Post on 18-Jul-2020
Statewide Strategic Transportation SystemTwo-Lane Operational Improvement Study Methodology - Final
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement StudyPID No. 97881
February 3, 2017
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology Page i
StatewideStrategicTransportationSystemTwo‐LaneOperationalImprovementStudyMethodology
Final
February3,2017
VAR‐STW‐STS2‐LaneOperationalImprovementStudyPIDNo.97881
Preparedfor:
OhioDepartmentofTransportationOfficeofStatewidePlanningandResearch
Preparedby:
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology Page ii
CONTENTSLISTOFACRONYMS....................................................................................................................................................................iii
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................................................1
TASK1–STAKEHOLDEROUTREACHANDPARTICIPATION.................................................................................................3
TASK2–DATACOLLECTION/EVALUATIONCRITERIA.......................................................................................................4
TASK3–EXISTINGANDFUTURECORRIDORASSESSMENT.................................................................................................6
TASK4–EVALUATEPOTENTIALIMPROVEMENTS................................................................................................................8
TASK5–STRATEGICPLAN......................................................................................................................................................13
LISTOFFIGURES
FIGURE1‐STUDYMETHODOLOGYFLOWCHART...................................................................................................................1
FIGURE2‐B/CANALYSISFLOWCHART................................................................................................................................12
APPENDICES
APPENDIXA‐LISTOFDELIVERABLES
APPENDIXB‐STAKEHOLDERINTERVIEWSUMMARY
APPENDIXC‐STAKEHOLDEROUTREACHSUMMARYOUTLINE
APPENDIXD‐DATACOLLECTIONCHECKLIST
APPENDIXE‐EXISTINGCONDITIONSREPORTOUTLINE
APPENDIXF‐NEEDSANDCONDITIONSREPORTOUTLINE
APPENDIXG‐GOODSMOVEMENTACTIVITYMODEL
APPENDIXH‐BENEFITCOSTANALYSISOUTLINE
APPENDIXI‐STRATEGICPLANOUTLINE
APPENDIXJ‐EVALUATIONMATRIXTOOL
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology Page iii
LISTOFACRONYMS ADT AverageDailyTraffic
B/C Benefit/Cost
ECAT EconomicCrashAnalysisTool
EIM EconomicImpactModel
ESRI EnvironmentalSystemsResearchInstitute
FASTAct FixingAmerica'sSurfaceTransportationAct
FIPS FederalInformationProcessingStandards
GIS GeographicInformationSystem
HCS HighwayCapacitySoftware
LOS LevelofService
MAP‐21 MovingAheadforProgressinthe21stCenturyAct
NPV NetPresentValue
PCR PavementConditionRating
QEIM QuickEconomicImpactModule
ROI ReturnonInvestment
ODPS OhioDepartmentofPublicSafety
OSTM OhioStatewideTravelModel
STS StrategicTransportationSystem
QA/QC QualityAssurance/QualityControl
TAZ TransportationAnalysisZones
TIMS TransportationInformationManagementSystem
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology Page 1
INTRODUCTION AspartofODOT’simplementationofanAccessOhio2040recommendation,OperationalStudieswillbeperformedalongeachofthe2‐LanehighwaycorridorsidentifiedontheStatewideStrategicTransportationSystem(STS)network.Thegoalofthesestudiesistoanalyzeportionsofthe2‐laneSTSthatarecriticaltofreightmovement.Recognizingtheimportantrolethesehighwaysplayinmovingfreightandascriticaltruckroutes,ODOTwishestolearnmoreabouttheiroperation,identifyfreight“bottlenecks”anddevelopandprioritizeneededimprovements.
Towardthisend,thisstudymethodologyisaimedatprovidingarepeatableframeworktoconductdetailedneedsassessmentsonall2‐LaneSTScorridorfreightroutes,withafocusonidentifyingincrementalsystemimprovementsthatwillenhancetheflowoffreighttrafficandfacilitateeconomicdevelopmentintheStateofOhio.
Figure1‐StudyMethodologyFlowchart
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology Page 2
AsdetailedhereinandsummarizedinFigure 1,themethodologywillbeconductedinfivetasks:(1)StakeholderOutreach,(2)DataCollection/EvaluationCriteria,(3)Existing&FutureConditionsAssessment,(4)EvaluationofPotentialImprovementsand(5)DevelopmentofaStrategicPlan.Thisdocumentwillbeheavilyutilizedtodevelopacorridor‐specificStudyMethodologyduringTask1.4.
ODOT’sin‐houseexpertiseandplanningtoolswillbereliedupontohelpshapeanddeliverseveralcriticalcomponentsofthestudythroughuseoftheOhioStatewideTravelModel(OSTM)anditsassociatedstandalonemodulesincludingUCost2,EconomicImpactModel(EIM),andtheQuickEconomicImpactModule(QEIM).OSTMoutputforecastdata,forthecurrentyearand2040horizon,willbeusedasthebasisfortheTask2operationalanalysis.
Consistentwiththemethodologycontainedherein,theintentforimprovementsthatarelargeenoughtofitwithintheparametersofEIMandUCost2,istoutilizeEIMandUCost2outputdataduringtheevaluationphase(Task4).Forsmallerimprovementsand/orwhereEIMandUCost2outputisnotavailable,anevaluationwillbenecessarytoincorporateacombinationofofflinecalculationsandtheQEIM,whereapplicable,asdescribedunderTask4.
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology Page 3
TASK 1 – STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH AND PARTICIPATION DuringTask1,kick‐off,mobilizeandorganizethestudy,performstakeholderoutreachanddevelopamethodologyspecifictothecorridorbeingstudiedusingthisdocumentasaframework.1.1Kick‐offMeetingArrangeandconductaprojectkick‐offmeetingamongtheprojectteam.Presentanddiscussthescope,issuesandopportunities,milestonedates,communicationprotocols,teamresponsibilities,deliverables,andotherexpectations.Provideameetingagendaandprepareminutesforelectronicdistributiontoallattendees. 1.2DevelopProjectScheduleDevelopaMasterStudySchedule,includingadetailedtask/sub‐taskworksequence.ThescheduleshouldalsoidentifyallmajordeliverablesandreviewtimesforODOTandotheragencystakeholders.1.3StakeholderInterviewsODOT’spublicoutreacheffortsduringtheAccessOhio2040studywereconsiderableandwillbeincorporatedintotheSTS2‐LaneOperationalImprovementStudy,asapplicable.ForthismorefocusedlookatfreightalongtheindividualSTScorridor,identify“targeted”freightusers,andotherstakeholders,includingODOTdistrictpersonnel,truckinglogisticspersonnelfrombusinessesandindustries,andpublicagencies(e.g.economicdevelopmentcorporationsandportauthorities)familiarwiththerouteanditsoperations.Theseinteractions,eitherbyphoneorin‐personasappropriate,withselectshippers,agriculturalrepresentatives,manufacturers,andlogisticsprofessionalsareaimedatgaininganunderstandingoftheirsystemperformanceneeds(e.g.,importanceofcost,velocity,reliability,etc.);modalusagepatterns;andchangingregional/national/internationaltradepatterns.Itisassumedthatten(10)interviewswillbeconducted.PrepareandmaintainacontactlistofstakeholderstobeapprovedbyODOT.Serviceswillincludeidentifyingstakeholders,preparingforandconductingindividualinterviews,inadditiontodocumentingallstakeholdermeetings.Developastakeholdersurveyinstrumentcontainingalist(s)ofquestionsthatwillserveasaframeworkforguidingtheinterviews.AsampleStakeholderInterviewSurveyisprovidedinAppendixB.Provide,intheformofaStakeholderOutreachSummary,aconciseoverviewofthemostpertinentstakeholderfeedback,includingexistingoperationalandsafetyissuesandanypotentialcountermeasuresputforward.AStakeholderSummaryOutlinehasbeenincludedasAppendixC.1.4StudyMethodology(Corridor‐specific)UsingthisVAR‐STW‐STS2‐LaneOperationalImprovementStudy–StudyMethodologyasaframework,prepareacorridor‐specificmethodologytailoredtomeetthespecificneedsofthecorridor.Oncethedraftcorridor‐specificmethodologyisready,itwillbepresentedtoODOTCentralOffice,District(asapplicable),andotherappropriateprojectteampersonnel.Afterreviewcommentsarereceived,allcommentswillbeaddressedandincorporatedintothefinalcorridor‐specificmethodology.
