National Academies Press: OpenBook

A Guidebook for Corridor-Based Statewide Transportation Planning (2010)

Chapter: Section 4 - Hypothetical Example: Application of SWCP Guidance to the State of South Orange

« Previous: Section 3 - Technical Guidance for SWCP
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Section 4 - Hypothetical Example: Application of SWCP Guidance to the State of South Orange." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. A Guidebook for Corridor-Based Statewide Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14395.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Section 4 - Hypothetical Example: Application of SWCP Guidance to the State of South Orange." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. A Guidebook for Corridor-Based Statewide Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14395.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Section 4 - Hypothetical Example: Application of SWCP Guidance to the State of South Orange." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. A Guidebook for Corridor-Based Statewide Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14395.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Section 4 - Hypothetical Example: Application of SWCP Guidance to the State of South Orange." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. A Guidebook for Corridor-Based Statewide Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14395.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Section 4 - Hypothetical Example: Application of SWCP Guidance to the State of South Orange." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. A Guidebook for Corridor-Based Statewide Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14395.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Section 4 - Hypothetical Example: Application of SWCP Guidance to the State of South Orange." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. A Guidebook for Corridor-Based Statewide Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14395.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Section 4 - Hypothetical Example: Application of SWCP Guidance to the State of South Orange." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. A Guidebook for Corridor-Based Statewide Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14395.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Section 4 - Hypothetical Example: Application of SWCP Guidance to the State of South Orange." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. A Guidebook for Corridor-Based Statewide Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14395.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Section 4 - Hypothetical Example: Application of SWCP Guidance to the State of South Orange." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. A Guidebook for Corridor-Based Statewide Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14395.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Section 4 - Hypothetical Example: Application of SWCP Guidance to the State of South Orange." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. A Guidebook for Corridor-Based Statewide Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14395.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Section 4 - Hypothetical Example: Application of SWCP Guidance to the State of South Orange." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. A Guidebook for Corridor-Based Statewide Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14395.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Section 4 - Hypothetical Example: Application of SWCP Guidance to the State of South Orange." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. A Guidebook for Corridor-Based Statewide Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14395.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Section 4 - Hypothetical Example: Application of SWCP Guidance to the State of South Orange." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. A Guidebook for Corridor-Based Statewide Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14395.
×
Page 33

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

This section presents an application of the above guidelines to the planning process in a hypothetical state DOT. The hypothetical example describes the thinking process of the state DOT planning director as an SWCP approach was incorporated into the statewide transportation planning process. Characteristics of the state DOT technical guidance provided to regional planning agencies and consultants are also described. SWCP in the State of South Orange The state of South Orange has decided to restructure its statewide transportation planning process as an SWCP approach. One primary reason was that the Governor and the Secretary of the South Orange DOT (SODOT) decided that the level of information on relative project benefits was inadequate to determine the most cost-effective set of state priorities. Also, since a requirement was established by the SODOT Transportation Commission for a fiscally constrained STIP, SODOT officials needed to have realistic and reliable information on project costs that could be best estimated at the corridor level. SODOT officials used a newly released technical guidance document on how to establish an SWCP process in response to the Governor’s and Secretary’s request. The following case study describes the steps that were taken. Establish Organizing Principles and Institutional Structure The Secretary tasked the Director of the SODOT Bureau of Transportation Planning with the responsibility of developing the overall approach to SWCP. One of the first decisions made by the Director was that a process guidebook had to be developed that would provide information on the approach to be followed by regional planning agencies or consultants when undertaking a corridor planning study. Figure 2 was prepared to illustrate the relationships between a corridor plan and other products of the statewide transportation planning process. As shown, corridor planning was intended to feed into • The statewide transportation plan; • SODOT’s modal plans that focused on state rail, aviation, transit, bicycle/pedestrian trans- portation, and highways; • System management strategies that would improve traffic flow on the state’s highway network; and • The fiscally constrained STIP. 21 S E C T I O N 4 Hypothetical Example: Application of SWCP Guidance to the State of South Orange

