Georgia Department of Transportation Project Prioritization Process Study Overview of Tools and Modeling Process presented to Atlanta Regional Commission Model Users Group presented by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. August 15, 2008 Transportation leadership you can trust.
Project Prioritization Study Review existing GDOT process and IT systems to evaluate and prioritize projects Review related planning partners processes and rules Work with stakeholders to develop new process Develop new tools to support more objective, transparent prioritization process Tools to support GDOT in evaluation and prioritization of projects in Construction Work Program and Long Range program 1
Prioritization Process Initial focus on Roadway New Capacity projects (widenings, extensions, etc.) Currently working to expand system to include two other project categories Roadway Operations and Economic 2 Project prioritization based on clearly defined performance measures, linked to statewide goals Strategically aligned to SWTP goals Demonstrates how goal is met Clear, logical, and unambiguous Concentrate on the vital few Avoid excessive and redundant measures Data driven Not in conflict with other goals Can be produced in a timely fashion Consider performance implications AND benefit/cost
Performance Measures Framework SWTP Goals Program Preservation Safety Congestion (70%)* Connectivity Access and Mobility Economic Growth Total Score Benefit / Cost Other Factors Roadway Capital Maintenance Roadway New Capacity Roadway Traffic Operations 1. Structural Deficiency 2. PACES Rating 3. Crash 4. Delay Reduction Reduction (by severity) 1. Crash 2. Delay Reduction Reduction (by severity) 5. Travel Time: Truck Route/ IM Conn./STRAHNET 6. Activity Center 7. Land Use Plan 8. Access Mgmt. 3. Travel Time: Truck Route/ IM Conn./STRAHNET 4. Activity Center 9. Gross State Product 10. Economic Development Policy Area 5. Gross State Product 6. Economic Development Policy Area B/C B/C Deliverability, Funding Sources, Readiness, etc. Deliverability, Funding Sources, Readiness, etc. Roadway Safety Transit Intermodal Demand Mgmt. Economic Development 1. Structural Deficiency 2. PACES Rating 3. Crash 4. Delay Reduction Reduction (by severity) 5. Travel Time: Truck Route/ IM Conn./STRAHNET 6. Activity Center 7. Land Use Plan 8. Access Mgmt. 9. Gross State Product 10. Economic Development Policy Area B/C Deliverability, Funding Sources, Readiness, etc. Enhancement 3 * Atlanta region only.
Performance Measures Developed with extensive stakeholder input Atlanta interagency partners ARC, GRTA, MARTA Two rounds of outreach throughout state Sept/Oct 2007 15 GA MPOs 3 RDCs 7 state/regional agencies involved in transportation planning/funding decisions June 2008 7 counties with SPLOSTS 8 listening sessions 15 GA MPOs RDC working session 4 Feedback directly incorporated into Prioritization system
Performance Measures Preservation Bridges Percent structurally deficient deck area of existing bridges along project Structural deficiency calculated with the FHWA s National Bridge Investment Analysis System Deck area based on the National Bridge Inventory file Pavement Percent lane miles along project with PACES rating below 70 70 is GDOT Office of Maintenance threshold for determining inclusion in preventative maintenance program PACES rating from GDOT RC file 5 Roadway New Capacity and Economic Development projects only
Performance Measures Safety Reduction in Crash Rates (by Crash Severity) Crash reduction factors applied to Property Damage Only, Injury Only, and Fatal crashes for each project facility USDOT Desktop Reference for Crash Reduction Factors, September 2007 Crash data from statewide CARE crash data base Crashes for each project facility averaged over five years, 2002-2006 Roadway New Capacity, Roadway Traffic Operations, and Economic Development projects 6
Performance Measures Delay Reduction Roadway New Capacity and Economic Development In Atlanta Recurring Delay Reduction (VHT) Delay data from ARC travel demand model Envision6 2030 Build/No-Build (extrapolated to 2035 analysis year) Outside of Atlanta Recurring and Non-Recurring Delay Reduction (VHT) For widening projects, Build and No-Build VHT are calculated with equations from HERS-ST Road characteristic data from GDOT RC file and HPMS file 2035 analysis year For other capacity expansion projects, statewide model is used Roadway Traffic Operations 7 Reduction in Recurring and Non-Recurring Delay (VHT) HERS-ST