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology Page 4
TASK 2 – DATA COLLECTION / EVALUATION CRITERIA DuringTask2,beginimplementationofthecorridor‐specificmethodologydevelopedduringTask1.4.Collectanddistilldata,determinetheevaluationcriteriatogaugeproposedimprovements,developaninitiallistofpotentialimprovements,andsupplementgapsinexistingavailabledatabyconductingadditionalturningmovementtrafficcountsatstrategiclocations.2.1CollectionofExistingDataBegingatheringexistingdatabytakingfulladvantageoftheabundanceofsecondarysourcedatathatisalreadyavailablethroughODOT,includingavailableGeographicInformationSystem(GIS)mapping,theEnvironmentalSystemsResearchInstitute(ESRI)StateRouteInventory,andTransportationInformationManagementSystem(TIMS).AsummaryofavailabledatasourcesisprovidedinAppendixD–DataCollectionChecklist.Inaddition,researchandobtainapplicable,plans,studiesandreportsandseekoutadditionaldatarelatedtooperationalanalysis,levelofservice(LOS),triporiginsanddestinations,traveltime/delaystudies,crashrates,safetyassessments,truckfuelingstationandovernightparkinglocations,diversionanalysis,historicalanalysis,androadwaystandards.Tohelplimitthenumberoftrafficcountlocationsandextentofthedatacollectioneffort,performawindshieldsurveyofpotentialoperational“hotspots”alongthecorridor,includingintersections,segments,andotherindividuallocations.Maintainanongoingregisterofdatacollectioneffortsandprepareamemosummarizingthesourcesexamined,contactsmadeanddatagathered.2.2SiteVisitsTosupplementtheODOT‐availabledataandthealready‐performedwindshieldsurvey,performsitevisitsalongtheSTScorridortoclarifyobservationsandidentifyadditionalopportunitiesnotdiscernabledirectlyfromthedata.SitevisitswillincludequickexaminationsofTrafficControl/Signage,AccessPoints,ObservedOperations,andNon‐InventoryGeometrics(e.g.curveradiiandsightdistance).2.3DevelopEvaluationCriteriaDevelopevaluationcriteriaforthestudy.ThesecriteriawillthenbeusedinevaluationofproposedimprovementsandwillberevisitedaspartofTask4(EvaluatePotentialImprovements)andTask5(StrategicPlan)andincorporatedintothequantitative(i.e.Benefit/Cost(B/C))evaluationprocesstoensuretheprojectgoalsandobjectivesarebeingmet.Thesetofcorridor‐specificevaluationcriteriawillbederivedfromthesevennationalperformancegoalsestablishedinMAP‐21andcarriedforwardintheFASTAct,including:(1)Safety,(2)InfrastructureCondition,(3)CongestionReduction,(4)SystemReliability,(5)FreightMovementandEconomicVitality,(6)EnvironmentalSustainability,and(7)ReducedProjectDeliveryDays.TheevaluationcriteriawillbedocumentedinaSummaryMemo. 2.4ListofPotentialImprovementsWorkingwithODOT,includinglocalDistrictstaff,developapreliminarylistofpotentialprojectsforincrementalimprovementswithintheSTScorridor.ODOTwillprovideastatusupdateforallprogrammedprojectsunderdevelopmentalongthestudycorridor.ThelistwillbefurthersupplementedbyknowledgegainedduringTask1.3(StakeholderInterviews),Task2.1(Data
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology Page 5
Collection),andTask2.2(SiteVisits).ThispreliminarylistwillserveasthestartingpointforpotentialimprovementsthatareconsideredandanalyzedinTask3.2.5CollectionofNewTrafficDataItisanticipatedthattherewillbeaneedtosupplementtheabovedatawithlocal,more‐detailedtrafficcountdatainordertoconducttheoperationalanalyses.Afterareviewofdataalreadycollectedandthewindshieldsurvey,identifythenumberandlocationofturningmovementcountsthatarerequired.Turningmovementsaretoincludeindividualcountsfortrucksandpassengervehicles.PerformthenecessaryQualityAssurance/QualityControl(QA/QC)andprovidethecompletedcountstoODOT,forincorporationintotheOSTM.ODOTwillrunthefullOSTM(orasub‐area)andprovidebothcurrentyearandhorizonyear(2040)trafficforecastsfortheno‐buildcondition,andtheseforecastedvolumeswillbeusedduringtheTask3operationalanalysis.
