Volume 12 Traffic Appraisal of Road Schemes Section 2 Traffic Appraisal Advice Induced Traffic Appraisal

DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES
VOLUME 12 TRAFFIC
APPRAISAL OF
ROAD SCHEMES
SECTION 2 TRAFFIC
APPRAISAL
ADVICE
PART 2
INDUCED TRAFFIC APPRAISAL
SUMMARY
The Guidance recommends how and when Induced
Traffic should be modelled for Trunk Road schemes.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE

1. Insert DMRB 12.2.2 into Volume 12 Section 2
after Part 1.
2. Archive this sheet as appropriate.
Note: A quarterly index with a full set of Volume

Contents Pages is available separately from the
Stationery Office Ltd.
February 1997 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY.
PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED
Volume 12 home page
THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY
THE SCOTTISH OFFICE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

THE WELSH OFFICE
Y SWYDDFA GYMREIG
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT FOR
NORTHERN IRELAND
Induced Traffic Appraisal
Summary: The Guidance recommends how and when Induced Traffic should be
modelled for Trunk Road schemes.
ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY.

Volume 12 home page
Volume 12 Section 2
Part 2 Registration of Amendments
REGISTRATION OF AMENDMENTS
Amend Page No Signature & Date of Amend Page No Signature & Date of
No incorporation of No incorporation of
amendments amendments
Volume 12 home page
Volume 12 Section 2
Registration of Amendments Part 2
REGISTRATION OF AMENDMENTS
Amend Page No Signature & Date of Amend Page No Signature & Date of
No incorporation of No incorporation of
amendments amendments
ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY. February 1997
Volume 12 home page
VOLUME 12 TRAFFIC
APPRAISAL OF
ROAD SCHEMES
SECTION 2 TRAFFIC
APPRAISAL
ADVICE
PART 2
INDUCED TRAFFIC APPRAISAL
Contents
Chapter
1. Introduction and Contents
2. Consequences for Scheme Appraisal
3. Preliminary Assessment
4. Traffic Modelling Methods
5. Intermediate Schemes
6. Complex Schemes
7. Economic Appraisal Issues
8. Enquiries
Annex A: Definitions
Annex B: Preliminary Scheme Assessment
Annex C: Derivation of Recommended Elasticities
Annex D: Higher Tier Models
Annex E: Elasticity Formulations
Volume 12 home page
Volume 12 Section 2 Chapter 1
Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic Introduction & Contents
1. INTRODUCTION and CONTENTS
1.1 In 1989 SACTRA (the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment) were asked to advise on
the evidence of Induced Traffic especially on inter-urban roads and trunk roads close to conurbations. The
terms of reference specifically asked the Committee to examine the circumstances, nature and magnitude of
traffic redistribution, mode change, trip and traffic generation, and to recommend whether and how scheme
appraisal methods should be amended.
1.2 SACTRA's report `Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic', the Government's response to it, and
guidance (HETA Guidance Note 1/95) on the use of available methods to take account of demand responses
in the appraisal of trunk road schemes were published simultaneously in December 1994.
1.3 The Government's response explained that the existing programme of research would be augmented to
develop improved methods as quickly as possible and guidance would evolve as that research programme is
carried out, and as experience of the application of the methods grew.
1.4 This advice is based on that experience and supersedes the HETA Guidance Note 1/95 (issued in December
1994). It should be used forthwith on all trunk road schemes where the appraisal has only recently started,
and on trunk road and other schemes where there are complex traffic interactions. The methodology is
recommended for such schemes unless a stage has been reached at which in the opinion of the overseeing
organisation, its use would result in an unacceptable delay to progress.
1.5 Design organisations should confirm its detailed application to particular schemes with their overseeing
organisation. Further editions of the guidance are expected to be published in due course, thus analysts
starting new studies, or updating existing work, should check that they have the most recent edition of this
advice.
1.6 Compared with the December 1994 version, this revised guidance provides expanded advice particularly in
the following areas :-
Chapter 3 & Annex B preliminary assessment of schemes,

Chapter 5 the relative roles of elasticity and other growth constraint techniques,
bias in scheme benefits,
detailed procedures applicable to elasticity techniques when used alone,
detailed procedures applicable to elasticity techniques in combination with other
techniques to model suppression,
Chapter 5 & Annex C updated elasticity values,
Chapter 7 Variable Trip Matrix (VTM) economic appraisal,
Annex A Paragraphs A5 & A8 - the timing of responses,
Annex D the use of higher tier models.
and Annex E Elasticity Formulations
1.7 The guidance is primarily intended for use in the appraisal of schemes. Although the advice may be of value
to those carrying out traffic appraisal of strategies, more comprehensive strategic appraisal poses special
problems which require further study. Further guidance will be issued as appropriate.
February 1997 Traffic Appraisal Advice 1/1

Volume 12 home page
Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic Introduction & Contents
DETAILED CONTENTS Page Nos
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION and CONTENTS 1/1
Chapter 2. CONSEQUENCES FOR SCHEME APPRAISAL 2/1
Chapter 3. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT 3/1
Chapter 4. TRAFFIC MODELLING METHODS 4/1
Wider Modelling Issues 4/2
Chapter 5. INTERMEDIATE SCHEMES 5/1
Choice of Simplified Procedures 5/1

Bias in Scheme Benefits 5/2
Simple Elasticity Methods 5/3
Table 5.1 - Recommended Journey Time Elasticities 5/4
Important Considerations 5/5
Recommended Elasticity Formulations 5/6
Combining Elasticity Techniques to model induced traffic 5/7
with other methods to model suppression
Detailed Procedures Applicable to Elasticity Techniques alone, 5/7
or in combination with other techniques
Flow Chart 5.1 5/8
Figure 5.1 - Forecasting Effects when net response above local reference case 5/8
Flow Chart 5.2 5/9
Figure 5.1 - Forecasting Effects when net response above local reference case 5/10
Chapter 6. COMPLEX SCHEMES 6/1
Retiming 6/1
Redistribution 6/1
Mode Choice 6/2
Land Use 6/2
Induced Extra Trips 6/3
Growth Cut Offs 6/3
Chapter 7. ECONOMIC APPRAISAL ISSUES 7/1
Chapter 8. ENQUIRIES 8/1

Volume 12 home page
Chapter 1 Volume 12 Section 2
Introduction & Contents Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic
Annex A - DEFINITIONS A/1
The range and timing of responses to a road scheme A/1

The relationship between Suppressed and Induced Traffic A/3
Figure A1 - The relationship between Suppressed and Induced Traffic A/4
Annex B - PRELIMINARY SCHEME ASSESSMENT B/1
Introduction B/1
Scheme Assessment Statistics B/1
Box B1 - Calculation of Capacity Values B/3
PRO-FORMA for SACTRA Preliminary Assessment Reports B/4
Annex C - DERIVATION OF RECOMMENDED ELASTICITIES C/1
Research Results C/1

Table C1 - Results from "responses to congestion" study C/1
Table C2 - Frequency of different responses to congestion (all scenarios researched MVA) C/2
Table C3 - Derived elasticities for different uses (above thresholds found by MVA) C/2
Application C/3
Table C4 - National car driver journey purpose mix for each period of the day C/3
Table C5 - Elasticities for each period of the day C/3
Table C6 - Elasticities for cases of high modal competition C/4
Generalised Cost Elasticities C/4
Consistency between studies C/5
Table C7 - Comparison of elasticities from different sources C/6
Annex D - HIGHER TIER MODELS D/1
Simple Higher Tier Reassignment D/1

4 Stage Higher Tier Models D/2
A local reference case from a single run of a 4 Stage Higher Tier Model D/3
Assessment of Induced Traffic Effects using only a 4 Stage Higher Tier Model D/4
Assessment of Induced Traffic Effects at 2 tiers of modelling D/4
Annex E - ELASTICITY FORMULATIONS E/1
Figure E1 - A family of Demand Curves E/1

Figure E2 - Supply Curves E/2
Figure E3 - Iterating between Supply and Demand Curves E/2
Figure E4 - Iterating and Averaging Trip Estimates E/3
Figure E5 - Base Dependence E/3
The Power Formulation E/3
The Exponential Formulation E/4
The Tanner Formulation E/5
The Semi-log / Elastic Exponential Formulation E/5
The Logit / Closed Exponential Formulation E/6
Other Formulations E/6
(C) Crown Copyright HMSO 1996. Copyright is managed through the Department of Transport, under delegation
from the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
1/4 Traffic Appraisal Advice February 1997

Volume 12 home page
Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic Consequences for scheme appraisal
2. CONSEQUENCES FOR SCHEME APPRAISAL
2.1 When a road scheme is opened, a range of responses by travellers can arise. The responses can include all or
any combination of the following:
a) change route (reassignment);

b) retime journeys to take advantage of improved conditions at peak times;
c) travel to new destinations for the same purpose as existing journeys;
d) switch from public transport, cycling and walking to car;
e) reduce the numbers of journeys made as passengers;
f) increase the frequency of some journeys;
g) make entirely new journeys;
h) change the patterns of land use;
All of these responses can result in extra vehicle mileage on the road network - called ìnduced traffic' -
although retiming is compensated for by reduced vehicle trips (and mileage) at other times of day.
2.2 The cumulative effect of these responses has been accepted by the overseeing Departments and SACTRA as
potentially significant for the traffic predictions, operational, environmental and economic appraisal of
schemes meeting the criteria set out in Chapter 3. General points about the relative importance of the above
responses are discussed in Annex A, which also defines the terminology used - including in paragraph A2 the
important distinction between induced traffic, induced trips and the phrase 'induced traffic effects' which
refers to all mileage effects other than from reassignment.
2.3 The overall amount of induced traffic is the difference in vehicle mileage between Do Minimum and Do
Something, which is made up of reassignment effects, plus any suppressed traffic released by the scheme plus
any additional traffic induced by the scheme. To appraise the effects of the scheme, it is therefore necessary
to assess:-
reassignment,
the amount of traffic suppressed in the Do Minimum,
the amount of suppressed traffic released in the Do Something,
and the amount of additional traffic induced by the scheme.
2.4 Wherever any of the responses are likely to have a significant impact on the appraisal of a scheme, they must
be taken into consideration, and a methodology capable of modelling them adequately and realistically must
be employed. The rest of this advice sets out how to assess whether impacts are significant, guidance on
methods to model both suppressed and induced traffic effects and the precautions needed to produce reliable
results. Further advice on novel aspects may need to be sought from the overseeing organisation or HETA
division and relevant original experience should be reported to and discussed with them.
2.5 In carrying out an analysis of Induced traffic effects, the analyst should not lose sight of one of the key
requirements of scheme appraisal - that it should provide a robust and consistent basis for decision making.
There is no case for a more elaborate analysis which reduces consistency with only marginal benefits in terms
of robustness. An analysis that reduces robustness with only marginal benefits in terms of consistency is also
not recommended. For this reason the quality of an appraisal should not be judged by the size of its traffic
model, nor by its apparent sophistication, but by the efficiency with which it can provide the information
needed to make and justify decisions. The use of more sophisticated methods can only be justified if they
provide a significant reduction in the risk of wrong decisions being made and the appraisal itself provides
good value for money.

Volume 12 home page
Consequences for scheme appraisal Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic
2.6 All schemes must be subject to a rigorous preliminary assessment to identify whether suppressed or induced
traffic effects are likely to occur and hence the depth of further assessment required. This preliminary
assessment is discussed in Chapter 3 and Annex B.
2.7 For schemes where the preliminary assessment indicates that suppressed or induced traffic effects may be
significant, they must be taken into account in the detailed appraisal of the scheme. Chapter 4 discusses
aspects common to all approaches and outlines in paragraph 4.11 the approach recommended when
modelling decongestion benefits associated with Public Transport schemes.
2.8 Chapter 5 provides guidance on techniques to be used in circumstances where simpler methods are
considered likely to be appropriate, and Chapter 6 provides guidance on the appraisal of more complex
schemes.
2.9 If Do Something trip matrices differ by even relatively small amounts from those in the Do Minimum case,
there can be consequences for economic appraisal. The recommended methodology, including the use of
variable trip matrix economic appraisal, is set out in Chapter 7.
2.10 Annex C sets out the derivation of the recommended elasticity values for both time and generalised cost
assignments, Annex D sets out considerations applicable when a higher tier model is available and Annex E
discusses detailed elasticity formulations and the reasons favouring the use of the Power formulation.

Volume 12 home page
Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic Preliminary Assessment
3. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
3.1 All schemes must be assessed against the following criteria, and the assessment, including the data requested
in Annex B, reported in scheme documentation.
Is the part of the network likely to be affected by the scheme close to capacity in the Do Minimum ?
In these circumstances, congestion is likely to lead to suppression of traffic effects, and the scheme
may result in release of some of the suppressed traffic.
(Fixed Trip Matrix benefits may have allowed for suppression using growth cut-offs. A
reassessment of the benefits is likely to be required if there is a significant change in
suppression between Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios. A modest level of
congestion, in the last few assessment years under high growth assumptions may be
ignored.)
Is the elasticity of demand with respect to travel costs /travel times high ?
This is likely to be the case where there are good alternatives available for the movements affected
by the proposed scheme.
(Alternatives may include different modes, a changed time or a changed destination of

travel. These conditions are more likely to occur in urban areas.)
Will the implementation of the proposed scheme cause large changes in travel costs, capacity or both ?
These conditions are likely to occur where the scheme or improvement bypasses extensive lengths of
low standard or congested network, or where new links bypass major obstacles (eg estuarial
crossings).
(Changes in travel costs/times should be compared with the average or median cost/journey
time in the Do Minimum of trips likely to use the scheme. In calculating these the whole
cost/journey time of trips must be considered, including any part falling outside the scheme
study area.)
3.2 Assessment will rely upon a combination of quantitative and qualitative factors. Each of the three aspects
listed above must be considered separately, and given a low, medium or high marking, to inform the overall
judgement, which is used to determine what further assessments are required and the complexity of such
assessments. Details of appropriate tests and statistics which should be examined are given in Annex B.
3.3 On the basis of this preliminary assessment schemes will fall into one of three categories. For schemes where
the induced traffic effects clearly merits a low marking for each of the 3 aspects, the scheme should be
considered 'simple'. Where it is less clear cut, qualitative factors will need to be considered.
3.4 At the other extreme where the marking for more than one aspect falls into the high category, the scheme
should be considered 'complex' and a detailed appraisal of specific responses is likely to be required using the
techniques set out in Chapter 6 (at the strategic or scheme level).
3.5 Schemes where at most one aspect falls in the high category are likely to require further assessment to
establish whether they are 'intermediate' or 'complex'. An initial elasticity sensitivity test using the techniques
set out in Chapter 5 is usually the best way to decide whether elasticity techniques on their own or more
specific analyses are appropriate for the more marginal schemes.

Volume 12 home page
Preliminary Assessment Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic
3.6 If the result of the assessment is that the scheme is categorised as simple, a conventional fixed matrix
appraisal is recommended using simple cut-offs in the latter part of the appraisal period, where appropriate.
In other cases it will be necessary to a) model responses separately, or b) show why and how simplified
methods are appropriate. If in either of the latter cases the documentation for the elasticity tests provides an
adequate justification for the final classification, the analyst may wish to check with the overseeing
organisation the extent to which all aspects of the pro-forma to Annex B need be completed in these
circumstances. Any documentation may be part of the Forecasting Report or presented as a separate free
standing report.