HERS-ST Highway Economic Requirements System State Version (HERS-ST) Originally, used by the FHWA to estimate highway investment needs for the U.S. in a biennial report to Congress adopted for state use Relies on HPMS data Estimate performance for different funding scenarios Delay due to congestion Vehicle operating costs Accidents Work zone delay Pollutants 8
HERS-ST Comparison to ARC Model Results vary between HERS-ST and ARC model Variance can be attributed to different modeling approaches 9 Key Factor HERS-ST Method, as Implemented for GDOT ARC Model Diversion Not considered User equilibrium diversion / network assignment Time of Day Peak and non-peak AM, PM, Off-Peak, Mid-Day Capacity Congested VHT Impact Area Vehicle types Default capacity/lane values developed by functional class Empirically fit to national observed speeds - reflects both recurring and nonrecurring delay Only considers VHT changes on the project link Autos and trucks modeled separately Default capacity / lane values developed by area type and facility type. Recurring delay only - calibrated to observed local speed/travel time data. Travel data can be extracted at link level or in impact area. Different vehicle types SOV, HOV trucks, assigned differently and considered differently in delay calculations
Performance Measures Connectivity Change in Travel Time on a Non-Interstate Truck Route, an NHS Intermodal Connector, and/or the STRAHNET If project is not on a non-interstate truck route, an NHS intermodal connector, or the STRAHNET, the measure is not calculated Measure based on travel time savings in 2035 Travel time calculated with HERS-ST, ARC, or statewide model data depending on project location Facility designation and roadway data from RC file Roadway New Capacity, Roadway Traffic Operations, Economic Development projects 10
Performance Measures Access and Mobility Activity Center Project impact to an activity center area In Atlanta Centers defined by Unified Growth Policy Map: city centers, regional centers, station communities, town centers, urban redevelopment corridors, mega-corridors Outside of Atlanta Statewide activity generators were based on FHWA definition of activity centers (Functional Classification Guidelines, Service to Activity Centers) : Airports Seaports Points of major economic activity and employment concentration (e.g., CBD areas) Intermodal terminals and freight facilities Military bases Regional retail shopping centers Significant recreation areas Updated by MPO at their request, if data provided in GIS format by requested deadline 11 Roadway New Capacity, Roadway Traffic Operations, and Economic Development projects
Performance Measures Access and Mobility Activity Center (continued) Outside of Atlanta Centers identified through various public and private data sources Centers compared to satellite land cover data to identify more precisely what might exist at a given location Activity center polygons were manually-digitized (ArcGIS) using the landcover data 12 Projects mapped to centers 1-mile buffer analysis
Performance Measures Access and Mobility Activity Center (continued) In Atlanta At request of interagency partners, more detailed twofiltered approach to analyze this performance measure for projects in Atlanta Filter 1 GIS mapping of project to UGPM centers Filter 2 Question1: Does project provide multimodal options? TPRo, ARC RTP project descriptions Mapping overlay with regional planning studies Question 2: Does project provide additional connectivity? Project descriptions GIS mapping Analysis completed by GRTA/ARC, results provided to CS for inclusion 13
Performance Measures Access and Mobility Local Land Use Is project consistent with local/regional transportation and land use plan? Yes/No flag for each project from GDOT project manager survey Does project exceed required minimum access management standards and/or is the project subject to the requirements of a local access management plan? Yes/No flag for each project from GDOT project manager survey Roadway New Capacity and Economic Development projects 14
Performance Measures Economic Impact Change in Gross State Product Resulting from VHT savings in 2035 Calculated with GA HEAT equations GIS-based tool to estimate benefits and costs of projects Adds macroeconomic benefits to localized benefits Road user costs Delay due to congestion (truck and auto) Vehicle operating costs Safety costs Macroeconomic indicators Jobs Income Gross state product 15 Roadway New Capacity, Roadway Traffic Operations, and Economic Development projects
