Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs (2016)

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.

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Appendix A – Public Agency Interviews Page A-1 September 2015 APPENDIX A PUBLIC AGENCY INTERVIEWS STATE AGENCIES CALTRANS Minh Lee, Caltrans District 04 Minh Lee reviews intersection designs at the environmental review stage of a project. Proposed signalized intersections are reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If the intersection is already signalized, the review consists of looking at volumes, turn counts, etc. and how they might affect other signalized intersections. If the intersection is not signalized and a signal is proposed, Caltrans reviews projections for 30 years in the future to evaluate the long-term operations and safety effects. He is not usually involved with cost issues. Katie Yim, Caltrans District 04 Katie Yim is responsible for safety projects and investigations in Solano and San Mateo Counties. She looks at crash data and identifies candidate mitigation measures such as signals or roundabouts. For safety projects, she will discuss projects with a traffic liaison from Caltrans Headquarters and identify a single alternative for funding. Roundabouts and traffic signals are usually considered as options. Caltrans Headquarters has the final determination on the selected alternative. Once the request is made from the District, Headquarters determines whether to take the request to the project initiation stage. Evaluations of project alternatives include reviews of crash histories and existing geometries. This information is used to compute a Safety Index that informs which improvement should be given priority. The cost of an alternative is considered only for funding purposes. If the intersection meets crash warrants, there is a special safety fund for such improvements. If it does not meet crash warrants, they can still propose to cover the costs under the safety fund. A tool like LCCET would be more useful to the funding authority (Headquarters) than the District. It may be useful for the District to have a tool to figure out what would give the best return on investment, but the type of analysis is not typically conducted at the District level. Robert Peterson, Caltrans Headquarters Robert Peterson is Branch Chief for Safety and Mobility Programs at Caltrans Headquarters. Peterson’s office deals mostly with safety issues. He is the statewide program advisor for state highway on preserving highway investment and the program advisor on safety.

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report September 2015 Page A-2 Appendix A – Public Agency Interviews Caltrans takes both a proactive and reactive approach to safety improvements. The reactive program is based on recommendations and proposals from the Caltrans District offices. Peterson’s office approves projects based on a benefit- cost ratio. Once the project is approved, Peterson’s office issues a Project Initiation Document, which is sent back to the District to notify them that their project qualifies for funding. Benefit-cost analysis is done strictly on the safety aspects. Caltrans uses a traffic Safety Index based on the existing collision pattern at the intersection. They look at how much it will cost to improve the intersection, then look at the estimated reductions in crashes to see if the project is worth funding. The following is from the Caltrans guidelines on Safety Index calculations: A Safety Index (SI) is a benefit-cost ratio analysis (calculation) of a proposed improvement. It is a measure of the crash cost saved by motorists expressed as a percentage of the capital cost of the improvement. A Safety Index calculation is required for spot improvements and for traffic safety improvement projects when reduction of crashes is a significant goal of the project. Examples of safety improvements that require a SI include: general spot improvements, signing, channelizations, safety lighting, truck escape ramps, climbing lanes, median barrier upgrades, left turn lanes, rumble strips, auxiliary lanes, shoulder widening, wet pavement correction, traffic signals, roundabouts, and curve corrections. Safety improvement projects are triggered when the SI is at least 200, meaning the benefit (dollar value of total crash savings to motorists over the project life) is at least twice the cost of constructing the project. Projects that have a less than 200 lack sufficient justifications as a safety project; however, the project may meet justifications for operational improvements based on a delay index. See the "Request Delay Index" task. The project engineer requests and obtains a SI calculation from the District Traffic Operations Branch. The project engineer must include with the request: project limits, type of project and description of proposed improvements, Design Designation, and the estimated total project construction costs. Operational Improvement projects require justification based on a Priority Index Number (PIN). A PIN is based on both a Safety Index and a Delay Index. If not already identified, the project engineers must obtain SI and DI calculations from the appropriate offices and should not perform their own calculations. Projects that are based on SI alone qualify as safety improvement projects and must maintain a SI of 200 or more up through the submittal of Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) to headquarters. At the Project Initiation Document