Volume 12 home page
Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic Traffic Modelling Methods
4. TRAFFIC MODELLING METHODS
4.1 All methods need to be handled with care, to maximise the confidence that can be placed on results. As
uncertainties exist, sensitivity tests need to be carried out as a matter of course, and the impact of each part of
the chosen method should be carefully evaluated and reported.
4.2 In all cases, a well validated base year model remains a key requirement, usually being based on observed
rather than synthesised trip matrices. Model validation should, therefore, accord with normal good practice
(see Chapter 4 of Traffic Appraisal in Urban Areas (DMRB v12.2.1) or Chapter 11 of the Traffic Appraisal
Manual (DMRB v12.1.1)). The initial forecast trip matrices produced by applying growth factors to the base
year model provide reference matrices (see paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 below) and the methods recommended
here predict incremental changes from these matrices, thus preserving their observed basis.
4.3 Whatever effects are to be modelled, their likely geographical extent needs to be considered and taken into
account when selecting the study area. Care must be taken and the analyst must consider the extent of
induced/suppressed and rerouteing flow changes outside the intended/chosen model area, in opening and
design year, and in particular whether net flow increases disperse before the nearest congested area (or
congested isolated link or junction) outside the modelled area. If they do not disperse, the model area should
be extended that far either as an economic assessment sensitivity test, or (if the extended study area can be
adequately modelled) for all purposes. A simple extension to include the nearest congested junction/area is
likely to be sufficient where responses such as redistribution or wide area reassignment are expected to have a
significant net effect beyond the immediate vicinity of the scheme itself.
4.4 Models will need to be capable of providing sound estimates of journey costs which are sensitive to traffic
levels. This implies that
models will need to use capacity restrained assignments and be well converged to the
standards set out in 'Traffic Appraisal in Urban Areas'
and the need to model the whole of each of the AM peak, PM peak and the interpeak periods is
likely to be of particular importance.
Hence, the need for linked modelling of sub-periods of each peak period may be increased. Where this is the
case, the recommendations in sub-section 4.3 of the advice note `Traffic Appraisal in Urban Areas' (DMRB
v12.2.1) must be taken into account.
4.5 The starting point for forecasting should be a local reference case matrix. These local reference case matrices
differ from the 'hypothetical reference case' referred to in Paragraph A11 of Annex A, in that local congestion
(and thus user costs) could increase over time. The extent to which modelled costs increase is a particularly
important consideration when applying the simple techniques discussed in Chapter 5.
4.6 The local reference case is derived from the base year matrix by application of growth factors, derived in
England and Wales from National Trip End projections (NTEM) and the National Forecast Adjustment
Factor (NFAF) given in TEMPRO (see HETA Guidance Note 1/96 issued with the 1996 rebase), or, where
appropriate, a fully validated higher tier model (see Annex D). In either case, forecasts should be calculated
for the local mix of trip purposes, especially where short period models are used, and factors should be
applied by zone or sector, as this is preferable to using an average factor.

Volume 12 home page
Traffic Modelling Methods Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic
4.7 Growth factors must take account of the most probable future changes in land use, and close liaison between
the analyst and appropriate county, district or unitary authority planning officers is essential good practice to
achieve this. For individual trunk road scheme appraisals, changes in land use and the associated changes in
the growth of trip ends, must be accommodated within accepted planning totals. This should be achieved for
England and Wales, in line with current practice, by using the Department of Transport's centrally produced
projections of planning data and trip ends from TEMPRO, as constraints at (normally) District level.
4.8 In many cases modelling the extent of traffic suppression in the Do Minimum may be more important and
more challenging than modelling other induced traffic effects in the Do Something. Appraisal of schemes is
focused on comparing conditions with and without the scheme, thus it is important that both Do Minimum
and Do Something are modelled well using the chosen reference case as a starting point. Therefore scheme
appraisals must give particular consideration to the extent of suppressed traffic effects in the Do Minimum as
well to the extent of its release and the possibility of further induced effects in the Do Something.
Assessments showing separately induced and suppressed effects should be prepared for both the Do
Minimum and the Do Something and methods used for modelling suppression in the Do Minimum and
release of suppression and induced traffic effects in the Do Something must be used consistently, for example
as set out in paragraph 5.31.
Wider Modelling Issues
4.9 Any scheme needs to be appraised in its appropriate overall context. Reference has been made in paragraph
4.7 above to the need to take account of changes in land use. It is also important to give consideration to
other local transport proposals likely to have an effect on the scheme being appraised, even if full details are
not available. These should be modelled directly or where only limited information is available identified as
part of the justification for any growth constraint methods used. Consideration should include the effects of
any probable local traffic management, or lack of car parking capacity, or car parking proposals, where
relevant to the scheme being appraised. Such problems and proposals should be identified through close
liaison with the local planning authorities.
4.10 When other schemes are proposed, such as when a scheme forms part of a strategy, a series of Do Minimum
and Do Something scenarios will need to be developed. The most likely outcome and the most likely timing
(in the overseeing Department's view) will need to be accompanied by sensitivity tests, omitting key
neighbouring schemes (known as isolation analyses). This is not intended to be a strategic assessment of all
the proposals for the route, but rather an assessment of the impact of the strategy (and of neighbouring
schemes) on the scheme in question - to demonstrate the interdependence and interactions between schemes.
4.11 Where suitable wide area models exist, their strategic assessments should either be incorporated in the
analysis or used as sensitivity tests, as appropriate and as set out in Annex D. Manual strategic assessments
should be used in other cases. If the scheme is forecast to have a much larger or smaller effect than similar
schemes, within a complete strategy of which it forms part, an extra sensitivity test re-apportioning effects,
may be an appropriate way of recognising limitations in the detail of such models. Where a suitable, fully
validated, higher tier model is available it may be used as set out in Annex D.
4.12 Induced traffic should be taken into account when modelling decongestion benefits associated with Public
Transport schemes. If a model covering the separate responses is not available the methodology set out in
this guidance for intermediate schemes in Chapter 5 is likely to be suitable when applied to models built to
assess decongestion benefits.

Volume 12 home page
Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic Intermediate Schemes
5. INTERMEDIATE SCHEMES
5.1 For less complex schemes and sensitivity tests of all schemes, techniques which model all responses in a
single or simplified procedure are often appropriate. This chapter sets out advice for analysts using or
considering such procedures.
Choice of Simplified Procedures

5.2 The choice of procedures must reflect the degree of congestion in the network and take account of the
underlying system dynamics, which are likely to be as follows. Until scheme opening (typically some five to
ten years after the base year and its associated model validation), traffic growth is expected to have an
adverse effect on traffic conditions and congestion levels. Thereafter:-
a) If the scheme is not built, conditions are likely to continue to deteriorate,
b) If the scheme is built, conditions will be different for
i) zone to zone movements using the scheme,
ii) other zone to zone movements affected by such traffic
and iii) perhaps to a lesser extent, movements affected by further ripple effects1.
For all 3 types of movements there will be short term responses, which are consistent with existing behaviour
- mainly rerouteing and retiming responses plus some changes in mode and destination. More fundamental
changes such as changes in home or work location and other responses may then follow, perhaps
accompanied by further deterioration of conditions arising from underlying traffic growth effects.
5.3 Suppression of traffic growth as a result of deteriorating conditions is most likely in Do Minimum and the
modelling approach chosen must be capable of producing a realistic2 estimate of:-
a) suppression in Do Minimum resulting from traffic growth
and b) the difference between that suppression and the mixture in Do Something of:-
(i) full release of suppression for some zone to zone movements,
(ii) induction of extra trips for some movements,
(iii) partial release of suppression for some movements
and (iv) underlying or worsening suppression for others.
5.4 Simple elasticity techniques (described in paragraphs 5.12 onwards and Annex E) are the only simple growth
constraint techniques3 capable of modelling additional traffic induced by the scheme - item b(ii) above (that
is growth in excess of the local reference case forecast). Thus elasticity techniques are preferable to the other
growth constraint techniques, except when there is doubt about the realism of the forecasts they produce. If
the analyst is faced with doubts he/she will need to consider modelling individual responses, as described in
Chapter 6, or extra sensitivity tests, or possibly supplementing elasticity techniques with other growth
constraint techniques as described at the end of this Chapter.
1
Movements affected indirectly can affect other movements further away from the
scheme. These are sometimes called "ripple" effects.
2
The simplest test of realism is to compare the modelled trend in journey
times/costs with recent experience and to be particularly wary if journey times/costs
are forecast as increasing by 2% to at most 3% per annum. More detailed advice on
what can be regarded as realistic conditions is set out in paragraph 5.5.4 of the
advice note 'Traffic Appraisal in Urban Areas' (DMRB v12.2.1). Actions which may
need to be taken to improve the realism of the modelling are discussed in later
paragraphs of that advice.
3
Growth Constraint Techniques are described in section 5.7 and Appendix G of
the advice note Traffic Appraisal in Urban Areas (DMRB v12.2.1) based on the
comparative research described in reference E1. The advice note provides specific
advice on the detailed issues involved with non-elasticity methods.

Volume 12 home page
Intermediate Schemes Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic
5.5 As long as the network can handle the forecast growth (in the modelled period), at realistic2 journey
times/costs, routeings and delays, elasticity techniques on their own are likely to be the most suitable
procedure. The use of the recommended formulation and detailed techniques described in this chapter
enhances that likelihood.
5.6 However, if the local reference case traffic growth, modified by elasticity techniques, produces high forecast
levels of suppression, and excessive forecast increases in journey times/costs, other mechanisms to model
suppression may be more realistic. This may then justify an elasticity technique to model induced traffic,
supplemented by another technique3 to model local suppression, particularly when the excessive forecast
increases occur in only part of the modelled day. The issues arising when it is appropriate to combine
techniques in this way, are illustrated in paragraphs 5.30 onwards. As all growth constraint techniques lack
information on the available alternative modes etc, they need to be handled with care as set out in Traffic
Appraisal in Urban Areas2&3 and acknowledging the bias they tend to introduce as discussed below.
Bias in Scheme Benefits

5.7 Elasticity and other growth constraint techniques usually provide an under-estimate of scheme benefits4 when
representing situations where trip redistribution is to be expected. This arises, as their forecast increase (or
reduction) in any zone to zone flow normally lacks the behaviourally balancing effect on another zone to
zone element of the matrix. Usually they tend to increase (or reduce) each element of the matrix, which
produces an exaggerated effect on the overall numbers of trips in the matrix. Hence the techniques should be
accompanied by sensitivity tests (and the comparisons recommended in paragraph 5.16) to show whether
flows and economic results are particularly dependent on the elasticity parameter.
5.8 Retiming of trips in response to increasing or reducing congestion also redistributes trips, in this case from
one time of day to another. To reduce bias it is best modelled as a supplementary stage to elasticity
techniques. Interim advice on its modelling, by adjusting the proportion of the peak period traffic demand
allocated to the peak hour and other time slices, is given in Appendix F of Traffic Appraisal in Urban Areas
(DMRB v12.2.1) based on the research described in reference R5.5. Alternatively retiming may be one of
the effects subsumed in (i) growth constraint techniques, or (ii) elasticity techniques, or (iii) link/junction
delay cut-offs in COBA. (Only the first two are relevant when URECA is being used for the economic
appraisal of a scheme, as link/junction delay cut-offs cannot be justified with URECA.)
5.9 Other research (reported in Annex C - Table C2) provides some insight into the relative frequency of
responses and has allowed separate peak hour and peak period elasticities to be recommended to allow for the
likely scale of the retiming response. It has added weight to the arguments presented in Annex A and the
December 1994 guidance that in most cases an increase in the frequency/number of trips is likely to be a
minor response. For most schemes, trip retiming, redistribution and change of mode (and, of course,
reassignment) are likely to be the major components of the overall response. Thus, it remains the overseeing
Departments' view that the use of simple elasticity methods to model all responses using the recommended
elasticities is likely to result in an under-estimate of scheme benefits in most cases.4
5.10 Where the Variable Trip Matrix economic benefits are critical to the appraisal of a scheme, the analyst should
identify the key local mechanisms of Induced Traffic and consider how to reduce the bias in Variable Trip
Matrix economic benefits produced by elasticity tests. Possible improvements to provide a more robust
estimate would be the modelling of individual response as recommended for complex schemes, or different
elasticities for different times of day, or the techniques set out in paragraph 5.6 above. Decisions should be
based on that more robust estimate of scheme benefits.
4
This under-estimation problem is described in references R5.1 to R5.4, which have
shown that, in congested conditions, the unbalanced extra trips modelled by elasticity
techniques can significantly reduce scheme benefits, whereas the balanced effects of
redistribution (or time shifting), which the techniques may be attempting to represent,
have a much less marked effect on scheme economics.

Volume 12 home page
5.11 Bias can also arise from the choice of an inappropriate model area, such as one with induced congestion just
outside the model area (see paragraph 4.3). However, for an appropriately chosen network, simplified
models provide a consistent and adequate way of assessing traffic and economic impacts - where the
forecasts they produce are realistic2 and in particular the cost/journey time trends they forecast are compatible
with recent experience. Analysts must check that this proviso is being met, for example by monitoring
cumulative distributions of trips for travel cost/journey time bands in the base year and each scenario in each
forecast year and/or average modelled costs/journey times.
Simple Elasticity Methods
5.12 For situations where it is likely that suppression will occur for a limited number of hours per week, elasticity
techniques alone are recommended to represent the full range of effects set out in paragraph 5.3. Elasticity
procedures require five inputs:-
* an initial trip matrix
* a set of reference costs (or journey times) associated with that trip matrix
* a network to which the trip matrix can be assigned
* an elasticity formulation
and * an elasticity value.
5.13 The basic principle of elastic assignment is that the demand for travel between any two zones varies
according to the cost of travel between those zones. An increase in cost leads to a reduction in flow and vice-
versa. The simplest elasticity formulation changes each initial intra-zonal flow in proportion to its percentage
increase or reduction in cost/journey time multiplied by the input elasticity.5
5.14 Elasticity methods can in theory be applied to:-

(i) journey time/cost ratios or differences (depending on the chosen formulation) between
2 different scenarios in the same year
- which, for example, when forecasting Do Something from Do Minimum can be described
as a Do Minimum pivot;
or (ii) journey time/cost ratios or differences in different years
- which can be described as a Base Year pivot if that is the chosen pivot.
Case (ii) is usually simplest to apply, is less susceptible to model convergence noise and is described in
paragraph 5.23 for the Power formulation. Case (i) is shown in paragraph E12 of Annex E for the Power
formulation and is similar except for its pivot point and its forecast growth rate - G ij - is unity.
5.15 Elasticities should be applied using an iterative procedure, alternating between adjusting the matrix, assigning
it and recalculating costs, until a solution in which costs and trips are in equilibrium is found. In preliminary
sensitivity tests at least three converging iterations are likely to be needed to identify probable upper and
lower bounds for the resultant variable trip matrix and trip cost estimates. (Paragraph E7 of Annex E
discusses possible action if iterating produces a divergent (unsolvable) process.) Automated 'elastic
assignment' techniques which combine this matrix adjustment process and assignment in a single process are
also available, but see paragraph 5.22.
5
Mathematically, using the terminology defined in paragraph 5.23, that simple
formulation is represented by T ij = TijP (1 + B (cij / cijP - 1)) which can be shown to be
a close approximation to the formula quoted in paragraph 5.23 when Gij = 1 and B is
constant. Unfortunately that simple formulation is Base Dependent (see paragraph E8
of Annex E). As both these formulations use ratios special care must be taken to use
appropriate zone centroid connector lengths. Other formulations modify flows as a
more complicated function of the cost changes and the input elasticity value and are
discussed in Annex E.

