# Presentation: 069602

## Making the State of the Art the State of the Practice:Modeling Tools for Road Pricing 

**Making ****the State of the Art ****the State of the Practice:**Modeling Tools for Road Pricing** **

- Peter Vovsha
- William Davidson
- Robert Donnelly
*PB Consult, Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc*

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

## Presentation Outline   

- General issues:
- Classification of pricing forms
- Overview of modeling approaches
- Major breakthrough directions:
- Reliability
- Heterogeneity of users in choice context
- Heterogeneity of users in traffic simulation
- Advanced time-of-day / peak spreading technique
- Toll road as travel choice
- Conclusions

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
We start with a systematic classification of pricing forms and modeling approaches. 
Then we identify what we believe are the most promising and realistic “breakthrough” directions.  

## 1. Classification of Pricing Forms

**1. Classification of Pricing Forms**

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
A growing number of pricing forms and progress made in new pricing technologies represents a challenge to travel modelers. 

## Pricing Characteristics

- Facility
- Vehicle / traveler
- Unit of travel
- Collection

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
From the modeling standpoint, we distinguish 4 main characteristics of pricing...

## Pricing Characteristics

- Facility
- Vehicle / traveler
- Unit of travel
- Collection

- Individual
- Area / cordon
- Sub-network (inter-city)
- Entire network

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
With respect to facility type we distinguish between :
individual bridge / tunnel / turnpike / road segment
Area pricing normally applied to a CBD with a closed cordon
Sub-network (for example, including inter-city roads) or even
Entire regional network which is probably the ultimate future form of pricing

## Pricing Characteristics

- Facility
- Vehicle / traveler
- Unit of travel
- Collection

- Flat
- Type (car, truck, CV)
- Auto occupancy
- Truck weight / axles / PCE
- Emission / fuel
- Residence
- Chains

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
With respect to the vehicle / traveler characteristics pricing can be:
Flat
Differentiated by vehicle type
Differentiated auto occupancy
By truck weight, size, or any other measure of PCE
There are proposals to differentiate it by emission characteristics which makes sense from the environmental standpoint
There are area pricing forms differentiated by place of residence (really challenge to model)
There can be quite exotic vehicle equipment types applied in Northern countries, like chains on tires       

## Pricing Characteristics

- Facility
- Vehicle / traveler
- Unit of travel
- Collection

- Flat per trip
- By TOD period
- By area
- Entry-exit
- Distance-based
- Time-based
- Congestion-based
- Daily / bulk discount

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
A non-trivial aspect is the unit of travel for which the charge is calculated. It can be:
Simple fixed and flat charge for each trip through the gate
It can be differentiated by TOD period
By area
It can also have a more complicated non-link form as an entry-exit matrix for closed systems
It also can be a distance-based
Time-based or
Congestion-level based form as well as
Non-trip form like daily pricing  

## Pricing Characteristics

- Facility
- Vehicle / traveler
- Unit of travel
- Collection

- Manual
- Pass
- Vehicle equipment
- Automatic

- _[<](slide2.xml)_

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
With respect to toll collection technology it can be:
Old-fashioned booth 
Some kind of a pass or card that the driver has to swipe 
Vehicle equipment like transporder
Automatic plate identification which is the most advanced form; this form will probably replace all other forms in future. For now we have to deal with a situation where all collection forms coexist.   

## 2. Overview of Modeling Approaches

**2. Overview of Modeling Approaches**

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
What are the general modeling frameworks used for road pricing?

## Wide Range of Techniques

- Simplified sketch planning:
*Short-term / Established facility*
- Spreadsheet based on elasticity
- Sample enumeration
- “Real” models:
*Long-term / New facility*
- Regional model
- Corridor-specific model

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
There is a wide range of applied techniques. They can be broken into two groups.
Simplified sketch planning tools that are normally applied for short-term marginal improvements of the existing and established facility. They include:
Simple spreadsheets based on some crude elasticities.
Sample enumeration models that can be quite rich in terms of person, HH, and situational variables but have their own limitations.   
What we call real / heavy-duty models that are more complicated but also more comprehensive. They are necessary for long-term forecasting and consideration of new facilities or policies. Two basic types of these models can be mentioned. 
Regional models
Corridor-specific models that are normally derived from the regional models      

## Focus on Regional Models

- Network simulation (Route choice):
- Static UE assignment
- Dynamic Traffic Assignment / Micro-simulation
- Demand models (Mode / destination / TOD choices):
- Conventional trip-based 4-step
- Advanced activity-based tour-based

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
We will be focusing on regional models that represent the most comprehensive modeling framework.

