Strategic Approaches at the Corridor and Network Level to Minimize Disruption from the Renewal Process (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

6C h a p t e r 2 Summary Task 1 of this project identified the universe of published works that may be applicable to the products of this project. The team availed itself of the Transportation Research Infor- mation Services (TRIS) database; the University of Arizona, Louisiana State University, and University of Central Florida library systems; the SHRP 2 projects currently under way; and the personal knowledge and experience of the team members. Articles, search results, data screenings, and notes were loaded to a SharePoint site, where they were collated into a consistent framework. There are also ongoing efforts such as the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) High- ways for Life program, whose purpose is to “accelerate the adoption of innovations and new technologies, thereby improving safety and highway quality while reducing conges- tion caused by construction.” During the literature analysis, 135 documents were identi- fied as being “highly relevant” to this project and were reviewed to extract critical information. In later tasks, a similar data set was extracted through interviews with DOTs, MPOs, and other key stakeholders. This allowed the team to make com- parisons and identify differences between the literature and practice. The team attempted to contact representatives of all 50 state DOTs, as well as 22 MPOs, eight committees of the Transportation Research Board (TRB), and a number of other key stakeholders. The team completed interviews with 11 MPOs and 14 DOTs and made contact with all eight TRB committees that cover potentially relevant subject matter for the project. Team members interviewed staff of DOTs and MPOs and other potential users of the products of this research in order to extract a “typical” business model for the sequencing of renewal programs and to develop an understanding of strate- gies and performance measures being utilized to mitigate work zones impacts. One of the principal purposes of this work was to compare and contrast actual practice with what was found in Task 2. Another objective was to begin docu- menting the requirements for the software product of this project and to review these requirements during the initial round of workshops described in Task 12 (described in this chapter’s Software Products and Applications section). The primary purpose of Task 12 was to “check” the team’s assump- tions regarding the state of the practice and to identify what is necessary to create a useful and applicable software-based process. Task 12 was the capstone of the requirements-gathering stage of this project. Literature review Team members leveraged their own knowledge with a review of literature in order to fully investigate state, local, and fed- eral regulations, policies, and guidelines that can be actively used to minimize transportation disruption during renewal activities. This section details the process for reviewing materials and the conclusions reached. The full literature review is available in Appendix A. Structure of the Literature Review Categories The information collated for this report is divided into sev- eral categories for more meaningful review of results. The categories include network-corridor analysis, modeling and software, performance measures, asset management, work zone control strategies, project delivery and procurement, innovative construction techniques, nighttime versus day- time work zones, other SHRP 2 projects and publications, and an “other” category. It is worth noting that a search was also made for software packages that may perform some of the functions desired for this project. Summary findings are presented, but the complete tools or software descriptions and analysis are more completely described in Appendix B. Study Approach

7Organization Within Each Category Each category is further subdivided to better define needed information. Most of these categories are self-explanatory, but the team believes that the following subcategories merit some explanation: • Description: This field offers a brief narrative description of the publication, including a brief synopsis of the results. • Relevance: This field provides the team’s qualitative assess- ment of the relevance of the identified document to this project. Items of high relevance and some items of moderate relevance were further analyzed in subsequent tasks. While it is important to be aware of the items of low relevance, further analysis of those items is not intended at this time. • Organization: References are first sorted by relevance (high, moderate, and low) and within each grouping alphabeti- cally by title. Summary of Major Findings Preponderance of Results: Focus on Project Level As anticipated, the team found vastly more publications on proj- ect and work zone congestion and impact and comparatively little from the corridor or network perspective. The relative absence of such information underscores the need for this work. Strengths and Weaknesses of Literature Findings Among Major Categories It is interesting that searches based