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Appendix A – Public Agency Interviews Page A-3 September 2015 (PID) phase a minimum of 230 is recommended to allow for cost adjustments. If project construction costs increase after the original SI calculation, a revised SI must be obtained. For this reason, care should be taken to exclude items of work not essential to a safety-related project. For example, District Hydraulics or Maintenance may recommend rehabilitation of culverts at the project location. However, this may not be vital to the safety of the motorist, raise project construction costs, and lower the SI. When the SI falls below the threshold, the project may potentially be delayed Crash costs are categorized by crash type and developed based on three-year crash history. If the project is classified as a major improvement, a 20-year horizon period is analyzed. For traffic signals, a 15-year horizon is evaluated. Ten years is considered for pavement treatment projects. Caltrans does not do discounting over time. To make up for the lack of discounting, they use a criterion of a 2:1 benefit-cost ratio (the federal standard is 1:1). Caltrans has funded a significant number of safety projects. However, no specific budget for safety expenditures has been identified, though the amount of dollars allocated is typically quite high. Caltrans would find a tool like the LCCET useful. They have launched an Intersection Control Evaluation policy, which is being rolled out this year. The policy requires agencies that plan major intersection changes to consider roundabouts as well as signals. There is also a proactive program for safety such as flattening side slopes, providing new guardrails, etc., but funding for this program is limited. JEFF WENTZ , MARYLAND STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, DISTRICT 2 Jeff Wentz is the Assistant District Engineer for the Maryland State Highway Administration (Maryland SHA) District 2, which comprises the majority of the northeastern portion of the state. This area is relatively rural compared to other parts of Maryland. Jeff indicated that District 2 is currently operating in a system preservation role due to limited funding. As such, safety improvements are the highest priority followed by operational improvements. When considering safety improvements, the District relies on an annual safety improvement needs list, which is based on a crash severity index system. A similar list exists and is referred to for operational improvements. The District usually focuses on intersection improvements, but will look at corridor-wide projects if needed. The agency recently completed to a 16-mile stretch of highway where spot intersection improvements conducted in isolation were not having an effect. Maryland SHA District 2 often considers benefit-cost ratios when evaluating improvement alternative. They have relied on consultants to perform that work.

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report September 2015 Page A-4 Appendix A – Public Agency Interviews W. SCOTT JONES, TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ENGINEER, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Scott Jones is involved with the Traffic and Safety Division within the Utah DOT. Scott indicated that most of the intersection form selection is done at the project level. However, Scott assists with safety evaluations and helps to identify possible improvements based on safety, delay, and geometrics. The evaluations conducted do include life cycle cost elements, including the benefit and/or cost of crashes and vehicle delay. Scott also noted the wide range of intersection forms that exist within Utah, including roundabouts, double crossover diamonds, continuous flow intersections, single point urban interchanges, etc. JEFF BUCHER, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) is currently evaluating a spreadsheet tool that treats life cycle costs of signalized intersections and roundabouts. (A variant of this tool is also being tested by the Virginia Department of Transportation.) The tool includes capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, delay costs,and also provides for including safety benefits (crash reduction costs) as well. Emissions costs are not considered. PennDOT would be interested in testing the LCCET, provided it is compatible with their current evaluation practices. METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS VAMSI TABJULU, METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, CALIFORNIA The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) controls all federal and state transportation funding for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area in California. MTC funds signals for projects with state or federal funding. The MPO has programs in place to help local agencies fund retiming, coordination, signal upgrades, and new signal construction. Tabjulu’s office currently has no involvement with roundabouts. Programming is carried out as part of the RTP, which is typically updated every three to four years. MTC determines operation and maintenance costs based on the existing infrastructure in place. Currently, there are 9,000-11,000 traffic signals in the Bay Area. Most MTC funding goes to make improvements or upgrades to the arterial network. The agency’s mission is to ensure the regional system operates well. The local system is left to the local jurisdictions. Criteria are based on the overall scope of the program that has already been planned. A project has to fit into guidelines from the program. MTC reviews all applications; they typically get applications for more funding than is available. They try to fund as much as possible. Projects are reviewed for issues that come