In the framework of regional models we distinguish between network simulation tools that address ... and demand models that address ...   
Network simulation tools include ... and ... (grouped together)
Demand models can be grouped into ... and ...

Network simulation tools and demand models can be combined in different ways. DTA and AB model is probably the most advanced combination, the model of future. All applied AB models so far have been combined with STA. On the other hand, DTA can be applied in a 4-step model  

## Static Traffic Assignment

**!**

**?**

- Simplicity
- Large networks
- VDF for distance time & congestion-based tolls

- Route choice only
- Vehicle type, occupancy, VOT, payment type, leads to multi-class w/full trip tables
- Cannot handle non-link and non-trip forms (entry-exit, daily)
- Cannot incorporate reliability / time variability
- Simplified toll-collection delays

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
We will try now to assess the potential of each of the models in terms of their relative advantages and troubles that they make. STA is quite frequently used in US and world wide (more frequently that you might think taking into account the limitations of this approach) and even for major investment studies.   

Positive features of STA include: ...
The long list of problems include: ...

## DTAssignment / MCSM

**!**

**?**

- Entire-route (non-link) pricing
- Linkage across TOD slices
- Queues / realistic delays
- Individual vehicle types
- Reliability / time variability

- Route choice only
- Small & medium networks
- Cannot handle daily pricing

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
DTA and MCSM are more suitable tools. They can handle: ...

However, still most of the demand-related aspects are external. DTA essentially can handle route choice only and currently limited to medium size networks as well as ...

## 4-Step Trip-Based Model 

**!**

**?**

- Simplicity
- Mode & trip distribution
- OD time & cost / reliability

- Limited segmentation
- Inconsistent TOD
- Inconsistent mode choice
- Car occupancy as mode
- Cannot handle daily pricing

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
On the positive side ...

However, numerous limitations of 4-step models should be mentioned including ...

## Activity-Based Tour-Based Model

**!**

**?**

- Consistent mode choice
- Consistent TOD & daily schedule
- Unlimited segmentation by VOT
- Vehicle type & occupancy as intra-household choices
- Payment type as individual choice

- Complexity

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
AB is a promising framework with a lot of advantages that directly relate to road pricing... 

Objectively speaking there is only one problem with AB models – complexity (with many other things that stem from that). 

AB model of course, cannot be developed as part of a road-pricing project. This framework should already exist. A combination of AB and DTA is probably the best theoretical framework for road pricing. However, we still have to be able to support more conventional modeling frameworks. 

## Breakthrough Directions

- Relevant and applicable in different modeling frameworks
- Theoretically substantiated and practically estimated & tested
- Based on conventional data sources
- Can be applied TODAY

- _[<](slide2.xml)_

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
Based on this general view we have identified several ...
... though advanced modeling frameworks offer significant advantages.
Have already been ...
... and do not require special or very expensive surveys 
... absolutely (we just have to move them to practice)

## 3. Reliability

**3. Reliability**

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
The 1st aspect is reliability.

## Willingness to Pay

- Value of Time (VOT)
- Lost participation in activities
- Disutility of travel
- Value of Reliability (VOR)
- Non-recurrent congestion
- Accidents / Weather / Road works
- Other Values:
- Safety
- Information

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
When we talk about WTP, it relates to a fundamental question of what travelers actually value. Of course they value their time associated with ...

However WTP goes far beyond just VOT and average time savings. Reliability has been widely recognized as an important factor. Travelers do value reliable services that are less affected by day-to-day variability, traffic accidents, weather conditions, etc.

There are some other important values that relate to safety, convenience, information system.    

## Quantification of Reliability

- Alternative-specific constants (Indirect) :
- Rail bias
- Toll road bias
- Distance / time based terms (Indirect) :
- Rail distance term
- Toll-road distance/time/time-savings term
- Deviation from average travel time (Direct) :
- Time distribution-based statistics
- Schedule adherence indices for transit
- Transit wait time curves
- Probability of significant delay (Direct) :
- SP estimation
- Function of V/C in application

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
To include reliability in operational models we have to quantify it. There have been many attempts to capture Reliability. 

ASCs have a long story. They has been applied for rail transit modes and toll roads in mode choice precisely to account for the missing reliability. 

A little bit better job can be done with distance and time-based terms that are essentially scaled ASCs

More interesting are direct measures of deviation from the average travel time. We will talk about time distribution-based statistics in a few seconds. There were attempts to introduce schedule adherence and wait time curves for transit.