Volume 12 home page
5.16 Table 5.1 provides appropriate elasticity values suitable for a range of circumstances, which should be used
to produce a "base test" carried forward to a full economic assessment as set out in Chapter 7. Sensitivity
tests based on elasticity values up to 50% higher or lower than the "base test" should also be tested to show
whether the results are strongly dependent on the elasticity value. Results from these sensitivity tests should
lead to a range of forecast flows and be compared with the "base test", at the following levels:-
a) converged trip matrix totals for each user class
and b) converged assigned flow changes (Do Minimum - Do Something)
The sensitivity test results should be carried forward to a full economic benefit assessment using the
methodology set out in Chapter 7, unless earlier full economic results show the particular model period and
model year outputs are of limited importance to the overall economic results.
Table 5.1 Recommended Journey Time Elasticities
Peak Urban areas with high modal competition -0.33

Period Urban areas with low modal competition -0.20
Inter Urban -0.20
Peak Urban areas with high modal competition -0.55
Hour Urban areas with low modal competition -0.33
Inter Urban -0.33
Off Peak Urban areas with high modal competition -0.40
Urban areas with low modal competition -0.24
Inter Urban -0.24
Note 1 The values given are long term elasticities with respect to changes in journey time, and have been derived
from research in 1994 into responses to worsening congestion (see Annex C for more details, including
comparisons with earlier and 1994 journey time elasticities derived from fuel elasticities. Short term peak
hour and peak period values, which are around 10% lower than long term values are also given in Annex
C - Tables C5 and C6.)
Note 2 All these elasticities need to be applied to journey time ratios (or changes in journey time). For models
based on Generalised Cost model specific elasticities should be calculated for that Generalised Cost
formulation as in the example in paragraph C16 of Annex C.
Note 3 The Traffic Appraisal in Urban Areas advice note (DMRB v12.2.1) recommends that modelling in
congested Urban Areas is undertaken at a peak period level, sub-divided into time slices and sub-periods,
and not at a peak hour level. Such models should use peak period elasticities. Other values should be
considered for sensitivity tests.
Note 4 For models representing the peak hour the appropriate peak hour values should be used. Other values
must be considered for sensitivity tests particularly where the results of the peak hour model are used to
assess scheme economics in shoulder hour periods.
Note 5 The above elasticity values are unlikely to be suitable for modelling severely deteriorating conditions and
as explained in paragraph 5.6, such conditions may justify using other mechanisms.
5.17 As one would expect from first principles, recent research described in Annex C has shown that long term
elasticities are greater than short term elasticities, but the differences are less than previously measured in
response to the shock fuel price rises of the 1970's. Consequently there is now a stronger case not to
differentiate between long and short term elasticities, particularly when sensitivity tests using a range of
elasticities have been undertaken. Where models have been calibrated on generalised cost, its model specific
elasticity should be calculated from these time elasticities (as in paragraph C16 of Annex C) and used as the
base test. Because of the broadbrush nature of the source and derivation of these values, and the absence of
results examining responses to lessening congestion, further refinement of elasticities to suit specific local trip
purpose proportions could imply spurious accuracy and is not recommended.

Volume 12 home page
Important Considerations
5.18 With all formulations and procedures, it is particularly important for:-

* elasticities to be consistent with the model's Generalised Cost formulations,
* journey times or costs to be realistic and accurately modelled (particularly pivot point costs),
* matrix cells not to be adjusted for movements where much of the trip length is not represented, or
is on zone connectors (such cells are typically external trips or short internal trips),
and * anomalous effects (as discussed below) to be identified, their causes rectified or the effects
justified.
5.19 These potential problems can be dealt with as follows:-
* The recommended approach to secure consistency with the model specific generalised cost
assignment is set out in Paragraph C16 of Annex C,
* Inaccuracies can arise where only part of the trip is represented in the model. Hence, the full trip
length must always be modelled, at least using feeder lengths to zone connectors. Pivot point costs
should be validated by testing that they and the procedures reproduce pivot year matrices.
* Matrix cells can be excluded from elastic adjustment (or sensitivity tested) by means of multi class
assignment with separate elasticities for each class. (This is preferable to the alternative of
sensitivity testing a range of feeder lengths to zone connectors.)
* anomalies can arise from several sources and these are discussed below.
5.20 Analysts must be wary of anomalous results from poor convergence and seek stability in link flows and
journey times to the standards set out in Table 4.1 of Traffic Appraisal in Urban Areas6. Once that
convergence has been achieved, if small schemes are being evaluated using large traffic models, the analyst
should also deal effectively with what are likely to be small percentage cost differences between the Do
Minimum and Do Something total ("global") generalised costs. If these differences are smaller than (or
similar to) the acceptable convergence percentage, the analyst will need to report and monitor the appropriate
network total ("global") generalised cost for Do Minimum and Do Something to select appropriate inputs to
URECA or COBA. The detailed criteria for selecting inputs should be based on monitoring global
generalised cost 7 for at least the last 4 or 5 iterations and should be approved by the overseeing Department.
5.21 Analysts should identify other potentially anomalous effects by comparing Do Something and Do Minimum
matrices at 4 levels a) zone to zone traffic flows, b) zone origin and destination totals,
c) on a compressed sector level basis and d) on a matrix total basis.
Comparisons in percentage terms as well as looking separately at increases and reductions help to identify
unusual changes. As anomalies are most likely there, particular attention should be paid to low cost
movements, sectors remote from the scheme, unvalidated areas of the traffic model, areas where only partial
trip information is available and to trips predominantly on any fixed speed part of the model area.
5.22 Automated 'elastic assignment' techniques, which combine matrix modifications and assignment in a single
computer program, are available, but equally susceptible to anomalous and poor convergence effects. Where
they are used they must undergo the same kinds of checks for anomalies as set out in paragraph 5.21 for
manual methods and anomalous cells must be excluded from elastic adjustments.
6
Advice on the detailed issues involved with monitoring convergence is provided
in paragraphs 4.4.19 to 4.4.24 and Appendix H of the advice note 'Traffic Appraisal
in Urban Areas'(DMRB v12.2.1).
7
Analysts should be aware that some assignment packages produce two or more
estimates of global vehicle hours, global vehicle kilometres and global generalised
cost applicable to each iteration and seek further advice from the assignment package
author or the overseeing Department.

Volume 12 home page
Recommended Elasticity Formulations
5.23 Although several elasticity formulations are available, the Power formulation is recommended for most
studies for the reasons set out in Annex E. When this formulation is applied to 2 different years, its key
formula is:-
T ij = G ij * T ijP * (c ij / c ijP ) B
where 1. T ij is the forecast number of trips
2. c ij is the forecast journey time or cost
3. G ij is the forecast growth rate
4. T ijP is the number of trips in the earlier year (pivot case)
5. c ijP is the journey time or cost in the earlier year (pivot case)
and 6. B is the elasticity, which should be a negative value,
(and in the Power formulation is the same for all trips within each user class).
5.24 By inputting items 3 to 6 above, and assigning an initial estimate of item 1 to the appropriate network,
converged and consistent values for items 1 and 2 can be produced using an iterative process. The process is
shown and discussed further in paragraph E7 of Annex E. The best starting estimate of Tij (item 1) required
to produce an initial estimate of c ij (item 2) and hence a revised estimate of Tij as part of an iterative process
is T ijP multiplied by the relevant growth factor G ij. (When the process is pivoted off the base year the
product G ij * T ijP represents the Reference Case Matrix.) Alternatively automated 'elastic assignment'
techniques which combine this matrix adjustment process and assignment in a single process can also be
used. Whichever method is used, when a higher tier model has been used to generate the growth factors G ij a
same year pivot may be preferable to the above different year pivot, using the higher tier model Reference
Case as the pivot point (see Paragraph E12 of Annex E for details).
5.25 With all formulations the analyst must satisfy him/herself that the formulation is working as intended, by
producing data comparing the elastic and inelastic matrices as set out in paragraph 5.21. This allows the
analyst to see whether changes in the number of trips8 are as expected and whether for example the chosen
methodology predominantly increases the proportion of long or short trips.
5.26 Separate comparative numbers of induced and suppressed trips in the matrix should be produced, as
explained in paragraph 5.21 and their trip length/cost distributions need to be examined. These should be
reported, for each modelled period and each modelled year, accompanied by similar (select link) data on the
main link of the proposed scheme. Differences between induced, suppressed and select link distributions
should be justified.
5.27 The overseeing Departments' reasons for recommending the Power formulation in preference to other
formulations are set out in Annex E. However, there may be exceptional arguments why other forms may
have superior properties for the local circumstances, in which case the arguments in favour of the alternative
formulation must be clearly presented. Base Dependent formulations (see Annex E paragraph E8) should be
used only in exceptional circumstances and then only in a behaviourally consistent way.
5.28 Simple sensitivity tests using a manual application of elasticities (percentage change in trips = percentage
change in average journey time multiplied by an appropriate elasticity value)9 may be useful in the
preliminary assessment of schemes. If the manual application does not involve iteration, using the
recommended elasticities from Table 5.1 is likely to give an overestimate of the net amount of traffic induced
by the scheme. However, in conjunction with a select link analysis for key links on the scheme this simple
test can reveal whether the additional traffic will occur in a critical part of the network (increases can be
critical in either absolute numbers of trips or percentage terms).
8
Some automated techniques accept non zero intra zonal input flows, but report
the output number of trips excluding intra zonal trips.
9
Mathematically, using the terminology defined in paragraph 5.23, that simple
formulation is represented by T ij / TijP = 1 + B (cij / cijP - 1) which can be shown to be
a close approximation to the formula quoted in paragraph 5.23 when Gij = 1 and B is
constant, but is Base Dependent (see Paragraph E8)

Volume 12 home page
5.29 Models with fixed link speeds will usually have been appraised using COBA. The recommended approach
when using this simple test with such models is to use journey time differences with and without the scheme
from COBA's peak and interpeak flow groups (usually Flow Groups 4/5 for peak periods and Flow Group 2
for the interpeak) and the distribution of overall journey times (making allowance for those parts of journeys
outside the study area) from select link analyses on the new and relieved routes. The percentage change in
flow may then be estimated by multiplying the percentage change in journey time by the appropriate
elasticity. In such cases no iteration will be possible.
Combining Elasticity Techniques to model induced traffic with other methods to model suppression
5.30 In very congested conditions, because simple elasticity models lack information on the available alternatives,
the application of simple elasticities to modify local reference case growth may not produce realistic journey
times, or routes, or travel costs in some modelled periods. Hence, journey times, routeing and travel costs
should be monitored as set out in paragraph 5.11. If this monitoring shows unrealistic features the analyst
will need to consider modelling responses separately as described in Chapter 6, or using a combination of
simplified techniques as set out below for some or all of the periods.
5.31 Because different techniques tend to produce different estimates of suppression (or its release) analysts must
use techniques consistently. This means a combination of two techniques must be applied in any particular
modelled year in both Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios, or neither scenarios. The analyst should
always monitor and report on the realism of the forecasts produced by the first technique alone and the
combined techniques and justify the extent to which the first and combined techniques have an effect in Do
Minimum and Do Something.
5.32 The recommended procedure is to apply techniques in the following sequence which is illustrated in either
Flow Chart 5.1 or Flow Chart 5.2:-
i) the most appropriate growth factors from NTEM or a higher tier model,
ii) an elasticity technique
and iii) finally in particularly congested situations any extra constraint technique 10
(any exceptions to this sequence must be authorised by the overseeing Department).
Detailed Procedures Applicable to Elasticity Techniques alone, or in combination with other techniques
5.33 Flow Chart 5.1 shows the detailed recommended procedure when forecasting from (pivoted off) the Base
Year costs and Reference Case trip matrices. A slightly more complicated (but still recommended)
alternative is to pivot off opening year costs and trip matrices, as shown in Flow Chart 5.2. The steps
involved in these alternative procedures are described in paragraph 5.34 when using typical proprietary
software and is repeated in paragraphs 5.35 to 5.36 for those using iterative procedures as set out in
paragraphs 5.23 and 5.24. If the analyst proposes a variation on these recommended procedures that variation
should be cleared by the overseeing Department.
(Analysts should note that these methods are very sensitive to pivot point 11 costs and that these must
be obtained only from well converged assignments. Also any modelling of detailed short term
responses to scheme opening risks double counting and needs particularly careful handling.)
10
Analysts must be satisfied that the chosen extra constraint technique is
working as intended, for example by monitoring changes in matrices as set out in
paragraphs 5.25 and 5.26, also average costs and possibly after running the technique
on a test network. Such techniques are still at the development stage and may
contain errors known to their developer. Hence, analysts must ensure that they use
the latest version and the most appropriate refinements.
11
Two forecasts and their pivot points when using Flow Charts 5.1 and 5.2 are
shown on Figures 5.1 and 5.2 respectively by means of broken lines. Figure 5.1
assumes (for illustrative purposes) that the net response for the illustrated
individual zone to zone movement is above the local reference case - Figure 5.2 makes
the opposite assumption for its illustrated zone to zone movement. Both of these
cases may apply, but to different movements, within the same matrix. Both figures
adopt an exaggerated vertical scale.

Volume 12 home page
5.34 The detailed steps involved in forecasting trip and cost matrices using typical proprietary software as shown
in flow chart 5.1 above (or in brackets where flow chart 5.2 opposite is different) are as follows:-
Step 1 Growth factors are applied to the Base Year Matrix A to produce Reference Case Matrices Y0,1,2
The Base Year cost matrix (matrix A costs) is produced by assigning it to the Base Year network,
Step 2 Reference Case Matrix Y0 and an elasticity procedure are used to forecast opening year matrices:-
* matrix B - from Y0 trips assigned to Do Minimum network pivoted off matrix A costs,
* matrix D - from Y0 trips assigned to Do Something network pivoted off matrix A costs,
Step 3 Reference Case Matrices Y1, Y2 etc. and an elasticity procedure are used to forecast later year:-
* Do Minimum matrices C1,C2.. from Y1,Y2.. trips pivoted off matrix A costs,
and * Do Something matrices E,F.. from Y1,Y2.. trips pivoted off matrix A costs,
(Flow Chart 5.2 Step 3A Growth factors applied to Matrices B and D produce Matrices B1, B2, D1, D2
etc.. These and an elasticity procedure are used to forecast later year:-
Step 3B * Do Minimum matrices C1,C2.. from B1,B2.. trips pivoted off matrix B costs,
Step 3C * Do Something matrices E,F.. from D1,D2.. trips pivoted off matrix D costs,)
Step 4 If required from a chosen year onwards, the matrices thus produced may then be constrained by
applying the same chosen extra growth constraint technique in both Do Minimum & Do Something
(An extra growth constraint technique should only be used in this way in very congested situations. The
application of elasticity based growth constraints twice would apply almost the sum of the elasticities.)
Key Local Reference Case

Forecast and its Pivot Point using Flow Chart 5.1
Figure 5.1 Forecasting Effects when net response above local reference case.