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology Page 6
TASK 3 – EXISTING AND FUTURE CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT DuringTask3,performananalysisofexistingandfutureconditions,developadraftlistofneedsandimprovements,developconceptualplansandcostsforselectcountermeasures/improvements,calculateaninitial“litmustest”B/Cforthesediscreteimprovementsanddetermineacategorizationoftheimprovementsbasedonthescaleoftheirimpactsonthetransportationsystem.Theanalysis,atthisstage,islargelybasedontrafficoperations.Freightconsiderationsandeconomicimpacts,whileconsidered,willbeincorporatedviaexaminationofEIMoutputandqualitativeevaluationcriteriaduringTask4EvaluationofPotentialImprovements.Severalinterimdeliverableswillbeproducedduringthistask,andtheoverallfindingswillbesummarizedina“NeedsandConditions”report.3.1ExistingCorridorAssessment
Asafirststep,reviewOSTMforecastoutputdataforboththecurrentyearandfutureyear(2040)conditions.Then,toserveasaverificationmechanismandlaythegroundworkforthemore“finite”analysisrequiredtoanalyzetheimpactsofproposedimprovementsinTask3.2,performanoperationalanalysisforexistingconditionsusingtheappropriate,ODOT‐approvedanalysissoftware(i.e.HighwayCapacitySoftware(HCS),Synchro,etc.)forboththecurrentyearandfutureyear(2040)conditions.UsingOSTMdatasuppliedbyODOTasabasis,performanoperationalanalysisofboththeintersectionsandroadwaysegments,includingthefollowing:existingyearAMandPMpeakhourturningmovementsatidentified“hotspot”projectstudyareaintersections,existingyearADTforadjacentroadwaysegments,andexistingyearcapacityanalysisforstudyareaintersectionsandroadwaysegments.Inadditiontotheoperationsanalyses,performaSafetyAssessment,andaStandards(Roadway)review.Determineandsummarizeroadwaysegmentandintersectiondeficiencies.PrepareaDraftExistingConditionsReportforreviewandincorporatecommentsintotheFinalExistingConditionsReport.AnExistingConditionsReportOutlinehasbeenincludedasAppendixE.3.2ProposedCorridorAssessmentExamineandreviewdataforthefuture(build)conditionsanalysis,includingafurtherreviewoftheOSTMtobecomemorefamiliarwiththeinputdatarelatedtotheSTScorridor.ThereviewwillalsoconsidertheOSTMinputandrefinementsthattheprojectteammightsuggesttoeithermoreaccuratelydepictconditionsalongtheSTScorridororincorporatemorecurrentdata.ProvideODOTwiththeTask3.1operationalanalysisoutput.ODOT,attheirdiscretion,maywanttoincorporatethefindingsintotheOSTMandre‐runthemodel(orasub‐area),withtheintentofgettingupdatedfuturecondition/no‐buildoutput.StartingwiththeinitiallistofimprovementsdevelopedduringTask2.4,performoperationaltrafficanalysestodeterminethetrafficbehaviorassociatedwitheachdiscreteimprovement,foreithercurrentyearorfutureyear(2040)conditions,asappropriate.Likewithexistingconditions,performacapacityanalysisofboththeintersectionsandroadwaysegments,includingthefollowing:existingyearAMandPMpeakhourturningmovementsatidentified“hotspot”projectstudyareaintersections,existingyearADTforadjacentroadwaysegments,andexistingyearcapacityanalysisforstudyareaintersectionsandroadwaysegments.Proposedimprovementswillbeanalyzedtoensurethattheirimplementationdoesnotadverselyimpactadjacentroutesormerelyrelocateissuesontoothersectionsofthecorridor.Theimprovementswillberefinedbasedontheresultsoftheinitialanalysisandcapacityanalysis.
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology Page 7
Forthoseresultantimprovements,developconceptplans,asummaryfeaturesdescriptionandplanning‐levelcosts.TolimittheextentofthesubsequentworkinTasks4and5,performabasicB/Cevaluationofeachpotentialimprovementbasedonbenefitsderivedfromtraveltimesavingsandcrashreductions. 3.3IdentifyNeedsandImprovements(DraftList)ProvidealistofrecommendedimprovementsalongtheSTScorridor.Improvementswilllargelyfocusonoperationalenhancementstotheinfrastructureandmayinclude,butarenotlimitedtoitemssuchas:improvedsignage,signalcoordination,additionalsignals,shoulderexpansion,laneexpansion,turnlaneadditionsandlengthening,increasedbridgeclearance,increasedloadcapacity,intersectionreconfiguration,safety‐typeimprovementsanddataintegration(e.g.OHGO).Eachrecommendedimprovementwillincludeabriefdescription,costandB/Cratio.Recommendedimprovementswillbecategorizedintofourgroupsbasedonthescaleoftheirimpactsonthetransportationsystem:
GroupA–“Larger‐scale”Improvementsthataddcapacityand/ordiverttraffic(e.g.addingthrulanes;constructionofabypass)
GroupB–“Smaller‐scale”Improvementswheretraveltimesavingscanbequantified(e.g.additionofturnlane(s);installationofatrafficsignal;adjustingtrafficsignaltimings)
GroupC–“Smaller‐scale”Improvementswheretraveltimesavingscannotbequantified,butsafetybenefitscanbequantified(e.g.installingsignage;wideningshoulderwidths)
GroupD–“Smallerscale”Improvementswhereneithertraveltimesavingsnorsafetybenefitscanbequantified(e.g.increasingturnradii;wideningstructures)
PrepareaDraftNeedsandConditionsReportforreviewandincorporatecommentsintotheFinalNeedsandConditionsReport.ANeedsandConditionsReportOutlinehasbeenincludedasAppendixF.
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology Page 8
TASK 4 – EVALUATE POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS DuringTask4,beginbyreviewingtheevaluationcriteria,confirmingtheirapplicability,andmakingadditions,revisions,andadjustments,asneeded.TheevaluationofproposedimprovementsrecommendedinTask3.3willvarybasedontheircategorization(GroupA,GroupB,GroupC,orGroupD),asfollows:
GroupA–evaluatedusingEIM/UCost2. GroupB–evaluatedusingacombinationofECAT,QEIMandothertools. GroupC–evaluatedusingacombinationofECAT,othertoolsandqualitativemethods. GroupD–evaluatedusingacombinationofothertoolsandqualitativemethods.