The approved SWCP process guidelines included the following requirements: • The corridor study goals shall include statewide transportation goals adopted by the Trans- portation Commission and incorporated into the latest update of the South Orange Long Range Statewide Transportation Plan. • SODOT has identified the following issues and solution strategies of statewide significance that should be considered in the corridor study methodology: – Enhancing statewide and urban mobility; – Enhancing the connectivity of the state with special attention given to rural areas; – Providing safe and reliable access from the state’s military bases to major ports; – Providing safe and reliable evacuation routes from the state’s coasts to inland areas; – Reducing the number and severity of crashes on the state’s road network (the Governor is chairman of the National Governors’ Association task force on road safety); – Improving the movement of freight and goods in South Orange, especially access to major freight intermodal terminals; and – Applying, where appropriate, ITS technologies to the state’s transportation system. SODOT has been a national leader in developing and implementing a state ITS infrastructure that has so far been primarily focused in the state’s urban areas. • Public and stakeholder involvement shall occur throughout the process. It is expected that a high-level stakeholder group will be formed early in the study to advise on the overall planning process, as well as provide input on the corridor selection criteria and network definition. As the individual corridor studies are conducted, many more opportunities will be provided for public and stakeholder involvement, with regional and local planning agencies taking the lead. SODOT has an established policy of holding regional forums preceding the Transportation 22 A Guidebook for Corridor-Based Statewide Transportation Planning SODOT Transportation Plan Modal Plans Corridor Plans Non-Project Strategies • Corridor Preservation • Land Use Policies • Growth Management • Access Management • etc. Statewide Transportation Improvement Program Management • Maintenance • Operations • System Management Project Development Local Plans Source: Based on Idaho DOT’s Guidebook on Corridor Planning (2006). Figure 2. Relationship between corridor plans and SODOT activities.

Commission’s consideration of the statewide transportation plan and the STIP; thus, the results of the SWCP efforts will be presented at many public forums for input and reactions. • Where appropriate, corridor studies are intended to be multimodal—that is, they are to examine the cost-effectiveness of achieving mobility and accessibility goals through different modal investments. In particular, for corridors in urban areas, this multimodal perspective is to include the consideration of different transit options. Similarly, for corridors having signifi- cant freight flows, the multimodal perspective should include the feasibility of both freight rail and trucking. • SODOT has adopted a context sensitive solutions (CSS) policy that encourages community involvement in defining project characteristics and desirable project outcomes. This policy is aimed at very specific locations and would most likely be applied within an individual corridor study context. Many of the project designs and accompanying strategies resulting from the CSS approach would not be at the scale and scope needing referral to SODOT headquarters; rather, SODOT division offices and local agencies are encouraged to implement them under their own authority. • To provide consistency in traffic analysis across the state, the statewide travel demand model will be used to estimate the traffic flows entering and exiting a corridor, but the actual distribution of internal corridor trips will result from a corridor-specific model. Economic forecasts at the county level will be obtained from the South Orange Department of Community Affairs and will be used as control variables for county population and employment growth forecasts. • Crash data shall be obtained from SODOT’s crash database, and condition data for pavements and bridges will be obtained from SODOT’s pavement and bridge management systems. SODOT’s cost template will be used to estimate expected costs associated with different projects and strategies. • SODOT realizes that considering the environmental impacts of proposed projects or strategies will be an important element of the individual corridor studies; therefore, corridor-level, project, and strategy assessments will consider the range of impacts that are currently stipulated in federal and state environmental laws and are appropriate for the types of projects and strategies under consideration. In addition, the state has recently adopted a climate action plan that has placed the responsibility of reducing transportation-related greenhouse gases with SODOT. SODOT is in the process of preparing guidance on how such an assessment should be conducted. When approved, this guidance will become part of the SWCP guidelines. • Corridor studies shall result in purpose and need statements for candidate projects that might require an environmental analysis. Sufficient detail on potential environmental impacts shall be provided to allow SODOT to conduct a “fatal flaw” analysis of potential new roadway alignments. • All proposed capital projects greater than $1,000,000 shall have a benefit/cost analysis conducted that will be considered by SODOT, along with other relevant evaluation criteria. An evaluation template will be used to standardize the presentation of project-specific information to SODOT. • Innovative funding sources should be considered in every corridor study, with specific attention given to the steps needed for their use and implementation. • Project decisions that have reached a level of consensus from the corridor planning process should be documented and forwarded to the Bureau of Transportation Planning as soon as they are approved as part of the corridor plan. In this way, SODOT does not have to await the final corridor study report to consider a project for inclusion in the statewide plan update or in the STIP. • All federal requirements for statewide planning (such as providing opportunities for consul- tation with non-metropolitan officials in the planning process) shall be included in the corridor study design. The SODOT Director of Planning also realized that SODOT needed to be better organized to utilize the SWCP approach to statewide planning and worked with the Secretary and other Hypothetical Example: Application of SWCP Guidance to the State of South Orange 23