We have a positive experience with inclusion of such variables as probability of significant delays and linking them to V/C skims in application.    

## VOR, Small et al, 2005, SR-91

- Difference
- between the
- 80th and 50th
- percentile

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
Let’s focus on the time-distribution-based approach reported by K. Small and estimated for SR-91. We map an actual distribution of travel times for some commuter. Let’s assume it ranges from 25 to 60 min. The average (mode) is 40. The proposed measure of reliability is the ... that is 10 min in our case.    

## VOR, Small et al, 2005, SR-91

- Being late is more onerous than being early; thus 80th-50th is better than STD
- Distribution of travel times is assumed known to travelers based on their experience
- VOR is roughly equal to VOT
- Reliability accounts for 1/3 of the attraction of express lanes

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
The rational behind this measure is that for most of the activities ...

Also... 

The authors have found that ... 

Thus reliability is of huge importance since ...

## VOR Illustration

| Percentile | Road 1 | Road 2 | Preference |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 10 | 41 min | 29 min |  |
| 20 | 42 min | 30 min |  |
| 30 | 43 min | 35 min |  |
| 40 | 44 min | 39 min |  |
| 50 | 45 min | 40 min |  |
| 60 | 46 min | 41 min |  |
| 70 | 47 min | 45 min |  |
| 80 | 48 min | 50 min |  |
| 90 | 49 min | 51 min |  |
| 100 | 50 min | 52 min |  |

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
Though the average value at 50% is in favor of the 2 road, the 80% point is better for the 1st road. If VOR=VOT it means that in behavioral terms, travelers make a decisions based on the 80% value rather than the average value.

## VOR Illustration

| Percentile | Road 1 | Road 2 | Preference |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 10 | 41 min | 29 min |  |
| 20 | 42 min | 30 min |  |
| 30 | 43 min | 35 min |  |
| 40 | 44 min | 39 min |  |
| 50 | 45 min | 40 min |  |
| 60 | 46 min | 41 min |  |
| 70 | 47 min | 45 min |  |
| 80 | 48 min | 50 min |  |
| 90 | 49 min | 51 min |  |
| 100 | 50 min | 52 min |  |

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
Though the average value at 50% is in favor of the 2 road, the 80% point is better for the 1st road. If VOR=VOT it means that in behavioral terms, travelers make a decisions based on the 80% value rather than the average value.

## VOR Illustration

| Percentile | Road 1 | Road 2 | Preference |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 10 | 41 min | 29 min |  |
| 20 | 42 min | 30 min |  |
| 30 | 43 min | 35 min |  |
| 40 | 44 min | 39 min |  |
| 50 | 45 min | 40 min | 2nd road |
| 60 | 46 min | 41 min |  |
| 70 | 47 min | 45 min |  |
| 80 | 48 min | 50 min | 1st road |
| 90 | 49 min | 51 min |  |
| 100 | 50 min | 52 min |  |

- _[<](slide2.xml)_

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
So, the 1st road will be preferred in reality while most of the models would predict choice of the 2nd road 

## 4. Heterogeneity of Users in Choice Context

**4. Heterogeneity of Users in Choice Context**

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
Heterogeneity of Users with respect to VOT is another important issue. Let’s consider it in a context of discrete choice first.

## VOT Distribution Hensher & Goodwin, 2003

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
This example is taken from the work of Hensher & Goodwin. In reality, we have a certain distribution of VOT. The actual payers will be those who have individual VOT higher than the toll divided by time saving. 

With the same mean VOT, toll, and time savings we arrive at very different prediction of toll road users. It depends on the actual shape of distribution. We frequently assume a normal symmetric distribution while in reality it is rather skewed to the left. This factor alone can cause a significant bias. 

One of the ways to resolve this issue is to segment the travel market explicitly.     

## VOT – NY Model

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
Some examples from our practice. RP data from NY confirmed a high degree of heterogeneity by travel purpose.

## VOT – Montreal Model  

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
Another example is the model developed for the MTQ specifically for a large-scale toll-road project. 
Significant differences were found by purpose, gender, income, & TOD. 

## Possible Segmentation

- 3-4 income groups
- 3-4 travel purposes
- 2 genders
- 2-3 person types
- 2-3 TOD periods
- 2-3 vehicle occupancy classes

**×**

- 200-300 segments / trip tables

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
If we summarize the possible dimensions for segmentation we arrive at the following list. However, even this minimal list results in an infeasible number of segments, in other words trip tables to handle. 

