1. Coordinated Highways Action Response Team -Performance and Benefits- Dr. Gang-Len Chang Department of Civil Engineering University of Maryland February, 2012

2. CHART Evaluation History Data points IncidentsTotal Records 200310,06838,523 200419,12740,538 200520,51541,196 200621,05544,043 200721,23642,321 200821,58656,200 200923,58555,563

3. Performance Evaluation & Benefit Estimation Part A: Performance Detection/Response Clearance Incident Duration

4. Time of System Operations

5. Data Recorded by TMC Operations Detection sources Location Incident nature Lane-blockage

6. Distribution of Incident/Disabled Vehicles by Detection Sources in Year 2009 [2008]

7. Data Recorded by TMC Operations Detection sources Location Incident nature Lane-blockage

8. Distribution of Incidents/Disabled Vehicles by Road in Year 2009

9. Data Recorded by TMC Operations Detection sources Location Incident nature Lane-blockage

10. Distribution of Incidents by Nature in Year 2009

11. Data Recorded by TMC Operations Detection sources Location Incident nature Lane-blockage

12. Distribution of Lane Blockages by Major Freeways in Year 2009

13. Performance Evaluation & Benefit Estimation Part A: Performance Detection/Response Clearance Incident Duration

14. Distribution of Response Time

15. Performance Evaluation & Benefit Estimation Part A: Performance Detection/Response Clearance Incident Duration

16. Comparison of Clearance time in 2008- 2009 Clearance Time Year 2009 (2008) (minutes) With CHARTWithout CHART Incident Disabled Vehicle TotalIncident Disabled Vehicle Total All Cases with Clearance Time<=2h 19.51 (19.32) 6.99 (7.05) 12.01 (12.01) 24.68 (21.53) 1.31 (2.26) 8.70 (8.77) Cases with Clearance Time>=30s and <=2h 22.07 (21.98) 10.17 (10.24) 15.69 (15.25) 28.24 (23.87) 5.19 (9.8) 19.84 (19.27) Cases with Clearance Time >=60s and <=2h 23.28 (23.22) 11.42 (11.33) 17.12 (16.56) 29.33 (24.89) 8.14 (11.73) 23.73 (21.01) Cases with Clearance Time >=90s and <=2h 24.03 (24.08) 12.34 (12.15) 18.12 (17.51) 29.92 (25.48) 10.65 (12.61) 25.83 (21.83)

17. Performance Evaluation & Benefit Estimation Part A: Performance Detection/Response Clearance Incident Duration

18. Distribution of Incident Durations

19. Performance Evaluation & Benefit Estimation (cont’d) Part B: Benefits Evaluation Methodology Direct Benefits in year 2009 (2008) Reduction due to CHARTAmountUnit rate Dollars (million) Delay (M veh-hrs) Truck 1.68 (2.09) $20.68/hr truck drivers' cost 34.80 (43.12) $45.40/hr (cargo's cost) 76.41 (94.66) Car 30.75 (29.57) $27.37/hr (car driver's cost) 841.56 (786.06) Fuel Consumption (M gallons) 6.23 (6.39 2 ) $2.32/gal (gasoline) $2.50/gal (diesel) 20.98 (20.98) Emission (tons) HC 424.00 (413.87) $6,700/ton 37.06 (36.24) CO 4,762.25 (4,648.42) $6,360/ton NO 203.07 (198.21) $12,875/ton CO 2 57,098.97 (58,939.31) $23/metric ton 3 Total (M dollars)1,006.50 (981.06)

20. Benefit Estimation Reduction in Incident Duration Delay reduction Fuel consumption Emissions Secondary incidents Risks at primary incident sites Frequency Impacts

21. Performance Evaluation& Benefit Estimation (cont’d) Delay Fuel consumption Emission Secondary incidents Risks at primary incident sites Driver assistance

22. The Methodology for Delay Reduction Duration2006200720082009 With SHA Patrol ( minute) 2325 28 Without SHA Patrol ( minute) 3235 41 Duration2006200720082009 With SHA Patrol ( minute) 23 Without SHA Patrol ( minute) 2930 25 Comparison of incident duration from 2006-2009 One-lane average

23. The Methodology for Delay Reduction(cont’d) Step 1: distribution of incidents by location I-270 Year 2009

24. The Methodology for Delay Reduction (cont’d) Step 2: distribution of incidents by lane blockage

25. The Methodology for Delay Reduction Step 3: select sample incidents for each category

26. The Methodology for Delay Reduction Step 3: for each sample incident, simulate the entire highway segment Total delay without the sample incident Total delay with the sample incident

27. The Methodology for Delay Reduction Step 4: Compute the excessive delay due to the sample incidents Delay due to the sample incident (I-Delay) = (T-Delay) w/ – (T-Delay) w/o

28. The Methodology of Delay Reduction Step 5: with sufficient samples, one can establish the Delay function (I-Delay) = f (Incident duration, traffic volume, No. of lane blockage, total No. of lanes, etc.)