DOT executives to implement the following organizational changes within the agency. An SWCP Committee was formed, consisting of the Directors of Planning, Project Development/ Pre-Construction, Traffic Operations, Capital Programming and Investment, Intermodal Programs, and the Deputy Secretary. This committee meets quarterly to assess projects that have surfaced from the ongoing corridor studies that are to be considered for the statewide plan update and/or the STIP. In addition to expanding the internal decisionmaking structure, SODOT requires that at least one SODOT official sit on each corridor study decisionmaking body. The presence of the SODOT representative is intended to provide the state’s perspective in meeting state-significant goals and issues. Establish a Corridor Network The Governor of South Orange has identified fostering economic development and connecting regions within the state as two of the most important policy goals of his administration. It turns out that both goals have been part of the SODOT policy vision and goals for some time. South Orange has historically been a manufacturing state, but over the past several decades, this manufacturing base has switched to a service economy. Tourism is an important industry for South Orange, and there are several major military bases that will likely serve as points of debarkation in the event of a national mobilization. South Orange has several ports, includ- ing a container port that is among the fastest growing in the country. The capital of South Orange, Orangeville, is one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the country and has major state radial freeway corridors that include express bus services, heavy rail lines in two corridors, and proposed commuter rail services in three other corridors. Orangeville’s airport is one of the busiest in the country and has provided the foundation of much of the economic growth in the metropolitan area. SODOT officials identified the following criteria for defining a network of state significant corridors: • State highways with > 50,000 AADT; • Urban state highways > 75,000 AADT and transit service; • State highways connecting all urban areas > 50,000 population; • Corridors with Class 1 freight rail service; • Roads connecting major intermodal facilities (such as airports and ports); • Roads connecting military bases to ports; and • Hurricane evacuation routes. Another criterion that was added by the Director of Planning was the existence of a South Orange highway corridor that was part of a multi-state corridor planning study. Such a criterion was not included in the original list because of the unique nature of such a planning effort. In this case, the SODOT is participating on a multi-state task force examining a corridor that connects the major port city in South Orange to the rest of the nation. Figure 3 shows the corridors defined after application of these criteria. Identify Study Corridors The SWCP Committee decided that major corridor studies should be initiated for all corridors of state significance rather than relying on an abbreviated analysis. The SODOT Director of Planning realized that not all of the corridors could be subject to corridor studies at the same time. A methodology was therefore created to identify which corridors deserved urgent attention, and a schedule was developed for the remaining corridor studies. 24 A Guidebook for Corridor-Based Statewide Transportation Planning

It was expected that the initial corridor study cycle would take up to 6 years, and the subsequent planning cycle (i.e., the time between updates of a corridor plan) would be approximately 10 years unless priorities changed. Of course, any significant change in study context (e.g., a major new automobile manufacturing plant moving into the corridor) could create the need for an earlier study update. The methodology and criteria used to identify the corridor study schedule are shown in Table 1. The approach was very straightforward: simply assign points on a 1 to 5 scale of how each corridor related to a specific consideration. For example, one criterion is the perceived feasibility of multimodal options in a corridor to address issues and alternatives related to commuter rail and the movement of freight. The scale was set as a “1” for the lowest possible achievement of a particular consideration, and a “5” meant that the corridor had the best possible achievement. The shaded corridors indicate those that have been identified as being of greatest priority and, thus, will proceed first. SODOT has entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the South Orange Department of Environmental Affairs that outlines the agency responsibilities and commitments in incorporating environmental factors into the corridor studies to produce a defensible purpose Hypothetical Example: Application of SWCP Guidance to the State of South Orange 25 Major Facilities Corridors of State Significance Figure 3. South Orange’s major transportation network and corridors of state significance.

