Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:


Pages 32-46

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 32...
... Case Examples 39 military facilities that provide intermodal access or support access to universities or recreational areas are given additional points (Table 13)
From page 33...
... 40 Investment Prioritization Methods for Low-Volume Roads levels, are important to the State's role in providing system-wide transportation connectivity. These should retain their State Highway standing, but may afford ADOT an opportunity to fine-tune maintenance and operations practices to be more in keeping with the level of usage on the roadway (page ES12)
From page 34...
... Case Examples 41 within the Kaibab National Forest and thus is a candidate for route transfer to the Forest Service. Other routes may not be strong candidates for ownership transfer because they span multiple jurisdictions.
From page 35...
... 42 Investment Prioritization Methods for Low-Volume Roads internally to define investment strategies. Projects are typically considered within three groups: (1)
From page 36...
... Case Examples 43 designated as part of the interregional system because of their importance to specific communities or to system connectivity. ND 57 and US 281 from ND 57 to US 2 were both designated as part of the interregional system, despite having volumes below-the-average-interregionalper-mile volumes of approximately 3,500 AADT.
From page 37...
... 44 Investment Prioritization Methods for Low-Volume Roads Definition of a low-volume road. In Nevada, the roadway network is divided into five road prioritization categories based on AADT, equivalent single-axle load (ESAL)
From page 38...
... Case Examples 45 Category 4 roads to be similar to Category 5 roads within the maintenance fund allocation process. There is also interest in the potential for more quantitative measures of social, economic, or environmental considerations.
From page 39...
... 46 Investment Prioritization Methods for Low-Volume Roads Consideration of critical strategic issues. District-level prioritization for noncommerce routes does not formally consider social, economic, or environmental impacts.
From page 40...
... Case Examples 47 first part is prescriptive and quantitative, based on data included in the pavement management system. In the second part, field engineers add or deduct points from the scores of candidate projects, based on their own local knowledge and judgment, to arrive at a final ranking for approval by the South Carolina DOT's Commission.
From page 41...
... 48 Investment Prioritization Methods for Low-Volume Roads account for harder-to-quantify issues, while still providing a structured framework that asks those most familiar with the local context to consider the role of these roads in serving communities. Recent trends and interest in improvements.
From page 42...
... Case Examples 49 while two other cases (North Dakota and South Carolina) demonstrate how certain classes of roads are effectively inclusive of LVRs despite not being defined strictly in volume terms.
From page 43...
... 50 The research in this synthesis documents practices used by transportation agencies to make investment decisions about LVRs. The research responds to interest in methods that address the economic, social, and environmental impacts of LVR investments.
From page 44...
... Conclusions 51 objectives guiding LVR improvements (in contrast to an emphasis on achieving marginal travel time or cost savings for a large user group on higher volume roadways)
From page 45...
... 52 Investment Prioritization Methods for Low-Volume Roads improvements over time in the state of asset management systems and their use in state DOT planning and investment decision support. Nevertheless, data availability for LVRs still presents a challenge, even for basic inputs such as volumes and roadway conditions.
From page 46...
... Conclusions 53 • There is also agreement among interviewed state practitioners on the value of having flexible approaches that can incorporate bottom-up input and local knowledge that may not be available through centralized data-driven processes alone. • Nevertheless, there are still barriers cited by survey respondents related to the sufficiency of methods for capturing the importance of LVRs, sufficient availability of data and agency resources, and external stakeholder or internal agency buy-in.

Key Terms



This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.