Transcript Analysis of Systematic methods to prioritize future

13th TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference
May 9, 2011
Seong Dae Kim, Ph.D., PMP (University of Alaska Anchorage)
Teresa M. Brewer (Municipality of Anchorage)
Gary Kretchik, PMP
Donghwoon Kwon, MS
Harrison Yeoh, MS
Kelly Brown, PMP
Outline
• Introductions
• Where is Anchorage?
• Presentation by Dr. Seong Dae Kim, UAA
• Presentation by Teresa Brewer, AMATS
• Q&A
Items to Consider When Prioritizing
Freight Projects
Categories of Impact
Technical
Environmental
Economic efficiency
Economic development
Legal
Sociocultural
Impact Types
Facility condition
Travel time
Vehicle operating cost
Accessibility, mobility, and congestion
Safety
Intermodal movement efficiency
Land-use patterns
Risk and vulnerability
Air quality
Water resources
Noise
Wetlands and ecology
Aesthetics
Initial costs
Life-cycle costs and benefits
Benefit-cost ratio
Net present value
Employment
Number of business establishments
Gross domestic product
Regional economy
International trade
Tort liability exposure
Quality of life
Slide 4 of 19
Project Flowchart
Update Data
on Map and
Website
Anchorage Freight
Movement Survey
Objective Data
Export Data to
Spreadsheet
Ranking Model
Slide 5 of 19
Stakeholder Survey
 On-line survey was used to gain stakeholder input.
 Employer information
 Freight driver information



Length of experience
Size of vehicle
Pre-determined route
 Perception about each candidate area


Problematic?
Why?
Slide 6 of 19
Slide 7 of 19
Stakeholder Survey Result
 52 responses by March 24, 2010
 42.3% of responders said that their company provides
the transportation service of truckload
 52.2% of responders are not a freight driver
 29.5% of responders drive single-trailer tractor
Slide 8 of 19
Stakeholder Survey Result (cont’d)
Area
Ocean Dock Road and Terminal Road intersection
Industrial Area circulation and access area
School Bus storage area
3rd Avenue and Ingra/Gambell area
Ocean Dock alignment near the Port entrance
3rd Avenue: Post Road and Reeve Blvd
Dowling Road: New Seward Hwy to Lake Otis Pkwy
International Airport Road and Postmark Drive
Ocean Dock Railroad Crossings
C Street and 5th/6th Avenue Intersection
Lake Otis Parkway: Debarr Road to Northern Lights Blvd
West Northern Lights Blvd and Wisconsin Street intersection
C Street/Potter/64th Ave intersections
North C Street and Ocean Dock road Intersection
Ocean Dock road access and crossing from Port to Terminal Rd
C Street and International Airport Road intersection
New Seward Hwy and O’Malley Interchange
C Street: Tudor Road to 36th Avenue Northbound
Postmark Drive and Point Woronzof/West Northern Lights Blvd
Problem?
34.1%
34.2%
13.9%
54.3%
31.4%
45.5%
51.6%
3.2%
43.3%
43.3%
40.0%
16.7%
33.3%
40.0%
26.7%
17.2%
41.4%
31.0%
10.3%
Type of problem
road congestion (54.2%)
turning radius (36.8%)
road congestion (36.8%)
road congestion (50.0%)
road congestion (84.6%)
road congestion (50.0%
turning radius (77.8%)
merge lanes (50.0%)
road congestion and poor signage (43.8%)
road congestion (72.2%)
road congestion (53.3%)
road congestion (37.5%)
road congestion (50.0%)
road congestion (41.7%)
road congestion (55.6%)
road congestion (50.0%)
turning radius (53.3%)
road congestion and turning radius (50.0%)
road congestion (40.0%)
Slide 9 of 19
Stakeholder Survey Result (cont’d)
 Most problem types are road congestion and turning radius.
 Some of the candidate areas need more attention than
other areas.
 The respondents are not necessarily truck drivers
 Causal relationship of problem types
 Problem types in the questions are not exclusive.
 Some problem types are the caused by other problem types