and need statement. The Director of Planning also anticipates developing similar MOUs with the state’s regional planning organizations and modal agencies that outline the expectations associated with corridor study methodology and results, as well as the respective organizational responsibilities. Once the state-significant corridors have been identified and scheduled, corridor studies have to be initiated. The Director of Planning realizes that simply defining corridor boundaries can be a contentious issue with local officials. In the case of the SWCP approach, not only will a corridor study recommend improvements that are aimed at locally defined problems, but it will also address issues of statewide significance. Thus, the corridor study area boundaries must be wide enough to encompass all of the issues relevant to the differing perspectives. The SWCP guidelines recommend that, at a minimum, a 10-mile corridor boundary be adopted, centered 26 A Guidebook for Corridor-Based Statewide Transportation Planning Corridor H ig h tr af fic v ol um e Fe as ib ili ty o f m u lti m od al o pt io ns C ity co nn ec tio ns C on ne ct io n to ru ra l a re a s C la ss 1 ra ilr oa d n et w or k In te rm od al a cc es s H ur ri ca ne e va cu at io n M ili ta ry b as e ac ce ss To ta l S co re Pr io ri ty S ch ed ul e City A to City B 2 1 5 1 5 3 1 1 19 In 5 to 6 years Town E to City U 3 5 4 3 2 2 1 2 22 In 2 to 4 years Johns AFB to Port A 1 5 2 3 3 4 2 5 25 In 2 to 3 years State line to City B 4 1 2 4 3 1 3 1 19 In 5 to 6 years Port A to City W 5 1 3 3 2 3 5 1 23 In 2 to 3 years City U to Town F 3 2 3 3 5 2 3 3 26 In 1 to 2 years City Z to City P 2 4 5 1 4 5 2 2 25 In 2 to 3 years State line to Town F 2 3 2 3 4 3 2 2 21 In 4 to 5 years Port B to City B 3 5 3 2 5 4 5 4 31 In 1 to 2 years Miles Army Base to Port A 4 2 3 4 4 4 3 5 29 In 1 to 2 years City I to City U 5 2 5 1 2 2 1 2 20 In 4 to 5 years Town F to City X 5 4 2 3 1 1 3 3 22 In 2 to 4 years City X to City B 4 3 5 2 2 4 1 1 22 In 2 to 4 years City B to state line 3 5 2 3 4 3 2 1 23 In 2 to 3 years Port A to City X 2 5 3 4 3 2 5 3 27 In 1 to 2 years City X to City Y 4 2 5 3 2 3 2 4 25 In 2 to 3 years City B to City C 1 4 5 3 2 2 3 1 21 In 4 to 5 years Key: 1 = Very low priority; 2 = Low priority; 3 = Medium priority; 4 = High priority; 5 = Very high priority. Table 1. Methodology for selecting priorities in scheduling corridor studies.

