Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 53
53
CHAPTER 5
Low-Cost, Quickly Implementable
Improvements
This chapter defines the criteria for low-cost and quickly gram rewards projects that could be implemented in one
implementable improvements to address freight mobility to three construction seasons. Such projects tend to have
constraints and presents strategies for addressing them. Infor- smaller right-of-way footprints, lack significant environ-
mation presented in this chapter is based primarily on the mental impacts, have community support, and are unlikely
results of the stakeholder interviews and surveys. This chapter to be delayed by other project development factors. "Low
also presents examples of low-cost, quickly implementable cost" is defined as being between $50,000 and $2 million.
improvements aligned with the freight mobility constraints "Quickly implementable" includes projects that can be
by mode. built within 3 years.
· New Jersey DOT has a program called Fast Moves, which
funds projects of up to $10 million. It does not have specific
5.1 Definition of Low-Cost, Quickly
thresholds for "quickly implementable" or "low cost," but it
Implementable Improvements
considers Fast Moves projects to be so because they gener-
An important element in determining low-cost and quickly ally lack extensive right-of-way or environmental complex-
implementable strategies to mitigate mobility constraints is to ities. Costs range from less than $2 million to more than
determine how stakeholders vary in their definition of low-cost $10 million.
and quickly implementable improvements. The following sec- · California DOT (Caltrans) has not developed a formal
tions discuss the modal definitions and summarize the charac- definition of a low-cost freight mobility project. However,
teristics of low-cost improvements followed by a generalized a low-cost project may only address certain elements of a
definition with caveats for each mode. problem or alleviate the congestion for a few years. Low-cost
projects may be more associated with an initial project phase
than with a particular strategy or program for building an
5.1.1 Highways
entire low-cost freight mobility project.
The agencies interviewed differ significantly when defining · Ohio DOT produced more than 700 quickly implementable
what would constitute a low-cost or quickly implementable and low-cost projects when it began an intensive and
project. In general, a low-cost and quickly implementable focused safety program in the mid-2000s. The projects were
improvement could be defined as one that does not require driven exclusively by safety and not by freight mobility. Proj-
special programming, does not require right-of-way acquisi- ects included basic improvements such as enhanced lane
tion, and is within budget limitations enabling implementation markings to delineate through lanes in areas of "lane drops."
at a district level. The consensus was that a low-cost improve- Pavement with poor friction was treated with thin overlays
ment project should be on the order of $1 million or less, and in areas where rear-end crashes were common. Lighting and
"quickly implementable" was considered to be 1 year or less. signage were improved.
To contrast, most agreed that a project requiring an investment
of $10 million was a fairly major effort. Outside of these specific programs, the personnel who were
Some specific examples of the definitions are presented interviewed across all responding agencies gave wide ranges in
below: their personal descriptions of what are "low cost" and "quickly
implementable." Officials who were accustomed to addressing
· Oregon DOT has a specific program that targets low- deficient system interchanges indicated that "low cost" could
cost, quickly implementable freight projects. The pro- be as high as $20 million. A project of $20 million that addressed