Volume 12 home page
5.35 The detailed steps involved in forecasting trip and cost matrices using the method shown in flow chart 5.1
opposite and the iterative method set out in paragraph 5.24 are as follows:-
Step 1 * Growth factors are applied to the Base Year Matrix A to produce Reference Case Matrices
Y0,Y1,Y2, which are the product G ij * T ijP for the forecast years 0,1,2 etc.
* The number of trips T ijP are extracted from Matrix A & its costs cijP for use in step 2.
Step 2 The formula normally T ij = G ij * T ijP * (c ij /c ijP )B from paragraph 5.23 and an iterative and
convergent procedure from paragraph 5.24 is used to forecast opening year matrices:-
* Do Minimum matrix B from the matrices extracted in step 1 using G ij * T ijP as the initial
estimate of matrix B to calculate an initial estimate of the costs c ij associated with assigning it to
the Do Minimum network and refining both using the iterative procedure,
* Do Something matrix D from the same inputs assigned to the Do Something network,
Step 3 The same procedure as step 2, but with Y1, Y2 etc. as the initial estimate are used to
forecast:- * later year Do Minimum matrices C1,C2..
and * later year Do Something matrices E,F..
Step 4
If required from a chosen year onwards, the matrices thus produced may then be constrained by applying
the same chosen extra growth constraint technique in both Do Minimum and Do Something.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.36 When using the method shown in flow chart 5.2 above and the iterative method set out in paragraph 5.24
the same steps 1 and 2 are involved. The remaining steps are as follows:-
Step 3A * The number of trips T ijP & costs cijP for use in steps 3B and 3C are extracted from Matrices B
and D respectively,
* Growth factors are applied to the Do Minimum and Do Something Matrices B and D to produce
Growthed Matrices B1, B2, D1, D2 etc [not shown] which are the product G ij * T ijP for the
appropriate forecast years 1,2 etc
Step 3B The same procedure as step 2, but with B1, B2 etc. as the initial estimate and using T ijP & cijP
from matrix B are used to forecast * later year Do Minimum matrices C1,C2..
Step 3C The same procedure as step 2, but with D1, D2 etc. as the initial estimate and using T ijP & cijP
from matrix D are used to forecast * later year Do Something matrices E,F..
Step 4
If required from a chosen year onwards, the matrices thus produced may then be constrained by applying
the same chosen extra growth constraint technique in both Do Minimum and Do Something.

Volume 12 home page
5.37 The illustrations show the use of intermediate years to increase realism and to accord with the advice, when
using URECA, to use forecast years not more than 10 apart (see the advice note 'Traffic Appraisal in Urban
Areas' DMRB v12.2.1). In most practical applications this intermediate year is likely to be between 5 to 10
years after scheme opening.
5.38 If other approaches are proposed in preference to the steps shown in paragraphs 5.34 to 5.36 they must be
clearly explained and justified to the overseeing Department in behavioural and dynamic terms.
Key Local Reference Case

Forecast and its Pivot Point using Flow Chart 5.2
Figure 5.2 Forecasting Effects when net response below local reference case.
12
References
R5.1 Williams H CWL & Moore LAR, The Appraisal of Highway Investments
under Fixed and Variable Demand,
Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 1990 pp61-81
R5.2 Bates JJ Can simple elasticity methods be used for
highway scheme evaluation ?
Seminar F of the 23rd European Transport Forum (PTRC) 1995 pp193-206
R5.3 Bates JJ The Validity of Simple Elasticity Methods
Unpublished report to the Department of Transport (1995)
R5.4 Hague Consulting Group Simple Elasticity Methods for estimating
road scheme traffic generation.
Unpublished report to the Department of Transport (July 1995)
R5.5 Van Vuren T, Porter SJ & Sharpe MA
Advice on modelling changes in peak profiles for road scheme appraisal.
PTRC 23rd European Transport Forum 1995 Seminar F pp 177-191

Volume 12 home page
Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic Complex Schemes
6. COMPLEX SCHEMES
6.1 For complex schemes, it is recommended that each induced traffic response be considered separately and
represented using a suitable behavioural model. For some schemes a few responses could be combined or
might not need to be modelled for that particular scheme and for others it may be appropriate to treat each
response using separate modules. The following paragraphs briefly outline the preferred approaches for each
element when considering a trunk road scheme appraisal.
6.2 It is essential that the basis of each element be fully reported in a Forecasting Report, together with any
validation evidence. It is also important that any reference case provides realistic journey time/cost estimates
and that any effects additional to the chosen reference case use parameter values relevant to the hierarchy of
responses under consideration. In addition, the sensitivity of results to the values of calibrated coefficients
must be examined and the important considerations set out in paragraphs 5.18 to 5.21 examined.
6.3 Where it is possible, the impact of each modelled response should be examined in isolation and fully
reported13. In cases where schemes form part of a strategy, it may be more cost effective to consider induced
traffic effects using a single large scale model. Such models may need to be specially built or a development
of existing regional or sub-regional models and the considerations in paragraph 5.20 are likely to apply.
Where special models of this kind are used to model all the induced effects, work should be focused on the
scheme being appraised, with other schemes being modelled in no more detail than is required to adequately
represent their effects.
Retiming
6.4 The ability to model trip retiming is restricted by the present limited availability of techniques. Updated
advice, following research into this topic commissioned by the Department, is given in Appendix F - The
Application of Peak Spreading - in the advice note `Traffic Appraisal in Urban Areas' (DMRB v12.2.1), and
its references to recent published research on this topic (for example R5.5). The differential growth between
peak and interpeak periods that arises as a result of the differing trip purpose mixes should also be considered
and allowed for. Trip retiming is normally restricted to peak spreading (or peak contraction) within an
appropriate peak period (including the shoulders of the peak). The duration of peak periods may change, but,
within the peak period, a non-uniform profile should always be expected to remain.
Redistribution
6.5 Distribution models are widely available. However, most use only trip end data, a calibrated model and the
cost matrix to generate a wholly synthetic trip matrix. These models have not been entirely successful in the
past. However, where there is an existing calibrated model of this type, it may be used if it has been fully
validated for the local area and local model base year.
6.6 A more limited range of techniques for modelling redistribution (such as Cost Function Index and Iteration
methods, etc.) use marginal methods, which modify a local reference case pattern of trips to reflect changes
in costs. These methods are to be preferred for trunk road scheme appraisal, when a higher tier model is
inappropriate or unavailable, provided a converged forecast is produced. The use of matrix capping
techniques as a redistribution tool is not recommended, since they include other responses.
13
This recommendation is based on the conclusions of an Unpublished report to the
Department of Transport (July 1995) by the Hague
Consulting Group entitled:- Simple Elasticity Methods for
estimating road scheme traffic generation

Volume 12 home page
Complex Schemes Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic
6.7 All redistribution methods should only be applied to, and use relationships only derived from, those parts of
the trip matrices which include trips whose journey costs are well modelled. Matrix cells representing
movements where much of the trip length is on zone connectors do not fall into this category and should not
be adjusted, except as a possible sensitivity test.
6.8 It is important that journey costs and revised trip patterns are consistent. This usually implies that methods
should be applied iteratively until a stable "converged" solution is reached. The components of generalised
cost to be used should be calibrated, not pre-judged. As for assignment, a combination of time and distance
will usually be appropriate, though the ratio of the two may differ by purpose, to reflect the different
decision-making processes involved. The analyst must consider whether redistribution should be applied by
journey purpose or for all purposes combined, by vehicle type, and by time of day. He/she should also
consider the extent to which it is appropriate to apply redistribution to opening year forecasts, bearing in mind
that this is often a longer term response to improvement.
Mode Choice
6.9 Mode choice should be modelled where traffic is likely to be suppressed by significant transfers to alternative
public transport or walk/cycle modes. This may include park and ride facilities. Suitable methods are
described in TAM Appendix 17 (DMRB 12.1.1 Annex Appendix 17). However, without full details of trips
by other modes (including walk/cycle), local modelling is unlikely to be sufficiently robust to allow it to be
used to model cross modal transfers from other modes. On the other hand, local modelling is likely to be
sufficiently robust for any trips transferred to other modes in the Do Minimum (a form of traffic suppression)
to be eligible for transfer back in the Do Something. For cases where significant numbers of trips currently
using other modes appear likely to change mode, a more comprehensive modal transfer model should be
considered.
6.10 It is particularly important that only trips whose journey times are well modelled are considered, and that an
iterative process has been undertaken to make the journey costs and trip patterns consistent and a stable
"converged" solution has been found. It is good practice to carry out mode choice modelling separately for
each trip purpose, and each modelled time period. Goods vehicles will normally need to be identified where
they are to be excluded from mode choice modelling. Medium length trips are the most susceptible to
transferring between car and public transport, whereas short trips are the most susceptible to transferring
between car and walk/cycle modes. However, as most traffic models exclude trips shorter than the average
internal zone size, it will usually be sufficient only to consider the car/public transport transfer when
modelling mode choice. Where this is not the case, transfers to and from slow modes must be handled
carefully and usually separately before the extra trip generation response.
Land Use
6.11 The need to take full account of the most probable future land use development plans in establishing the
chosen reference case trip matrix has been discussed above (paragraph 4.7). In some cases, the location of
certain land use changes may be clearly dependent upon the scheme being appraised. In others, it may be
appropriate to carry out sensitivity tests of such possibilities. In both such cases, it is essential for the analyst
to liaise closely with the planning authorities and separate local reference case matrices should be considered
and/or chosen for the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios. In both such cases, the same procedures
should be applied, including constraining the trip ends to (normally) district totals. This process takes
account of the redistributive effects of changes in land use, which cannot usually be reproduced by
conventional distribution models. These redistributive effects will often be the main effect of changes in land
use, but where mode choice and generation of extra trips effects are considered likely, they should also be
examined.

Volume 12 home page
Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic Complex Schemes
Induced Extra Trips
6.12 Induced extra trips (in addition to other responses) should be considered specifically where there are very
substantial time savings in prospect or where trips have been suppressed (rather than rerouted) in the base
year or the early years of the Do Minimum. Typical examples where this might be relevant include major
estuarial crossings and their equivalent, which have a major impact on accessibility. Improved accessibility
and reduced travel times as a result of a scheme may make it possible to fit in some additional activity that
previously was not possible. But there is no reason why such additional activities should be confined to the
corridor improved by the scheme. Hence, it is most appropriate to model generation of extra trips by
modifying trip ends, rather than by modification of individual cells in the trip matrix.
6.13 Table C5 of Annex C gives details of what is now known about the extent of generation of extra trips. It is
recommended that its modelling should be confined to sensitivity tests and trip ends be adjusted, using a
range of small elasticity values. Suitable time elasticity values are of the order of -0.05 to -0.1 depending on
purpose and/or modelled time period. Trip ends should be adjusted to reflect changes in zonal accessibility.
Zonal accessibility measures should be based on a weighted average of the journey times from the zone to all
others (the weighting should reflect the distribution of existing numbers of trips for the zone or sector in
question). If accessibility is measured using generalised cost, elasticities should be calculated as set out in
paragraph C16 of Annex C.
6.14 The application of extra trip elasticities on a cell by cell basis is not recommended as it is behaviourally
questionable particularly for movements with journey time/cost effects of the opposite sign to the average.14
As for redistribution and mode choice modelling, methods should be restricted to the part of the trip matrix,
which is fully modelled. As the modelled effect on accessibility outside the internal area is inevitably partial
this means that only the internal trip ends should be adjusted. Trips with only one internal trip end need not
be constrained, whereas those with two will need to be Furnessed to reflect the adjusted change in origin and
destination trip ends. A number of iterations may be necessary.
Growth Cut offs
6.15 The explicit modelling of suppressed traffic effects should lead to better estimates of any limits to traffic
growth and growth cut offs. Nevertheless, they may still be needed in some cases. The need for them is
indicated by unreasonable assignment results. Appendix G - Growth Constraint Techniques - in the advice
note `Traffic Appraisal in Urban Areas' (DMRB v12.2.1) provides more guidance.
14
For example if a scheme changes the accessibility of a zone from
direction A by a 22% improvement,
but direction B which is used by the same amount of traffic suffers a 2%
deterioration,
and the net effect is a 10% increase in accessibility
then the application of an elasticity on a cell basis would increase the traffic from
direction A and reduce it from direction B, whereas the extra trip generation
response should be distributed equally between the 2 directions.

Volume 12 home page
Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic Economic Appraisal Issues
7. ECONOMIC APPRAISAL ISSUES
7.1 Modelling induced traffic effects will result in different Do Minimum and Do Something matrices. Either
COBA or URECA can be used in these circumstances. However, to give confidence in the variable matrix
results, until sufficient experience has been gained of the methodology, a fixed matrix appraisal using the Do
Minimum matrix must also be produced, from a standard COBA or URECA assessment. The differences
between the 2 results may then be analyzed15. Extra appraisals may also need to be produced to test whether
the model network ought to be extended (see paragraph 4.3).
7.2 A version of URECA for carrying out link based variable trip matrix appraisals is now available and should
be used where appropriate. A similarly modified version of COBA is expected to be available in due course.
Meanwhile, the technique described in detail in Chapter 7 of Part 1 of the COBA10 Manual16 (DMRB v13.1)
should be used. The results of both types of calculation may need to be examined by flow group, or time
period, for each year for which data has been input, to help identify any anomalies in the profile of benefits.
7.3 Matrix based methods are also available, but most of these are unable to give accurate estimates of accident
benefits and vehicle operating cost changes and should not normally be used for Trunk Road scheme
appraisals in England and Wales. However, if they are used calculations must be carried out on a cell by
cell basis - as it can be shown algebraically that methods based on matrix (or network) totals give incorrect
results and therefore should not be used.
7.4 In all matrix based Variable Trip Matrix appraisals reference must be made to Chapter 7 of Part 1 of the
COBA manual, which sets out the appropriate use of resource costs and other corrections. Values of time,
vehicle operating costs (both resource and perceived) and accident rates and valuations etc must be those
specified in the Highways Economics Note No 2 (DMRB v13.2). If vehicle operating cost savings are to be
based on outputs from the traffic model, they should take full account of the relevant speeds on individual
links in an equivalent way to that adopted in COBA and URECA. As operating costs vary non-linearly with
speed and most journeys comprise of sections at different running speeds, the use of average journey speeds
will introduce bias.
15
To identify the benefits to existing traffic the user costs produced by the Do
Minimum traffic cross-loaded onto the Do Something network and paths should be used
if available. If the scheme does not fully relieve congestion, these costs will
differ from the user costs produced by the Do Minimum traffic assigned on the Do
Something network. These usually small differences plus/ minus model convergence
differences (noise) represent the benefit reduction experienced by existing traffic
due to the induced traffic. This difference plus the (perhaps larger or negative)
difference between the Variable Trip Matrix Economic Benefits and the Fixed Trip
Matrix Economic Benefits represents the benefits to the induced traffic plus/minus
model noise.
16
This technique relies on a series of COBA runs and weighted A and B factors as
set out in Part 1 Chapter 7 of COBA, where
A = Do Something vehicle hours or kilometres on the Do Minimum network
Do Minimum vehicle hours or kilometres on the Do Minimum network
and B = Do Minimum vehicle hours or kilometres on the Do Something network
Do Something vehicle hours or kilometres on the Do Something network
The weights should reflect the expansion factors used producing the flows input to
COBA from the traffic model.
As different factors may arise for each year new flows are input to COBA, the
following advice aims to amplify the above extract from COBA. The effective factors
used are (A-1) and (1-B). Hence, if (A-1) or (1-B) vary markedly between input
assignment years, the COBA user cost outputs for the periods between reassignment
years need to be summed and the appropriate (A-1) and
(1-B) factors applied accordingly. For example if reassignments are input every 10
years the user costs should be summed in three 10 year periods and different (A-1)
and (1-B) factors applied to each 10 years.

