1. Transportation Cost Index: A Comprehensive Performance Measure for Transportation and Land Use Systems Liming Wang, Portland State University In Collaboration with Jenny Liu, Huajie Yang, Shi Wei ( PSU ) Bud Reiff ( Metro ), Brian Gregor ( Oregon System Analytics )

2. Outline ●Why yet another performance measure (YAPM)? ●Transportation cost index: the idea ●Implementations and application ●Ongoing and future work

3. Demand for Comprehensive Measures ●As a supplement/replacement of traffic-centric measures: LOS, travel delay ●MAP-21 emphasizes use of performance measures in transportation planning & operation ●State legislations: Oregon Job and Transportation Act (OJTA)

4. Existing Measures ●Handy and Niemeier, 1997 ●Geurs and van Wee, 2004 ●NCHRP Report 311, 618, 694, 708...

5. Market Potential Measures Employment accessible within 30 minutes by public transit during a.m. peak Easy to interpret/understand Opportunities, mode, time-of- day and time budget specific Source: University of Minnesota, Accessibility Observatory

6. Utility-based Measures Logsum as an accessibility measure Elegant, composite measures for all modes; possible to derive net user benefit between scenarios Hard to interpret by itself; unable to compare across regions/times

7. Generalized Costs Indicator per distance generalized costs for motorized trips Easy to interpret/understand; able to monitor trends and compare scenarios ignores land use system; mode, time- of-day specific Source: Koopmans, et al, 2013

8. H+T® Affordability Index Tracks out-of-pocket monetary costs of transportation and adds them to housing costs as a location efficiency measure; Does not track the performance of transportation system except for Auto/Transit uses. Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT)

9. Wish List for YAPM ●A comprehensive indicator able to present an overall picture; ●Easy to interpret/understand; ●Applicable to both trend monitoring and scenario comparison; ●Able to fill gaps in policy areas not adequately covered by existing performance measures, e.g. the equity and compatibility aspects (Reiff and Gregor, 2005)

10. Consumer Price Index (CPI) Measures changes in the price level of a basket of consumer goods and services purchased by households: ●Build a basket of goods and services from pre-defined item groups ●Track the prices of goods and services in the basket

11. Transportation Cost Index (TCI) ●Comprehensive measure of transportation and land use systems; ●Easy to interpret/understand; ●Based on widely available data sources, possible for use in trend monitoring and comparing scenario outcomes; ●Able to serve as an indicator for policy areas including transportation and land use system compatibility and balance.

12. Transportation Cost Index (TCI) Measures changes in the price level of a market basket of trips/destinations meeting households’ daily needs: ●Identify a basket of trips/destinations based on pre-defined groups (trip purpose categories); ●Track the costs of accessing destinations/trips in the basket.

13. Implementation A: Travel Survey-based Method Relies primarily on input from household activity survey, e.g. Oregon Travel & Activity Survey (OTAS) Construct travel baskets based on activity diaries or a sample of trips/tours that are representative of regional travel pattern, potentially by trip purpose, household size, income group and geography; Track the time and monetary costs of making these trips/tours; Easy for trend monitoring.

14. Implementation B: TDM- based Method Relies on inputs from travel demand model −Data readily available for regions w/ TDM; −Straightforward for scenario comparison; −Theoretically can calculate the transportation cost for every income group and for every TAZ. −But we may not want to track it too closely – patterns from idiosyncrasy or true differences?

15. Implementation B: TDM-based Method

16. Calculate Travel Costs: Cost Estimate by Mode

17. 2. Calculate Costs

18. TCI and Aggregation

19. Applications and Demonstration

20. Generalized Costs by Household Income Level (Portland, 2011) Low income Mid income High income

21. Generalized Costs by Household Size (Portland, 2011) 1 2 4+ 3

22. Generalized Costs by Purpose & Income Level (Portland, 2011)

23. Generalized Costs by Purpose, Income Level and Transportation Districts (Portland, 2011)

24. Generalized Costs by Household Income Level (Portland) 2011 1994

25. Generalized Costs by Household Size (Portland) 2011 1994

26. Generalized Costs by Purpose and Income Level (Portland) 2011 1994

27. Generalized Costs Portland vs Salt Lake City Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) msa 1 75870 75870 4.524 0.0334 * Res 11414 191411731 16770 Portland – Salt Lake City Mean difference: 5.37 95% Confidence interval: [0.42, 10.32]

28. Generalized Costs by Household Income Level Portland Salt Lake City

29. Generalized Costs by Household Size Portland Salt Lake City

30. Generalized Costs by Purpose and Income Level Portland Salt Lake City

31. Using NHTS Data (2009) summary(n.tcost.hh.msas.aov) Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) msa 2 129454 64727 7.566 0.000539 *** Residuals 1435 12275919 8555 diff lwr upr p adj Tampa Bay-Portland -21.63 -43.30 0.04 0.05 Salt Lake City-Portland 12.59 -19.02 44.21 0.62 Salt Lake City-Tampa 34.23 9.63 58.83 0.003

32. Using NHTS Data (2009) By household income group: By household size: Portland Salt Lake City Tampa Bay

33. Ongoing and Future Work ●Under development/testing at http://github.com/cities-lab/tci http://github.com/cities-lab/tci ●Reconcile TCIs from the two methods; ●Verify patterns of transportation costs with information from alternative data sources, such as CES; ●Should external costs be included?

34. Ongoing and Future Work ●Adopted by the Accessibility Indicator Development Team (IDT) as one of indicators for the Oregon Mosaic project mandated by OJTA ●Test TCI usage in public engagement and policy making process

35. Acknowledgements National Institute for Transportation and Communities Oregon DOT

36. Extra Slides

37. Income Levels To be consistent with the classification used in Metro’s TDM, household income levels are classified with this scale (1994 dollars): < $25K: Low Income $25-50K: Mid Income > $50K: High Income

38. Identify Activity Centers (Travel Market Basket)

39. Steps (Giulinao, 1991) 1.Calculate employment/size term density; 2.Identify TAZs with densities greater than density cutoff D and group contiguous TAZs identified into preliminary centers; 3.Calculate total employment or size terms for each center identified in step 2 and eliminate centers with total employment or size terms below total cutoff E from centers identified in step 2. The remaining are activity centers.

40. Determine Cutoffs Giulinao (1991) provides no guidance in selecting density cutoff (D) or total cutoff (E). They relied on expert knowledge Sensitivity Tests to determine cutoffs

41. Sensitivity Tests: HBW

42. Sensitivity Tests: HBS

44. Sensitivity Tests: HBO

45. Travel Costs Calculation: Cost Estimate by Mode