We would be going nowhere by trying to add more and more explicit segments...

This calls for something else, something better...

## Probabilistic Approach

- All possible segments cannot be handled
- Significant situational variability (intra-segment and intra-person):
- Trip to airport
- In a hurry for business meeting
- Driving home because child is sick
- Late for a music show
- Flexible vs. fixed work hours

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
One reason has been already discussed.
There is another one and even more appealing reason for probabilistic approach...
Trip to airport has become a kind of cliché.  
So strong is the impact of situational variables that explicit segmentation looks even less important. The world is just built in a different way.
Fortunately, the necessary tools have been already developed.  

## Random Coefficients Logit Small et al, 2005 

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
In a standard formulation, the constant as well as time and cost coefficients are assumed deterministic. It is possible to stratify them by segments, but they still will be deterministic.  

In the RCL model these coefficients themselves are assumed random. 

The constant included the gender and age variables while time and cost coefficients interacted with income and distance. 

## Random Coefficients LogitSmall et al, 2005 

- Simultaneous and consistent estimation of:
- Observed heterogeneity - segmentation
- Unobserved heterogeneity – random terms
- Software for estimation is available
- Easily applied in micro-simulation by direct generation of random utilities
- Requires numerical integration of probability for aggregate models

- _[<](slide2.xml)_

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
Observed heterogeneity is modeled through variables that enter the expressions for bias, time & cost coefficient. If the variables are discrete it can be interpreted as segmentation.   

Some experiments are needed with the level of accuracy and number of realization for the integration. Working with millions of OD cells in the trip table we can sacrifice precision of integration and make this model operational in the 4-step framework

## 5. Heterogeneity of Users in Traffic Simulation

**5. Heterogeneity of Users in Traffic Simulation**

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
Conceptually similar but technically different issue.

## Bi-Criterion Route Choice

- O

- D

- $1

- $1

**30 min**
**$2**

**35 min**
**$1**

**45 min**
**$0**

**40 min**
**$1**

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
Consider an origin, destination, and network between them with two tolled road segments of 1$ ecah.

In presence of tolls, route choice becomes essentially bi-criterion. 

Only the blue route can be safely discarded because it is dominated by the yellow route. The other routs are Pareto-optimal with no obvious advantage. VOT distribution is crucial. 

We cannot calculate any traffic or revenue until we have assumed a VOT distribution. And even if the VOT distribution is known, it is a non-trivial task to load the network properly and in an computationally efficient way. 

## Extreme Efficient Paths, Mahmassani et al, 2004

- _[<](slide2.xml)_

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
There is a very elegant solution. For Pareto-optimal routes we distinguish between extreme efficient paths and other paths. We map each path as a point in the time-cost space. Extreme efficient paths lie on the convex boundary of the Pareto-optimal set   

With a reasonable assumption regarding the VOT distribution of users, approximate route choice probabilities can be calculated in a computationally effective way even for large dynamic traffic assignment applications. The network is loaded in a much more realistic way.

## 6. Advanced TOD Choice / Peak Spreading Technique 

**6. Advanced TOD Choice / Peak Spreading Technique **

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

## Entire-Tour Effects

**5**

**23**

- Work tour to schedule

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
One of the key factors in TOD choice modeling that has been missing in conventional models is the entire-tour-effect. Let’s consider how TOD choice is made in reality and this is exactly the way how it works in AB models like MORPC.

## Entire-Tour Effects

**5**

**23**

- Work tour to schedule

- Considerations for departure time:
- Office hours (7-10)
- Avoid congestion (10+)
- Give ride to child (7)

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
Similar to 4-step

## Entire-Tour Effects

**5**

**23**

- Work tour

**10**

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

## Entire-Tour Effects

**5**

**23**

- Work tour

**10**

- Considerations for arrival time:
- Office hours (<=20)
- Avoid congestion (<16)
- Tennis before dark (<17)

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
Similar to 4-step

## Entire-Tour Effects

**5**

**23**

- Work tour

**10**

**15**

- Considerations for duration:
- 8 work hours
- Finish presentation on Pricing

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
That’s what happens to 4-step models if peak-spreading sub-models are applied for AM and PM periods separately.

What makes tour-based approach unique is the explicit accounting for duration of the activity.   

## Entire-Tour Effects

**5**

**23**

- Work tour

**9**

**19**

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
In reality, this entire-tour effect would result in a very different elasticity.  

