of 2006, mean travel time per km (weighted by traffic volumes per link and 15-minute time period) decreased from 3.31 min/km to 2.91 min/km on the links in the sample. The corresponding mean standard deviation decreased from 1.10 min/km to 0.82 min/km. Assuming a typical reliability ratio (the ratio of the value of standard deviation to the value of travel time) of 0.8, this indicates that reliability benefits are approximately 60% of conventional travel time savings. This is considerably higher than in the cost-benefit analysis reported in (Eliasson 2009a)Eliasson (2009a), which used model calculations rather than actual measurements to estimate reliability benefits of the Stockholm charges.

Table 1 presents nine different model specifications to be compared, drawing from the surveys in (de Jong, G. C. and Bliemer 2015; Kouwenhoven and Warffemius 2016)de Jong & Bliemer (2015) and Kouwenhoven & Warffemius (2016). The specifications originate from the references given, but some have been simplified to allow comparison; there are no controls for road type or queueing buildup/dissipation phases, and all models are estimated using conventional linear regression rather than more advanced error specifications (as in (Kim and Mahmassani 2014)Kim & Mahmassani [2014]). The only variables used are mean travel time t, free-flow travel time t0, standard deviation σ and link length d.

Table 1:Estimated Model Specifications
No. Name Formula Reference
1 Delay polynomial σ = β0 + β1(t−t0) + β2(t−t0)2 + β3(t−t0)3 + β4d + β5d 2
Peer, Koopmans, & Verhoef, 2012
2 Log-linear delay
σ ∼ β0 + β1(t−t0) + β2log (t−t0+1) + β3d
Kouwenhoven & Warffemius, 2016
3 Distance-normalized linear
$$\frac{\sigma}{d}\sim\beta_{0} + \beta_{1}\frac{t}{d}$$
Mahmassani, Hou, & Saberi, 2013
4 Log-log time and delay
$$\log\left( \sigma \right)\sim\beta_{0} + \beta_{1}\log{\left( t \right) + \beta_{2}\log\left( \frac{t}{t_{0}} - 1 \right) + \beta_{3}d}$$
Eliasson, 2009b
5 Linear
σ ∼ β0 + β1t
Hellinga, 2011
6 Distance-normalized log-log
$$\log\left( \frac{\sigma}{d} \right)\sim\beta_{0} + \beta_{1}\log\left( \frac{t}{d} \right)$$
Kim & Mahmassani, 2014
7 Square root linear
$$\sigma\sim\beta_{0} + \beta_{1}\sqrt{t}$$
Herman & Lam, 1974
8 Time-normalized log-log
$$\log\left( \frac{\sigma}{t} \right)\sim\beta_{0} + \beta_{1}\log{\left( \frac{t}{t_{0}} \right) + \beta_{2}*d}$$
Arup et al., 2003
9 Log-log log (σ) ∼ β1log (t)
Geistefeldt, Hohmann, & Wu, 2014

(Peer, Koopmans, and Verhoef 2012; Kouwenhoven and Warffemius 2016; Mahmassani, Hou, and Saberi 2013; Eliasson 2009b; Hellinga 2011; Kim and Mahmassani 2014; Herman and Lam 1974; Arup et al. 2003; Geistefeldt, Hohmann, and Wu 2014)

Findings

Table 2 summarizes the essential results (full estimation results are given in the Appendix). Columns 3 and 5 present R2 goodness-of-fits of the models estimated on data from each year, calculated as R2year=1−∑k(ˆσyeark−σyeark)2∑k(σyeark−σyearmean)2, where σk are observed values, and ˆσk are model-predicted values. The first four models (1–4) stand out in terms of goodness-of-fit to the estimation sample, with R2: s around 0.5–0.6 for both samples. Columns 4 and 6 list parameter values, ignoring intercepts. Nonsignificant parameter values are marked as “–”.

Column 7 lists R2: s when the 2005 models are used to predict 2006 values, i.e., R2=1−∑k(ˆσ05k−σ06k)2∑k(σ06k−σ06mean)2, where ˆσ05k means that the models estimated on 2005 data are used to predict observed 2006 values using measured travel times from 2006 as input. Models 1, 2 and 4 perform remarkably well. The common factor of the best-performing models is that the standard deviation and the travel time are normalized in some sense, by dividing by distance or by free-flow travel time, or by estimating parameter(s) for distance (which can be seen as a more flexible normalization). Of course, this also means that they have the inherent benefit of having more parameters (especially model 1 with its five parameters, some of which are not significant). The parameters of models 3–4 are fairly stable across years, while the parameters of models 1–2 vary more between years. This might be a signal of potential problems with overspecification, or it may be due to uncertainties in the measured variables.

Column 8 presents the most interesting result: how accurately the reliability benefits are predicted. Benefits are normalized to min/km and weighted by traffic volumes by link and 15-minute time period. Models 1–4 perform well; they are close enough to the truth to pass a heuristic “usefulness” test. Models 6 and 8 also perform well (model 8 remarkably so, considering the comparatively low model fit in the estimation).

