Title: Multiobjective%20Priority%20Setting%20for%20Transportation%20Infrastructure%20Investments:%20Guardrails,%20Highways,%20and%20Multimodal%20Systems
1Multiobjective Priority Setting for
Transportation Infrastructure Investments
Guardrails, Highways, and Multimodal Systems
- by
- Kenneth Peterson
- For
- MS in Systems Engineering
2Thesis Committee
- Professor James H. Lambert (Thesis Advisor)
- Professor Yacov Y. Haimes (Thesis Committee
Member) - Professor Michael D. DeVore (Thesis Committee
Member) - Dr. John S. Miller (Thesis Committee Member)
3Outline
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Literature Review
- Chapter 3 Guardrails
- Chapter 4 Major Highway Projects
- Chapter 5 Multimodal Transportation
- Chapter 6 Conclusions and Discussion
4Chapter 1 Introduction
5Need
- More evidence is needed (including evaluation of
safety impacts) earlier in the process of
selecting new transportation projects, including
selection of relevant metrics for disparate
projects.
6Purpose
- Develop three applications of methodology to
select transportation projects utilizing
multicriteria decision analysis and specialized
knowledge of transportation systems.
7Chapter 2 Literature Review
8Literature Review
- Multicriteria decision making
- Vreeker, R., Nijkamo, P., Ter Welle, C., 2002.
- Rene L., Meertens, R.M. . Bot, I. 2002.
- Pomerol, J.C., and S.Barba-Romero, 2000.
- Gal, T., Stewart, T.J., and T.Hanne 1999.
- Tsamboulas, D.T., Yiotis, G.S. Panou, K.D. ,
1999. - Miettinen, K. M., 1999.
- Levine, J., Underwood, S.E., 1996.
- Van Dam, T.J., and D.L. Thurston, 1994.
- Benekohal, R.F., W. Zhao, and M.H. Lee, 1994.
- Giuliano, G., 1985.
- Zeleny, M., 1982.
9Literature Review (cont.)
- Risk analysis
- Meijnders, A.L., Midden, J.H., Wilke, H.A.M.,
2001. - Sjoberg, L., Fromm, J., 2001.
- Gray, G.M., Hammitt, J.K. , 2000.
- McDaniels T.L, Gregory, R.S. Fields, D. .1999.
- OConnor, R.E., Bord, R.J., Fisher A. , 1999.
- Haimes, Y., 1998.
- Witkowski, J.M., 1988.
10Literature Review (cont.)
- Transportation safety
- Lambert, J.H., Peterson, K., 2003.
- Caldwell, R.C., and E.M. Wilson, 1999.
- Mak, K. K., D.L. Sicking, and K. Zimmerman, 1998.
- American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials. 1996. - Davis, C.F., and G.M. Campbell, 1995.
- Elvik, R. 1995.
- Mak, K. K., 1995.
- Hall, J.W., D.S. Turner, and L.E. Hall., 1994.
- Mak, K. K., 1993.
- Pigman, J.G. and Agent, K.R., 1991.
- Pigman, J.G. and Agent, K.R., 1989.
- American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials. 1977. - Glennon, J.C., 1974.
11Literature Review
- Programming and planning
- Baker, J.A. and J.H. Lambert 2001.
- Sacramento, Department of Public Works, 2001.
- Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission,
2001. - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century,
2001 - Baker, J.A., 2000.
- Delaware Department of Transportation, 2000.
- Montana Department of Transportation, 2000.
- Ohio Department of Transportation, 2000.
- Frohwein, H., J.H. Lambert, Y.Y. Haimes, and L.A.
Schiff 1999. - Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, 1998. - Ohio Department of Transportation, 1997.
- Teng, J.Y., and Tzeng, G.H. 1996.
- Holguin-Veras, J., 1995.
- Saaty, T.L., 1995.
- Tabucanon, M.T. Lee, H.M., 1995.
- Wildenthal, M.T., J.L. Biffington, and J.L.
Memmott, 1994. - Kulkarni, R.B., Burns, R.L., Wright, J., Apper,
B., Baily, T.O. Noack, S.T. , 1993. - Mahmassani, H.S. ,1981.
12Chapter 3 Guardrails
13Risk-Based Management of Guardrails
- Motivation
- New Kent Case Study
- Hazard Catalog
- Corridor Screening
- Site Prioritization
- Summary
14Motivation
- Public and transportation-agency priorities
concerning the location of roadway guardrails are
in need of clarification - The concerns of Virginians for adequate
guardrails relative to national norms are high - Current practice in some VDOT Districts for
selecting locations for new guardrails is based
upon citizen complaints, a general knowledge of
roadway needs from local engineers, and accident
history
15Motivation (cont.)
- Objectives
- Review and evaluation of what others have done
- Adoption of assessment methods and quantitative
and qualitative factors - Development of a tradeoff methodology
- Specification and prototype development of
databases
16New Kent Case Study
- Data Collection for Corridor Screening Tool
- Accident statistics of given corridors
- Routes 601-665
- Data Collection for Site Prioritization and
Hazard Catalog Tool - Routes 611, 613, 640, 665
17Hazard Catalog
- Compile an inventory of hazard sites and
guardrail coverage, and conditions of guardrails - Compare and contrast routes to determine which
are in need of further study - Present in a graphical format information
pertinent to decisions about improvements
18Hazard Catalog (cont.)