MuchliketheOSTMinputsandparametersexaminedinTask3,reviewtheEIM/QEIMdefaultvaluesforinputsandparametersandrecommendedrefinementsoradjustments,asnecessary.Whereapplicable,ODOTwillperformthedirectentry,preparethenecessaryEIM/QEIMinputs(e.g.traveltime,cost,andphysicallayout)foreachimprovementandeachmodelrun.Uponreceipt,reviewtheEIM/QEIMfinaloutputs,forboththeindividualproject(i.e.incremental)andtheentiresystem(i.e.cumulative).Withthisinformationinhand,performtheeconomicdevelopmentanalysisandevaluategoodsmovementforGroupAandGroupBimprovements,utilizetheGoodsMovementActivityModel(seeAppendixG)tomakequalitativedeterminationsregardinggoodsmovementforallGroupCandGroupDimprovements.PerformareviewofB/CoutputfromEIM/QEIM,makingadjustmentstotheB/Cdataorperformingseparate,individualB/CanalysisforimprovementsthatcannotbeaccuratelymodelledinEIM/QEIM.Task4willculminateinpreparationofaB/CAnalysisSummaryReport.ABenefitCostAnalysis(BCA)ReportOutlinehasbeenincludedasAppendixH.4.1ReviewEvaluationCriteriaRevisittheTask2.3EvaluationCriteriaSummaryMemotoensuretheirutilityduringevaluationoftheneteconomicimpactsofvariousprojectalternativesandtheB/CAnalysis.Reviewthetrafficoperationalmetricssuchasdelay,LOS,traveltimesavings,alongwithsafety,mobility,access,andjobs/commerceevaluationcriteria.Atthisjuncture,considerreducing,weighting,andcombiningmeasurestodevelopODOT‐specificindicesasappropriate.Anattemptwillbemadetoascribeaquantitativefactororcosttoeachevaluationcriteria. 4.2ReviewEconomicImpactModel(EIM/QEIM)DefaultValuesForGroupAimprovements,reviewtheEIMdefaultvaluesforinputsandparametersandrecommendrefinementsoradjustments,asnecessary.ReviewEIMparameterfiles,includingFederalInformationProcessingStandards(FIPS)andTransportationAnalysisZones(TAZ),demographicdatafiles,employmentdatafilesandterminalsfilestodeterminewhichfactorsareused,theirsource,howtheyinformtheEIMmodeloutputandifanyadjustmentsarerequiredthatwouldprovidemorerefinedresults.ForGroupBimprovements,reviewQEIMparameterfilestodeterminewhichfactorsareused,theirsource,howtheyinformtheQEIMmodeloutputandifanyadjustmentsarerequiredthatwouldprovidemorerefinedresults. 4.3InputstoEIM/UCost2&QEIM,perImprovementPreparethenecessaryEIM/QEIMinputsforeachproposedimprovementandeachmodelrunbasedontheirTask3.3categorizationasfollows:
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology Page 9
GroupA‐Foreachoftheidentified“larger‐scale”potentialimprovements,providerepresentativeinputdataforuseintheEIMmoduleandobtaining“improvement‐specific”EIMoutput.Theinputdatawillincludecost,physicallayout,andtraveltimesavingsdata,byapproach,separatedbypassengervehiclesandheavytrucks,andforfourtimeperiods:AM(6AM–9AM),MD(9AM–2PM),PM(2PM–6PM)andNT(6PM–6AM).Whetherindirectly,viaAgeAssetorUCOST2,ordirectly,providethefollowinginputdatainaccordancewithODOT’sEIMUtilityUserGuide(dated8/11/2014)foreachoftheproposedimprovements:ProjectInformation,Costs(Project&Agency),andTraffic/Operations"Manual"DataAdjustments.GroupB‐Foreachoftheidentified“smaller‐scale”potentialimprovementswhereatraveltimesavingscanbequantified,providerepresentativeinputdataforuseintheQEIMmoduleandobtaining“improvement‐specific”QEIMoutput.Theinputdatawillincludecost,physicallayout,andtraveltimesavingsdata,byintersection,separatedbypassengervehiclesandheavytrucks,andforfourtimeperiods:AM(6AM–9AM),MD(9AM–2PM),PM(2PM–6PM)andNT(6PM–6AM).TheinputdatawillalsoincludeProjectLocation(i.e.County),ProjectCosts,andDailyTravelTimeSavings.GroupCandGroupD‐Foreachoftheidentified“smaller‐scale”potentialimprovementswheretraveltimesavingscannotbequantified,EIMandQEIMwillnotbeapplicable.PrepareaqualitativeassessmentofeconomicvitalityandgoodsmovementasdescribedinTask4.6andTask4.7.
4.4EIM/UCost2&QEIMModelRuns(ODOT)ODOTwilldirectlyinteractwiththeEIM/UCost2andQEIMmodulestomake“manual”datainputadjustments,runtheEIM/UCost2andQEIM,andprovideoutputdata.ApplicabilityoftheEIM/UCost2orQEIMtoaproposedimprovementwilldependonitsTask3.3categorizationasfollows:
GroupA‐ODOTwilldirectlyinteractwiththeEIMandUCost2modulestomake“manual”datainputadjustments,runtheEIM/UCost2,andprovideoutputdata.RelyuponthisEIM/UCost2outputdata,includingbutnotlimitedto,incremental(project)andcumulative(overall)impacts,economicmeasures(earnings,businessoutputs,jobscreated,valueadded,production,consumption,employment,andhouseholds,etc.)asthebasisoftheeconomicanalysis.RelyupontheEIMandUCost2modulesforexistingandforecasttraveldataandotheroutputrelatedtoB/C,andEconomicandFreightAnalysis.Provideassistance,asneeded,andrefineorcorrectinputdata,astherunsaremade.GroupB‐ODOTwilldirectlyinteractwiththeQEIMmoduletomake“manual”datainputadjustments,runtheQEIMandprovideoutputdatawhichwillinclude,forbothhouseholdsandfreight:Income,Employment(jobscreated),andEconomicOutput(summaryoftotaleconomicactivity(i.e.servicesprovidedandgoodproduced)generatedbytheimprovement).GroupCandGroupD‐EIMandQEIMwillnotbeapplicable.PrepareaqualitativeassessmentofeconomicvitalityandgoodsmovementasdescribedinTask4.6andTask4.7.
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology Page 10
4.5ReviewofEIM&QEIMOutputPerformareviewofB/CoutputfromEIM/QEIM,makingadjustmentstotheB/Cdataorperformingseparate,individualB/CanalysisforimprovementsthatcannotbeaccuratelymodelledinEIM/QEIM:
GroupA‐ReviewandanalyzetheoutputEIMdata,asavailable.Theoutputdatawillprovidethebasisformuchoftheevaluationandanalysisofeachproposedimprovement.Examinetheincrementalimpactsthatcanbeassociatedwitheachindividualproject,includingtheOperational,MarketAccessandConstructionoutputfiles.Fromthese,deriveearnings,businessoutput,jobscreatedandvalue‐addedoutput.Examinethetotalcumulativeimpactsofeachproject,asprovidedviaEIM,intheProduction,Consumption,Employment,Households,andSummarydata.TheseforecastsincludebaselineeconomicforecastdatafromTREDISandMoody’s.Usingthisdata,makefurtherdeterminationsasnecessaryregardingearnings,businessoutputandjobcreation.GroupB‐ReviewtheQEIMoutputdatawhichwillinclude:Income,Employment(jobscreated),andEconomicOutput(summaryoftotaleconomicactivity(i.e.servicesprovidedandgoodproduced)generatedbytheimprovement).GroupCandGroupD‐EIMandQEIMwillnotbeapplicable.PrepareaqualitativeassessmentofeconomicvitalityandgoodsmovementasdescribedinTask4.6andTask4.7.
4.6EconomicDevelopmentEvaluation
Evaluatetheeconomicanddemographicimplicationsofvariousprojectalternatives,includinginterpretationofEIM/QEIMandselectimprovement‐specificevaluations:
GroupA‐TakeadvantageofthevariousdataandgraphicaloutputsgenerateddirectlyfromEIM,withtheaimofmakingimprovement‐specificdeterminationsofthefollowingeconomicimpacts:Geography/Region,Sector&Industry,Labor/Jobs,Productivity/Operations/Efficiency,Development,andTax/AgencyBenefits.ThefindingsofTask4.6willbeincorporatedintotheoverallevaluation.PrepareanEconomicDevelopmentEvaluationMemo,andsummarizeeconomicdevelopmentevaluationlanguagefordirectinsertionintheTask5StrategicPlan.GroupB‐UtilizeQEIMtoevaluateeconomicbenefits.GroupCandGroupD‐Provideaqualitativeevaluationofeconomicvitalityandgoodsmovement,intandem,usingtheGoodsMovementActivityTool.Usingthetool,aweightedGoodsMovementIndexwillbeassignedtoeachpotentialimprovement.ThisqualitativemeasureprovidesarepresentationofthesignificanceofthegoodsmovementsectorandhowanimprovementalongthecorridormayaffecteconomicactivitywithinagivenCounty.ThequalitativeevaluationwillalsoincludeanyinformationprovidedbystakeholdersduringTask1.3andconsiderhowproposedimprovementsmayaffecteconomicactivity.