Table 2:Estimation Results
No. Name Spring 2005 R2 Spring 2005 Parameters Spring 2006 R2 Spring 2006 Parameters R2 of Predicted 2006 Values by 2005 Model Over-/Under-Prediction of True Benefits
1 Delay polynomial 0.60 β1 1.16, β2 − .15, β3 .01, β4−, β5−
0.60 β1 .73, β2−, β3−, β4 0.14, β5 − .035
0.57 -1%
2 Delay log-linear 0.59 β1 .36, β2 .88, β3 .027
0.59 β1 .51, β2 .37, β3 − .041
0.57 -3%
3 Distance-normalized linear 0.52
β1 .45
0.46
β1 .49
0.39 -19%
4 Time & delay log-log 0.48
β1 1.07, β2 .52, β3 − .15
0.53
β1 1.06, β2 .49, β3 − .18
0.56 17%
5 Linear 0.39
β1 .35
0.25
β1 .25
0.17 51%
6 Distance-normalized log-log 0.35
β1 1.79
0.42
β1 1.81
0.46 27%
7 Square root linear 0.34
β1 1.36
0.22
β1 0.92
0.12 62%
8 Time-normalized log-log >0.33
β1 1.30, β2 − .14
0.24
β1 1.60, β2 − .13
0.43 7%
9 Log-log 0.26
β1 1.06
0.12
β1 0.90
0.24 95%

Results indicate that it is indeed possible to predict reliability benefits with an accuracy that is sufficiently good to be useful for policymaking. However, note that travel times need to be predicted well for this to work, since travel times are essential inputs to the variability models. The comparisons in this article use actual travel time measurements from the prediction year (2006) in order to avoid confounding the performance of the variability forecasting model with the performance of a travel time forecasting model.

There are substantial differences between the models’ performances. Having enough flexibility in the model seems to pay off, giving remarkably good predictions of total benefits. The slight instability of parameters across different samples does not seem to be a real problem, since the out-of-sample predictions are so good. Of the simpler models, the distance-normalized linear model stands out for performing well with only two parameters.

References

Arup, O., J. Bates, J. Fearon, and I. Black. 2003. “Frameworks for Modelling the Variability of Journey Times on the Highway Network.” London: Arup.
de Jong, G. C., and M. C. J. Bliemer. 2015. “On Including Travel Time Reliability of Road Traffic in Appraisal.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 73 (March):80–95. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.tra.2015.01.006.
Google Scholar
Eliasson, J. 2008. “Lessons from the Stockholm Congestion Charging Trial.” Transport Policy 15 (6): 395–404. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.tranpol.2008.12.004.
Google Scholar
———. 2009a. “A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Stockholm Congestion Charging System.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 43 (4): 468–80. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.tra.2008.11.014.
Google Scholar
———. 2009b. “Forecasting Travel Time Variability.” In Proceedings of the European Transport Conference. France. https:/​/​mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/​92470/​.
Google Scholar
Geistefeldt, J., S. Hohmann, and N. Wu. 2014. Ermittlung Des Zusammenhangs von Infrastruktur Und Zuverlässigkeit Des Verkehrsablaufs Für Den Verkehrsträger Strasse. Germany: Ruhr Universität Bochum.
Google Scholar
Hellinga, B. 2011. Defining, Measuring, and Modeling Transportation Network Reliability. Delft, Netherlands: Dutch Ministry of Transport, Rijkswaterstaat.
Google Scholar
Herman, R., and T. C. Lam. 1974. “Trip Time Characteristics of Journeys to and from Work.” In Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Transportation and Traffic Theory, Australia, 6:57–86.
Google Scholar
Kim, J., and H. S. Mahmassani. 2014. “A Finite Mixture Model of Vehicle-to-Vehicle and Day-to-Day Variability of Traffic Network Travel Times.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 46 (September):83–97. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.trc.2014.05.011.
Google Scholar
Kouwenhoven, M., and P. Warffemius. 2016. “Forecasting Travel-Time Reliability in Road Transport: A New Model for the Netherlands.” In ITF Roundtable Reports. Discussion Paper No. 2016--02. Netherlands: International Transport Forum.
Google Scholar
Mahmassani, H. S., T. Hou, and M. Saberi. 2013. “Connecting Networkwide Travel Time Reliability and the Network Fundamental Diagram of Traffic Flow.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2391 (1): 80–91. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.3141/​2391-08.
Google Scholar
Peer, S., C. C. Koopmans, and E. T. Verhoef. 2012. “Prediction of Travel Time Variability for Cost-Benefit Analysis.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 46 (1): 79–90. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.tra.2011.09.016.
Google Scholar

This website uses cookies

We use cookies to enhance your experience and support COUNTER Metrics for transparent reporting of readership statistics. Cookie data is not sold to third parties or used for marketing purposes.

Powered by Scholastica, the modern academic journal management system