upon keywords such as performance measure, asset management, and modeling (particularly econometric modeling) netted many of the same publications. While it is possible to have one publication truly applicable to more than one search category, the team was concerned that multiple indexing may mean that the category of the work is unclear. The team therefore used its judgment to assign a paper or source to a single category deemed most relevant. Another element is the fact that important sources of information, such as FHWA’s Highways for LIFE Innovator publication and the National Highway Institute (NHI) Inno- vations webinar series are constantly injecting new, potentially relevant materials into the mix. The possibility that the find- ings under this search had become outdated prior to comple- tion of the project cannot be ignored. Major Findings by Category Network-Corridor Analysis The majority of the network-level literature analysis focuses on project management systems (PMSs) and decision criteria for replacement or repair. Network-level optimization techniques have been developed and tested in Arizona (AZNOS) (Wang, Zaniewski, and Delton 1994), Saskatche- wan, Canada (Gerke, Dewald, and Gerbrandt 1998), and Hungary (Gaspar Jr. 1994), with a variety of tools introduced to aid decision making. Tools include budget allocation (Salem district), analysis of construction productivity (CA4PRS; Lee 2000, 2002), network scheduling tools such as URMS (Chen, Weissmann, Dossey, and Hudson 1993), case studies (FHWA 2004), and many theoretical studies. However, there is a gap in the literature and descriptions of methods to incorporate traffic impacts at the corridor or network level. Furthermore, the team looked for but could not document any systems to analyze scenarios for developing and program- ming many projects according to user-provided performance measures. Modeling and Software A major portion of the effort to compile the literature review was devoted to identifying and classifying software modeling tools that are commercially available, assessing their capabili- ties, and identifying gaps in those capabilities that this research must address. This analysis and review process forms the basis for Task 6 and is more fully developed in the interview- and findings-related sections of this chapter. Some of the initial findings are as follows. The team determined that the scope and type of tools uti- lized to make decisions depend on the stage of the project’s development. The type of tool used depends upon the avail- able information and the decisions that need to be made. At the planning stage, the decisions are concerned with high- level program requirements of renewal prioritization, sched- ule, budget, and contracts, while simultaneously considering traffic impact. Because of the limited data and information available at the planning stage regarding specific projects, sketch-planning analytical models are used, essentially to con- duct preliminary traffic demand estimation, carry out impact analyses, and conduct asset management. Sketch-planning and analytical macroscopic models are appropriate to this level of analysis. At the preliminary engineering and design phase, more information is available regarding the projects that have been selected and scheduled for construction, and a more detailed impact analysis can be conducted by testing demand manage- ment, traveler information, construction logistics, and safety strategies. A mesoscopic modeling approach is usually utilized at this stage to evaluate traffic impacts and safety. This type of modeling deals with a group of cars traveling through an arte- rial or grid network, or a combination of arterial and grid sys- tems. The advantage of this approach is the ability to carry the assessment to a lower resolution without compromising the network geometric and control attributes.

8At the construction stage, even more information and data are available. The analysis is site-specific and needs to evalu- ate traffic merging due to lane closings and other more site- specific characteristics of maintenance of traffic strategies. This usually requires a microscopic analysis. Table 2.1 pre- sents the various software tools available for work zone analy- sis, classified by scope and use. The scope of this project specifically focuses on the renewal of corridors and networks and assessment of the impact of work zones on the performance of these types of facilities. It is fairly clear that our efforts will be focused on the top level (sketch planning and macro-level analyses) with the ability to go one level down to carry out a more detailed evaluation of the system (mesoscopic-scale modeling) with a remote pos- sibility for the need to go down to the microscopic level. Performance measures Putting the keywords “performance measures” into a transpor- tation search database yields hundreds of results. Like the network-corridor analysis search, the vast majority of the rele- vant publications focus on the project level. Within the project level, the major focus is on the single performance measure of safety. Reports regarding the analysis of work zones for safety and delay have been documented, as