ThefindingsofTask4.6willbeincorporatedintotheevaluation.DevelopsummaryeconomicdevelopmentevaluationlanguagefordirectinsertionintheTask5StrategicPlan.
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology Page 11
4.7GoodsMovementEvaluationEvaluatethefreightandgoodsmovementimplicationsofvariousprojectalternatives,includinginterpretationofEIM/QEIMandselectimprovement‐specificevaluations:
GroupA‐ReviewEIMoutputandidentifytheexistingandemergingindustriesthataredrivingthestate’stradebasedeconomy.GroupB‐Identifytheexistingandemergingindustriesthataredrivingthestate’stradebasedeconomytosupplementthereviewofQEIMoutput.GroupCandGroupD‐For“smaller‐scale”improvementswheretraveltimesavingscannotbequantified,provideaqualitativeevaluationofeconomicvitalityandgoodsmovement,intandem,usingtheGoodsMovementActivityTool.Usingthetool,aweightedGoodsMovementIndexwillbeassignedtoeachpotentialimprovement.ThisqualitativemeasureprovidesarepresentationofthesignificanceofthegoodsmovementsectorandhowanimprovementalongthecorridormayaffecteconomicactivitywithinagivenCounty.ThisqualitativeevaluationwillincorporatestakeholderinputgatheredinTask1.3andconsiderhowincrementalproposedimprovementsaffectindustriesandnoteanyinfrastructuredeficienciesinthemovementoffreightalongthecorridor.
ThefindingsofTask4.7willbeincorporatedintotheevaluation.DevelopsummarygoodsmovementevaluationlanguagefordirectinsertionintheTask5StrategicPlan. 4.8B/CAnalysis
DevelopaB/CAnalysisforeachproposedimprovementassummarizedinFigure 2onpage12.Foreachimprovement,determine:NetPresentValue(NPV)oftheimprovementcost,NPVofthebenefit,andaB/Cratio.Wheredataisavailable,monetizebenefitsinthefollowingcategories:Safety(e.g.crashesbytype‐fatal,injury,andpropertydamage),Mobility(e.g.traveltimesavings,traveltimereliability),Access(e.g.tojobsandnon‐workactivities),JobsandCommerce(e.g.changesinemploymentandvalue‐addedoutput,changesinfreighttonnage),environmental(e.g.emissionreduction,improvedairquality,habitatimpacts)andInfrastructurePreservation(lifecyclecosts).DevelopaB/CAnalysisforeachproposedimprovementbasedonitsTask3.3categorizationasfollows:
GroupA‐EntireB/CAnalysiswillbeprovideddirectlyfromEIMandUCost2output.GroupB‐EconomicbenefitswillbeprovidedbyQEIMoutput.ThisoutputwillthenbeincorporatedintotheoverallB/CAnalysis.Transportationuserbenefits(e.g.fuelsavings)andsafetybenefits(e.g.crashreduction)for“smaller‐scale”improvementswillbecalculatedusingtrafficanalysissoftwareandODOT’sEconomicCrashAnalysisTool(ECAT),respectively.CompiletheindividualB/Ccomponentsprovidedbyeachmodel/tool(e.g.QEIM,Synchro,ECAT)intoaspreadsheettoprovideanoverallB/CAnalysis.GroupC‐SafetybenefitswillbecalculatedusingECATtoquantifyaB/Cratio.TransportationuserbenefitsandeconomicbenefitswillbeassessedqualitativelytosupplementthequantifiedB/Cfortheseimprovements.GroupD‐B/Cwillnotbedeveloped,andbenefitswillbeassessedqualitatively.
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology Page 12
PrepareaDraftBenefitCostAnalysis(BCA)SummaryReportforreviewandincorporatecommentsintotheFinalBenefitCostAnalysis(BCA)SummaryReport.TheBenefitCost(BCA)AnalysiswillserveasthebasisforevaluatingeachproposedimprovementandtoassistODOTindeterminingaprioritizationofimprovementsduringTask5.
Figure2‐B/CAnalysisFlowchart
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology Page 13
TASK 5 – STRATEGIC PLAN DuringTask5,developaStrategicPlanandgroupimprovementsintocategories,byimprovementtype,tohelpguidedecisionmakingforvariousprogramsandfundingsources.Prepareareportdocumentingtheworkperformedandrecommendationsmade.Thereportwillincludeaneasy‐to‐read,stand‐aloneoverviewmatrix/chartofproposedimprovementscompletewithcategorization,approximatecosts,andBenefitCostratio.ThevarioustechnicalmemosandreportsdevelopedinTasks1through4willbeincludedasappendices.TheStrategicPlan,excludingappendices,shouldbelimitedtoapproximately40pages.PreparetheStrategicPlanandpresent,includingfindingsandrecommendations,toODOTataStrategicPlanworkshop.AStrategicPlanOutlineisincludedasAppendixI.5.1PrepareDraftPlanandEvaluation
RevisittheTask2.3EvaluationCriteriaSummaryMemotoensuretheirutilityduringdevelopmentoftheStrategicPlan.AdraftStrategicPlan,incorporatingallfindingsandrecommendations,willbeprepared.ThedraftStrategicPlanwillprovideasummaryoverviewoftheindividualdeliverables,includingthestudymethodology,stakeholderoutreach,existingconditions,conceptdevelopment,analysis,andevaluation.Thereportwilldemonstratehowcriteriawereapplied,discussdatasources,analyticaltoolsandmethods,andprovideanoverviewoftheevaluationprocess.AcomprehensiveEvaluationMatrixwillbeincludedalongwithanarrativedescriptionofthemetricsandevaluationcriteriausedtoevaluateproposedimprovements.Improvementswillbegroupedintocategoriesaccordingtoprojecttype(e.g.,intersections,signals,signingandpavementmarking,bridges,pavement,andrailroadcrossings).TofacilitatefurtherevaluationanddecisionmakingbyODOT,theevaluationmatrixwillincludeallbenefits(quantitativeandqualitative).Thematrixwillbeprovidedinadigital,sortableformattoallowODOTplannersanddecisionmakerstodynamicallysortandviewinformationtosuitaparticularprogramneedorfundingsource,whetheraccordingtoprojecttype,cost,B/C,oranyindividualfactororsub‐factor.Thematrixwillalsoincludeaprioritizationofimprovementsintothreecategories:short‐term(1to3yrs.),medium‐term(3to10yrs.),andlong‐term(>10yrs.).AsampleEvaluationMatrixisincludedasAppendixJ.Asappropriate,thedraftplanwilladdressMAP‐21fundingrequirements.PresentthedraftStrategicPlanandEvaluationMatrixatahalf‐dayworkshoptobeheldatCentralOffice.Recognizingthatindividualprojectimplementationisdependentuponfundingavailability,need,projectdevelopmenttimeandotherfactors,projectprioritizationwillbediscussedduringtheworkshop.5.2SubmitFinalPlanIncorporateallcommentsmadeattheTask5.1workshopandsubmitarevisedfinalreporttoODOT.TheStrategicPlanwillbecomprisedoftwoparts:anexecutivesummaryandamainbody.Theexecutivesummaryshouldbestructuredtoserveasastand‐alonesynopsisoftheStrategicPlan.Themainbodywillincludesectionsthatspeaktoallelementsofthestudyprocess,asfollows:
Background Corridor‐SpecificMethodology StakeholderOutreach EvaluationCriteria ExistingConditions
FutureConditions NeedsAndImprovements BenefitCostAnalysis Evaluation
Theevaluationwillincludeastand‐alonematrixandsummarytablesforeachprojectcategorytypeand/orscenario.