Size of bubbles represent cost/value
19Hazard Catalog (cont.)
20Corridor Screening
- Compare corridors for frequency and severity of
accidents - Highlight corridors that have greatest
accidents/DVMT ratio - Compare results with current guardrail coverage
21Corridor Screening (cont.)
- Select corridors to examine
22Corridor Screening (cont.)
23Corridor Screening (cont.)
24Site Prioritization
- Decide which sites should be improved with the
current budget constraint - Consider multiple criteria
25Site Prioritization (cont.)
- Compare sites and their characteristics (cost,
severity, ADT) - Select routes with the highest benefit/cost
ratios that fall within a budget constraint
26Site Prioritization (cont.)
- Select locations along given corridor
27Site Prioritization (cont.)
Objectives of Guardrail Selection
28Site Prioritization (cont.)
29Site Prioritization (cont.)
30Site Prioritization (cont.)
Size of bubbles represent cost/value ()
31Site Prioritization (cont.)
Size of bubbles represent cost/value ()
32Site Prioritization (cont.)
- Results can be compared to show the consistency
of need at a location - Budget constraint kept constant
- Example
- Locations 1,2,3,7, and 9 are recommended by the
model to maximize severity protected
33Summary
- The spreadsheet tools provides a way to optimally
select hazard sites within the budget constraints - Comparing results from different solutions can
reveal the locations most appropriate for
improvement
34Chapter 4 Major Highway Projects
35Extended Comparison Tool for Major Highway
Projects
- Background
- Review of other agency practices
- Development of the extended comparison tool
- Case studies
- Metrics and rating scales
36Background
- Significantly fewer projects will be funded in
every district - 2.2B reduction over next six years
- Seeking citizen input to help prioritize projects
- Completing existing projects top priority, other
important issues safety, mobility, environmental
(particularly air quality) - Goal is develop a realistic plan that you can
take to the bank -
Source Culpeper District CTB Hearing 4/16/02
37Background (cont.)
- Lack of stakeholder confidence that improvements
shown will be fully funded and constructed - Lack of prioritization method for programming
improvements - Lack of use of objective criteria for
decision-makers - Information presented is difficult for
stakeholders to understand - Source Final Report of The Governors
Commission on Transportation Policy, December 15,
2000.
38Background (cont.)
- Establish meaningful criteria for projects
inclusion in the six year program - Build on positive characteristics of the
secondary system process - Create a long term plan to address issues voiced
in Legislature and by public citizens - Source AASHTO Peer Review March 6, 2002
39Background (cont.)
- Economic development Support the economic
vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by
enabling global competitiveness, productivity,
and efficiency - Safety/Security Increase the safety and security
of the transportation system for motorized and
non-motorized users - Accessibility/Mobility Increase the
accessibility and mobility options available to
people and for freight - Environment Protect and enhance the
environment, promote energy conservation, and
improve quality of life - Intermodal connectivity Enhance the integration
and connectivity of the transportation system,
across and between modes, for people and freight - Operations Promote efficient system management
and operation - System preservation Emphasize the preservation
of the existing transportation system - Source
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(www.tea21.org)
40Review of other agency practices
- Alaska
- Delaware
- Montana
- Oregon
- Sacramento
- Ohio
- TELUS (New Jersey)
- HERS/ST
41Developement of Extended Comparison Tool
- Purpose and Scope
- Support VDOT in the development of an aid to the
comparison and prioritization of major
infrastructure investment projects. - Review of literature and other agencies
experiences - Performance measures that are useful in the
comparison of major projects - Tools for displaying project information
including quantitative and qualitative factors - Prototypes of databases, spreadsheets, and
web-based tools - Case study
42Development of Extended Comparison Tool (cont.)
- Goals
- Build on available data
- Represent quantitative and qualitative evidence
- Consider diverse set of project motivations
- Consider ease of use statewide
43Development of Extended Comparison Tool (cont.)
Crashes per Year Crashes per Vehicle Crashes
Avoided per Vehicle Crashes Avoided per
Year Lives Lost, Injuries
Right of Way Preliminary Engineering Construction
Engineering Life Cycle Length of Road-Section
COST
RISK
Daily Traffic Travel Time Saved per Vehicle Total
Travel Time Saved
PERFORMANCE
Comparison Tool (1998)
44Development of Extended Comparison Tool (cont.)
Overview
45Development of Extended Comparison Tool (cont.)
- Sample of Data Inputs
- Crash rate
- ADT
- Designation of primary (TEA-21) factors
- Costs
- Optional inputs
- Leveraging ( non-state)
- Regional planning
- Innovation
46Development of Extended Comparison Tool (cont.)
47Development of Extended Comparison Tool (cont.)
48Development of Extended Comparison Tool (cont.)
49Development of Extended Comparison Tool (cont.)
Note Funded projects are indicated by shaded
icons.