Volume 12 home page
Economic Appraisal Issues Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic
7.5 All appraisals should take account of all benefits and costs over the standard 30 year appraisal period. They
may concentrate on the two main peak periods and the weekday interpeak period, but should also ensure that
the entire 8760 hours of the year are included in the assessment. A suggested methodology is set out in the
advice note `Traffic Appraisal in Urban Areas' (DMRB v12.2.1). This ensures that variable matrix appraisals
are comparable with one another, and with appraisals carried out using COBA. Where there are significant
peaks at weekends, it may be necessary to explicitly model these periods. Interpolation over more than 10
years should not be used for new appraisals.
7.6 If historic economic results are available in which non-recommended practices have already been used,
comparative results avoiding these practices should be provided. (Common non-recommended practices are
ignoring `quiet' hours and regarding the benefits as a conservative estimate, or simply scaling benefits, or
interpolation over 15 years.)
7.7 If the method of calculating scheme benefits relies upon journey times estimated within the traffic model, it is
essential that those aspects are thoroughly checked prior to such calculations. The standards to be achieved
and the checks required, are described in the advice note `Traffic Appraisal in Urban Areas' (DMRB v12.2.1).
For most studies, where the night time flows are of an order of magnitude less than daytime flows, it is
unlikely to be necessary to assess induced traffic effects separately for these periods. Often other periods
outside the modelled hours (eg weekends) may be adequately estimated by assigning the interpeak matrices
scaled to represent those hours.
7.8 Where COBA and URECA have not been used, accidents and their associated costs must be assessed using
the procedures set out in Chapters 4 and 5 of Part 2 of the COBA manual. It should be borne in mind that,
when carrying out variable trip matrix appraisal, the different levels and distributions of flows in the Do
Minimum and Do Something cases will lead to different accident numbers and costs, even where accident
rates are the same. The assessment of accident numbers and costs must therefore be carried out on a link-by-
link and junction-by-junction basis as laid down in COBA. It may therefore be convenient to use either
COBA or URECA to provide these accident analysis elements of the appraisal.
7.9 In all cases extensive details of the methods, calculations and parameter values used must be provided.
Where COBA and URECA have not been used, sufficient information must be provided (either from the
traffic model or from the economic appraisal) to enable the location and nature of the major benefits to be
identified.
7.10 The profile of benefits, or at least the Variable Trip Matrix benefits in each of the modelled years input to
URECA/COBA, must be reported.
7.11 When a variable trip matrix economic assessment has been undertaken, the QUADRO assessments during
Do Something maintenance should be based on the Do Something trip matrix and Do Minimum maintenance
on the Do Minimum trip matrix. In some cases this may result in delays during maintenance towards the end
of the assessment period being higher in Do Something than in Do Minimum. In reassessing schemes a full
QUADRO reassessment may therefore be appropriate.
7.12 Delays during construction should be based on the Do Minimum trip matrix. In some cases, major works
may result in temporary suppression of traffic and the ideal would be to model the full effects of these short
term responses, both within and outside the model area. However, a reasonable alternative procedure is to
inspect predicted queue lengths, delays and volumes of diverting traffic and if these are unreasonable test a
range of maximum delays and their associated implied wide area diversions.

Volume 12 home page
Part 2 Enquiries
8. ENQUIRIES
All technical enquiries or comments on the Advice should be sent in writing as appropriate to:
Head of Highways Economics and

Traffic Appraisal Division (HETA)
Department of Transport
Great Minster House T WORSLEY
76 Marsham Street Head of Highways Economics and
London SW1P 4DR Traffic Appraisal Division
The Director of Roads

The Scottish Office Development Department
National Roads Directorate
Victoria Quay J INNES
Edinburgh EH6 6QQ Director of Roads
The Director of Highways

Welsh Office
Y Swyddfa Gymreig
Crown Buildings
Cathays Park K THOMAS
Cardiff CF1 3NQ Director of Highways
Technical Director - Roads Service

Department of the Environment for
Northern Ireland
Roads Service Headquarters
Clarence Court
10-18 Adelaide Street V CRAWFORD
Belfast BT2 8GB Technical Director
February 1997 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY. 8/1
Volume 12 home page
Volume 12 Section 2 Annex A
Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic Definitions
Annex A. DEFINITIONS
The Range and Timing of Responses to a Road Scheme
A1 When a road scheme is opened, a range of responses can arise. The responses can include all or any
combination of the following:
a) change route;
b) retime journeys to take advantage of improved conditions at peak times;
c) travel to new destinations for the same purpose as existing journeys;
d) switch from public transport, cycling and walking to car;
e) reduce the numbers of journeys made as passengers;
f) increase the frequency of some journeys;
g) make entirely new journeys;
h) change the patterns of land use;
Except for retiming of journeys17, all of these responses (including changes in route18) can result in extra
vehicle mileage on the road network.
A2 SACTRA has called this additional mileage (including that arising from changes in route) ìnduced traffic'. It
has called any resultant extra journeys ìnduced trips'. A third concept is helpful which excludes the
additional mileage arising from changes in route and which we refer to as ìnduced traffic effects' to be
consistent with the terminology employed in the Government's Response to SACTRA's report. (Some
analysts use the terminology ìnduced mileage' to describe the third concept.)
A3 All of this terminology recognises that changes in route, retiming of journeys, and travel to new destinations
do not result in any additional journeys by car. Any extra vehicle mileage caused by these responses arises as
a result of changes in existing journeys.
A4 Not all of the responses set out above are immediately recognisable as components of conventional
transportation models. Response a) is generally referred to as `reassignment'. Response c) is known as `trip
redistribution'. Responses e), f), g) and some components of d) (those relating to the `slow' modes) will often
be modelled as `trip generation' (though most trip generation models are not sensitive to network changes).
The remaining components of response d) (those relating to public transport) would be modelled as `mode
choice'. Responses b) and h) are, currently, not often modelled, although changes in the patterns of land use
between base and forecast years are usually taken into account.
A5 For the reasons set out in paragraph A8, responses a), b), c) (for shopping & leisure only), d) (when a car is
available), f) & g) are usually expected to be early responses and the rest are usually expected to take a
number of years to complete.
17
Retiming of journeys can result in extra vehicle trips and mileage at certain
times of day, compensated for by reduced vehicle trips and mileage at other times.
Retiming of journeys may be accompanied by change of route and other responses.
18
All changes of route, both local and long distance, are included. It is common
for schemes such as bypasses to result in switches from short, slow routes to longer,
faster routes.
February 1997 Traffic Appraisal Advice A/1

Volume 12 home page

Annex A Volume 12 Section 2
Definitions Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic
A6 Currently, there is little firm evidence available on the contribution of each response to overall levels of
induced traffic as a result of a scheme. SACTRA were asked to look for such evidence, but were unable to
advise on this issue. However, each element is seen as a plausible response to new road capacity and their
overall net effect is accepted by SACTRA and the overseeing Departments as potentially significant for the
traffic predictions, operational, environmental and economic appraisal of some schemes.
A7 In the absence of reliable evidence, the overseeing Departments' common judgement is that, in response to
completion of a road scheme:-
a) changing route is the dominant response in almost all cases;
b) retiming of journeys is common and may be important in many cases;
c) changes in destination may occur and may be important in some cases;
d) switches from public transport, cycling and walking may occur and may be important in
some cases, particularly in urban areas;
e-g) extra journeys (including those arising as a result of increased frequency of current
journeys, and reduced numbers of journeys as car passengers) may occur but are probably
of a very small magnitude in most cases;
h) patterns of land use may be affected and may be important in a limited number of cases.
The dominance of changes in route, and the importance of trip retiming were noted by SACTRA. They also
observed that the relative importance of the different responses will depend on the circumstances. For
example, a scheme in an urban area is more likely to result in switches from public transport, cycling and
walking.
A8 The overseeing Departments' views on the timing and relative importance of the different responses is based
on the following briefly summarised observations on the mechanisms behind the effects:
* Demand for transport is a derived demand - people make journeys to access activities at different
locations. Completion of a scheme will not affect most people's activities, or in the short term the
locations at which they carry out some of those activities, such as work. For these people (the
majority in most cases) and these trip purposes, the only possible short term responses are changes in
route and, where peak period congestion changes significantly, retiming of trips or mode switch (see
below). The first two of the effects listed in paragraph A7 are therefore considered likely to
dominate in the first year after a scheme opens.
* Some schemes may offer opportunities for switching from public transport, cycling and walking
when pursuing existing or, if changes in destination occur, changed patterns of activity. These are
likely to be one of the quicker responses, although outside urban areas, the comparatively limited
accessibility provided by public transport, and the distances between locations, usually means that
these modes play a minor role in meeting people's transport needs. Thus, for most trunk road
schemes, the amount of extra road traffic resulting from such changes is likely to be limited.
A/2 Traffic Appraisal Advice February 1997

Volume 12 home page

Volume 12 Section 2 Annex A
Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic Definitions
* Some schemes may offer opportunities to alter the locations at which people live or where they take
part in other activities, but the ability to take advantage of many of these opportunities is constrained
by other factors not related to transport, so that apart from shopping and leisure activities they tend to
be taken up gradually, by a limited number of people. Such opportunities are likely to be greatest
where schemes have a large effect on the relative accessibility of various locations and the resultant
changes are likely to take place over a period of several years.
* Some schemes may offer opportunities for changes in land use, but transport is only one of a range
of factors leading to changes in land use. Changes in land use are predominantly long term effects
and those which are entirely dependent upon completion of a scheme are likely to be limited in
number. Changes which could proceed with or without a scheme should be allowed for in the
underlying planning data.
* Finally, very few schemes will create sufficient reductions in travel cost to permit a significant
increase in the number of activities, so the numbers of extra journeys is likely to be a small response.
Time and other savings are more likely to be used to modify existing journeys, or to be used for non-
travel purposes.
The Relationship between Suppressed and Induced Traffic
A9 SACTRA has called the additional vehicle mileage arising as a result of road schemes ìnduced traffic' and
any extra resultant journeys ìnduced trips'. Their relationship with the more widely used concept of
suppressed traffic, and its release as a result of road schemes, is discussed below to lessen the risk of
confusion.
A10 Suppressed traffic is closely related to induced traffic and both arise principally as a result of growth. As
people grow wealthier, some of those without cars acquire them and use them, while many of those with cars
use them more intensively. But increased car use leads to increased congestion, which affects the way in
which people use their vehicles and this results in lower growth in vehicle mileage on the road network than
would be the case if there were no increases in congestion. These reductions in growth may be referred to as
`suppressed traffic'.
A11 This definition of suppressed traffic usually assumes a `hypothetical reference case' in which growth occurs,
but congestion does not increase (and usually does not include any traffic which may have been suppressed in
the base year). Clearly, this is a rather hypothetical scenario and often forecasts of growth are based on past
trends, and thus implicitly take account of past changes in congestion and assume that they continue into the
future - this is the case for the National Road Traffic Forecasts, for example.
February 1997 Traffic Appraisal Advice A/3

Volume 12 home page

Annex A Volume 12 Section 2
Definitions Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic
A12 With this definition of suppressed traffic, the relationship between suppressed and induced traffic is
illustrated as follows:- In the Do Minimum scenario, if growth leads to increasing congestion, some traffic
growth will be suppressed. In the Do Something, the relief of congestion provided by the scheme will release
some (or all) of the suppressed traffic. Furthermore, if conditions are improved beyond those implicit in the
chosen reference case, additional traffic may be induced. The overall amount of induced traffic is the
difference in traffic between Do Minimum and Do Something, which is made up of any suppressed traffic
released by the scheme plus any additional traffic induced by the scheme. This is illustrated in Figure A1
below. To fully appraise the effects of the scheme, it is necessary to assess:-
a) the amount of traffic suppressed in the Do Minimum,

b) the amount of suppressed traffic released in the Do Something,
and c) the amount of additional traffic induced by the scheme.
Figure A1 The relationship between suppressed and induced traffic
I - Overall induced traffic S - Suppressed traffic

A - Additional traffic induced by scheme
A13 The mechanisms underlying suppression of traffic are the same as, but in the opposite direction to, those
resulting in induced traffic (see paragraph A1). However, since the cause of suppression - increasing
congestion as traffic grows - is cumulative and more diffuse than the cause of induction, the relative
importance and timing of each response may be different from those outlined in paragraphs A7 and A8.
A/4 Traffic Appraisal Advice February 1997

Volume 12 home page

Volume 12 Section 2 Annex B
Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic Preliminary Scheme Assessment
Annex B - Preliminary Scheme Assessment
INTRODUCTION
B1 This annex has been developed from RPAD Advice Note 3/95 and sets out how national trunk road schemes
at the preparation stage should be assessed against the 3 criteria set out in Section 3:-
* Is the part of the network affected by the scheme likely to be close to capacity in the Do Minimum ?
* Is the elasticity of demand with respect to travel costs high ?
* Will the implementation of the proposed scheme cause large changes in travel costs, capacity or both ?
To allow these assessments to be compared consistently, this annex outlines the statistics and tests which
should be used. Each of the three aspects must be considered separately and given a low, medium or high
marking, to inform the overall judgement, which is then used to determine where further assessments are
required and the complexity of such assessments.
B2 Judgement is required to determine in which band each statistic will lie. Most statistics need to be considered
in relation to other relevant values before finalising the band in which it lies (for example, when considering
journey time savings the proportion of the flow using the scheme experiencing a given journey time saving is
also relevant). Similar judgement is required in reaching the Overall Assessment (for example high elasticity
of demand will have less importance for a scheme which has a minor impact on relative journey times than
for one which has a major impact).
B3 On the basis of this preliminary assessment schemes will fall into one of three categories:-
simple schemes - fixed trip matrix approach acceptable,
intermediate schemes - simplified appraisal required to determine
sensitivity to induced traffic,
complex schemes - detailed appraisal of specific induced traffic
responses appropriate.
B4 For schemes where the induced traffic effects clearly merits a low marking for each of the 3 aspects in section
B1 the scheme should be considered 'simple'. Where it is less clear cut, qualitative factors will need to be
considered. An initial elasticity sensitivity test may suffice for some schemes, but for others it may need to
be followed by more sophisticated analyses. At the extreme where more than one aspect clearly falls into the
high category, a detailed appraisal of each specific response is likely to be required (at the strategic or scheme
level, or both).
B5 In marginal cases, a select link analysis for key links on the scheme will reveal the extent to which other links
are used by movements affected by the scheme. An estimate of induced traffic using an appropriate elasticity
value applied to those movements alone would enable the analyst to decide the extent to which the additional
traffic will occur in a critical part of the network. Where the effects are clearly limited, even with one criteria
in the high category, an intermediate assessment is likely to be satisfactory.
SCHEME ASSESSMENT STATISTICS
B6 It is important that schemes are treated consistently and therefore the following statistics should always be
examined, together with any others considered relevant, in assessing the three criteria. The statistics listed
should be quantified for opening year and the fifteenth (design) year (low and high growth), and then within
each group an overall assessment must be made - does the scheme fall into the low/medium/high category ?
Where statistics could be obtained from more than one source, eg traffic model or COBA, the most
appropriate one should be used.
February 1997 Traffic Appraisal Advice B/1

Volume 12 home page

Annex B Volume 12 Section 2
Preliminary Scheme Assessment Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic
B7 A report on the assessment must be prepared presenting the quantitative factors, qualitative factors and
resulting judgements on the questions, including any proposals for further work which arise from the
assessment. The report may be free-standing or part of the Forecasting Report. It must include:-
a) diagrams which show the scale, proportion and extent of forecast changes in flow as a result
of the scheme,
b) text on the extent of existing and forecast queuing,
c) an Ordnance Sheet showing the geography of the study area,
and d) text on the latest estimated date of scheme opening.
B8 To enable effective comparison between schemes, the assessment report must be as comprehensive, accurate
and detailed as possible and include an Annex which lists key statistics. A pro-forma for this is provided at
the end of this Annex. The statistics in this pro-forma should be considered as the minimum requirement and
for some schemes many other aspects of the assessments will be quantifiable (for example historic peak
spreading). These should be discussed in the covering report. The report and the proforma must answer the
following questions:-
Network close to capacity ?
a) What is the extent of current and forecast queuing ?

