statewide strategic transportation system two-lane ... · var-stw-sts 2-lane operational...

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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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:


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.


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.


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.


PrepareaDraftBenefitCostAnalysis(BCA)SummaryReportforreviewandincorporatecommentsintotheFinalBenefitCostAnalysis(BCA)SummaryReport.TheBenefitCost(BCA)AnalysiswillserveasthebasisforevaluatingeachproposedimprovementandtoassistODOTindeterminingaprioritizationofimprovementsduringTask5.

Figure2‐B/CAnalysisFlowchart


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


Deliverable

StakeholderListing

DraftStudyMethodology

FinalStudyMethodology

EvaluationCriteriaSummaryMemo

DataCollectionSummaryMemo

DraftExistingConditionsReport

FinalExistingConditionsReport

DraftNeedsandConditionsReport

FinalNeedsandConditionsReport

CostBenefitAnalysisSummaryReport

DraftStrategicPlan

FinalStrategicPlan

EvaluationMatrixTool


APPENDIXB

STAKEHOLDERINTERVIEWSURVEY

AppendixB


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?


APPENDIXC

STAKEHOLDEROUTREACHSUMMARYOUTLINE

AppendixC


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


APPENDIXD

DATACOLLECTIONCHECKLIST

AppendixD


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


APPENDIXE

EXISTINGCONDITIONSREPORTOUTLINE

AppendixE


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)


APPENDIXF

NEEDSANDCONDITIONSREPORTOUTLINE

AppendixF


NEEDSANDCONDITIONSREPORTOUTLINE

1. ExecutiveSummary

2. Overview

3. ExistingCorridorAssessment

3.1. Traffic

3.2. Safety

3.3. Geometry


4. ProposedCorridorAssessment

4.1. Traffic

4.2. Safety

4.3. Geometry


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)


APPENDIXG

GOODSMOVEMENTACTIVITYMODEL

AppendixG


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


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.


APPENDIXH

BENEFITCOSTANALYSISOUTLINE

AppendixH


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


APPENDIXI

STRATEGICPLANOUTLINE

AppendixI


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


APPENDIXJ

EVALUATIONMATRIXTOOL

AppendixJ


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

statewide strategic transportation system two-lane ... · var-stw-sts 2-lane operational...

Documents