50Case Studies
- 1) VDOT
- -Transportation Development Plan Culpeper
District - 2) MPO
- -Thomas Jefferson Planning District
- 3) Localities
- -Blackstone
- -Big Stone Gap
51Case Studies (cont.)
- Process
- For each relevant project, determine ADT, crash
rate, cost, and TEA-21 motivations - Use this data to apply comparison tool to the
project set - Materials and resources include HTRIS, detailed
Virginia maps, Virginia Department of
Transportation web site
52Case Studies (cont.)
- VDOT Transportation Development Plan Case Study
- Examined subset of projects for the Culpeper
district in the Transportation Development Plan - Some projects difficult to locate in HTRIS
- Lack of route number
- Node could not be located
- Exceeded the 5-mile limitation
53Case Studies (cont.)
54Case Studies (cont.)
Projects Motivated by Accessibility/Mobility and
Safety/Security
55Case Studies (cont.)
System Preservation
Chart displays total number of projects
56Case Studies (cont.)
System Preservation
Chart displays total sector cost of projects
57Case Studies (cont.)
System Preservation
Chart displays total sector ADT
58Case Studies (cont.)
- MPO Thomas Jefferson Planning District
- Documented projects from CHART 2021 Plan Update
- Project ID
- Location
- Task
- Type
- ADT (1997 and 2021)
- Cost
59Case Studies (cont.)
60Case Studies (cont.)
- Blackstone and Big Stone Gap
- Data gathered from HTRIS and www.vdoturbanplans.co
m - ADT, crash rate, and cost in year 2000 dollars
were used in the tool - Other relevant data were the node numbers
relevant to each project and the motivations
61Case Studies (cont.)
62Case Studies (cont.)
Projects Motivated by Accessibility/Mobility and
Safety
63Case Studies (cont.)
Projects Motivated by Safety/Security and System
Preservation
64Case Studies (cont.)
- Project Ranking Methods (RM)
- RM1 ADT / cost (vehicles / day / dollar)
- RM2 crash rate / cost (crashes / 100m VMT /
dollar) - RM3 crash rate ADT / cost (crashes / mile /
dollar) - RM4 crash rate ADT length / cost (crashes /
dollar) - RM5 ADT / sector cost (vehicles / day / sector
dollar)
65Case Studies (cont.)
Results for Blackstone/Big Stone Gap Case Study
66Case Studies (cont.)
Aggregate Rankings
67Case Studies (cont.)
Transportation Development Plan
Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Blackstone and Big Stone Gap
68Metrics and Rating Scales
- Methodology used to develop metrics
- Survey metrics of other cities, states and
federal agencies - Group metrics by TEA-21 factors
- Sub-group metrics within each TEA-21 factor
- Distinguish levels of performance
- Classify metrics as under construction or
finalized
69Metrics and Rating Scales (cont.)
- Identify positive motivations
- Develop distinct (if possible, quantitative)
scoring levels - Limit overlap and redundancy
- Develop a coherent set of metrics
70Metrics and Rating Scales (cont.)
Project Metric Data Input
71Metrics and Rating Scales (cont.)
- Other Ranking Methods
- Primary benefit with secondary benefit breaking
ties - Sum of primary and secondary attributes
- Product of primary and secondary attributes
- ADT
- Cost
- Non-state share of cost
- Non-state funds ()
- ADT per
- ADT per state
- Median of rankings
72Metrics and Rating Scales (cont.)
73Metrics and Rating Scales (cont.)
74Summary
- Within the spreadsheet tools, dominated and
non-dominated projects can be brought to
attention. - The spreadsheet tools provide a way to compare
and contrast portfolios of transportation
portfolios within a budget constraint. - Comparing results from different locales can
reveal the emphasis for different qualitative
measures.
75Chapter 5 Multimodal Transportation Plan
76Overview
- Problem Statement
- Modal Agency Inventories
- Multimodal Investment Networks (MIN)
- MIN Case Studies
- Summary
77Problem Statement
- Need for analytical methods to improve the
coordination among the various modal
transportation agencies of the Commonwealth of
Virginia
78Problem Statement (cont.)
Multimodal Statewide Planning Process
Source VTrans2025 2002 (Draft)
79Problem Statement (cont.)
Mode x-axis y-axis Bubble Qualitative
Highway ADT Crashes/VMT Cost TEA-21
Public Transit Population served Revenue Miles Revenue Hours Cost TEA-21
Ports Acreage Annual Tonnage Cost TEA-21
Aviation Population served Annual Operations Cost TEA-21
Rail Track Miles Annual Freight Cars Online Cost TEA-21
80Modal Agency Inventories
- Process of Inventory Assessment
- Collect projects from modal agencies (aviation,
public transit, port, rail) - Assess TEA-21 qualitative metrics for each
project - Select quantitative metrics for each mode
- Assess quantitative metrics for each project
- Interpret and study the portfolios of projects
81Modal Agency Inventories (cont.)
EC Economic competitiveness FR Fiscal
responsibility IM Intermodalism and
mobility QL Quality of life SM Systems
management SS Safety and security
Aviation Portfolio Results
82Modal Agency Inventories (cont.)
