Multiobjective%20Priority%20Setting%20for%20Transportation%20Infrastructure%20Investments:%20Guardrails,%20Highways,%20and%20Multimodal%20Systems - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Multiobjective%20Priority%20Setting%20for%20Transportation%20Infrastructure%20Investments:%20Guardrails,%20Highways,%20and%20Multimodal%20Systems

Description:

... term plan to address issues voiced in Legislature and by public citizens ... TELUS (New Jersey) HERS/ST. 41. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:118
Avg rating:3.0/5.0

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Multiobjective%20Priority%20Setting%20for%20Transportation%20Infrastructure%20Investments:%20Guardrails,%20Highways,%20and%20Multimodal%20Systems


1
Multiobjective Priority Setting for
Transportation Infrastructure Investments
Guardrails, Highways, and Multimodal Systems
  • by
  • Kenneth Peterson
  • For
  • MS in Systems Engineering

2
Thesis 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)

3
Outline
  • Chapter 1 Introduction
  • Chapter 2 Literature Review
  • Chapter 3 Guardrails
  • Chapter 4 Major Highway Projects
  • Chapter 5 Multimodal Transportation
  • Chapter 6 Conclusions and Discussion

4
Chapter 1 Introduction
5
Need
  • 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.

6
Purpose
  • Develop three applications of methodology to
    select transportation projects utilizing
    multicriteria decision analysis and specialized
    knowledge of transportation systems.

7
Chapter 2 Literature Review
8
Literature 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.

9
Literature 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.

10
Literature 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.

11
Literature 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.

12
Chapter 3 Guardrails
13
Risk-Based Management of Guardrails
  • Motivation
  • New Kent Case Study
  • Hazard Catalog
  • Corridor Screening
  • Site Prioritization
  • Summary

14
Motivation
  • 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

15
Motivation (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

16
New 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

17
Hazard 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

18
Hazard Catalog (cont.)
Size of bubbles represent cost/value
19
Hazard Catalog (cont.)
20
Corridor Screening
  • Compare corridors for frequency and severity of
    accidents
  • Highlight corridors that have greatest
    accidents/DVMT ratio
  • Compare results with current guardrail coverage

21
Corridor Screening (cont.)
  • Select corridors to examine

22
Corridor Screening (cont.)
23
Corridor Screening (cont.)
24
Site Prioritization
  • Decide which sites should be improved with the
    current budget constraint
  • Consider multiple criteria

25
Site Prioritization (cont.)
  • Compare sites and their characteristics (cost,
    severity, ADT)
  • Select routes with the highest benefit/cost
    ratios that fall within a budget constraint

26
Site Prioritization (cont.)
  • Select locations along given corridor

27
Site Prioritization (cont.)
Objectives of Guardrail Selection
28
Site Prioritization (cont.)
29
Site Prioritization (cont.)
30
Site Prioritization (cont.)
Size of bubbles represent cost/value ()
31
Site Prioritization (cont.)
Size of bubbles represent cost/value ()
32
Site 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

33
Summary
  • 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

34
Chapter 4 Major Highway Projects
35
Extended Comparison Tool for Major Highway
Projects
  • Background
  • Review of other agency practices
  • Development of the extended comparison tool
  • Case studies
  • Metrics and rating scales

36
Background
  • 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

37
Background (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.

38
Background (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

39
Background (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)

40
Review of other agency practices
  • Alaska
  • Delaware
  • Montana
  • Oregon
  • Sacramento
  • Ohio
  • TELUS (New Jersey)
  • HERS/ST

41
Developement 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

42
Development 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

43
Development 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)
44
Development of Extended Comparison Tool (cont.)
Overview
45
Development 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

46
Development of Extended Comparison Tool (cont.)
47
Development of Extended Comparison Tool (cont.)
48
Development of Extended Comparison Tool (cont.)
49
Development of Extended Comparison Tool (cont.)
Note Funded projects are indicated by shaded
icons.
50
Case Studies
  • 1) VDOT
  • -Transportation Development Plan Culpeper
    District
  • 2) MPO
  • -Thomas Jefferson Planning District
  • 3) Localities
  • -Blackstone
  • -Big Stone Gap