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Appendix A – Public Agency Interviews Page A-5 September 2015 up such as construction as part of a larger project like a smart corridor. Priority is given to signals owned by the state. Corridors get top priority. If signal coordination is needed, that is given high priority. Corridors of regional significance are given high priority. Working with Caltrans is top priority. The MTC operations group was established six years ago and has a dedicated funding source devoted to traffic engineering, signals, etc. Over time, most signal projects of concern to the agency have been put into a regional signal timing program (RSTP). MTC works with local agencies to determine which projects to fund. MTC typically considers only short-term costs when evaluating project alternatives. They look at each project individually, but there is no formal process. The operations group within MTC has priority for projects that are of regional significance. There is no fixed limit on how much to spend. For example, San Jose had a project to upgrade signal controllers. MTC helped them upgrade and retime 650 signals, which represented about 75 percent of MTC funds for that fiscal year. MTC currently does not use a benefit-cost analysis for regional project screening. Priority of improvement projects is determined solely by regional significance. A benefit-cost ratio may be developed once a project is complete to justify additional funding. MTC sees see some value for a tool that would help them with cost estimation. Delay costs and air pollution cost estimates would also help with allocation at the program level for the RTP. MTC operations staff would like to see cost breakdowns by different elements. ALAN ROMERO, MONTEREY BAY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT, BAY AREA, CALIFORNIA The Monterey Bay Air Pollution Control District collects funds via the state- mandated measure AB2766. The District uses these funds for public agencies to reduce emissions. Anything that has to do with congestion management is eligible, though there is a funding limit on each project of $400,000. Funding for the District comes from a $4 fee per registered auto in the Monterey air basin, which generates $1.2 – $1.4 million annually. However, the 21 municipalities within the District typically generate $5 – $6 million in funding requests each year. Hence, the APCD uses guidelines from the California Air Resources Board to estimate emissions reductions for each project submitted. There is a predetermined criterion for cost-effectiveness based on dollars per ton of pollutant reduced. Pollutants include only criteria pollutants and particulate matter. The APCD looks favorably on traffic signal coordination projects and roundabout construction because these types of projects have proven to be cost- effective. Recent projects have also considered adaptive signal control systems.

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report September 2015 Page A-6 Appendix A – Public Agency Interviews The APCD requires use of the CARB method for pollution estimation. Typically the local agencies will contract with a consultant to do the emission reduction calculation. SIDRA is the most common tool used. Agencies that receive APCD funding have to provide a follow-up report on actual emissions reductions achieved. APCD sees the LCCET as potentially a useful tool for the grantee to do a post-project evaluation. COUNTIES ANDREW CIBOR, TRAFFIC ENGINEER, ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT, IDAHO Andrew Cibor is the County Traffic Engineer for the Ada County Highway District (ACHD), which is the county that comprises the majority of the Boise, Idaho metropolitan area. Andrew’s department within the county is responsible for the management and allocation of transportation capital improvement dollars. Andrew himself serves as the main technical resource within the department and is heavily involved in planning and funding allocation. ACHD currently has a large number of traffic signals and an increasing number of roundabouts in place. When future intersection improvements are considered, the county will always consider a signal and a roundabout. If a roundabout proves to be a viable option to meet capacity needs, the county will conduct a benefit/cost ratio analysis for all alternatives under consideration to further inform decision making. Related to the content of the LCCET, ACHD would like to see key environmental metrics incorporated and guidance as to how to compute the delay cost/benefit of an alternative. Specifically, should delay be estimated at different intervals through the horizon year, interpolated from existing to future, or some combination between the two. CHRIS DOTY, ROAD DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR, DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON Deschutes County governs the area within Central Oregon comprising rural lands, rural subdivisions, and areas of urban fridge around the population centers of Bend and Redmond. In addition, several upscale Destination Resorts exist within the county. Chris Doty acts as the Road Director and Public Works Director. Today, the county maintains a small number of traffic signals and at least one modern roundabout. Additional roundabout-like intersections exist in the Sunriver Destination Resort area, though these intersections were constructed prior to current US roundabout design standards were implemented. Future intersection improvement locations are generally identified via a general safety screening exercise where high crash areas are addressed. Life cycle costs are generally considered, but not exclusively relied upon.