have reports of the use of ITS for real-time driver information as a delay mitigation tool. Although these are important works, and safety and delay are two of the most obvious performance measures, there are reports and works that discuss many other performance mea- sures. The team reviewed other literature on transportation system performance measures (including econometric consid- erations such as cost of delay), land use performance measures (including transportation-related measures like maintenance of market area), and customer service performance measures (e.g., availability of alternate routes through and access to zones of construction). The 2008 FHWA Work Zone Self Assessment report states that a few states use inputs from independent contractors or contractor associations to provide construction process input to reduce impacts of work zones. Even fewer states consider the resources of the contractor in the designing of the traffic management plan and scheduling. There is an identified need to develop performance measures to evaluate the contractor’s past performance in following the contractual agreements (A+B or I/D, etc.) and the inclusion of the contractor’s opin- ions early in the planning process. The team sought publications regarding best practices for incorporating performance measures of renewal projects into system and corridor program development and management, but they were difficult to find. However, the SHRP 2 C02 Performance Measurement Framework for Highway Capacity Decision Making report was recently completed, and it was incorporated in the team’s review subsequent to the initial submittal of the literature review. The report includes non- recurring systems performance measurements as part of its framework and is highly relevant in establishing performance measures for the renewal process. asset management Like the keywords “performance measures,” the keywords “asset management” also produced a myriad of results. In refining the universe of preliminary results, 16 publications were located with high to moderate relevance to this project. Publications such as NCHRP Report 545 (Cambridge Sys- tematics, PB Consult, and System Metrics Group 2005) and the 2009 work of Sharma et al., Developing a Traffic Closure Integrated Linear Schedule for Highway Rehabilitation Projects (Sharma, McIntyre, Gao, and Nguyen 2009) hold significant promise to add value to this project. The team also looked for works that consider transporta- tion system assets (publicly held assets), business and going concern assets (privately held assets), and customer assets (time management and lost productivity), but none could be documented. Work Zone control strategies Literature on various work zone strategies offers a wide array of information from planning strategies to work zone opera- tions throughout the nation. The literature is focused on three main areas: ITS, speed management, and incident man- agement in work zones. The bulk of the literature discusses how states have adopted ITS to help maintain mobility safely through work zones. These ITS strategies and practices include automated work zone information, dynamic lane merge, lane closure strategies, and speed management in various states including Michigan, North Carolina, Minnesota, Texas, Illinois, Arizona, Ohio, and Washington. The literature also discusses state-specific lane closure and demand management practices in Colorado, Ver- mont, Oklahoma, California, Indiana, Missouri, and Wiscon- sin. Another area of focus in the literature is on controlling speeds throughout work zones to keep speed differentials down to limit the number of crashes. Law enforcement plays an important role in work zones and is useful in ensuring the safety of the workers by providing escorts, slowing down vehi- cles, and supervising safety on the site. The last area of focus is on incident management practices to help alleviate traffic congestion-related crashes in work zones. Project Delivery anD Procurement The literature in this area focuses on contracting strategies for agencies. The reports address innovative contracting tech- niques such as best value, A+B (cost-plus-time) bidding, and incentive/disincentive (I/D) provisions, and how agencies can best manage risk associated with multiple techniques.

9Table 2.1. Classification of Software Analysis Tools for Potential Use in Analyzing Work Zones Integration with Travel Demand Models Analytic Deterministic Traffic Impact Tools Traffic Signal Optimization Life-cycle Cost Safety Impact Corridor-Network Level Operational Analysis Environmental Impact Traffic Impact Sketch planning IDAS, QuickZone IDAS, QuickZone, Ohio DOT Spreadsheet n/a PEAT, QuickZone Quadro, Road Safety Risk Manager QuickZone n/a IDAS, QuickZone Analytical: Macroscopic MicroBENCOST MicroBENCOST, HCS, LCCA, Quewz, CA4PRS HCS LCCA, CA4PRS, EAROMAR, HDM-4 Safety Analyst Cube Voyager StratBENCOST, MicroBENCOST, LCCA, CA4PRS, EAROMAR, HDM-4 LCCA, HCS CA4PRS Simulation: Mesoscopic DYNASMART, DynusT, DYNAMEQ, VISTA, TransModeler, Cube Avenue, AIMSUN n/a n/a n/a SafeNet DYNASMART, DynusT, DYNAMEQ, VISTA, TransModeler, Cube Avenue, AIMSUN DYNASMART, DynusT, DYNAMEQ, TransModeler, Cube Avenue, AIMSUN DYNASMART, DynusT, DYNAMEQ, VISTA, TransModeler, Cube Avenue, AIMSUN Simulation: Microscopic VISSIM, TransModeler n/a Synchro, TRANSYT-7F n/a Surrogate Safety Assessment tool VISSIM, CORSIM, Paramics, TransModeler VISSIM, CORSIM, Paramics, TransModeler, TRANSYT-7F, Synchro, SimTraffic VISSIM, CORSIM, Paramics, TransModeler