b) Which links are overcapacity according to COBA and in what year by flow group ?
c) Also how many links and how significant are they ?
d) Which links are overcapacity in COBA in Do Minimum and not in Do Something ?
e) If none are, is this because user defined speed-flow flags/relationships have been used ?
f) Have traffic growth cut-offs or other capping techniques been used ? If so in what year ?
g) What are the opening and design year flow/capacity ratios in the Do-minimum for links which gain
most relief (or for widening schemes links which are improved)
h) Is there any historic evidence of peak spreading or retiming of journeys ?
Traffic suppression in Do Minimum is particularly relevant and is often the most important aspect for many schemes.
Hence, suppression should always be considered in depth and any relevant statistics quoted. The calculation of
suitable capacity values should take account of the peak hour to all day ratio as set out in Box B1.
High elasticity of demand ?
a) How many trips on the network could switch to public transport (with existing, or possible, or no
priority ?) or segregated slow (walk/cycle) modes in the Do-Minimum ?
b) Is public transport priority available or likely to become available for significant numbers of Do
Minimum car trips?
c) Are there significant numbers of current or suppressed short car trips ?
d) How many existing trips can switch from public transport or slow modes in the Do Something? (A
local bus service which does not benefit from bus priority measures is unlikely to be of
relevance if only a few local trips are relieved by the scheme.)
e) Are there significant numbers of local slow mode trips which could switch to car if capacity
becomes available on relieved routes ?
f) To what extent is there potential for redistribution (eg are there alternative centres of employment,
shopping, housing, etc in the wider area) and are they likely to be used ?
g) To what extent is the pattern of trips susceptible to redistribution ?
(The availability of alternative destinations needs to be considered, but local alternatives
may be irrelevant if most of the relieved traffic is through traffic.)
h) Have wide area reassignment effects been considered adequately ?
B/2 Traffic Appraisal Advice February 1997

Volume 12 home page

i) Are any development proposals dependent on the scheme and/or likely to influence trip
redistribution ?
Statistics in this category will be more difficult to determine than those obtainable from the scheme traffic model.
However, it is important to develop estimates based on any available information, such as rail timetables, which
would allow potential transfer volumes to be considered. Map based presentation of results are likely to be required
for this category.
Large changes in costs or capacity ?
a) What are the travel time (or Generalised Cost) differences between the scheme (do-something flows)
and unimproved route (do-minimum flows) ?
b) What are the travel time differences on relieved routes (ie the difference between those arising with
the do-something and the do-minimum flows) ?
In every case it is important to compare the above results with the average overall journey time (or range of travel
times or Generalised Costs) for trips using the scheme, or relieved route. These should be estimated from a strategic
model or RSI data if the scheme model cannot provide the statistics).
c) How different are Volume to Capacity ratios (do-something / do-minimum flows) ?

d) How much of the scheme's economic benefit arises from the peak hour/peak flow group ?
In answering the last 2 questions, the effects of growth cut offs must not be allowed to distort the comparisons. To
illustrate the likelihood of such distortion the report should outline the method of suppression and basis for the
selection of any parameters used.
Box B1 - Calculation of 'Capacity' Values
The calculation of capacity (Q) forms a crucial element in the calculation of volume to capacity ratios (V/Q). They
should be calculated by direction as follows, unless reliable local observations are available.
Calculate Q per lane or direction for the peak hour in each period, taking particular care to use the correct
percentage of heavy vehicles (PHV) for peak direction flows. These may then need to be converted to equivalent
model period capacities by applying a factor of 100/PkF, where PkF is the percentage of the (one way) model
period flow that occurs in the peak hour. Units must be stated. Because of the tidal nature of most two way roads,
their two way capacity should be assessed as twice the busier direction capacity using its PkF factor.
Q Values
Rural Single Carriageways Q = 2400 x (1 - 3.65/CWID) x (92 - PHV)/80 vehs/hr/dir
Rural Dual Carriageways Q = 2100 / ( 1 + 0.015 x PHV ) vehs/hr/lane
Rural Motorways Q = 2330 / ( 1 + 0.015 x PHV ) vehs/hr/lane
Urban Roads These are best calculated by reference to the local traffic model. They should
take into account the nature and function of the link and the capacities of
downstream junctions. The capacity may vary between time periods on some
links.
Notes
CWID average carriageway width between white line edge markings (m)
PHV percentage of heavy vehicles (ie OGV1 + OGV2 + PSV)

Volume 12 home page

PRO-FORMA for SACTRA Preliminary Assessment Reports

Scheme title:
Opening year:
Design year:
Scheme description:
nature of scheme - urban/rural,
online/new route, standard,
current traffic conditions,
forecast do-min & do-some flows
Model form/description:
short description of model

- eg peak/daily, all-or-nothing,
congested assignment, software,
area of coverage.
SUMMARY SCHEME FIXED MATRIX ECONOMICS
Discounted Costs Do-minimum Construction

Future maintenance
Land
Do-something Construction
Future maintenance
Land
PVC (total Do S - Do Min)
£m Low £m High
Discounted Benefits COBA/URECA (which ? )
Link transit
Junction delay
Accidents
QUADRO
Construction disbenefits - -
Maintenance benefits + +
PVB (total)
NPV (PVB-PVC)
BCR (PVB/PVC)
Total Annual Flow (from COBA phase 2) and Benefits by Flow Group (from COBA phase 14)
Total Annual Flow Link & Jct Benefits - Low Link & Jct Benefits - High
FG 1
FG 2
FG 3
FG 4

Volume 12 home page

NETWORK CAPACITY STATISTICS
Criteria/statistic Low Growth High Growth Assessment Lo/Med/Hi
Traffic model cut-off year
COBA cut-off year
COBA links overcapacity:

opening year low 15th year low 15th year high Assessment
no in DM no in DS no in DM no in DS no inDM no in DS Lo/Med/Hi
Flow group 1
Flow group 2
Flow group 3
Flow group 4
Total number of COBA links .............................. Date of 15th Year.............................
Do-minimum flows & capacities per lane or direction (specify which basis)..............................
for network links which gain most relief (underline V/C's > 0.9)
flow group 2 or model period .............................

up to 10 links opening year low 15th year low 15th year high Assessment
link description flow capacity flow capacity flow capacity Lo/Med/Hi
(underline V/C's > 0.9)

Volume 12 home page

flow group 3 or model period ..............................

flow group 4 or model period ..............................
Network Capacity Overall Assessment Low/Med/High .............
The overall category for each criteria is a matter for judgement, and the presence of one high statistic does not
necessarily indicate that the overall assessment for that criteria should be high.

Volume 12 home page

DEMAND ELASTICITY
flow group/ opening year 15th year 15th year Assessment

model period low low high Lo/Med/Hi
A:Estimated car trips affected 2. no no no

by scheme with viable rail /bus 3. of of of
alternative in Do Min 4. trips trips trips
B:Estimated car trips affected

by scheme with viable slow
mode alternative in Do Min
C:Estimated rail/bus trips with

potential for transfer to car in
Do Something
D:Estimated slow mode trips

with potential for transfer to
relieved route in Do Some
E:Trips forecast to use scheme

(busiest link)
F:Proportion of traffic likely to % % %

consider alternative more local
destinations in Do Min
G:Proportion of potential traffic % % %

likely to consider more distant
alternative destinations in Do
Some
Development effectively dependent on scheme (hectares) ....................... (show location on plan)
Any of the above statistics which when compared with line E is considered to be ranked high should be underlined.
The total potential should also be ranked to produce an overall assessment.
A multiplicity of similar order shopping and business centres points to likely high assessments under items F & G.
Maps should therefore be produced showing key land uses to assist in this aspect of the assessment.
Maps should also be produced showing Public Transport routes with dedicated rights of way and existing or likely
other effective bus priority measures. Desire lines of traffic assigned to the scheme should also be illustrated to show
the likely attractiveness of such facilities.
Demand Elasticity Overall Assessment Low/Med/High .............

Volume 12 home page

COST AND CAPACITY CHANGES

To be extracted from most appropriate source, eg COBA or traffic model. source ............
flow group/ opening year 15th year 15th year Assessment

model period low low high Lo/Med/Hi
H:Travel time difference 2.

(minutes) scheme vs do- 3.
minimum route 4.
I:Average travel time:

ie average trip length for trips
using scheme (minutes)
J:Typical percentage saving

(H/I)
K:Travel time difference

(minutes) on relieved route (do-
min v do-some flows)
L:Average travel time: trip

length for trips on relieved route
in do-something
M:Typical percentage saving

(K/L)
N:Capacity increase
scheme + relieved route
relieved route
O:Cumulative effect of the cost Lo/Med/Hi Lo/Med/Hi Lo/Med/Hi

and capacity changes
Cost & Capacity Changes Overall Assessment Low/Med/High .............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OVERALL ASSESSMENT
Overall Assessment Low/Med/High .............
Note. A retyped or enlarged version of this Proforma may be used if necessary.

Volume 12 home page

Volume 12 Section 2 Annex C
Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic Derivation of Recommended Elasticities
ANNEX C
Derivation of Recommended Elasticities for use in the estimation of induced traffic responses
Research results
C1. Recommended elasticities are based on research conducted during 1994/5 for HETA division by the MVA
consultancy, using stated preference methods to estimate driver response to a range of increases in journey
time. The project is described in ref C1.
C2. The research provided the following estimates, representing elasticity of total trip mileage to journey time:
TABLE C1: results from "responses to congestion" study
Journey Purpose Trip Mileage Elasticity

(table 4.12 of study report)
Home-Based Work -.14

(commuting)
Employers Business -.35
Essential Other -.26

(personal business)
Discretionary Other -.20

(leisure)
C3. These elasticities include behavioural responses "change home location" and "change destination", which are
unlikely to occur for work trips immediately after a sudden change in journey time. Thus these figures
include both long-term and short-term effects. However, for some trip purposes for some of the less severe
increases in congestion investigated in this research, lower elasticities were found to be applicable. The
above Table shows elasticities above any threshold effect identified in the research.
C4. The response "change departure time" has been excluded from MVA's calculation, on the basis that (on
average) this will not affect the total mileage. Therefore, the elasticities exclude the effect of any reduction in
trips in a specified time period from re-timing journeys.
C5. In order to estimate elasticities which exclude long-term effects, or include time-shifting effects, it is
necessary to look deeper. The following table shows the frequency of individual responses (taken from table
12 of appendix to the study report):
February 1997 Traffic Appraisal Advice C/1

Volume 12 home page

Annex C Volume 12 Section 2
Derivation of Recommended Elasticities Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic
TABLE C2: frequency of different responses to congestion (all scenarios researched by MVA)
Purpose Change Take Change Change Reduce Other
departure alternative home destination Frequency response
time route location
HBW 10.8% 10.9% 0.7% 0.6% 1.3% 2.2%
EB 12.4% 12.5% 0.4% 0.5% 4.4% 5.3%
EO 6.8% 8.6% 0.0% 2.2% 4.5% 2.7%
DO 7.9% 13.7% 0.3% 1.9% 5.1% 2.8%
C6. In order to derive elasticities, MVA's study made assumptions about the proportion of mileage that would be
saved by each response. We here make further assumptions that
- change home location is a long-term response
- change destination is a long-term response for HBW and EB trips, but not for EO and DO trips.
- of those peak trips changing departure time, 50% would shift far enough to remove the trip from the
trip matrix for the appropriate hour and 50% would shift within the peak hour.
Under these assumptions, a range of typical elasticities can be estimated as follows:
TABLE C3: derived elasticities for different uses (above thresholds found by MVA)
Purpose short-term long-term short-term time long-term time elasticity trip frequency
time time elasticity including including time-switching effect (only)
elasticity elasticity time-switching (50%) (50%)
HBW -0.10 -0.14 -0.22 -0.30 -0.04
EB -0.32 -0.35 -0.51 -0.55 -0.15
EO -0.26 -0.26 -0.36 -0.36 -0.12
DO -0.19 -0.20 -0.27 -0.28 -0.10
C7. The first two columns represent combined effects and hence are suitable for simple combined effect models,
covering the whole of a "closed" model period. The third and fourth columns, which include 50% time
shifting, are intended for use with combined effect peak hour models and are not applicable to peak period
or peak shoulder models. The fifth column is intended for use where separate effects are being modelled and
represents an "extra trip generation" time elasticity (see Chapter 6 paragraphs 6.12 & 6.13).
C/2 Traffic Appraisal Advice February 1997

Volume 12 home page

Application
C8. Modellers will in general be using a single elasticity figure for all movements in the matrix. Whereas we
know that elasticity will vary by O-D pair, depending on trip purpose, the availability of alternatives, and by
journey speed and distance etc. Thus any method of application should be consistent with this overall level
of simplicity and approximation and hence be accompanied by sensitivity tests.
C9. Table C4 shows typical car driver journey purpose mix for each period. This has been taken from an analysis
by TRL of 85/86 NTS data. The AM peak was assumed to be represented by journeys starting between
07:15 and 09:00, and the PM peak journeys starting between 16:00 and 18:00.
TABLE C4: national car driver journey purpose mix for each period of the day
Purpose AM peak Interpeak PM peak Evening & Night
HBW 68% 18% 45% 26%
EB 8% 13% 8% 5%
EO 20% 50% 24% 13%
DO 4% 19% 23% 57%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100%
C10. Unless local data shows a significantly different mix of purposes, these proportions can be used to convert
elasticities by purpose into elasticities by time period. Multiplying Table C3 by Table C4 gives:
TABLE C5: elasticities for each period of the day (trip mileage to journey time)
Period: short-term long-term short-term long-term trip frequency
time elasticity time including time- including time- change (only)
elasticity shifting (50%) shifting (50%)
AM peak -.15 -.18 -.27 -.33 -.06
Interpeak -.23 -.24 NOT APPLICABLE -.11
PM peak -.18 -.20 -.29 -.33 -.08
Evening & night -.18 -.20 NOT APPLICABLE -.09
C11. The first two columns represent combined effects and hence are suitable for simple combined effect models,
covering the whole of a "closed" model period. The third and fourth columns, which include time shifting,
are intended for use with combined effect peak hour models and are not applicable to 3 hour peak period or
peak shoulder models. The fifth column is intended for use where separate effects are being modelled and
represents an "induced extra trips" time elasticity (see paragraphs 6.12 & 6.13).

