Budget constraints and competing opportunities demand thoughtful evaluation of projects before investment. Significant uncertainty surrounds travel choices, demographic futures, project costs, and model parameters. The impact of this uncertainty was explored with the use of hundreds of sensitivity test runs conducted across 28 random parameter sets to evaluate highway capacity expansion and toll project scenarios in Austin, Texas. The effects of different parameter sets on project benefit–cost ratios, crash counts, emissions, traffic volumes, and tolling revenues were examined in detail. Linear regression results showed that link capacity, link performance parameters, and their covariation were key to the results, followed by the elasticity of demand, trip growth rates, and values of travel time.
KockelmanK., XieC., FagnantD., ThompsonT., McDonald-BullerE., and WallerT.Comprehensive Evaluation of Transportation Projects: A Toolkit for Sketch Planning.Research report 0-6235-1. Texas Department of Transportation, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, 2010.
6.
XieC., KockelmanK.M., and WallerS. T.Maximum Entropy Method for Subnetwork Origin–Destination Trip Matrix Estimation. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2196, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 111–119.
7.
BainR., and PlantagieJ. W.Traffic Forecasting Risk: Study Update 2004.Standard & Poor's, McGraw-Hill International, London, 2004.
8.
BainR., and PlantagieJ. W.Infrastructure Finance: The Anatomy of Construction Risk: Lessons from a Millennium of PPP Experience.Standard & Poor's, McGraw-Hill International, London, 2007.
9.
FlyvbjergB., Skamris HolmM. K., and BuhlS.How Common and How Large Are Cost Overruns in Transport Infrastructure Projects?Transport Reviews, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2003, pp. 71–78.
10.
FlyvbjergB., Skamris HolmM. K., and BuhlS.How (In)accurate Are Demand Forecasts in Public Works Projects?Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 71, No. 2, 2005, pp. 131–146.
11.
LempJ.D., and KockelmanK. M.Understanding and Accommodating Risk and Uncertainty in Toll Road Projects: A Review of the Literature. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2132, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 106–112.
12.
ŠevčíkováH., RafteryA., and WaddellP.Assessing Uncertainty in Urban Simulations using Bayesian Melding. Transportation Research Part B: Methodology, Vol. 41, No. 6, 2007, pp. 652–659.
13.
GregorB.GreenSTEP Model Documentation.Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, 2009.
14.
WangM.Uncertain Analysis of Inventory Theoretical Model for Freight Mode Choice. Proc., International Conference on Intelligent Computation Technology and Automation, 2008.
15.
ZhaoY., and KockelmanK.Propagation of Uncertainty Through Travel Demand Models. Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 36, No. 1, 2002, pp. 145–163.
16.
PradhanA., and KockelmanK. M.Uncertainty Propagation in an Integrated Land Use–Transportation Modeling Framework: Output Variation via UrbanSim. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1805, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, 128–135.
17.
KrishnamurthyS., and KockelmanK. M.Propagation of Uncertainty in Transportation Land Use Models: Investigation of DRAM-EMPAL and UTPP Predictions in Austin, Texas. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1831, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 219–229.
18.
LempJ.D., and KockelmanK. M.Anticipating Welfare Impacts via Travel Demand Forecasting Models: Comparison of Aggregate and Activity-Based Approaches for the Austin, Texas, Region. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2133, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 11–22.
19.
Ben-AkivaM., and LermanS.Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand.MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1985.
20.
FloydR. W.Algorithm 97: Shortest Path. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 5, No. 6, 1962, p. 345.
21.
GeursK., ZondagB., de JongG., and de BokM.Accessibility Appraisal of Land-Use/Transport Policy Strategies: More Than Just Adding up Travel-Time Savings. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 15, No. 7, 2010, pp. 382–393.
22.
BonnesonJ.A., and PrattM. P.Road Safety Design Workbook.Texas Department of Transportation. College Station, 2009.
23.
Rural and Urban Crashes and Injuries by Severity 2008. Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, 2009.
IH 35E Managed Lanes from IH 635—To: US 380 Preliminary Financial Feasibility Study (PFFS). Final draft. Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, 2008.
28.
FagnantD., KockelmanK., and XieC.Project Evaluation Toolkit: A Sketch Planning Tool for Evaluating Highway Transportation Projects.Texas Department of Transportation, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, 2011.
29.
Highway Capacity Manual. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000.
30.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Dowling Associates, Inc., System Metrics Group, and Texas Transportation Institute. NCHRP Report 618: Cost-Effective Performance Measures for Travel Time Delay, Variation, and Reliability.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008.
31.
BlincoeL., SeayA., ZaloshnjaE., MillerT., RomanoE., LuchterS., and SpicerR.The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2000.NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2002.
32.
MaibachM., SchreyerC., SutterD., van EssenH. P., BoonB.H., SmokersR., SchrotenA., DollC., PawlowskaB., and BakM.Handbook on Estimation of External Costs in the Transport Sector.CE Delft, Delft, Netherlands, 2008. www.ce.nl.