EC Economic competitiveness FR Fiscal
responsibility IM Intermodalism and
mobility QL Quality of life SM Systems
management SS Safety and security
Public Transit Portfolio Results
83Modal Agency Inventories (cont.)
EC Economic competitiveness FR Fiscal
responsibility IM Intermodalism and
mobility QL Quality of life SM Systems
management SS Safety and security
Port Portfolio Results
84Modal Agency Inventories (cont.)
EC Economic competitiveness FR Fiscal
responsibility IM Intermodalism and
mobility QL Quality of life SM Systems
management SS Safety and security
Rail Portfolio Results
85Modal Agency Inventories (cont.)
86Multimodal Investment Networks
- Development of a multimodal impact statement
- Need and purpose
- Rationale for selected alternative
- Integration and implementation plan
87Multimodal Investment Networks (cont.)
- One page summary chart format complete (Quad
chart) - Eight page document methodology per MIN has been
completed - Ratings as given by Steering Committee are being
codified and rationalized
88Multimodal Investment Networks (cont.)
- Bicycle Greenway
- Driver/Traveler Education
- Commercial Services at intermodal locations
- Space transportation
- Olympics
- High-tech rail
- Cruise ship terminals
- Door-to-door freight
- Coal/mineral transportation
- Urban undergrounds
- Urban public/personal transportation
- Tourism centers
- Multimodal service areas
- Innovative transit solutions
- Innovative parking solutions
- Urban corridors
- -DC-RIC
- -RIC-NOR
- Hampton Roads Third Crossing
- Dulles Corridor
- TransAmerica 460 Corridor
- Coalfield Route - Double Stack Initiative
- Eastern Virginia Airport
- Jamestown 2007
- I-64 Corridor
- I-58 Corridor
- I-81 Corridor
- Disaster Evacuation
- Airport Access
- Telework
- Ridematch
- Congestion pricing, HOV
- Network of National parks
- Chincoteague Bridges
- Charlottesville Unjam
89Multimodal Investment Networks (cont.) - Summary
90Multimodal Investment Networks (cont.) - Summary
- I. Introduction
- MIN concept and location map
- Sponsoring agency and contact information
- Participating agencies and distribution list
- References, web sites, reports, etc.
- II. Need and purpose of multimodal system
- Need and purpose, assessing intermodal
connectivity - Relevant performance criteria and stakeholders
- Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats,
e.g., demographic trends - Identify precedents and lessons learned
91Multimodal Investment Networks (cont.) - Summary
- III. Rationale for selected alternative
- Rationale for selected MIN alternative, e.g., B/C
analysis - All alternatives, including no-action
- Alternatives not explored further
- Alternatives comparison by performance criteria
- Cost estimation
- IV. Integration plan
- Summary integration/implementation plan
- Constituent modal projects of the MIN
- Government, private, stakeholder coordination and
funding - Environmental approvals
- Milestones, schedule, costs, and
interdependencies - Interim assessment and evaluation, contingency
plans
92(No Transcript)
93(No Transcript)
94Hampton Roads Third Crossing
- I. Introduction
- VDOT, in cooperation with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) is - proposing to construct a new bridge-tunnel
crossing of Hampton Roads in - southeastern Virginia.
- II. Need and purpose of multimodal system
- A contributor to congestion at the Hampton Roads
Bridge Tunnel is the fact - that the facility frequently operates at capacity
during the peak hour. As - daily volumes continue to grow, congestion is
likely to spread out over a - longer time period. The duration of congested
periods will increase causing - the rush hour to become a rush period.
- Relevant goals, objectives, performance measures,
stakeholders include - The combination of the decreasing performance of
the transportation system and increasing
pressures due to growth in population and
employment, emphasizes the need to develop
intermodal alternatives that can work together to
improve accessibility, mobility, and goods
movement in the Hampton Roads area. - There is a need to address the decreasing
performance of the transportation system in a
manner which will positively contribute to the
most cost effective utilization of transportation
investments that have already been made in the
region. - Of equal importance in planning for
transportation needs in the Hampton Roads area is
environmental protection and enhancement - Stakeholders in the project include Tourism,
Ports, Military
Source Hampton Roads Crossing Study
- IV. Integration plan
- CTB Endorsement of Locally Preferred Alternative
On September 18, - 1997, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB)
passed a resolution - which expressed its good faith intent to
facilitate and develop the Hampton - Roads Transportation Crossing identified as
Transportation Corridor 9, - which consists of a facility that includes a
Bridge/Tunnel from I- 564 in - Norfolk to I-664 in Newport News with a
connection from this new facility to - the Western Freeway (Route 164), in Portsmouth
and with the CSX - Transportation Corridor on the Peninsula for the
transit component as - adopted by the MPO.
- III. Rationale for selected alternative
- Candidate Build Alternative 9, voted by the CTB
as the approved - location, would provide a new crossing parallel
to the I-664 Monitor - Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel with a connection
from the new - bridge tunnel to Norfolk and Portsmouth. (2.7
billion). The CTBs - decision was based on Alternative 9s abilities
to best meet the - primary project purpose and its underlying needs.
In fact, Candidate - Build Alternative 9 is the only alternative that
addresses all aspects of - purpose and need. It also does the best job of
improving total - mobility between the Southside and the Peninsula
and can also be - constructed in usable segments with each segment
1) contributing - to project purpose and need and 2) having
logical termini and - independent utility.