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Appendix A – Public Agency Interviews Page A-7 September 2015 STACY SHETLER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON Stacy Shetler is the Traffic Engineer for Washington County, a large suburban county located in the southwest quadrant of the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area. Stacy is in an oversight role and manages the staff that is responsible for transportation improvement projects. Safety improvements are guided by a statewide safety priority index. Operational improvements are broader and focused on identified problem areas. The county currently operates traffic signals and roundabouts, though no roundabouts have been constructed in a truly urban environment due to right-of- way constraints. Existing roundabouts are in rural and suburban settings. Intersection improvement projects are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. No specific polices guide intersection form selection. Rather, the county works with local jurisdictions to identify options that work best for a particular set of circumstances. As of now, life cycle costs are typically considered. Most emphasis is on the initial capital costs of improvement options, though some long-term maintenance costs are considered. For development projects, benefit- cost ratios are calculated to determine the mitigation measures that should be implemented. RICHARD TORNESE – BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA Richard is Director of the Highway Construction and Engineering group within the Department of Public Works for Broward County. Richard is involved with many aspects of intersection and roadways improvement efforts, including programming, funding, planning, design, and construction. His group does not address maintenance. Final decisions on improvement projects and funding allocation are handled by the County Commission, which fields recommendations from the various departments. The County typically considers intersection improvement projects on a case-by- case basis. It would be rare for the group to address a corridor as a whole with a single improvement project. Broward County has a wide range of urban and rural areas. Currently roundabouts exist within unincorporated areas of the county. They do not have specific improvement policies in place that drive intersection alternatives, but Richard indicated that safety, congestion, and community input are big drivers in where improvements options move forward. When conducting analyses, Broward County will typically consider existing volumes, future volumes, crash histories, improvement costs, and right-of-way impacts. These data are sometimes used to develop benefit-cost ratios but usually only for larger infrastructure projects like bridges. Richard believes that the LCCET would be useful, especially if specific operation and maintenance costs were included as a default. His department has a difficult time calculating these costs for individual intersections since expenditures are not easy to extrapolate to planning-level estimates in this area.

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report September 2015 Page A-8 Appendix A – Public Agency Interviews CITIES BOB BRYSON, CITY OF MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN Bob Bryson is in charge of traffic signals for the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The city carries out all funding and implementation tasks (review, approval, etc.) for all traffic control devices as part of normal city operations. They also use some CMAQ funding. The city currently operates over 750 interconnected and coordinated signals and generally avoids considering roundabouts in the central area of Milwaukee.. The city already has an interconnected signal system. Roundabouts would disrupt operation of the signal system and are therefore not considered if they would affect signal operations. Hence, roundabouts are considered only in outlying areas. The city budgets for the installation of two traffic signals per year out of their capital program. Other signals may be installed if funded by developer contributions or if federal funds are available. Prioritization of new traffic signals is based on warrants, traffic volumes, crash history, and current operations. When considering improvement alternatives, the city considers only up front capital cost. Operations and maintenance costs come out of the city’s operating budget and are difficult to quantify for individual intersections. To address these costs at the citywide level, the city recently retrofitted signals with LEDs to reduce electrical and maintenance costs. The city would find value in the LCCET if it provided them with information on street lighting costs, LED costs, or other technological changes. STEPHANIE MORMILO, MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE, ALASKA Stephanie is the Municipal Traffic Engineer and works within the Traffic Division of the Public Works Department of the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska. The Traffic Division works with the greater Public Works group to determine how specific funding will be allocated. An internal committee deals with specific funding recommendations. Stephanie chairs that committee. The municipality will typically identify specific intersections that require improvement on a case-by-case basis, but always have an eye on how individual improvement could affect the larger transportation system. Currently the municipality maintains signals and roundabouts. For future intersections, no specific policies direct alternative considerations (i.e., “roundabouts first” policy), although roundabouts are typically considered. Current practices for long-range alternative consideration include life cycle cost analysis, though in a limited form. The municipality considers up front capital costs, delay, safety, equity, system connectivity (including for bicycles and pedestrians), maintenance costs, etc. In addition, a major consideration is the logistics and costs of snow removal relative to each alternative, though they do not have a good handle on the incremental costs of plowing a roundabout versus a conventional intersection.

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Appendix A – Public Agency Interviews Page A-9 September 2015 Anchorage interested in having a tool like the LCCET so that a benefit-cost analysis could be more readily applied. A current barrier to such an analysis being conducted is often the cost of doing a detailed evaluation. Instead, the municipality often develops a qualitative pros and cons list. Stephanie indicated that a tool like what is being developed as part of NCHRP Project 03-110 would be very useful.