Performance Measures Economic Impact (continued) Is project located within an Economic Development Policy Area? OneGeorgia classification of eligible and/or Job Tax Credit Program classification of Tier 1 Roadway New Capacity, Roadway Traffic Operations, and Economic Development projects 16
Weighting System Three unique weighting systems developed Atlanta MPO Non-Atlanta MPO Rural Weights vary by level of significance for each performance measure within particular SWTP goal Developed with extensive stakeholder input 17
All Program Categories Weighting System Atlanta Area SWTP Goal Preservation Performance Measure New Capacity Traffic Operations Economic Development Bridge SD 2.5 0.0 2.0 Pavement PACES 2.5 0.0 2.0 Safety Crash Reduction 5.0 10.0 2.0 Congestion Delay Reduction VHT 70.0 70.0 70.0 Connectivity, Access and Mobility Economic Development Travel Time Intermodal Connector, Truck Route, STRAHNET 4.0 2.5 2.0 Activity Center 4.0 10.0 2.0 Land Use Plan 3.0 0.0 2.0 Access Management 4.0 0.0 3.0 Gross State Product 2.5 2.5 7.5 Economic Policy Area 2.5 5.0 7.5 Benefit/Cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Weight 100.0 100.0 100.0 18
Scoring System 100 point score Delay points based on absolute delay reduction provided by project using threshold scoring approach All other quantifiable measures scored relative to one another Projects are compared relative to the best performer within each performance measure category Geographic weightings are applied for each performance measure For other qualitative measures, points assigned based on Y/N designation Points summed across all measures to produce individual project scores 19
Delay Reduction Measure Threshold Weighting System Hours of Delay Reduction Percent of Score 100,000 100 50,000 80 2,500 60 500 40 250 20 20
Congestion Points Delay Reduction (continued) Hybrid Scoring Approach 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Step Regression 1 26 51 76 101 126 151 176 Projects 201 226 Step 21
Other Quantifiable Measures Scoring System Example Project Listing Project 1 (Atlanta) Project 2 (Rural) Project 3 (Non-Atl MPO) Project 4 (Rural) Project 5 (Non-Atl MPO) Crashes Reduced Relative Comparison Assigned Weight Crash Pts 52 52/52 = 1.00 5 (1.00)*5 = 5.0 25 25/52 = 0.48 20 (0.48)*20 = 9.6 3 3/52 = 0.06 20 (0.06)*20 = 1.2 13 13/52 = 0.25 20 (0.25)*20 = 5.0 45 45/52 = 0.87 20 (0.87)*20 = 17.4 22
Project Prioritization System Requirements Prototype is web-based application Study team still discussing best method to make this a full production system Best way to run Prioritization system internally and externally Different types of users with different system permissions: Read Only, Edit, etc. GDOT IT will be maintaining final system 23
Full System Run Statewide: Three program categories Roadway New Capacity = 837 685 have RC data and used HERS-ST or ARC model 9 projects outside of Atlanta used SWM not HERS-ST 16 interchange projects, may need to link with capacity projects 127 projects have no data still working Roadway Traffic Operations = 47 Non-maintenance, non-lump sum operations projects Various project types require slightly different analysis ATMS projects - reduction in non-recurring delay - calculated using HERS-ST Signal coordination projects - reduction in recurring and non-recurring delay calculated using HERS-ST Turn lanes urban/rural distinction between project benefits 24 Economic Development (GRIP) = 186 147 have RC data 9 used SWM 30 no data still working
Next Steps Public outreach Sept / Oct 2008 Process, not projects Final run Fall 2008 Final documentation and software prototype Dec 2008 Timeline for project prioritization once study is complete: Draft STIP/TIP development - June 2009 Final STIP development - Sept 2009 Newly identified projects can be scored and evaluated Projects in urban areas: Included in RTP/TIP if funding is available following federally-mandated planning and programming process Projects in rural areas: Included in STIP if funding is available following GDOT review and programming process 25
Ongoing Project Prioritization Process Considerations for future GDOT project programming: Project score and evaluation using Prioritization Tool Local match level of local funding commitment Project origin emphasis on projects derived from completed local or GDOT planning studies Environmental impacts Financial risks Public and political input Project readiness and deliverability 26