- Other Alternatives include
- The No-Build Alternative (0 billion)
- Candidate Build Alternative 1 which would provide
a new crossing parallel to the existing I-64
Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel. (1.2 billion) - Candidate Build Alternative 2 which includes all
of Candidate Build Alternative 1, and it also
includes a portion of Candidate Build Alternative
9. (2.0 billion)
95Multimodal Investment Networks (cont.)
MIN and Sponsors are Identified
Sponsors Submit MIN Application
Multimodal Policy Committee Prioritizes MINs for
Implementation
Technical Committee Scores and Ranks all
Submitted MINs
Process for MIN Implementation
96Multimodal Investment Networks (cont.)
- The MIN Application is comprised of three Forms
- MIN Summary
- MIN Report
- MIN Criteria Notes
97Multimodal Investment Networks (cont.)
MIN Summary
98Multimodal Investment Networks (cont.)
MIN Report I. Introduction II. Need and purpose
of the multimodal system III. Rationale for the
selected alternative IV. System integration and
implementation plan
99Multimodal Investment Networks (cont.)
MIN Criteria Notes
100Multimodal Investment Networks (cont.)
101Multimodal Investment Networks (cont.)
. . .
Comparison of Weighting Policies
102Multimodal Investment Networks (cont.)
Weighted Scores within each Policy
Rankings within each Policy
103MIN Case Studies
104Dulles Corridor
- II. Need and purpose of multimodal system
- The Dulles Rapid Transit project aims at
providing a seamless link - between Washington Dulles International Airport
and the regions core. - Need based upon projected growth in mobility
needs of citizens within corridor - Increased congestion
- Declining levels of accessibility
- Dulles is the fastest growing airport in the
world - Most travelers arrive at airport in private
vehicles - National Air and Space museum, three times the
size of the main museum on the National Mall, is
going to be located at Dulles Center, a site
south of the airport - Tysons corner is a major employment center that
continues to grow
- III. Rationale for selected alternative
- No-build option
- Build option Bus Rapid Transit (BRT),
BRT/Metrorail, Metrorail
Source www.fta.dot.gov/library/policy/ns/ns2004/p
e_DullesBRT.htm, www.localsponsors.c
om/washington/dullesbrt/
Source www.dullestransit.com/publications/index.c
fm
105TransAmerican 460 Corridor
- II. Need and purpose of multimodal system
- US460 is a non-limited-access two and four-lane
highway. Limited - passenger rail service exists between western
Richmond, Petersburg, and - Hampton Roads. General aviation airports and
smaller commercial airports - lie along the route. Freight rail serves the port
of Norfolk. -
- US 460 can be upgraded to near-interstate
standards. High-speed rail - service can be provided between the Main Street
Station in Richmond, - Petersburg, and South Hampton Roads. A major
eastern airport can be - constructed in South Hampton Roads (Isle of
Wight, Eastern Virginia - International Airport). Increased rail capacity
and new alignments can - accommodate both expanding freight and passenger
rail service.
- IV. Integration plan
- Multiple roadway upgrades to bring US460 to near
interstate standards - Construct new 6000 ft runway at Hampton Roads
airport - Provide dedicated access/interchanges for the
following general aviation and small commercial
facilities Blackstone Municipal Airport,
Petersburg Airport, Wakefield Airport (runway
protection zone necessitates realignment), Crewe
Airport, Farmville Airport, Lynchburg-Falwell
Airport, Lynchburg Regional Airport, Roanoke
Airport - Multiple rail upgrade (double stack, sidings,
speeds) and realignment of Norfolk Southern and
CSXT lines - Passenger rail terminals
- APM Terminals (Maersk subsidiary) intermodal
container port in Portsmouth (largest such
private facility in the US) - Intermodal container rail to port facility in
Suffolk (Virginia Port Authority) - Intermodal container rail to port facility in
Petersburg (Richmond Ports Commission) - Multiple rail-industrial development sites west
of Petersburg
- III. Rationale for selected alternative
- Construction of a four-lane, divided highway,
controlled access facility - Construction of a four-lane, divided highway with
controlled access only in bypass areas - No-build option
106Coalfield Double Stack
- I. Introduction
- Concept
- The Coalfield Route Double Stack initiative is
designed to facilitate the transfer of goods
through Virginia by enabling a short rail route
to Chicago by using rail in West Virginia.
Currently, rail standards in West Virginia and
Virginia differentiate in that West Virginia rail
does not fully encompass a recent innovation in
rail transportation, that of double stacking.
Double stacking is placing two rail cargo
containers on top of each other. - Sponsoring agency, participating agencies,
non-public - participation
- Virginia Department of Rail and Public
Transportation - West Virginia Department of Rail
- Private rail companies
- Virginia Port Authority
- Virginia Department of Transportation
- West Virginia Department of Transportation
- II. Need and purpose of multimodal system
- West Virginia rail does not currently accommodate
the height constraints of double-stacking.