## 4-Step Model

- Focus on one period (AM peak)
- AM peak spreading isolated from other periods
- Sensitivity to pricing is overestimated:
- Aggregation bias over VOT segments
- Entire-day constraints ignored
- AM peak spreading can make PM congestion worse!
- Shifting part-time workers to AM shoulder
- Shifting non-work travel from AM period

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
Some policy implications can be overlooked 

## Activity-Based Model

- Entire-day schedule
- AM Peak / PM peak spreading are modeled together
- Sensitivity to congestion pricing is realistic:
- Various VOT segments
- Entire-day constraints
- Impact of AM peak spreading on PM peak is modeled explicitly

- _[<](slide2.xml)_

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
We have a very positive experience with using of tour-based TOD choice model with 1-hour resolution

## 7. Toll Road as Travel Choice

**7. Toll Road as Travel Choice**

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
How travelers perceive a toll road and how it relates to the other travel choices? 

## Existing Approaches

- Assignment only (no demand changes)
- Binary choice (toll/non-toll):
- Non-toll users diverted to other routes
- Non-toll users diverted to other periods (peak spreading)
- Non-toll users diverted from highway (diversion curves)
- Incorporation in mode / TOD / destination choice

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
Existing approaches can be roughly broken into 3 groups: 
Though the assignment-only technique is frequently used the limitations of this approach have been widely recognized.
Binary choice constructs that allow for introduction of certain behavioral variables
Various explicit incorporations in upper-level choices like ... 

## Mode & Toll Road Choice

- Fixed

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
Example of incorporation applied in the MTQ toll road traffic and revenue study. 

The toll / non-toll choice was applied as the lower-level nest in the mode choice model that is the natural placement.

## Additional Complications

- Payment type choice (manual, EZ pass, transporder)
- Non-trip-based pricing forms (daily area pricing)
- Person-based exemptions / discounts / reimbursement
- Basic order of choices (mode, destination, TOD) is still an open issue

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
We have some complications to declare a “V”. Let’s try to answer some of these questions.

## SR-91 (Yan, et al, 2002)

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
Example of an explicit treatment of payment type through joint choice of ...
This model was also combined with TOD and car occupancy as possible variations. 

## Inclusion Recommendations

- Trip generation

- Trip distribution

- TOD choice

- Mode choice

- Payment type

- Toll road choice

- Network route

- Car occupancy

**?**

*Large-scale projects & policies*

**?**

*Large-scale projects & policies*

****

*TOD-specific pricing*

****

*Strong transit alternative*

****

*Occupancy-specific pricing*

****

*Several technologies*

****

****

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
If we summarize the proposed structures we arrive at this approximate scheme that includes 8 choice dimensions.   
The key question in practice is to properly identify the most affected travel dimensions and simplify everything else that is of less importance.
For example, ...

It is important to have this check-list for each project before making decision on the model structure.   

Still some of the 8 dimensions will stay ...  

## Applied Combinations

- Trip generation

- Trip distribution

- TOD choice

- Mode choice

- Payment type

- Toll road choice

- Network route

- Car occupancy

**?**

**?**

****

****

****

****

****

****

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
There have already been reported many interesting partial combinations, for example, ...
The dream structure should just combine them in a proper way ...   

## How many applied models address all aspects in a consistent way? 

- _[<](slide2.xml)_

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
Probably none. Can we do something about it? Of course. We have to move the best and applicable State-of-the-Art Models into practice. The components are out there. Time has come for a good synthesis and moving into practice.

## Conclusions

- Right tool for the planning need and context:
- Available information / surveys
- Existing modeling framework
- Form / scale of pricing and expected impacts
- Progress relates to general advances in modeling:
- Dynamic traffic assignment / micro-simulation
- Activity-based demand models
- Synthesis of good ideas & best practices
- Integrated approach – “Bigger picture”:
- Network simulation
- Demand modeling
- Evaluation / optimization

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

**Notes:**
If we expect modal shifts and apply pricing to switch to transit we need a decent mode choice model integrated with the toll choice model.  
It is difficult to imagine an evaluation tool that is not based on a decent network simulation & demand modeling procedures. Also, just an advanced network simulation tool is not enough if there is no reasonable and flexible demand model to feed it.     

A lot of good ideas is out there and a certain practical experience as well. Time has come for a good & pragmatic synthesis. 

## Integrated Decision Making

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA

## Thank You for Your Attention!

**Q?**

- Expert Forum on Road Pricing, USDOT,                 November 14-15, 2005, Alexandria, VA