51
Case 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

52
Case 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

53
Case Studies (cont.)
54
Case Studies (cont.)
Projects Motivated by Accessibility/Mobility and
Safety/Security
55
Case Studies (cont.)
System Preservation
Chart displays total number of projects



56
Case Studies (cont.)
System Preservation
Chart displays total sector cost of projects



57
Case Studies (cont.)
System Preservation
Chart displays total sector ADT


58
Case Studies (cont.)
  • MPO Thomas Jefferson Planning District
  • Documented projects from CHART 2021 Plan Update
  • Project ID
  • Location
  • Task
  • Type
  • ADT (1997 and 2021)
  • Cost

59
Case Studies (cont.)
60
Case 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

61
Case Studies (cont.)
62
Case Studies (cont.)
Projects Motivated by Accessibility/Mobility and
Safety
63
Case Studies (cont.)
Projects Motivated by Safety/Security and System
Preservation
64
Case 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)

65
Case Studies (cont.)
Results for Blackstone/Big Stone Gap Case Study
66
Case Studies (cont.)
Aggregate Rankings
67
Case Studies (cont.)
Transportation Development Plan
Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Blackstone and Big Stone Gap
68
Metrics 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

69
Metrics and Rating Scales (cont.)
  1. Identify positive motivations
  2. Develop distinct (if possible, quantitative)
    scoring levels
  3. Limit overlap and redundancy
  4. Develop a coherent set of metrics

70
Metrics and Rating Scales (cont.)
Project Metric Data Input
71
Metrics 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

72
Metrics and Rating Scales (cont.)
73
Metrics and Rating Scales (cont.)
74
Summary
  • 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.

75
Chapter 5 Multimodal Transportation Plan
76
Overview
  • Problem Statement
  • Modal Agency Inventories
  • Multimodal Investment Networks (MIN)
  • MIN Case Studies
  • Summary

77
Problem Statement
  • Need for analytical methods to improve the
    coordination among the various modal
    transportation agencies of the Commonwealth of
    Virginia

78
Problem Statement (cont.)
Multimodal Statewide Planning Process
Source VTrans2025 2002 (Draft)
79
Problem 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
80
Modal 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

81
Modal 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
82
Modal 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
83
Modal 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
84
Modal 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
85
Modal Agency Inventories (cont.)
86
Multimodal Investment Networks
  • Development of a multimodal impact statement
  • Need and purpose
  • Rationale for selected alternative
  • Integration and implementation plan

87
Multimodal 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

88
Multimodal 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

89
Multimodal Investment Networks (cont.) - Summary
90
Multimodal 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

91
Multimodal 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)
94
Hampton 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)

95
Multimodal 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
96
Multimodal Investment Networks (cont.)
  • The MIN Application is comprised of three Forms
  • MIN Summary
  • MIN Report
  • MIN Criteria Notes

97
Multimodal Investment Networks (cont.)
MIN Summary
98
Multimodal 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
99
Multimodal Investment Networks (cont.)
MIN Criteria Notes
100
Multimodal Investment Networks (cont.)

101
Multimodal Investment Networks (cont.)
. . .
Comparison of Weighting Policies
102
Multimodal Investment Networks (cont.)
Weighted Scores within each Policy

Rankings within each Policy

103
MIN Case Studies
104
Dulles Corridor
  • I. Introduction
  • 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
  • IV. Integration plan
  • 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
105
TransAmerican 460 Corridor
  • I. Introduction
  • 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

106
Coalfield 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

107
Eastern 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.

110
Aviation 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

111
Summary
  • 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

112
Chapter 6 Conclusions and Discussion
113
Publications
  • 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.

114
Accessibility/Mobility Metrics (AM)
115
Economic Development Metrics (ED)
116
Operations Metrics (OP)
117
Environmental Metrics (EV)
118
Environmental Metrics (cont.)
119
Intermodal Connectivity Metrics (IC)
120
Intermodal Connectivity Metrics (IC) cont.
121
Safety/Security Metrics (SF)
122
System Preservation Metrics (SP)
About PowerShow.com