10 Other techniques consider factors including contract dura- tion, schedule, quality, safety, public satisfaction, and cost. These methods are explained to help agencies make effi- cient, informed decisions, especially when faced with increas- ing public demand and reduced staff numbers. The literature considers not only long-term construction projects, but also maintenance contracts for the life of the facility. innovative construction techniques The literature in this area discusses fabrication methods for concrete and asphalt pavement reconstruction that reduce rehabilitation time. Several research papers in this area describe the use of new materials (concrete for reinforce- ment, asphalt, steel, and composites) and methodologies for rapid rehab projects such as methods to reduce on-site fabri- cation. There is also a body of knowledge that discusses rapid testing methods that are nondestructive. These methods help to reduce the impact on traffic during the testing period. There is a need to be able to evaluate the cost and quality of these construction methods and to assess modular tech- niques for evaluating performance and durability. New robotic technologies are being developed such as robots to produce material, construct highways, and test for quality. There also are new vehicles and equipment available that reduce the time to set up work zones, are safer for the workers, and reduce overall construction time. nighttime versus Daytime Work Zones The majority of the literature on nighttime versus daytime work zones focuses on several key areas: operations, crash rates, management practices, work zone crash reporting, night work alternatives, safety strategies, planning, setup and removal, and noise. The recurring themes in most of this literature are the safety aspect of nighttime work zones and safety practices for night- time work zones. A few pieces of literature focus on recom- mended practices to safely set up and maintain work zones. The literature makes recommendations on how to plan, execute, operate, and take down a work zone during night- time operations. A few of the studies concentrate on crash rate comparisons of nighttime versus daytime work zones. One study details how to determine crash rates for both nighttime and daytime work zones along with guidance on developing management practices that promote safety and mobility. other shrP 2 Projects anD Publications Based on discussions with the principal investigators and SHRP 2 staff, three SHRP 2 projects have been identified as “highly relevant,” meaning that (a) the topic is closely related to the current project and is expected to have significant impact on SHRP 2 R11 as it moves forward and (b) the project is far enough along to contribute meaningful results to the SHRP 2 R11 work effort during the study time frame. The team has sought close coordination with three principal SHRP 2 projects: SHRP 2 C02, L03, and L11. SHRP 2 C02, initiated in February 2007 and completed, is A System-Based Performance Measurement Framework for Highway Capacity Decision Making. The report, which has been completed and released, includes an inventory of performance measures for nonrecurring congestion in work zones; relevant measures were incorporated in this project. SHRP 2 L03 is nearing com- pletion and details the strategic implications for dealing with nonrecurring events that may apply to work zones. The team monitored this closely. Likewise, SHRP 2 L11 is complete; its evaluation of performance measures and strategies was appli- cable to Task 2 and further tasks. Many of the other SHRP 2 projects that on the surface seem relevant began almost simultaneously with this project. These include SHRP 2 C10A, C10B, C07, and L05. Project L11, Evalu- ating Alternative Operations Strategies to Improve Travel Time Reliability, was near completion at the project onset and was highly relevant to identifying strategies pertinent to the renewal process. Although several of the SHRP 2 projects are listed as low to low or moderate relevance, because of the timing, the team continued to monitor them, maintaining up-to-date informa- tion and keeping in contact with the principal investigators. other This category provides a collection of procedures, policies, guidelines, presentations, and case studies that describe some of the more comprehensive approaches employed in work zone planning and management. These include procedures on cost estimation and decision making, as well as policies that address lane closures, liability, and safety. There are also case studies that focus on life-cycle benefits and costs, as well as detailing a major bridge reconstruction project. The infor- mation included herein provides a broad perspective of how different agencies have approached the many facets of work zone situations covering a variety of overarching issues. Approach Team members examined the 135 “highly relevant” literature sources identified in Task 1 in order to extract strategies and performance measures being used to mitigate work zone impacts. This information was compiled into a matrix and provided a snapshot of the strategies being used and how or whether their various results are being measured. This infor- mation contributed to the activities of Tasks 3 and 4, during which interviews elicited comparable information from actual practice. This process bridged the gaps encountered between the established literature and actual practice and facilitated analysis and comparisons between theory and practice. The