E.g. ‘Road congestion’ can be caused by ‘merge lanes,’ ‘turning
radius,’ etc.
 Need to distinguish symptoms and causes of the perceived
problems
Slide 10 of 19
Model
 Direct Weighting Method is used as the ranking model
 Without pairwise comparison, decision makers assign
numerical weight values directly to performance criteria.
Slide 11 of 19
Prioritization Criteria
 Truck crash data (relative frequency): wA
 Subjective from the survey: wB
 Traffic data (relative volume): wC
Slide 12 of 19
Truck Crash Data
 Count of truck crash from 2005 to 2009
 Maximum: 7 at Dowling Road: New Seward Hwy to Lake
Otis Pkwy
 Minimum: 0 at Ocean Dock Railroad Crossings and six
others
 Relative crash count (count/countMax) is used in
the ranking model
Slide 13 of 19
Subjective Data
 Percentage of respondents who said “problem area”
in the survey
 Maximum: 54.3% at 3rd Avenue and Ingra/Gambell area
 Minimum: 3.2% at International Airport Road and
Postmark Drive
 The percentage for each area is directly used in the
ranking model
Slide 14 of 19
Traffic Volume Data
 2008 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
 Maximum: 23,976 at C Street: Tudor Road to 36th Avenue
Northbound
 Minimum: 2,068 at Industrial Area circulation and
access area
 Relative AADT (AADT/AADTMax) for each area is used
in the ranking model
Slide 15 of 19
Spreadsheet Ranking Model
Slide 16 of 19
When Equally Weighted
 wA = 1/3, wB = 1/3, wC = 1/3
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Area
Dowling Road: New Seward Hwy to Lake Otis Pkwy
C Street and 5th/6th Avenue Intersections
C Street: Tudor Road to 36th Avenue Northbound
C Street/Potter/64th Ave intersections
New Seward Hwy and O'Malley Interchange
C Street and International Airport Road intersection
Lake Otis Parkway: Debarr Road to Northern Lights Blvd
Ocean Dock Road and Terminal Road Intersection
3rd Avenue and Ingra/Gambell area
Slide 17 of 19
When Equally Weighted (cont’d)
 wA = 1/3, wB = 1/3, and wC = 1/3
Slide 18 of 19
Conclusion
 This ranking model shows rankings instantly revised
from revised weighting.
 The model provide flexibility to the prioritization
using one subjective criterion and two objective
criteria, depending on the preference of decision
maker.
 The model is expandable to include additional data
and decision criteria.
 Pairwise comparison can be added to assist weight
assignment in multiple criteria prioritization.
Slide 19 of 19
AMATS Planning Applications
Teresa Brewer
Presentation Outline
 Who are we?
 Where are we going?
 What’s next?
 Why do we care?
 Questions?
Slide 20 of 16
Who is AMATS?
Implements
Plans
Multi-Agency Team
MOA
DOT&PF
Funds
Freight
UAA
FHWA
Public Transit
Tribal
Police/Troopers
Coordinates
Anchorage and the
MatanuskaSusitna Region is
poised for
increased
population &
growth.
Anchorage’s
population hovers
near 300,000.
The MatanuskaSusitna Borough’s
growth rate is one
of the highest in
the nation.
Where are we going?
Growth=Traffic=Delay
Anchorage: 9%
Population Growth Rates
2000-2009
Mat-Su Borough: 42%
The growth in the Mat-Su
Borough has generated a
2.53% increase in commuter
traffic on the Glenn Hwy.
during the past two years.
Where are we going?
Delay costs the average
Anchorage driver about
$17.00 per hour or about
$3.1 million annually.
This cost is higher for
Freight (fuel, labor)
users.
Where are we going?
Freight to double by 2020.
Why do We Care?
Freight needs safe, secure,
and easy access to retail,
commercial, and industrial
sites throughout the
Municipality of Anchorage
and
the region.
Future freight
requirements &
transportation
infrastructure needs must
be addressed now
to adequately plan for
natural resource
development
projects, such as the
natural
gas pipeline.
2025 Forecasted
Average Daily Traffic
Why do We Care?
Between 80% and 90% of
all of Alaska’s freight
moves through
Anchorage via the Port of
Anchorage & the Ted
Stevens Anchorage
International Airport.
Port Access. Poor access
to the Port; Freight Traffic
flows onto Downtown
National Highway
System. This is one of the
highest employment
centers and tourist
locations.
Freight Providers
largely located near Port.
Port Expansion Project will accommodate more
freight intermodal, and cruise ship opportunities
(Alaska Railroad). Local roads must be ready to meet
this demand.
Courtesy of the
H2H Project
Courtesy of the
H2H Project
Courtesy of the
H2H Project
Courtesy: Knik
Arm Crossing
Courtesy: Knik Arm
Crossing
What’s Next?
GPS Installation in Freight
Trucks & Private Vehicles
Partnered with the Alaska
Trucking Association
Real-Time Freight
Tracking using GPS and
Cellular Transceivers for
Transportation and
Community Planning.
Regional Freight
Strategy
Number
1
Reason that we
care is:
Why do We Care?
Economic
Development
Moving Goods and
People Safely &
Efficiently
throughout the
region.
Photo Courtesy: Lynden Transportation
Develop Transportation
policy, design standards,
road networks, & forecasts
for freight distribution and land
uses based on actual traffic
movement versus personal
diaries or surveys.
Why do We Care?
Identify land use conflicts,
opportunities (future freight
corridors, freight terminals,
distribution centers, etc.).
Protect community livability
(noise, lighting, environment).
Note Seasonal
Weights/Restrictions Road
Usage.
Update Code to reflect
actual/planned Freight Routes.
Photo courtesy: Anchorage Daily News
Bill Roth
Identify accident areas, improve safety ,
identify bottlenecks, congestion, delay (i.e.
downtown corridor).
Develop screening criteria – best use of public
dollars.
Establish not only local, but regional and statewide
strategic freight priorities for transportation system
development funding.
Implement Freight Priority website.
Provide, Seek Funding for Traffic Control
Technologies/GPS Phone Applications and Downloads on a
larger scale for freight stakeholders, the military, federal, state,
local, and tribal agencies and the public to use to track traffic
delays, congestion.
Start work on near-term projects, such as traffic signal timing
to reduce freight delays.
Implement Future Freight Improvement Projects, such as
the H2H (Highway to Highway) or the Knik Arm Crossing
Bridge. The H2H project will build the Glenn-Seward connection
& provide critical links in support of state, regional, & local
economies.
What’s
Next?
Questions?
Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions
Teresa Brewer, Freight Mobility Coordinator
907-343-7994
[email protected]
Seong Dae Kim, Ph.D., PMP University of Alaska Anchorage
[email protected]
Photo Courtesy:
David Blazejewski,
Alaska Railroad