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology
APPENDIXA
LISTOFDELIVERABLES
AppendixA
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology
Deliverable
StakeholderListing
DraftStudyMethodology
FinalStudyMethodology
EvaluationCriteriaSummaryMemo
DataCollectionSummaryMemo
DraftExistingConditionsReport
FinalExistingConditionsReport
DraftNeedsandConditionsReport
FinalNeedsandConditionsReport
CostBenefitAnalysisSummaryReport
DraftStrategicPlan
FinalStrategicPlan
EvaluationMatrixTool
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology
APPENDIXB
STAKEHOLDERINTERVIEWSURVEY
AppendixB
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology
US250FREIGHTSTUDY‐STAKEHOLDERINTERVIEWQUESTIONS
INTRODUCTION:TheOhioDepartmentofTransportation(ODOT)isconductinganeedsassessmentonUS250focusedonidentifyingincrementalsystemimprovementstoenhancefreightflows.ToensureODOTunderstandshowUS250isbeingutilizedforfreightmovement,theprojectteamisreachingouttoanumberofbusinessandpublicagenciesalongthecorridortogaintheirinsights.Wehaveafewquestionswewouldliketoaskyou.
QUESTIONSFORCOMMISSIONS/PORTAUTHORITIES:1. Haveyoureceivedanyfeedbackfromorganizations/companiesexpressinganyissuesorconcernswithtransportingtheirgoodsalongUS250?
2. Areyouawareofanypotentialorganizations/companiesthathaveexpressedinterestinlocatinginthisregionthatcouldhaveanimpactonthefreightflowalongtheUS250corridor?
3. Hasanorganization/companyindicatedtoyouthattheydecidednottolocatetothisregionbecauseofissues/concernswithlogistics,specificallyasitrelatestoUS250?
4. Basedonyourexperienceinthisregion,areyouawareofanyincrementalsystemimprovementsthatcouldbemadealongtheUS250corridorthatmightenhancefreightflows?
QUESTIONSFORPRIVATECOMPANIES:1. Business‐‐Whatdoesyourbusiness/agencydo?Whatdoyoumake/whatservicesdoyou
provide?Howmanytrucksdoesyourcompanyhave?Howmanydeliveriesperday/week?2. Shipping‐‐Howdoesyourcompanygetitsgoodstomarket‐‐Rail,truck,water?Doyouhave
truckingin‐house?Ifnotin‐house,whoareyourfreightforwarders,logisticspartners?3. Arethereanybottlenecks?Howmanytrucksadayarrive/departfromyourfacility?Whatare
thecommoditytypes?Wheredotheyenter/exitthecorridor?4. Inputs–Wheredoyoursuppliesandmaterialscomefrom?Fromwhatradiusisyoursupply
chaincomingfrom?Internationalvs.domesticshipments?Whichsegment(s)oftheUS‐250corridordoesyourfreighttrafficmostfrequentlytravel?Arethereanybottlenecksorconcernsthatyouhaveexperiencedorsuppliershavenotedlikeroadwayroughness,etc.?
5. Permitting–Doesyourcompany/constituentsrequirespecialhaulingpermitsforoversize/overweightloads?Haveyouexperiencedlimitationswithverticalclearances,bridgeloadlimits,pavementwidth,geometricswerefindingssuitableroutingisanissueonUS250?
6. DeliveryTimes–Whattime(s)ofdaydoyourdeliveriestypicallyarrive/depart?Dothesetimescoincidewithmorningandevening“rushhours”?Doesyourcompanyutilizejust‐in‐timedeliveryforfreight?Ifso,approximatelywhatpercentageofyourfreightutilizesjust‐in‐timeorjust‐in‐sequencedelivery?Aredriversabletomaketheirdoortimesconsistently?Ifnotwhy?
7. TruckSize/Configuration–Whatisthetypicallengthortypeofyoursemitrailers?Whatisthetypicalnumberofaxels(5or6)onyourtrucks?DoyouutilizeTruckTractor‐Semitrailer‐Trailer(DoubleTrailer)combinations?
8. WithrespecttoUS250inparticular,pleasedescribeindetailthenatureandlocationofany:a. Capacity/recurringcongestionissues.b. Signage–candriversfindyourfacilitywithoutissue?c. Operationalissues–e.g.segmentsorjunctionswheretruckmovementsareimpededd. Safetyissues–accidentsorotherincidentsthatcausehazardsanddelayse. Reliabilityissues–somedaysittakeslongerthanotherstotravelthesamesegments