Volume 12 home page

C12. Higher elasticities could apply where over 50% of time shifters move outside the peak hour. In that case, a
local percentage could be applied by extrapolation (pro-rata to differences between relevant columns).
C13. The other important feature of previous advice was a multiplier of 1.8 to apply where there is strong modal
competition. This derives from the London Congestion Charging (LCC) study (ref C2) findings that short-
term elasticities in London were substantially higher for radial trips than for orbital trips. This aspect was not
covered in MVA's recent research. The previous Guidance noted that it would be unlikely for this factor of
1.8 to also apply to long-term elasticities. Depending on the extent to which mode switch is a substitute for
the re-location response, it is considered that a more reasonable assumption would be that the difference
between long-term and short-term elasticities is unaffected by modal competition.
TABLE C6: elasticities for cases of high modal competition
Period: short-term time long-term time short-term including long-term including

elasticity elasticity time-switching (50%) time-switching (50%)
AM peak -.28 -.31 -.49 -.55
Interpeak -.41 -.42 NOT APPLICABLE
PM peak -.32 -.34 -.52 -.56
Evening & night -.33 -.35 NOT APPLICABLE
C14. Since every time period contains a mix of journey purposes, the differences between elasticities for time
periods are less than that between purposes. Within the accuracy to which the figures are known, and the
level of aggregation at which they are applied, it will often be sufficient to use as the main test an elasticity of
-.2 (-.33 if high modal competition) if the elasticity is not required to cover time-switching. Or -.3 (-.5 if high
modal competition) if time-switching is to be covered.
Generalised Cost Elasticities
C15. Time elasticity forms a convenient "common currency" for comparing results from different studies. For models
which use time-only assignment the above combined elasticities do not need further adjustment, nor do the
elasticities in Table C3 - where the trip matrix is segmented by journey purpose.
C16. In other cases the elasticity used should depend on the generalised cost formulation used in the local model and it is
important that an elasticity calculated for that generalised cost (not just an elasticity to journey time) is used. The
conversion is straightforward - if the model assigns on the basis of a generalised cost (t+kd), the appropriate time
elasticity must be multiplied by a factor (1+kv). Here v is the average speed on the detailed traffic model network
(including junction and link delays) in the base year (in units of kilometres per minute). For example, the inter
peak long term Generalised Cost elasticity for a (time + 0.2 * distance) assignment model, in an area with high
modal competition and an average speed of 45 kph is calculable as:-
-0.42 * (1 + 0.2 * 45 / 60) = -0.42 * 1.15 = -0.483

Volume 12 home page

Consistency between studies
C17. Elasticities quoted in the original Guidance on Induced Traffic were derived from a review conducted as part of the
London Congestion Charging (LCC) study (ref C2). This included values of the elasticity of mileage to fuel price
(referred to as "fuel elasticity"). These were used to distribute fuel elasticities by purpose around the value used in
NRTF and converted to an elasticity of mileage against changes in generalised cost ("g.c. elasticity") by a process
similar to that for the above conversion of time elasticities.
C18. The conversion process used in December 1994 was extremely simple, whereas in practice, the relative weights of
time cost and fuel cost depend on the journey speed. In general, the slower the journey, the higher the time cost in
relation to the fuel cost and hence the higher the implied time elasticity relative to the fuel elasticity. The National
Travel Survey gives average speed for each purpose as:
Home-based work & education 39 kph

Employers Business 54 kph
Other 38 kph
C19. COBA models fuel consumption per kilometre as a function of speed (v) by a formula
a + b/v + c * v2
Applying this and COBA values of time, typical ratios of time cost to fuel cost can be obtained as shown in
Column 1a of Table C7. These offer an alternative representation of driver behaviour to that in the previous
derivation, in which time cost to fuel cost ratios (shown in Column 1b) were determined from typical generalised
cost formulations used in modelling. Time elasticities derived using both conversions are reported in Table C7
(Column 3a & 3b) for both sets of research results as explained below.
C20. Since deriving these COBA based interim models (which were never issued for general use) further research
results (referred to hereafter as MVA95) examining fuel cost elasticities by trip purpose have been received.
Table C7 reports the level of agreement between these 2 sources of fuel elasticities in column 2 and goes on
to calculate implied time elasticity values from both sources (column 3a and 3b). The MVA95 COBA based
value is underlined and considered to be the most reliable and it is that which should be compared with the
final fourth column. Overall there is a reasonable level of agreement between these different studies.19
19
References
C1 Christie C, The effects of congestion on drivers' behaviour. PTRC 23rd

European Transport Forum Seminar F. 1995.
C2 London Congestion Charging - Review and Specification of Model

Elasticities. Department of Transport July
1993.

Volume 12 home page

TABLE C7: Comparison of elasticities from different sources
Purpose: ratio of time to fuel elasticities implied time elasticity (ie ratio new time elast. (without and
fuel costs (& source) x fuel elasticity) with time-switching)
(& Source)
(COBA) (GIT 94) (COBA) (GIT 94)
HBW (short-term) 2.47 3.08 -.055 (LCC/GIT) -.14 -.17 -.10
-.079 (MVA95) -.195 -.24 -.22
Emp.Business 7.66 4.45 -.066 (LCC/GIT) -.51 -.29 -.32
(short term) -.02 (MVA95) -.15 -.09 -.51
Other 2.51 1.56 -.242 (LCC/GIT) -.61 -.38 -.23
(short term) -.113 (MVA95) -.28 -.18 -.32
HBW 2.47 3.08 -.11 (LCC/GIT) -.27 -.34 -.14
(long term) -.137 (MVA95) -.34 -.42 -.30
Emp.Business 7.66 4.45 -.132 (LCC/GIT) -1.01 -.59 -.35
(long term) -.04 (MVA95)* -.31 -.18 -.55
Other 2.51 1.56 -.484 (LCC/GIT) -1.21 -.76 -.24
(long term) -.124 (MVA95) -.31 -.19 -.33
Sources (COBA) = generalised cost implied by HEN2 perceived costs and values of time
(GIT 94) = generalised cost assumed in December 1994 advice
(LCC/GIT) = fuel elasticity used in December 1994 advice, derived from LCC study
(MVA95) = fuel elasticity taken from MVA work for HETA
(MVA95)* = fuel elasticity taken from MVA work for HETA excluding the response of
reducing the number of company vehicles, on the grounds that this effect
is less likely as a response to congestion, and that some of the mileage
lost would in fact be switched to private vehicles instead. An
assumption of double the short-term value is used here instead.
C21. One conclusion from this is that the previous GIT assumption, that long-term elasticity may be up to double
the short-term value, can be clarified. Both pieces of subsequent research indicate that the factor averages
around 1.3, but is highest for home-based work trips, and least for Other purposes.
C22. Another conclusion is that a relatively small change in generalised cost - which varies from area to area in
any case - can have a substantial effect on the ratio of time to fuel elasticities. Another that the COBA based
LCC/GIT elasticity for Other trips looks much too high.
C23. Allowing for these points, there does seem to be a substantial measure of agreement between the results from
these different studies, and we can be significantly more confident than before about the magnitude of the
values reported in Column 4.

Volume 12 home page

Volume 12 Section 2 Annex D
Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic Higher Tier Models
ANNEX D
Higher Tier Models
D1. Various types of higher tier models are available. The simplest are designed to assess strategic rerouteing.
The most complex can be either combined land use transport models, or 4 or more stage models with a
detailed representation of road and public transport networks and the capability of modelling all the induced
traffic effects. These various types can be used to help assess the following elements of induced traffic.
Simple Higher Tier Reassignment
D2. Where a suitable, fully validated, higher tier model capable of modelling rerouteing exists, it should be used
to assess the sensitivity of the appraisal to the rerouteing of longer distance traffic. Longer distance
rerouteing may occur:-
a) as a result of the individual scheme being appraised, which will affect only the Do
Something scenario,
and/or b) as a result of the combination of schemes in a corridor (and in competing corridors),
which will affect both Do Minimum and the Do Something.
Both effects should be considered and the extra trips resulting from strategic reassignment should be added to
the appropriate scenarios of the local model before other induced responses are considered in the local model.
This applies equally when individual responses are being modelled and when elasticity methods with or
without other growth constraints are used.
D3. For the scheme being assessed, case a) above produces induced traffic in the local model area and the extra
traffic it produces is assumed to receive half the benefit received by existing traffic following the same route
within the local model area. This may be an under or over-estimate of the net benefit gained by the long
distance rerouted traffic and relies on the rule of a half to estimate the net benefit gained by induced traffic
including the long distance rerouted traffic. It is possible, but difficult and unusually unnecessary to improve
on this estimate of benefit to long distance traffic, as what needs to be considered is a mixture of a) induced
traffic and b) reassigned traffic. The problem is that changes in either type of traffic changes travel costs
within and outside the local model area, with flow increases on some links and reductions on others. All the
predicted increases have the potential to cause induced flow reductions on other zone to zone movements
using the same links, which could cause second round increases on other links. Similarly, all the predicted
reductions have the potential to cause primary and second round effects. Experience to date is that simple
higher tier models are not particularly suitable for assessing these second round effects. Induced effects are
therefore best assessed using the local model usually after the higher tier models effects have been
incorporated. However, where the local model predicts very few local induced effects it may be more
convenient for the higher tier effects to be added after the local induced effects to facilitate sensitivity tests as
advocated in paragraph 4.11.
February 1997 Traffic Appraisal Advice D/1

Volume 12 home page

Annex D Volume 12 Section 2
Higher Tier Models Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic
4 Stage Higher Tier Models
D4. A 4 or more stage model can be used to provide:-

a) estimates of strategic reassignment, in which case the considerations in paragraphs D2 and D3
would apply;
or, by modelling at least distribution and modal split:-
b) a local reference case;
or, if it is sufficiently detailed:-
c) estimates of some or all of the induced traffic effects for a local model.
Such a model (including land/use transport models) should be considered, but should not be used in the last
two ways unless it has been (i) satisfactorily validated in the area affected by the scheme, (ii) shown to be
consistent with the local scheme model and (iii) clearly shown that its forecasts (especially of local planning
data, car ownership and car ownership growth) are consistent with NTEM. The last two ways of using these
models are discussed separately in paragraphs D7 and D13 onwards, following two paragraphs relevant to
both cases b) and c).
D5. Many 4 stage models represent the situation in an average hour, rather than the peak hour and do not
incorporate a trip retiming/ peak spreading response. Many embody simplistic representations of the
highway network, consistent with their coarse zone structure. They are therefore unable to model the fine
level of detail associated with the local model and the parking patterns which evolve as a response to local
congestion. Few include extra trip generation modules which reflect changed levels of zonal accessibility. If
all these omissions apply the analyst should consider using a single run of the higher tier model as set out in
paragraph D7 and using the local model to represent the induced effects.
D6. When a higher tier model has been used to develop the local model growth factors, it will usually represent
the long term distribution of trips which can be accommodated (at an implied average journey cost level) on
the modelled road network. Short term responses to a road scheme are unlikely to have been modelled and,
where the zone size or network details are different, local responses might be lost through lack of detail.
Simplified methods as set out in Chapter 5 applied to the local model may represent an appropriate way of
handling both these aspects. The methodology for complex schemes as set out in Chapter 6 may be more
appropriate in other cases.
D/2 Traffic Appraisal Advice February 1997

Volume 12 home page

Volume 12 Section 2 Annex D
Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic Higher Tier Models
A local reference case from a single run of a 4 Stage Higher Tier Model
D7. A single run of the higher tier model cannot provide any information on the suppressed /induced effects of
the scheme itself, even where the higher tier model is a four stage model.
D8. Where only one run of a higher tier model is used, the analyst will need to choose the years in which the
higher tier model assumes the Do Minimum scenario and the years in which it assumes Do Something and
adapt the local analysis accordingly. His/her choice may be constrained by the ready availability of standard
scenario runs.
D9. In the opening year, it would often be best to assume that none of the redistributive effects forecastable by the
higher tier model as arising from the scheme would have come to fruition. In that case, its without scheme
growth factors should be used as the starting point for local modelling of both opening year matrices. A Do
Something matrix can then be derived from the Do Minimum matrix in that year, by the use of elasticity
methods and the high modal competition elasticities in areas with such competition.
D10. These elasticity values should be applied to local model journey times/costs with and without the scheme in
that single year using the methodology set out in paragraph E12 of Annex E. This avoids any need to rebase
costs to allow for any cost trend implied by the higher tier model reference case. For models based on
Generalised Cost, elasticities should be calculated for the Generalised Cost formulation used in the local
model assignment procedures as in the example in paragraph C16 of Annex C. Sensitivity tests with higher
and lower values are strongly recommended.
D11. If the higher tier model assumes Do Something, as is most likely in later years, elasticities can be used as a
means of producing a Do Minimum matrix from the Do Something matrix in that year, again using the
methodology set out in paragraph E12 of Annex E. Again the high modal competition elasticities are likely
to be the most appropriate in areas with such competition.
D12 In both cases, the considerations set out in paragraphs 5.30 to 5.32 may apply and, as well as applying
elasticities, the analyst will need to make sure that the matrices fit on their respective local Do Something and
Do Minimum networks.
February 1997 Traffic Appraisal Advice D/3

Volume 12 home page

Annex D Volume 12 Section 2
Higher Tier Models Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic
Assessment of Induced Traffic Effects using only a 4 Stage Higher Tier Model
D13. The use of an adequately validated higher tier model, as the only model of induced traffic effects, requires a
detailed higher tier model network and sophisticated traffic assignment procedures. Multiple higher tier
model runs with and without the local scheme need to be produced and for each modelled year the analyst
must decide how few of the modelled strategic effects would have come to fruition. This allows him/her to
produce Do Something and Do Minimum matrices via the higher tier model which represent all the
significant induced traffic effects.
Assessment of Induced Traffic Effects at 2 tiers of modelling
D14. Where individual responses are being considered and both a local scheme and a higher tier model is used, a
consistent hierarchical approach is recommended. Where both tiers provide estimates of the same response,
or combination of responses, the larger estimate of the change for each zone to zone movement should
normally be used.
D15. If modal competition is being handled by the higher tier model, modal competition external to the local
model area should not be modelled locally and multi class assignment using a lower or zero elasticity for
these external movements should be used to reduce their susceptibility to elastic effects. The analyst will
need to consider which model gives the most realistic estimate of induced effects on internal to external (and
vice versa) movements. Separate consideration is likely to be needed for slow modes and public transport
modal competition.
D/4 Traffic Appraisal Advice February 1997

Volume 12 home page

Volume 12 Section 2 Annex E
Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic Elasticity Formulations
ANNEX E - ELASTICITY FORMULATIONS
El This Annex starts by discussing terminology (using " " where new terms are introduced) and goes on to
explain why the Power formulation is recommended in most Trunk Road applications. It describes and discusses
seven formulations, including experimental ones, tested in research into modelling suppression of traffic
growth described in reference E1, and some which take account of the size of the cost change as well as the
percentage change in cost.
E2 Elasticity methods assume that "consumption" of a good rises when its cost falls and consumption falls when
its cost rises. That good’s ‘’own price elasticity’’ describes how sensitive consumption of that good is to
changes in its own price. Elasticity methods use a relationship between: -
a) the cost of a good,
b) the amount consumed,
c) its "own price elasticity"
and d) an implicit or explicit "inherent demand" for that good,
postulating that if cost (a) or consumption (b) varies, the other varies to maintain an equilibrium. The simplest
relationships occur when changes and all relationships are instantaneous. The situation with travel is not that
simple.
E3 Elasticity methods applied to travel assume a functional relationship between a) the cost of travel,
b) the amount of travel (usually measured in trips rather than vehicle mileage/kilometres),
c) the elasticity and d) the inherent demand for travel.
Cost of travel can vary instantaneously (from the opening of a road scheme) or over time (from increasing
inherent demand). Both effects lead to ‘’long and short term’’ responses and the simplifying assumption
("convention") is to regard all changes in cost as producing a short term equilibrium, superseded by a series
of longer term equilibria (as various longer term effects come in to play). All office equilibria are affected
by the trends in the underlying demand for (and value of) travel (d).
E4 Using this convention at any one point in time, an analyst can define a "Demand Curve" between the cost
of travel between a fixed origin (i) and a fixed destination (j) and the amount of travel between i and j. Such
curves form a ‘’family of Demand Curves’’ as illustrated below (and are conventionally drawn with cost as
the vertical axis) :-
Figure E1 A family of Demand Curves
1 Mathematically for small changes in costs, an own price elasticity is defined

as the percentage change in trips divided by the percentage change in
cost ie: - B = (Tij / Tij0 - 1) divided by (cij / cij0 - 1)

using the terminology defined in paragraph E12. This can be rearranged as the
simplest elasticity formulation Tij = Tij0 (1 + B (cij / cij - 1))
February 1997 E/ 1
Volume 12 home page
Annex E Volume 12 Section 2
Elasticity Formulations Part 2 Guidance on Induced Traffic
E5 Secondary effects on the cost of travel - sometimes referred to as "Cross Elasticity" relationships (how
consumption of one good is affected by changes in the price of another) - also exist in two ways:-
i) if travellers between i and j use the same road as travellers between x and y, then the cost of
travel between x and y can affect the amount of travel between i and j and vice-versa;
and ii) travel at a given time of day between i and j might be a substitute for travel between i and k, or
between i and j at a different time, or between i and j by a different mode of travel.
E6 "Supply Curves" for the Do Minimum and Do Something situations can also be defined - as the unit cost
associated with meeting a demand Q at a particular point in time. Typical Supply Curves are as shown
below. Supply and Demand Curves can be based on either a) the i to j cost and i to j trips, or b) the average
cost of travel for a given trip matrix. In both cases providing extra road capacity "shifts" the Supply Curve
as shown below. The first of the Cross Elasticity effects described in paragraph E5 is measurable by running
traffic models iteratively and is therefore usually included in the supply curve calculations. The other Cross
Elasticity relationships could also be incorporated, but with more difficulty.
Figure E2 Supply Curves
E7 With average cost curves it is possible to represent on these diagrams the iterative process described in
paragraph E11 or E12 (also repeated in paragraph 5.24). These start from the Do Minimum equilibrium ‘M’
and seek a convergent process which heads for the Do Something equilibrium ‘S’. Unfortunately, in very
congested situations with steeply sloping supply curves, iterating may produce a divergent (unsolvable) process
as shown as broken lines below and discussed in Reference E2. However, taking a weighted average of the
trip estimates from successive iterations may then produce a convergent process as illustrated in Figure E4.
Figure E3 Iterating between Supply and Demand Curves
E/ 2 February 1997
Volume 12 home page
Figure E4 Iterating and Averaging Trip Estimates
E8 An important desirable feature of an elasticity formulation is

the property of Base Independence. That is if we forecast
situation C directly from A (CA), then we get the same answer
when we forecast B from A followed by C from B (CB). The
simplest formulation described in the footnote to paragraph E2
does not have this feature, nor does the exaggerated illustration
alongside this paragraph. The Power, Exponential and Tanner
formulations described below are Base Independent and hence Figure E5 Base Dependence
are discussed first.
E9 If the equilibria, described in paragraph E3, are themselves subject to the same elasticity relationship, it is
then possible to apply the relationship over time. However, analysts should be aware that an implication of
paragraph E8 is that Base Dependent formulations risk giving different answers when forecasting opening
year Do Something directly from Base Year - compared with forecasting it from opening year Do Minimum
which has been forecast from Base Year. In a similar way their base dependence risks producing different
results when forecasting via an intermediate forecast year.
The Power Formulation