on the major highway in the study area. If major alternative modes (such as rail) run parallel to the corridor and provide an alternative mobility option but are not within this boundary, then the boundary should be expanded. Conduct Corridor Studies (Elements Related to the SWCP Approach) The Director of Planning realized that each corridor study would likely have characteristics and issues specific to each corridor. However, the Director wanted to make sure that each study has common elements so that the studies’ recommendations could be compared for relative effectiveness. The following corridor planning steps were identified as having important elements that required that state interests be represented. Establish Organizing Principles and Institutional Structure One of the most important starting points for any corridor study is the creation of a study management and/or advisory committee structure. Given that most of the corridor studies will be managed by agencies other than SODOT (e.g., regional planning agencies), it is likely that the study management structure will differ in important ways from one part of the state to another. However, the Director of Planning wanted to ensure that SODOT had representation on every corridor study management and/or advisory committee structure to ensure that the state’s interests were represented throughout the study. Therefore, corridor study guidelines required that a SODOT representative from the Bureau of Transportation Planning and from the relevant SODOT district office be part of each corridor study. SODOT wants each corridor study to result in a purpose and need statement that will satisfy federal and state environmental requirements. Thus, SODOT has recommended that representatives from the state environmental agency be part of the corridor study committee structure, as well as representatives from federal resource agencies, if agency participation can be obtained. The corridor process guidelines also included a recommended set of minimum steps that each corridor study should follow. This overall planning framework was intended to ensure that each study would have common characteristics and would result in similar types of project and strategy information. One of the more important steps in the corridor study process is the development of a public involvement program. SODOT has developed materials relating to issues of state interest that should be incorporated into every corridor study public involvement program. Identification of Vision, Goals, and Performance Measures SODOT already had an adopted policy statement that outlined the vision and goals for a statewide transportation program. This policy statement was synthesized and put in the form of a template that could be used in corridor studies. As one would expect, the vision statement and planning goals were defined in rather abstract terms, so the SODOT Bureau of Transportation Planning identified several common performance measures that were to be part of every corridor study assessment. These measures were considered important by SODOT officials because this information was to be used later in the process when projects from different corridor studies would be prioritized into a statewide investment program. It was fully expected that each individual corridor study would produce its own set of performance measures that reflected the problem definitions of local stakeholders, but SODOT wanted to ensure that some measures were the same for every study. Hypothetical Example: Application of SWCP Guidance to the State of South Orange 27

The system performance measures required by the state included • Travel time delay, volume/capacity ratios, and level-of-service measures, both during normal operation and during periods of evacuation (South Orange is in a hurricane zone); • New transit ridership (if appropriate); • Number and extent of bottlenecks; • Crashes by type (fatality, personal injury, and property damage only); • Accessibility to major employment and industrial sites; • Pavement and bridge conditions; and • Environmental conditions (noise levels at sensitive locations, emission levels at key spots, acres of wetlands impacted by the transportation system). SODOT officials spent considerable time developing this list of performance measures. The process was not as simple as might be expected. The natural tendency was to identify a large number of performance measures that covered every possible topic of interest to the state, but the planning director knew that the more performance measures there are in the list, the more difficult it is to establish a sense of what is really important. In addition, the Secretary of SODOT wanted to ensure that the performance measures that were to define “state interests” truly reflected a sense of what was important to state officials and key stakeholders, as well as the general public. Thus, SODOT commissioned a market research firm to conduct public surveys aimed at gauging the level of public concern on different system performance issues. The Bureau also used its existing public involvement capabilities to interview approximately 50 key stakeholders in the state to identify what they considered to be the most important measures of acceptable system performance. The final six measures resulted from this effort. In fact, the Secretary was so impressed by the effort to identify these measures that she decided to use them as the foundation for an annual “state of the system” report to be produced by SODOT. Problem Identification Corridor needs and problem areas will differ from one study to another. However, SODOT identified several policy areas that every corridor study should investigate. A template, in the form of a set of questions, was prepared for each policy area. An example template for freight issues is shown below. 28 A Guidebook for Corridor-Based Statewide Transportation Planning Template for Considering Freight Transportation in Corridor Studies ✓ What are the current and expected freight flows in the corridor? ✓ Where are the most important intermodal facilities and distribution/warehousing centers and what is their future growth? ✓ Where are the highest numbers of truck-car or rail-car crashes? ✓ What is the expected growth in freight traffic? ✓ Where are the key freight bottlenecks today? In the future? ✓ Will there be any changes in land use that could significantly affect freight movements in the corridor? ✓ What types of strategies can be implemented to improve freight flow in the corridor? Is modal diversion a feasible option? ✓ What types of innovative funding strategies can be used to support freight- related infrastructure improvements?