29. The Methodology of Delay Reduction Step 6: Compute the delay reduction due to CHART operations Current total I-delay Total I-delay without CHART 25% reduction in the average incident duration X-million hours 1/3 X-million hours

30. Benefit Estimation (cont’d) Delay Reduction Total by CHART 2006200720082009 Delay Deduction ( M veh-hour) 35.0933.3229.5730.75

31. Performance Evaluation & Benefit Estimation (cont’d) Delay Fuel consumption Emission Secondary incidents Risks at primary incident sites Driver assistance

32. Benefit Estimation (cont’d) Reduction in fuel consumption Method 1: from the results of simulation Method 2: conversion from the total delay reduction

33. Method 1 From the results of simulation Method 2 Conversion from the total delay reduction BE: 2. Fuel Consumption

34. Performance Evaluation& Benefit Estimation (cont’d) Delay Fuel consumption Emission Secondary incidents Risks at primary incident sites Driver assistance

35. Benefit Estimation (cont’d) Total Delay Reduction HC: 13.073 grams per hour of delay CO: 146.831 grams per hour of delay NO: 6.261 grams per hour of delay Note: The parameters were provided by MDOT in Year 2000

36. Method 1 From the results of simulation Method 2 Conversion from the total delay reduction BE: 2. Fuel Consumption

37. BE: 3. Emission Reduction 1.MDOT in Year 2000 2.Literature (DeCorla-Souza, 1998) 3.Energy Information Administration 4.Congressional Budget Office for S. 2191, America’s Climate Security Act of 2007 Total Delay Reduction HC: 13.073 grams / hour of delay 1 $ 6, 700 / ton 2 HC: 13.073 grams / hour of delay 1 $ 6, 700 / ton 2 CO: 146.831 grams / hour of delay 1 $ 6, 360 / ton 2 CO: 146.831 grams / hour of delay 1 $ 6, 360 / ton 2 NO: 6.261 grams per hour of delay 1 $ 12, 875 / ton 2 NO: 6.261 grams per hour of delay 1 $ 12, 875 / ton 2 Fuel Consumption Reduction CO2: 19.564 lbs/ gallon of gasoline 3 22.384 lbs/ gallon of diesel 3 $ 23 / metric ton 4 CO2: 19.564 lbs/ gallon of gasoline 3 22.384 lbs/ gallon of diesel 3 $ 23 / metric ton 4

38. Performance Evaluation& Benefit Estimation (cont’d) Delay Fuel consumption Emission Secondary incidents Risks at primary incident sites Driver assistance

39. Benefit Estimation (cont’d) Secondary incidents (2008)

40. Computation of Reduction on Secondary Incidents -Year 2008 Reported number of secondary incidents: 605 The estimated number of secondary incidents without CHART/MSHA response units (that has resulted in a 27.81% reduction on the average incident duration): 605/(1-0.2781) = 838 The number of potentially reduced secondary incidents due to the operations of CHART: 838 – 605 = 233

41. Performance Evaluation& Benefit Estimation (cont’d) Delay Fuel consumption Emission Secondary incidents Risks at primary incident sites Driver assistance

42. Benefit Estimation (cont’d) Δ Blockage Duration w/ & w/o CHART No. of lane Changes within peak period Number of lane changes at Incident scene Daily Peak-volumes Length of a segment No. of incidents during peak period Lane changes to incident Ratio No.& Type of blockages per peak-hours Per day Number of potential incidents reduced by CHART operations due to effective removal of vehicles Risks at primary incident sites

43. Reduction of Potential Incidents due to CHART Operations Road Name I- 495/95 I-95I-270I-695I-70I-83 MD- 295 US- 50 Total Mileage4163324413343042 No. Potential Incident Reduction 2009127211407643211340571 2008129181279833251443550 2007100140217625191133425 20061581422111829351031544 200513997151162226532452

44. Performance Evaluation & Benefit Estimation (cont’d) Delay Fuel consumption Emission Secondary incidents Risks at primary incident sites Driver assistance

45. Assistance to Drivers

46. Thank you Questions? Please Visit http://chartinput.umd.eduhttp://chartinput.umd.edu