Feature: Direct linkage with bca4abm benefit cost analysis package

[lmz]

The bca4abm tool is used for cost benefit analysis of a comprehensive set of performance measures generated from an ABM or TBM. It calculates social, environmental, and economic measures and is especially good for equity analysis. It was developed for SANDAG and Oregon Metro. Like PopulationSim, it uses the activitysim framework. It could be contributed to the consortium and incorporated into the offering and directly hooked up and documented (with tutorials, etc.).

Added from ActivitySim Budget Phase 9.xslx

[lmz]

Comments from prior discussion:

• SFCTA: What is the relationship between this and the methods that MTC developed to caculate fully disaggregate logsums for benefit cost calculations? This enhancement makes sense to prioritize only if multiple agencies are really interested in using BCA tool.

• SANDAG: BCA tool is used in genearting SANDAG's RTP performance metrics derived from travel time saving ect which are from ABM. I know some agencies developed logsums based benefit for FTA's Summit program. SANDAG used to hinave a process to preapre inputs for Summit, but it is not used because FTA's Smmit program is inactive. My guess is most agencies need transportation investment cost vs mobility benefit type performance metrics? If so, I think this feature can benefit many of us.

• MTC: We would prefer number 13: "Disaggregate accessibilities" for this purpose.

• ODOT: Prior to moving forward on a linkage to a tool like bca4abm, I would push/suggest that ActivitySim have a standard dataset at the end. This is likely largely complete, but BCA4ABM does a lot of measures around link data, which I don't think ActivitySim touches yet. I would advocate that ActivitySim has a standard link data table / structure prior to moving forward with a standard linkage of ActivitySim to bca4abm.

• Ohio: I'm unclear whether the bca4abm tool is able to be used out-of-the-box for INFRA/BUILD/RAISE project BCA or if it's just a regional tool. If it's the former, then this would be a nice addition. Its parameters would need to be easily accessible for the annual update, as well as regional calibration for things like crash rates. If it is the later, then you can ignore Ohio's rating.