Given the concern for potential environmental impacts, SODOT has required that an environ- mental overview be conducted as part of each corridor study to identify areas of high environ- mental sensitivity—that is, areas where some effort would likely be needed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental impacts. SODOT suggests that the corridor agency sponsor use the environmental resource base maps prepared by the state environmental agency for identifying these sensitive areas. By using GIS, the corridor study sponsor should delineate locations where changes to the transportation system could cause major environmental disruption. Participation from the state environmental agency should occur at this early stage. SODOT has also stressed in its process guidelines that problem definitions should be multi- modal to the extent possible. This means that a problem should not be defined as “widen State Route 93 from city X to city Y.” Rather, the problem definition should be portrayed as being “inadequate or insufficient transportation system capacity to provide desired mobility.” This implies that such capacity could be provided with different transportation modes or by managing the demand more judiciously to free up capacity during peak periods. Alternatives Identification and Analysis Each corridor study will identify strategies and project types relevant to the problems in the corridor. SODOT, however, wants to ensure that certain types of alternatives are considered in each study. Accordingly, the corridor study guidelines include the following strategies to be considered in each corridor: • Multimodal strategies, where appropriate, that encourage the use of alternative modes of travel; • ITS technologies as described in the ITS statewide systems architecture; • Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies that reduce the demand for road capacity at the most congested locations (including pricing strategies); • Transportation system management (TSM) strategies that promote the more efficient utilization of existing transportation system capacity; • In collaboration with local communities, land use strategies that provide a long-term benefit in reducing traffic demand on the state’s road network; and • Strategies aimed at reducing crashes, including non-engineering strategies targeted at risk drivers. The SODOT Director of Planning attended a conference where the illustration shown in Figure 4 was presented. The Director felt that this illustration indicated quite well the types of strategy combinations that each corridor study was expected to produce. Figure 4 was thus included in the corridor study guidelines. Given that many of the corridor studies will likely be undertaken by consultants, the Director of Planning wanted to ensure that the data and analysis methods used in each study were consis- tent with state practice. Accordingly, SODOT included the following requirements in the process guidelines: • The state travel demand model should be used to obtain the external-external, external-internal and internal-external trips in the corridor. It is expected that the state’s travel demand model will be used by the consultant in obtaining this information. • The socio-economic forecasting for the corridor should be consistent with the state’s own forecasts for population and employment in the corridor. • Crash data will be obtained from the state’s crash database. • The planning time horizons for analysis will be 5 years, 10 years, and 25 years. • If a corridor is of such a length that it traverses multiple regional planning agency boundaries, efforts shall be made to make the corridor analysis consistent with each agency’s own planning analysis efforts. Hypothetical Example: Application of SWCP Guidance to the State of South Orange 29

Project and Corridor Evaluation The purpose of an evaluation process is to assess the relative merits of different alternatives and to determine which are more feasible, more performance-effective, or more cost-effective based on the stated goals. For projects under SODOT jurisdiction, state officials will be faced with the typical challenge of choosing among a set of projects given limited funding. Accordingly, the corridor study process guidelines include a requirement for certain types of information to be provided as part of the evaluation process. Of special importance, they need to be tied to the alternatives recommended for state consideration. In addition, some of this infor- mation will result from the application of certain types of evaluation methodologies, such as benefit/cost analysis. Therefore, not only is SODOT requesting specific types of information, but in some cases it is requiring that certain evaluation methods be used as well. Changes in the following information are to be provided to SODOT for any state projects resulting from the corridor study: • Congested hours in the period of 6:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. (number of hours); • Peak free-flow average speed/current peak average speed; • Volume/capacity ratio; • Crashes (3-year average); • Industrial sites accessed (number of sites); • Benefit/cost ratio; • Cost/rider for transit; and • Key environmental measures specific to potential project impacts. To provide consistency from one study to another, SODOT has developed a manual on how such information can be provided with emphasis on how to conduct a valid benefit/cost analysis. The Director of Planning realized that one of the weaknesses of previous corridor studies has been the non-standard approaches toward estimating project costs. Therefore, the Director has incorporated into the guidelines a requirement that study analysts must use a standardized 30 A Guidebook for Corridor-Based Statewide Transportation Planning Mobility and Accessibility DEMAND MANAGEMENT Planning & Zoning Phasing/Adequacy Density Mixed Use Urban Design Intelligent Transportation Systems Transit Facilities and Services Intermodal Facilities and Services Traffic Engineering Bike/Walkways Alternative Modes Alternative Work Locations Employer Support Programs Financial Incentives and Disincentives Pricing System Operations Growth Management Source: Meyer, M., and E. Miller, Urban Transportation Planning: A Decision-Oriented Approach, New York: McGraw-Hill (2001). Figure 4. Combination of corridor strategies.