E10 The power formulation relates the forecast number of trips to cost ratios (or percentages) and, when applied
to 2 different years, it can be applied as a Base Year pivot, or an Opening Year pivot etc.
P P
Its formulae is:- T ij = G ij * T ij
* (c ij / c ij
)B
where 1. T ij is the forecast number of trips
2. c ij is the forecast journey time or cost
3. G ij is the forecast growth rate
4. T ij P is the number of trips in the earlier year (pivot case)
5. c ij P is the journey time or cost in the earlier year (pivot case)
and 6. B is the elasticity, which should be a negative value,
(and in the Power formulation is the same for all trips within each user class)
E11 By inputting items 3 to 6 above, and assigning an initial estimate of item 1 to the appropriate network,
converged and consistent values for items 1 and 2 can be produced using an iterative process. The best
starting estimate of T ij (item 1) required to produce an initial estimate of c ij (item 2) and hence a revised
estimate of T ij as part of an iterative process is T ijP multiplied by the relevant growth factor G ij. This
iterative process is shown in paragraph E7 and Figure E3, which also discusses and illustrates in Figure E4
how to convert a divergent process, into the required convergent process, should divergence arise.
(When the process is pivoted off the base year the product G ij * T ijP represents the Reference Case Matrix.)
February 1997 E/ 3
Volume 12 home page
E12 When a higher tier model has been used to generate the growth factors G ij, a same year pivot as discussed
in this paragraph may be preferable to the different year pivot described in paragraphs E10 and El 1. This
is most likely to be preferable when the higher tier model forecasts a significant rising trend ill its future
equilibrium costs. When the power formulation is applied to 2 different scenarios in the same year, it call
be applied as a Do Minimum pivot, or a Do Something pivot, or a same year Reference Case pivot.
Its formulae simplifies to:- T ij = T i j0 * (c ij / c ij

0
) B
where T ij is the forecast number of trips

C ij is the forecast journey time or cost
T ij 0 is the number of trips in the other (pivot)
C ij 0 is the journey time or cost in the other (pivot)
scenario
and scenario
B is the elasticity, which should be a negative value,
(and in this formulation is the same for all trips within each user class)
The same iterative process described in paragraph El1 can be adopted and the best starting estimate of T ij
required to produce an initial estimate of c ij is T ij 0 in this case. (G ij is of course unity in a same year
application.)
E13 The power formulation represents a well behaved formulation which is simple to apply, base independent,
its constant elasticity affects all lengths of trip equally (sometimes described as ''distance neutral'') and the
input elasticity (unlike some other formulations) is not dependent on the units used. The power formulation
and the simplest elasticity formulation given in the footnote to paragraph E2 can also be shown to be close
approximations to each other for small cost changes when B is constant. (Exact correspondence cannot be
expected as the Power formulation is base independent and the simplest formulation is base dependent.)
The Exponential Formulation

E14 The exponential formulation relates the forecast number of trips to cost differences (ie the magnitude of the
cost change). It is also base independent and, when applied to 2 different years, it can be applied as a Base
Year pivot or an Opening Year pivot etc.
its formulae is:- T ij = G ij * T ij P * exp { B*(c ij P

- C ij ) }
where the terms are as defined in paragraph E10 except that
B is a parameter related to the elasticity (typically the elasticity/ average cost)
and the elasticity is:- B * c ij
Hence, all movements are assumed in the exponential formulation to be as responsive to the same absolute
change in cost. This may be suitable as a suppression mechanism, but means that the formulation is more
likely to induce a higher proportion of long trips as a response to a road scheme, than the power
formulation. As long trips are likely to be associated with higher consumer surplus benefits than the
release of the same number of short distance trips, this formulation is unlikely to lead to conservative
estimates of Variable Trip Matrix (VTM) economic benefits.
E15 When the exponential formulation is applied to 2 different scenarios in the same year, it can be applied as a
Do Minimum pivot, or a Do Something pivot, or a same year Reference Case pivot.
Its formulae simplifies to:- T ij = T ij 0 * exp { B*(c ij - C ij 0 )}
where the terms areas defined in paragraph E12 except that
B is a parameter related to the elasticity (typically the elasticity/ average cost)
and the elasticity is: - B * c ij
E/ 4 Traffic Appraisal Advice February 1997

Volume 12 home page
Volume 12 Section 2 Annex 1;
Again all movements are assumed to be as responsive to the same absolute change in cost, and this is borne
out by tile comparative research described in reference El. As explained in paragraph E14 above this
formulation is unlikely to lead to conservative estimates of Variable Trip Matrix (VTM) economic benefits.
E16 If cordoned matrices are used, the B parameter should be calculated on the whole cost of the trip in
accordance with the advice elsewhere in this guidance - otherwise the average cost and hence the B
parameter and the elasticity would change for different sizes of cordon.
The Tanner Formulation

E17 Tile Tanner formulation is a two parameter model which combines both of the above models, with a
relative weight given by the relative size of the two parameters. When applied to 2 different years, it can
be applied as a Base Year pivot, or an Opening Year pivot etc.
0 A P
Its formulae is:- T ij = G ij * T ij P * (c ij / c ij ) * exp { B*(c ij - c ij )}
A and B are parameters
and the elasticity is: - A + B * c ij
E18 The Tanner formulation (as above and its same year simplification G ij - 1) is not recommended
because
of its lack of simplicity, the lack of well researched evidence oil appropriate parameters and calibration
procedures and for the reasons developed at the end of Paragraph E14, which equally apply to this
formulation. As the function is not invertible (ie it cannot be rearranged into the form c ij = ...)
convergence cannot be guaranteed.
The Semi-log / Elastic Exponential Formulation

E19 The semi-log formulation (also known as the Elastic Exponential formulation) relates the forecast number
of trips to the change in cost ratios (ie the percentage reduction or increase). It is the base dependent
function which is simplest to apply, closest to distance neutral and has elasticity parameters which are not
affected by tile units used. However, as it is base dependent it must be used with care in a behaviourally
consistent way. A standardised (as a means of giving consistent results between analysts) behaviorally
consistent method would be to use a Base Year pivot for opening year forecasts and pivot later year
forecasts off the opening year Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios as shown in Flow Chart 5.2 If'
other methods than this standardised one are used analysts should demonstrate the scale of differences
involved, with this and other base dependent applications.
E20 When applied to 2 different years, it can be applied as a Base Year pivot or all Opening Year pivot etc.
P
Its formulae is:- T ij = G ij * T ij * exp { B*(c ij - c ijP)/ c ijP }
B is in this case a negative input parameter related to the elasticity
and the elasticity varies for different zone to zone movements and is:- B * cij / cijP
When a higher tier model has been used to generate the growth factors G ij for the later year and that higher
tier model forecasts a significant trend in average costs, c ijP needs to reflect that trend factor and
consequently a same year pivot (described in the next paragraph) is preferable in those circumstances. In
other circumstances, pivoting over 2 different years could be as conservative as the power formulation.
This arises as the elasticity is based on cost ratios and as schemes tend to affect absolute costs, the
elasticities resulting from a scheme are likely to be marginally less for longer than for local trips.
February 1997 Traffic Appraisal Advice E/ 5

Volume 12 home page
E21 When applied to 2 different scenarios in the same year, the semi-log formulation can be applied as a Do
Minimum pivot, or a Do Something pivot, or a same year Reference Case pivot.
0
Its formulae simplifies to:- T ij = T ij * exp { B*(c ij - c ij0)/ c ij0 }
B is in this case a negative input parameter related to the elasticity
and the elasticity varies between cells and is:- B * c ij / cij0
In most same year applications the ratio c ij / cij0 is likely to range between 0.8 and 1.05 (or 0.95 and 1.2)
and is unlikely to have a weighted mean value of 1. Hence, a chosen weighted average elasticity can only
be reproduced by trial and error, after inputting an initial value of B. This is usually the required elasticity
multiplied by the average expected cost ratio. Hence the average trip cost in the two scenarios needs to be
monitored.
E22 The semi-log formulation has the advantage that those movements most affected by increasing congestion,
experience cost increases above the cost trend and hence have an elasticity which increases over time.
Movements subject to the highest cost increase ratio have the highest elasticity and those subject to the
most extreme cost reduction ratio the lowest. This is more complicated than the power formulation, but is
believed to be behaviourally realistic.
E23 The number of sensitivity tests undertaken with this and other Base Dependent formulations should reflect
the extra uncertainties they generate. A single test in the modelled period with most induced traffic is
likely to be the most that ought to be considered.
The Logit / Closed Exponential Formulation

E24 The logit (or closed exponential) formulae is:-
0
T ij = G ij * T ij * { 1 + A } / { A + exp { B*(c ij - c ij0) } }
where A is a parameter chosen to represent the non-modelled modes (ie in some applications)
B is a parameter related to the elasticity
and the elasticity is:-
- B c ij / { 1 + A * exp { B*(c ij0 - c ij) } }
This formulation is not recommended because of its lack of simplicity, the lack of well research calibrated
parameters. As it is Base Dependent and requires 2 parameters it is also more difficult to apply.
Other Formulations
E25 An alternative 2 parameter model, which is Base Independent and invertible (ie it can be rearranged into
the form c ij = ... ) is the powered exponential formulation:-
T ij = G ij * T ij0 * exp { B*(c ij λ

- c ij )}
0λ
where B is a parameter related to the elasticity (typically the elasticity/ average cost)
and the elasticity is:- B*λ *c λ ij
This formulation is less extreme than the exponential if λ is around 0.5 or less, but is not recommended for
the same reasons as all the above 2 parameter models.
E/ 6 Traffic Appraisal Advice February 1997
Volume 12 home page
E26 If cordoned matrices are used, the B parameter should be calculated on the whole cost of' the trip in
accordance with the advice elsewhere in this guidance - otherwise the average cost and hence the B
parameter and the elasticity would change for different sizes of cordon. 2
2 2 References
El White C, Emmerson P & Gordon
Assignment Based Techniques for Modelling Traffic Growth in Congested Areas.
Traffic Engineering & Control Vol 36 No 10 October 1995
E2 Arezki Y, Hall M, Hyman G & Mackenzie I
Simultaneous Assignment, Distribution & Mode Choice in NAOMI
PTRC 24th European Transport Forum 1996 Seminar D/E partl
February 1997 Traffic Appraisal Advice E/ 7

Volume 12 home page

Volume 12 Traffic Appraisal of Road Schemes Section 2 Traffic Appraisal Advice Induced Traffic Appraisal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volume 12 Traffic Appraisal of Road Schemes Section 2 Traffic Appraisal Advice Induced Traffic Appraisal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES

INDUCED TRAFFIC APPRAISAL

INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE

Note: A quarterly index with a full set of Volume

THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY

THE SCOTTISH OFFICE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

Induced Traffic Appraisal

ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY.

INDUCED TRAFFIC APPRAISAL

1. Introduction and Contents

2. Consequences for Scheme Appraisal

4. Traffic Modelling Methods

7. Economic Appraisal Issues

Annex B: Preliminary Scheme Assessment

Annex C: Derivation of Recommended Elasticities

Annex D: Higher Tier Models

Annex E: Elasticity Formulations

1. INTRODUCTION and CONTENTS

Chapter 3 & Annex B preliminary assessment of schemes,

February 1997 Traffic Appraisal Advice 1/1

DETAILED CONTENTS Page Nos

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION and CONTENTS 1/1

Chapter 2. CONSEQUENCES FOR SCHEME APPRAISAL 2/1

Chapter 3. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT 3/1

Chapter 4. TRAFFIC MODELLING METHODS 4/1

Wider Modelling Issues 4/2

Chapter 5. INTERMEDIATE SCHEMES 5/1

Choice of Simplified Procedures 5/1

Chapter 6. COMPLEX SCHEMES 6/1

Chapter 7. ECONOMIC APPRAISAL ISSUES 7/1

Chapter 8. ENQUIRIES 8/1

February 1997 Traffic Appraisal Advice 1/3

Annex A - DEFINITIONS A/1

The range and timing of responses to a road scheme A/1

Annex B - PRELIMINARY SCHEME ASSESSMENT B/1

Annex C - DERIVATION OF RECOMMENDED ELASTICITIES C/1

Research Results C/1

Annex D - HIGHER TIER MODELS D/1

Simple Higher Tier Reassignment D/1

Annex E - ELASTICITY FORMULATIONS E/1

Figure E1 - A family of Demand Curves E/1

1/4 Traffic Appraisal Advice February 1997

2. CONSEQUENCES FOR SCHEME APPRAISAL

a) change route (reassignment);

February 1997 Traffic Appraisal Advice 2/1

2/2 Traffic Appraisal Advice February 1997

(Alternatives may include different modes, a changed time or a changed destination of

February 1997 Traffic Appraisal Advice 3/1

3/2 Traffic Appraisal Advice February 1997

4. TRAFFIC MODELLING METHODS

February 1997 Traffic Appraisal Advice 4/1

Wider Modelling Issues

4/2 Traffic Appraisal Advice February 1997

Choice of Simplified Procedures

February 1997 Traffic Appraisal Advice 5/1

Bias in Scheme Benefits

5/2 Traffic Appraisal Advice February 1997

Simple Elasticity Methods

5.14 Elasticity methods can in theory be applied to:-

February 1997 Traffic Appraisal Advice 5/3

Table 5.1 Recommended Journey Time Elasticities

Peak Urban areas with high modal competition -0.33