9. Employees–Howmanyemployeestraveltoyourlocation?Wheredotheycomefrom?
10. OtherBenefits‐‐CanyouthinkofanyimprovementstoUS250thatmaybenefityourcompany/constituents?
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology
APPENDIXC
STAKEHOLDEROUTREACHSUMMARYOUTLINE
AppendixC
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology
STAKEHOLDEROUTREACHSUMMARYOUTLINE
1. Overview
2. IndividualStakeholderSummaries
2.1. PublicAgencies
2.2. Trucking/Logistics
2.3. Manufacturing
2.4. Retail
2.5. EconomicDevelopment
2.6. Intermodal
2.7. Oil&GasExploration
2.8. ODOTCountyManagers
2.9. Tourism
2.10. LawEnforcement
3. SummaryofIdentifiedOperationalandSafetyIssues
3.1. Map/FigureofIdentifiedOperationalandSafetyIssues
4. Appendices
StakeholderMeetingMinutes
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology
APPENDIXD
DATACOLLECTIONCHECKLIST
AppendixD
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology
Data Source InstructionsDate
Collected
ExistingTrafficData
TransportationInformationMappingSystem(TIMS)&Transportation
DataManagementSystem
(TDMS)
SelectLayers>RoadwayInformation>TrafficCountStationsIdentifydesiredTrafficCountStationonmapandfollowResultsweblinktoTrafficReportsforavailabledataatlocation
ForecastedTrafficData OhioStatewideTravelDemandModel(OSTM)&SimplifiedHighwayForecastingTool(SHIFT)
ContactGregGiamoGreg.Giaimo@dot.ohio.govatODOTOfficeofStatewidePlanning&Research
Safety/CrashData GISCrashAnalysisTool
(GCAT)&OhioDepartment
ofPublicSafety(ODPS)
GCAT:https://gcat.dot.state.oh.us/SSL/Login.aspx
OPDSCrashStatistics:
https://ext.dps.state.oh.us/crashstatistics/crashreports.asp
x
SpeedData INRIX RequestODOTProjectManagertocoordinatewiththeODOTOfficeofTrafficOperationstocontactTedTrepanierted@inrix.comatINRIXtoobtainprojectusagerightsforconsultant
BridgeConditionRatings TIMS/BridgeManagementSystem
SelectAssets>BridgeInventory
ForBMRP‐191/BR‐86:
http://bmsreports.dot.state.oh.us//bmsreports/jsp/de
faultFrames.jsp
BridgeLoadRatings/BridgeClearances
BridgeManagementSystem
http://bmsreports.dot.state.oh.us//bmsreports/jsp/defaultFrames.jsp
PavementConditionRatings(PCR)
TIMS SelectLayers>RoadwayInformation>PCR(State)
Oversize/OverweightLoads ODOTSpecialHaulingPermits
Section
ContactMikeMorelandMike.Moreland2@dot.state.oh.usSupervisorofPermits
Geometrics(forlocationsindicatingasignificant
safetyoroperational
issueonly)
RecordPlans/AerialMapping/TIMS
RecordPlans:SelectLayers>ProjectsinTIMSorContactLocalODOTDistrictMapRoom
AerialMapping:availablefordownloadbyCountyat
http://ogrip.oit.ohio.gov/ProjectsInitiatives/OSIPData
Downloads.aspx
HistoricalProjectActivity/AnticipatedFutureProjects
TIMS SelectLayers>Projects
EconomicData OSTMEconomicImpactModel(EIM)
ContactRebekahAndersonRebekah.Anderson@dot.ohio.govatODOTOfficeofStatewidePlanning&Research
GoodsMovementConsumption
2010IMPLANdata ContactGregGiamoGreg.Giaimo@dot.ohio.govatODOTOfficeofStatewidePlanning&Research
GoodsMovementEmployment
2014LongitudinalEmployer‐HouseholdDynamics(LEHD)
data&2016CoStar*data
http://lehd.ces.census.gov/data/
http://www.costar.com/
GoodsMovementTruckTrips
OSTM ContactGregGiamoGreg.Giaimo@dot.ohio.govatODOTOfficeofStatewidePlanning&Research
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology
APPENDIXE
EXISTINGCONDITIONSREPORTOUTLINE
AppendixE
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology
EXISTINGCONDITIONSREPORTOUTLINE
1. Overview
2. Methodology
3. LocationswithIssuesIdentified
3.1. Traffic
3.2. Safety
3.3. Geometry
3.4. PhysicalConditions
4. IndividualLocationAssessments(ModularSummaries)
Foreachlocationstudied:
4.1. LocationOverview
4.2. ExistingConditions
4.3. ProblemStatement
4.4. PotentialCountermeasures
5. ExistingCorridorAssessmentSummary
6. AppendicesOperationalAnalysisOutput(CurrentYear–AMPeakHour)OperationalAnalysisOutput(CurrentYear–PMPeakHour)OperationalAnalysisOutput(DesignYear–AMPeakHour)OperationalAnalysisOutput(DesignYear–PMPeakHour)
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology
APPENDIXF
NEEDSANDCONDITIONSREPORTOUTLINE
AppendixF
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology
NEEDSANDCONDITIONSREPORTOUTLINE
1. ExecutiveSummary
2. Overview
3. ExistingCorridorAssessment
3.1. Traffic
3.2. Safety
3.3. Geometry
3.4. PhysicalConditions
4. ProposedCorridorAssessment
4.1. Traffic
4.2. Safety
4.3. Geometry
4.4. PhysicalConditions
4.5. Cost/PreliminaryIndications
5. IndividualLocationAssessments(ModularSummaries)
Foreachlocationstudied:
5.1. LocationOverview
5.2. ExistingConditions
5.3. ProblemStatement
5.4. PotentialCountermeasures
5.5. ConceptsandCountermeasuresConsidered
5.6. OperationalAnalysis
5.7. Cost
5.8. PreliminaryIndications
6. ExistingCorridorAssessmentSummary
7. ProposedCorridorAssessmentSummary
8. SummaryofProposedCountermeasures
9. NextSteps/Actions
10. Appendices
ProposedCountermeasuresConsidered
EvaluationDataInputsSummary
OperationalAnalysisOutput(CurrentYear–AMPeakHour&PMPeakHour)
OperationalAnalysisOutput(DesignYear–AMPeakHour&PMPeakHour)
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology
APPENDIXG
GOODSMOVEMENTACTIVITYMODEL
AppendixG
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology
GOODSMOVEMENTACTIVITYMODELGUIDE
ODOThasdevelopedasetofmetricsdesignedtoassessthesizeandeconomicsignificanceofGoodsMovementsectorsineachofOhio’s88counties.TheinformationispresentedasananalyticaltooltosupporttheODOTasitconsidersfutureinfrastructureimprovementsalongvarioustransportationcorridorsintheState.
ThismodelproduceskeymetricsofGoodsMovementactivitiesandthesignificanceofGoodsMovementsectorsineachofOhio’s88counties.
TheGoodsMovementActivityModelsummarizesthepreliminaryscoringforall88countiesintheState.Thetoolincludesaweightingsystemtoallowforvaryingtheweightsofthevariablesandprovideflexibilityonacorridor‐by‐corridorbasis.Theinitialweightsaresetacrossallvariablestoadefaultweightof5.0.Attheirdiscretion,ODOTstaffmaycalibratetheweightforeachvariablewithavaluebetween1.0(lowimportance)and5.0(highimportance).
TheGoodsMovementActivityModelintheaccompanyingMicrosoftExcelworkbookprovidesODOTstaffwiththeabilitytocalibratetheweightsforeachofthevariablesaccordingtoimportanceandtotoggletheresultsaccordingly.ThefirstsheetoftheworkbookpresentstheTableofContents:
1 Goods Movement Rank
2 Goods Movement Summary
3 Weight Methodology (Calibration Tab)
4 Summary of Consumption
5 Summary of Employment
6 Summary of Real Estate
7 Summary of Truck Trips
8 Measure Definitions
9 Data Tabs
TheGoodsMovementRankandGoodsMovementSummarytabsprovideanoverviewoftheoutputs.TheTab3WeightMethodology(CalibrationTab)iswherestaffcancalibratetheweights.Tab3istheonlytabthroughwhichstaffwillalterinputs,asnotedintheensuringnarrative.TheSummaryofConsumption,Employment,RealEstate,andTruckTripstabsprovideconsolidatedinformationforeachoftheGoodsMovementmetriccategoriesandtheirinputderivations.TheMeasureDefinitionstabisareferencepageforeachofthevariablesconsideredinthisstudy,andTab9DataTabsisacoverpageprecedingallrawinputdatausedforthisstudy.