Double-stacking and usage of the West Virginia
rail would increase the competitiveness of
Virginia ports with other U.S. ports. Also - Clearing the Coalfield Route has significant
impacts to the national economy - The coalfield route is a true multi-state,
intermodal project - The federal government (Congress) would prefer to
fund projects which involve Multi-State Corridors
- IV. Integration plan
- Multi-State Construction Authority
- State partnership for optimizing rail
transportation may require special legislation. - Authority would enter into agreements with
railroads. - Finances would pass through the Authority.
- Construction would be administered by the
Authority - Potential Partners Include Virginia, West
Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Norfolk Southern,
Virginia Port Authority, Appalachian Regional
Commission, Greater, Columbus Inland Port
Commission, Private Railroad Companies - First Steps
- Exploratory Discussions with proposed partners
- Governors or cabinet level DOT representatives
- Prepare a feasibility study and implementation
plan - Benefits to national economy
- Plan to gain political support
- Seek support from U.S. Congress
- III. Rationale for selected alternative
- Current Alternative
- Current single stack trains can be double stacked
- Effectively double the capacity of the train
- Reduced transportation cost
- Saves 233 miles, Norfolk-Chicago
- Central Appalachain Shipps could use Pritchard
Yard - Reduce Transit Time by 1 ½ days
- Worst case benefit-cost ratio 1.8
- Other Alternatives considered
- No action alternative-Use existing rail routes
- VA to Chicago via TN, KY, OH
- VA to Chicago via MD, PA, OH
107Eastern Virginia Airport
- I. Introduction
- The Eastern Virginia Airport System Study (EVASS)
was an analysis - designed to help the Commonwealth identify a
system of airports to best - meet eastern Virginias air transportation needs
in the year 2030 and - beyond. EVASS findings provide guidance for
enhancing the efficiency and - competitiveness of air transportation in the
region and will contribute to the - economic vitality of not only eastern Virginia
but the entire Commonwealth.
- II. Need and purpose of multimodal system
- The Eastern Virginia (EVA) Region represents a
land area of about 6,840 - square miles with a 1991 population of about 2.8
million persons. Projected - growth within this area will result in increased
demand for improved and - expanded aviation services. The region is
currently served by three air - carrier airports Richmond International Airport,
Norfolk International - Airport, and Newport News/ Williamsburg
International Airport. Unless - improvements are made in capacity, these three
EVA airports may not be - able to accommodate the forecast levels of demand
from locally generated - traffic without experiencing serious delays.
- In order to provide the airport facilities
necessary to support an airline hub - in the future or to become an international
gateway, any one of the three - existing airports may be expanded, or a new site
may be selected for the - construction of a large domestic/international
air carrier airport to provide - an international gateway.
The two-airport system of RIC and a new airport
provides A consolidated market, resulting in
improved non-stop air service and a greater
ability to attract international service. A
reduction in total trip time resulting from
improved air service. Economic impacts
resulting in nearly 75 percent more jobs,
increased economic activity, and tax
revenues. A strategic plan for future
consideration.
- IV. Integration plan
- Linking different modes of transportation such as
highway, rail, and air - travel for future facilities and existing
facilities improvements is an - important part of the planning process. The main
transportation modes to - be linked to the systems alternatives include
highway, light rail, - conventional rail, and high-speed rail. Water
transport is not likely a direct - multi-modal link to the airport alternatives,
however, the ease of transport - between port facilities and airport facilities
must be considered in - evaluating the alternatives.
- Several major sources of revenue can be used to
fund the - preferred airport system, including PFCs, FAA AIP
funds, other FAA funds, - Virginia entitlement and discretionary grants,
revenue from airlines and - other tenants, and the airports CIP reserve
balance. PFCs and airport - revenue can be leveraged by issuing bonds. The
preferred airport system - projects, plus the ongoing capital projects, are
assumed to be funded from - the following sources Federal AIP
entitlement/discretionary funding - 422.3 million or 29.6 percent PFC funds -
145.1 million or 10.2 Percent - State funding - 114.3 million or 8.0 percent
Other - 19.9 million or 1.4 - percent Airport - 725.5 million or 50.8 percent.
- III. Rationale for selected alternative
- One-Airport System
- Option A - Consolidated service at a New
Central Site between - Richmond International Airport and Hampton
Roads. - Two-Airport System
- Option B - Consolidated service at Richmond
International Airport and - Newport News/Williamsburg International.
- Option C - Consolidated Service at Richmond
and a New Airport Site. - Three-Airport System
- Option D - Development of Richmond
International Airport, Norfolk - International, and Newport News/Williamsburg
International to meet - future demand levels.
- No Action Do not do any further developments on
any of the airports - The two airport system comprising RIC and a new
airport yields superior - economic impacts to the Eastern Region and
Virginia - It would reduce the required size of a new
facility. - A new site would allow ground-up
construction of a state-of-the-art - facility without the need to integrate
existing facilities. - The alternative provides more convenient
access to the Richmond and
108 Jamestown 2007 Anniversary Celebration
- I. Introduction
- Jamestown 2007 is planned to be a collection of
more than 100 events, - major and small, that will commemorate the 400th
Anniversary of the - establishment of the first permanent English
settlement in North America - on the shores of the James River in 1607.
