Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 1 Extended Comparison Tool for Major Highway Projects Summary of Accomplishments and Prospectus for Future Effort prepared for the Virginia Department of Transportation June 2003

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 2 Project Team Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems James H. Lambert, Research Assistant Professor of Systems Engineering, Center Associate Director Yacov Y. Haimes, Quarles Professor of Systems Engineering and Civil Engineering and Center Director Kenneth D. Peterson, B.S. Student Virginia Transportation Research Council Wayne S. Ferguson John S. Miller

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 3 Project Team (cont.) Acknowledgments--Steering Committee through 2002 et al. Bruce Appleyard Unwanna Bellinger Steve Black Tom Boyd Travis Bridewell Robert Cassada Dave Dreis Marsha Fiol Regina Franklin James Givens Larry Hagin Rob Hofrichter Jeff Hores Ken Lantz John Lawson Bob McDonald Diane Mitchell Joe Orcutt Bob Rasmussen Charles Rasnick Harrison Rue Jo Anne Sorenson Jeffrey Southard Chad Tucker Vincent Valenti Eric Vogel

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 4 Overview Practical tool to aid in comparing and prioritizing highway improvement projects Visual representations of project attributes –Crash rate –Level of traffic –Cost –Qualitative TEA-21 goals

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 5 Overview (cont.) Synthesizes information for diverse hundreds of projects Potential relevance to the Six-Year Program and Virginia STIP Developed software prototype and case studies --

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 6 Background “[Governor] Warner said $2 billion in road projects across the state that were promised by previous administration could be delayed more than a decade …” Source: Washington Post February 13, 2002

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 7 Background (cont.) Significantly fewer projects funded in every District $2.2 billion reduction over six years Seeking citizen input to help prioritize projects Completing existing projects top priority, other important issues: safety, mobility, environmental (particularly air quality) Source: Culpeper District CTB Hearing 4/16/02

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 8 Background (cont.) Establish meaningful criteria for projects inclusion in the six year program Build on positive characteristics of the secondary system process Create a long term plan to address issues voiced in Legislature and by public citizens Source: AASHTO Peer Review March 6, 2002

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 9 Background Safety Leveraging options Economic development Land use/environmental considerations Quantitative measures of use Innovation Source: Report of The Governor’s Commission on Transportation Policy, December 15, 2000.

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 10 Background (cont.) Safety Mobility Productivity Human and natural environment National security Source: Federal Highway Administration, Virginia Division Performance Plan.

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 11 Background (cont.) Economic development Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency Safety/Security Increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users Accessibility/Mobility Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight Environment Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve quality of life Intermodal connectivity Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight Operations Promote efficient system management and operation System preservation Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system Source: Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 12 Sample of Practices Reviewed * Alaska Delaware Montana Oregon Sacramento Ohio TELUS HERS/ST * Seventy-five performance metrics collected and summarized in Appendix B of the Final Contract Report

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 13 TELUS Scoring Form

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 14 Economic Development Metrics (ED)

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 15 Safety/Security Metrics (SF)

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 16 Daily Traffic Travel Time Saved per Vehicle Total Travel Time Saved Crashes per Year Crashes per Vehicle Crashes Avoided per Vehicle Crashes Avoided per Year Lives Lost, Injuries CRMES/VTRC/VDOT Comparison Tool ( ) Right of Way Preliminary Engineering Construction Life Cycle Length of Road-Section RISK REDUCTION PERFORMANCE GAIN COST

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 17 Principles of Multiobjective Analysis Focus on the tradeoffs among benefits, costs, and risks How much of objective A would be given up to realize a gain in objective B? What are the levels of objective A and objective B? What constraints are governing the available options? Usual application is decision _aiding_ (as contrasted with decision _making_) bringing evidence to the table

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 18 Comparison Tool ( ) (cont.) Richmond District 2000

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 19 Aims of the Extended Comparison Tool (2000-present) Build on available data Synthesize quantitative and qualitative data Address diverse project motivations Ensure ease of use statewide

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 20 Sample of Project Data Input Crash rate Level of traffic Identification of relevant TEA-21 goals Cost Optional input: –Leveraging (% non-state) –Regional planning consistency –Technology innovation

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 21 Extended Comparison Tool

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 22 Extended Comparison Tool (cont.)

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 23 What is the significance of the preceding two charts? Ability to view at a glance the TEA-21 motivations of diverse projects--how many projects are undertaken at what total cost

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 24 Extended Comparison Tool (cont.) Shaded icons can represent projects of particular interest (such as projects underway) ADT Crashes Cost Legend:

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 25 And what does the preceding chart contribute to the picture? …what are the individual project costs and what are the levels of traffic, and crash rates at the locations of the projects

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 26 Extended Comparison Tool (cont.)

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 27 Case Study 1 VDOT Transportation Development Plan

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 28 Three Case Studies are Performed to Demonstrate the Extended Comparison Tool with Actual Data 1.VDOT District Development Plan 2.TJPDC MPO Long-Range Plan 3.Small Virginia Localities Plans

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 29 Transportation Development Plan

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 30 Transportation Development Plan (cont.)

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 31 Transportation Development Plan (cont.)

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 32 Projects Motivated by Accessibility/Mobility and Safety/Security

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 33 Transportation Development Plan: Total Sector Cost of Projects System Preservation Environment Operations Safety/Security Intermodal Connectivity Accessibility/Mobility Economic Development 78,976 4,3461,61514,844

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 34 Transportation Development Plan: Total Sector ADT System Preservation Environment Operations Safety/Security Intermodal Connectivity Accessibility/Mobility Economic Development 296,818 12,6696,53550,971

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 35 Case Study 2 MPO Thomas Jefferson Planning District

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 36 Thomas Jefferson Planning District Data

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 37 Thomas Jefferson Planning District

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 38 Projects Motivated by Accessibility/Mobility and Economic Development

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 39 Case Study 3 Localities Blackstone and Big Stone Gap

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 40 Blackstone and Big Stone Gap

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 41 Comparison of Three Case Studies

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 42 Simple Ranking Methods (RM) RM1 – ADT / cost (vehicles / day / dollar) RM2 – crash rate / cost (crashes / 100m VMT / dollar) RM3 – crash rate * ADT / cost (crashes / mile / dollar) RM4 – crash rate * ADT * length / cost (crashes / dollar) RM5 – ADT / sector cost (vehicles / day / sector dollar)

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 43 What does the preceding chart reveal? What are the TEA-21 motivations of the projects across the three case studies, what ranges of cost, crash rate, and traffic level are being addressed by the projects, what TEA- 21 motivations are _not_ addressed by individual plans, and more.

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 44 Ranking for Blackstone/Big Stone Gap Case Study

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 45 What other (than TEA-21) Motivations can be Addressed: Financing and Programming Criteria

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 46 Implications for the Six-Year Program and Virginia STIP Information Added

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 47 Resources Extended comparison tool website: software, case studies, and presentation slides Three related CRMES/VTRC efforts applying the comparison tool for project selection:

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville Slide 48 Other Capabilities of CRMES Risk assessment and risk management Large scale and complex hierarchical systems Critical infrastructure and homeland protection from terrorism Scenario tracking and intelligence analysis Knowledge management, information assurance, and C4ISR Infrastructure interdependencies Safety-critical systems Transportation systems Computer-based systems, including hardware and software performance reliability Reliability modeling of multiple failure modes in complex systems Environmental impacts Water resources and technology management