cost template for estimating the capital and life-cycle costs of the projects being considered. This cost template was based on the past 5 years’ of cost data for different types of projects. Project and Corridor Investment Program In the SWCP guidelines, it was emphasized that the major product of a corridor study will be a corridor plan with specific recommendations for the implementation of projects and strategies. Some key directions were given in how this was to be done. Many of these projects and strategies will focus on solving issues that are more local in nature and, thus, will require local implementation. For projects on state highways, the adopted corridor plan will clearly delineate those for which the SODOT is responsible. The corridor plan submittal to SODOT will be organized in the following categories: • Projects on the state highway network; • Projects not on the state highway network that need state action; • Non-highway projects; and • Projects using innovative funding strategies. Projects identified in each of these categories should be prioritized based on the evaluation criteria identified earlier and, in some cases, by funding category. In particular, those projects that best meet the state identified goals should be clearly noted. In addition to capital projects, the corridor plan should identify other strategies that are important to maintain the future performance of the transportation facilities in the corridor, such as those relating to land use and demand management. Also, the corridor study could identify legislative or regulatory changes that might have to be adopted to implement a particular strategy (such as safety or access management). Identify Statewide Investment Program The organizational structure created by SODOT at the beginning of the SWCP process has proven to be very useful in developing a statewide investment program based on the results of the corridor studies. The SWCP management committee has met several times since the SWCP process was established and has found that the corridor planning approach to statewide planning provides a timely and more operations-oriented perspective on a state investment program than does the systems-wide approach used previously. The committee initially relied on the existing South Orange Long Range Statewide Transporta- tion Plan as the foundation for projects being forwarded into the STIP. However, as recom- mended projects started to be forwarded to SODOT, the committee considered each from the perspective of statewide priorities. Given limited resources, not all of the projects were recom- mended for inclusion in the plan and STIP; however, the level of specificity associated with the projects recommended in the corridor studies did allow the committee to determine which projects were more important than others with respect to statewide goals. One of the useful aspects of the SWCP approach was that projects and strategies for improving state transportation system performance other than highway expansion surfaced from the process. For example, given the more detailed examination of options in one par- ticular corridor, SODOT was able to identify operations-oriented, ITS, and TDM actions that are now being implemented to manage travel demand in that corridor. In another corridor, the regional planning agency that directed the study identified several potential transit options, including park-and-ride and express bus, that most likely would not have been considered under Hypothetical Example: Application of SWCP Guidance to the State of South Orange 31