- These events are anticipated to take place
- between the fall of 2006 and the spring of
- 2008 across the Commonwealth of Virginia.
- The vast majority of these activities are likely
- to be relatively small in size and localized in
- scope. Most events that are planned to take
- place in the Historic Triangle (Jamestown-
- Williamsburg-Yorktown) area will likely
- create somewhat busier than average peak
- visitation levels.
- The recommended transportation plan
- consists of the following basic elements
- Highway Improvements
- Park-and-Ride Facilities
- II. Need and purpose of multimodal system
- The 400th anniversary commemoration of the
settling of Jamestown in - 2007 will bring thousands of additional tourists
to this area. These - improvements will ease traffic concerns during
the commemoration, but will - also serve to address long-term congestion issues
in the future. - The recommendations in this plan reflect the
following objectives - Minimize the congestion impacts of the
anticipated events on the regional highway
system - Maximize the convenience, safety, and reliability
of alternative transportation services for a
relaxed and pleasurable visitor experience and - Miinimize impacts to the local community by
physically separating visitor from local traffic
as much as possible.
- IV. Integration plan
- The recommended transportation plan consists of
the following basic - elements Highway Improvements, Park-and-Ride
Facilities, Local Transit - and Ferry Services, and Intercity Transit
Services. - SR 199/SR 31 Highway Cost
- The total project is expected to cost about 31.8
million. Source VDOT - Other Transportation Costs
- The table below presents the distribution of
estimated costs by year. - Capital expenditures for bus purchases
corresponding to transportation - plans for Williamsburg Area Transport and the
Colonial Parkway begin in - 2004. With the
exception of funding for
continued planning and
coordination, most other costs
are incurred in
2006 or 2007.
- III. Rationale for selected alternative
- - Route 199/Route 31 Improvements include
- Completing the expansion and beautification
of the Route 199 corridor - to a four-lane facility
- Route 31 improvements at the Route 199
intersection, a congested - location in the City of Williamsburg
- Reconstructing the Route 359 access to
Jamestown - Settlement and Jamestown Island to enhance
access and traffic flow - during the 400th anniversary celebration.
- - Shuttle Buses
- Help provide adequate support for the
generally higher levels of - everyday visitation anticipated for 2007.
- This service would provide a direct, smooth
connection between the - intercity travel modes and the shuttle
service. - - Ferry Service
- Up to four ferries can be operated
simultaneously. The Plan - recommends that this maximum potential
level of service be operated - during peak events.
- - Bicycle Element
109 Disaster Evacuation Emergency
Response
- I. Introduction
- The objective of this network is to ensure that
operational transportation - policies, protocols, procedures, routes,
practices, and improvements are - put into place within the Commonwealth of
Virginia that will enable people - and goods to move safely and effectively during
threatening situations - while still enabling emergency access to the
scene(s), and will facilitate re- - establishment of transportation following an
emergency.Adapted from - the Federal Highway Administration Operations
Unit - Improve the Commonwealths preparedness and
response and recovery - capability for natural disasters and emergencies
of all kinds, including - terrorist attacks.
- Sponsoring and participating agencies
- U.S. Department of Homeland Security
- The Department of Emergency Management
- Virginia Railway Express
- Virginia Department of Transportation
- References
- VDOT http//www.virginiadot.org
- Virginia Department of Emergency Management
http//www.vdem.state.va.us/
- II. Need and purpose of multimodal system
- The need for ensuring the operation and integrity
of Americas surface - transportation system is evident following the
events of September 11, - 2001. Good transportation system operation is key
to ensuring safe, - continuous movement of people and goods during a
national and state - security event.
- Effective emergency management frequently relies
on understanding - potential evacuation optionstheir feasibility
and the optimal response - strategies associated with each. Doing this
requires detailed knowledge of - travel behavior and characteristics of the
transportation system. - Source.ieminc.com/Products_and_Services/transporta
tion_evacuation20modeling.htm
- IV. Integration plan
- The composition of the Disaster
Evacuation/Emergency Response Plan - involves multiple modes of transportation on
every governmental level - including federal, state, and local officials, as
well as the private sector, in - order to develop a seamless, coordinated security
and preparedness - strategy. The rational for deciding among
competing evacuation or - emergency response alternatives is based on the
following transportation - plan objectives and must be deliberated on each
government level. - The transportation agency has a plan, and
follows it. - It addresses both response and recovery.
- It is current and complete.
- It includes the types of threats we are now
likely to face, including - biological, chemical, and radiological.
- They have exercised using it.
- It reflects the available resources they know
where to find these and - how to use them. These resources include
- Personnel, Assets, Personal protective
equipment, Supplies - It includes actions at every level in the
Homeland Security Advisory - System.