AppendixG
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology
WEIGHTMETHODOLOGY(CALIBRATIONTAB)
AcopyoftheCalibrationTool(Tab3)belowshowsthevariablesthatwereassignedweightsversusthevariablesthatwereexcludedfromthescoringsystem.Asmentionedabove,adefaultweightof5.0wasassignedtoeachoftherelevantvariablesandistobecalibratedbyODOTstaffaccordingtosignificanceofvariable.Aweightingsystemhasbeenintroducedforeachoftherelevantvariables,usingascaleof1(lowest)to5(highest)intheorderoflowesttohighestdegreeofrelevancetoprevalenceoftheGoodsMovementsectorinthecounty.Therelevantcountyattributeisthenmultipliedbytheweightestablishedforthatvariabletoproduceavariablescore.Allvariablescoresarethentotaledforanoverallcountyscore.Amaximumscoreof40.0ispossibleifallattributesarethehighestpossiblevalueandifitisdeterminedbystaffthatallvariablesshouldbegivenaweightof5.0
ODOTandthestudyteamshouldassignindividualweightstoeachvariableallowstoaccountforcorridor‐specificconditions.Forexample,ifConsumptionandRealEstatearehighlyrelatedtoGoodsMovementsize,variablesinthosecategoriesshouldbegivenahigherweight(4.0‐5.0)thanthevariablesinEmploymentandTruckTrips(2.5),oranyvariationthereof.Ifanyvariablesarelowpriorities,theymaybeassignedalesserweight(<2.5).
Calibration Tool (Tab 3)
VariableWeight (1 (low)
to 5 (high))2
MIN WEIGHT
MAX WEIGHT
MIN ATTRIBUTE
MAX ATTRIBUTE
MIN OUTPUT
AVG OUTPUT
MAX OUTPUT
Goods Movement ConsumptionPercentile Rank against all sectors in county 1.0 1.0 5.00 0.01 1.00 0.01 5.00Percentile Rank against other counties in State 3.0 1.0 5.00 0.01 1.00 0.01 5.00
0.00 0.00Goods Movement Employment 0.00 0.00
County Pct. of Total Employment/State Pct. of Total Employment 1 4.0 1.0 5.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 5.00
0.00 0.00Goods Movement Related Real Estate 0.00 0.00
County GM Inventory Pct. of Total/State GM Inventory Pct. of Total 1 1.0 1.0 5.00 0.02 1.00 0.02 5.00
County GM Sq. Ft. per Resident/State GM Sq. Ft. per Resident 1 1.0 1.0 5.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 5.00
County GM Sq. Ft. per Employee/State GM Sq. Ft. per Employee 1 5.0 1.0 5.00 0.01 1.00 0.01 5.00
Truck DestinationPercentile (of 88 Ohio Counties) 1.0 1.0 5.00 0.01 1.00 0.01 5.00
County Trips per Employee/State Trips per Employee 1 1.0 1.0 5.00 0.01 1.00 0.01 5.00
Total (max= 40.0 | average= 20.0) 0.25 20.1 40.00[1] If the ratio of county to state is greater than 1.0, the county is attributed with a maximum score of 1.0.[2] Used as a multiplier for county attribute to weight importance of measure against all other measures. The lowest possible weight is 1.0 (not important); the highest possible weight is 5.0 (very important). The default for each of the attributes is set to 5.0; to be calibrated with input from ODOT staff.
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology
APPENDIXH
BENEFITCOSTANALYSISOUTLINE
AppendixH
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology
BENEFITCOSTANALYSISOUTLINE
1. Overview
1.1. Purpose
1.2. StudyEvaluationGroups
2. Costs
2.1. CostEstimatingTechniques
2.2. NetPresentValueandDiscountRate
3. Benefits
3.1. Mobility
3.2. Safety
3.3. Economic
4. BenefitCostAnalysis
4.1. InterpretationofBenefitCostAnalysis
4.2. ResultsforStudyCorridor
5. NextSteps
6. Appendices
MobilityAnalysis
SafetyAnalysis
EconomicAnalysis
BenefitCostAnalysisMatrix
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology
APPENDIXI
STRATEGICPLANOUTLINE
AppendixI
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology
STRATEGICPLANOUTLINE
1. ExecutiveSummary
2. Introduction
3. StudyMethodology
4. StakeholderOutreach
5. EvaluationCriteria
6. NeedsandConditions
7. BenefitCostAnalysis
8. Evaluation
9. Appendices(AllReferencedReports)
StudyMethodology
StakeholderOutreachSummary
EvaluationCriteriaSummaryMemo
NeedsandConditionsReport
BenefitCostAnalysisSummary
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology
APPENDIXJ
EVALUATIONMATRIXTOOL
AppendixJ
VAR-STW-STS 2-Lane Operational Improvement Study – Study Methodology
EVALUATIONMATRIXTOOL
Tofacilitateevaluation,anevaluationmatrixtool,intheformofaMicrosoftExcelworkbookwillbedeveloped.Thetoolnotonlysummarizestheevaluationcriteriaassessmentsbutalsocanbeusedtodynamicallysortandviewdataandaidinfurtherevaluation.Asshownintheexamplebelow,thematrixincludesbothnumericalratingandgraphicalratingscalestoclearlydepictratingsandlevelsofbenefits.Thematrixcanbesortedusingvariouscriteriasuchasby:location(county,district),locationtype(bridge/culvert,intersection,roadwaysegment),estimatedprojectcost,evaluationgroup(A,B,C,orD),countermeasuretype,B/Cratio,andestimatedprojecttimeframe.Givenvariouscriteria,thematrixallowsdifferentusesforvariousendusers,fordifferentperspectivesandforfundingpurposes.Awiderangeofusers,includingplanners,programmers,funders,local,ODOTdistrictandcentralofficepersonnelcansorttheimprovementsaccordingtotheirparticularneedorenduse,asappropriate.
Evaluation Matrix (Example)
Thetoolispopulatedwithlocationswhereaproposedcountermeasurewasidentified.Anysub‐factorsfromeachoftheevaluationcriteriaareinputintothetool.ThematrixincludesthecostandbenefitcalculationsfromtheB/CAnalysis.BeyondtheB/CAnalysis,additionalevaluationcriteriacategoriessuchasInfrastructureCondition(PCR,BridgeRating,VerticalClearance,HorizontalClearance),GoodsMovement(fromtheGoodsMovementActivityModeldescribedinAppendixE),andSystemReliabilityareincluded.
Replace Structure / Inc. Vert. Clear. $1,630,000 D n/a n/a ●
Adjust signal clearance timings $3,000 C 45.6 44.6 ●
Adjust signal clearance timings $3,000 C 21.0 20.0 ●
Widen Shoulders $5,857,000 C 0.5 ‐0.5 ●
Replace & Widen Structure $151,000 D n/a n/a ●
Widen Pavement $65,000 D n/a n/a ●
Estimated
Project Cost Congestion Reduction
Evaluation Group
Safety
Proposed Countermeasures Infrastructure Condition
System reliability
B/C
Ratio
Freight movement and
economic vitality
Environmental Sustainability
Return on Investment (ROI)
Short Term
Medium Term
Long Term