a more traditional statewide planning process. A more detailed alternatives analysis is now being considered for this corridor. One of the key issues facing SODOT was how to prioritize the many projects coming from dif- ferent corridor studies as well as from other sources. The Director of Planning was aware that there are a variety of ways to establish the relative value of one project versus another. However, with the large number of projects expected to be recommended from the SWCP process, there was a good chance that statewide consistency in considering different projects could be lost without some framework for comparison. The need for this framework became apparent after initial efforts to compare all projects on the basis of a benefit/cost (B/C) ratio. The B/C ratio provided useful information concerning the level of benefits that would accrue given costs, but it did not take into account non-monetary benefits, and it showed little sensitivity to the level of investment. For example, a B/C ratio of 1.4 on a $100,000 project is difficult to compare with a 1.2 B/C ratio for a $10,000,000 project. To take these factors into account, the SODOT adopted a corridor project evaluation approach that placed all projects within quartiles for the range of values found among all corridor projects. This example method for prioritizing among corridor projects is offered as an illustration only. There are many other approaches that transportation agencies could use to serve the same purpose. A score of “4” was assigned to project factors that fell in the fourth quartile, a “3” in the third quartile, and so forth. Thus, for example, if the number of crashes (3-year average) for all projects ranged from 0 to 31 over 3 years, the quartiles would be defined as follows: • Quartile 1: 0–7 crashes, • Quartile 2: 8–15 crashes, • Quartile 3: 16–23 crashes, and • Quartile 4: 25–31 crashes. If a project crash record was 22 crashes, it would fall into the third quartile and receive a “3” in the scoring scheme. In other words, this implies that making improvements to a location having 22 crashes should receive greater priority than those having 15 or fewer crashes, and it should not receive a greater priority than a location having 25 or more crashes. The sum of the scores for each project provides a relative ranking of the projects from the perspective of state investment. The Director of Planning realized that the highway project rank- ings would most likely have to be undertaken by funding category since some funds cannot be transferred between programs. Transit or other modal projects would likely have to be handled separately as well. Table 2 shows an example application of this approach for some of the early SWCP corridor studies in South Orange. It will take some time for SODOT to cycle through all of the corridors that have been identified as being of state significance, but the experience to date with the SWCP process suggests that, once all of the corridor studies have been completed, the statewide transportation plan and STIP will truly represent a well-founded “picture” of the transportation needs of the state. If generating new funds is any indicator of a successful planning process, then the SWCP process has been very effective. Based on the initial success of the SWCP process, the state legislature provided additional funds to SODOT to expedite the process of completing the state’s corridor studies. State legislators did not want to wait for several years to get their projects considered as part of the statewide transportation plan. The Secretary of Transportation was pleased that, for the first time in many years, the state legislature actually focused on the transportation planning process rather than mandating specific projects be built. 32 A Guidebook for Corridor-Based Statewide Transportation Planning

Conclusion While the SODOT scenario is hypothetical, it has been based on realistic examples and out- comes. The goal of this exercise has been to demonstrate real-life issues that can arise and how the SWCP process can be applied in addressing those issues. While there is no certainty that this will lead to an outcome similar to the one in the State of South Orange, the SWCP process can still provide positive benefits to state DOT planners and decisionmakers—and possibly to other state government decisionmakers as well—and a better statewide transportation system. Hypothetical Example: Application of SWCP Guidance to the State of South Orange 33 Key: Quartile 4 = 4 points; Quartile 3 = 3 points; Quartile 2 = 2 points; Quartile 1 = 1 point. Corridor Projects N um be r o f c on ge ste d ho ur s i n 6: 00 A . M .– 8: 00 P . M . p er io d Pe ak fr ee -fl ow a ve ra ge sp ee d/ cu rre nt pe ak a ve ra ge sp ee d V ol um e/ ca pa ci ty Cr as he s ( 3-y ea r a ve rag e) N um be r o f i nd us tri al si te s a cc es se d B /C ra tio To ta l f or H ig hw ay P ro jec ts N ew ri de rs Co st/ rid er fo r t ra ns it To ta l f or T ra ns it Pr oje cts K ey e nv iro nm en ta l m ea su re s s pe ci fic to p ro jec t im pa cts Corridor 1: Project A 2 3 2 4 2 3 16 None Corridor 1: Project B 1 3 1 4 3 4 16 AQ, Wetlands Corridor 1: Project C 3 2 2 3 1 2 13 Historic Corridor 2: Project A 4 4 2 2 2 4 18 AQ, Noise Corridor 2: Project B 2 1 3 3 1 2 12 Historic, AQ Corridor 2: Project C 3 3 4 4 2 3 19 EJ, AQ, Noise Corridor 2: Project D 1 2 2 2 1 4 12 None Corridor 3: Project A 4 3 3 3 4 2 19 AQ, Wetlands Corridor 3: Project B 2 1 4 1 2 4 14 Community, AQ Corridor 1: Transit A 2 1 3 None Corridor 2: Transit A 3 2 5 Historic Corridor 2: Transit B 4 2 6 None Etc. Table 2. Prioritizing projects among corridors.

Next: Section 5 - References »
A Guidebook for Corridor-Based Statewide Transportation Planning Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 661: A Guidebook for Corridor-Based Statewide Transportation Planning explores a template for corridor planning designed to help states to better understand the implications of transportation decisions on mobility, communities, economic development, and environmental stewardship.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!