- III. Rationale for selected alternative
- Virginia Department of Transportation
Implementation Plans - VDOT has developed evacuation plans designed to
minimize problems caused by heavy traffic. The
evacuation routes by area are divided into four
areas, Hampton Roads, Northern Neck, Middle
Peninsula, and the Eastern Shore. - Rail Implementation Plans
- Transit organizations in and around the
Washington metropolitan area have spent a
significant amount of time and resources planning
for emergencies. Virginia Railway Express (VRE),
not surprisingly, has focused its resources on
devising an emergency preparedness plan in the
event that the Washington, D.C. and Northern
Virginia suburbs must be evacuated. - Other Integration Plans
- Past disasters to include the 9/11 terrorist
attack have clearly illustrated that citizens
seek information via the Internet/Web. The
Virginia Department of Emergency Management has
had a strong presence on the Web. Their site,
www.vaemergency.com, has been recognized
nationally for its content, ease of use,
interactivity and up-to-date information.
110Aviation Access
- I. Introduction
- Concept
- The Virginia Department of Aviation (DOAV) has
many projects that are multimodal. The most
common multimodal aviation network is airports.
This document will briefly explain the multimodal
nature of airports and provide ideas of how to
increase communication and coordination between
the DOAV and other Commonwealth transportation
agencies. - Sponsoring agency, participating agencies,
non-public - participation
- Department of Aviation (DOAV), Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Virginia Department of Rail
and Port Transportation (VDRPT), Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA),
Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) - Local Airport Authorities
- Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
(MWAA) - Capital Region Airport Commission (CRAC)
- Charlottesville Albemarle Airport Authority
- The Peninsula Airport Commission
- The Norfolk Airport Authority
- The Roanoke Regional Airport Commission
- II. Need and purpose of multimodal system
- Areas or regions within Virginia that have a
projected growth and will result - in increased demand for improved and expanded
aviation services. The - increased demand would be of the magnitude where
current air carrier - airports for this area/region will not be able to
accommodate the forecast - levels of demand from locally generated traffic
without experiencing serious - delays.
- Goals and Objectives
- Increase accessibility to each airport by way of
additional mode or an additional airport - Decrease resource expenses sent to each
transportation agency for each project - Performance Measure
- Radius of accessibility
- IV. Integration plan
- Identify constituent projects of the multimodal
system - Linking different modes of transportation such as
highway, rail, and air travel for future
facilities and existing facilities improvements
is an important part of the planning process.
The main transportation modes to be linked to the
systems alternatives include highway, light rail,
conventional rail, and high-speed rail. Water
transport is not likely a direct multi-modal link
to the airport alternatives, however, the ease of
transport between port facilities must be
considered in evaluating the alternatives. - Describe government, private, stakeholder
coordination and - source(s) of funding and resources
- Several major sources of revenue can be used to
fund the preferred airport system, including
PFCs, FAA AIP funds, other FAA funds, Virginia
entitlement and discretionary grants, revenue
from airlines and other tenants, and the airports
CIP reserve balance. PFCs and airport revenue
can be leveraged by issuing bonds. - Source Eastern Virginia Airport System Study
Phase II
- III. Rationale for selected alternative
- Do not create any new airports or alter current
airport systems - Do not create any new airports but increase
accessibility of current airports with
additional/improved modes - Public Transit
- Road
- Port
- Rail
- Build a new airport system
111Summary
- Work to help define, facilitate, and develop the
MIN development and prioritization process
included - Define the MIN development and prioritization
process - Modeling of web interfaces to help facilitate the
process - Testing of the prioritization system prototype
using example MINs
112Chapter 6 Conclusions and Discussion
113Publications
- Lambert, J.H., J.A. Baker, and K.D. Peterson
2003. Decision aid for allocation of
transportation funds to guardrails. Accident
Analysis and Prevention. 35(1)47-57. - Lambert, J.H., K.D. Peterson 2003. Extended
Comparison Tool for Major Highway Projects (in
preparation). - Lambert, J.H., K.D. Peterson 2003. Analytical
Support for Multimodal Long-Range Transportation
Planning (in preparation). - Lambert, J.H., Ariel Pinto, K.D. Peterson 2003.
Final Contract Report Extended Comparison Tool
for Major Highway Projects. Commissioned by the
Virginia Transportation Research Council, June
2003. VTRC 03-CR18. - ANALYTICAL SUPPORT FOR THE STATEWIDE MULTIMODAL
LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, Mohammed Ba-Ali,
Brister Barrett, David Cowden, Jared Zane, Ariel
Pinto, Kenneth Peterson, James Lambert, SIE, UVA,
Kimberly Spence, Kenneth Lantz, John Miller,
Wayne Ferguson, Virginia Transportation Research
Council and Virginia Dept of Transportation.
Paper presented at SIEDS 2003 Conference. - COORDINATING AND PRIORITIZING MULTIMODAL
TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, Rachel Copperman,
Michael Devlin, Ryan Ewalt, Tamika Lockhart,
Kenneth Peterson, James Lambert, SIE, UVA, Mary
Lynn Tischer, Kimberly Spence, Katherine Graham,
Wayne Ferguson, Virginia Transportation Research
Council. Paper presented at SIEDS 2004 Conference.
114Accessibility/Mobility Metrics (AM)
115Economic Development Metrics (ED)
116Operations Metrics (OP)
117Environmental Metrics (EV)
118Environmental Metrics (cont.)
119Intermodal Connectivity Metrics (IC)
120Intermodal Connectivity Metrics (IC) cont.
121Safety/Security Metrics (SF)
122System Preservation Metrics (SP)