11 interviews continued to inform and expand the matrix started under this task. The full matrix created under this task is avail- able in Appendix C. The elements identified in each literature source were as follows: • Study purpose (planning, design, or operations); • Study focus (project, corridor, or network); • Strategies identified (to mitigate impacts of renewal activities); • Performance measures identified (to measure various strategies); and • Comments. Study Purpose (Planning, Design, or Operations) Many (if not most) transportation activities can be classified into three principal categories of activity: planning, design, and operations. Therefore, the first element identified in each reviewed document was the principal activity category of the study. It is possible for some of the documents to apply to all three categories of activities. Study Focus (Project, Corridor, or Network) The focus of this research project is on the management and mitigation of impacts to the traveling public and to nearby land uses at the corridor and network levels. Each document from Task 1 was reviewed to determine its primary focus. The purpose of SHRP 2 R11 is to develop tools to assist the decision-making process in the sequencing of multiple proj- ects over a corridor or network, rather than at the project level. Strategies Identified (to Mitigate Impacts of Renewal Activities) Six strategies are identified in the R11 renewal project request for proposals (RFP) and in the work plan: • Total versus partial shutdown; • Incentive/disincentive; • Short-duration closures; • Grouping nontraffic tasks; • Programming by element; and • Constructability versus project delivery. The review matrix that was developed as part of Task 2 focused on the six strategies. However, the literature review identified many other strategies that could have potential applicability to this project, including • Early, late, or dynamic lane merge; • Work zone speed control and calming; • Work zone ITS, warning lights, or markings; and • Pavement programming, design, and materials. These strategies appear to be primarily useful in project or operations applications that are not the focus of R11. Although these strategies primarily have an effect at the project level, if they are instituted on a regional basis for renewal projects, then they may have a cumulative impact at the network level. An additional strategy identified in the literature review is public involvement and information. There are many exam- ples of well-conducted and extensive public involvement and informational programs to advise the public of major renewal construction efforts that resulted in significant traffic diver- sions and improved traffic network flow. The impact of pub- lic information programs on reducing the impacts of the renewal program is included as part of the evaluation tools developed for this study. Performance Measures Performance measures can take on a practically infinite vari- ety of forms. The 135 reports reviewed revealed a huge variety of potential performance measures, which the team banded into 16 categories in the matrix: • Maximize Cash Flow (from federal funds); • Maximize Overall System Performance Rating; • Minimize Delays (high peak-hour flows); • Ensure Accessibility (to sensitive land uses); • Minimize Daytime Disruption (commercial areas); • Minimize Nighttime Noise (residential areas); • Maximize Accessibility (partial closure); • Minimize Length of Disruption (full closure); • Minimize Delivery Time to Final Product; • Maximize Safety and Mobility; • Maximize Efficiency, Capacity, and Quality of Flow; • Manage Life-Cycle Costs; • Maximize Production Rates; • Maximize Customer Satisfaction; • Maximize Asset Value and System Condition; and • Minimize Environmental Impacts. These strategies and performance measures from the lit- erature were compared to the strategies and performance measures extracted from the stakeholder interviews con- ducted under Tasks 3 and 4 and then integrated and resolved in Chapter 3 of this report. Some of these performance mea- sures are quantitative such as delay in seconds or hours or noise measures in decibels, while others are qualitative in nature such as customer satisfaction. Development of a topology of performance measures that allows maximum flexibility to the user of the tool, yet remains statistically

12 reliable, is a particular challenge. The team is especially mind- ful of gaps between literature and practice in performance measurement, because this understanding shaped the devel- opment of the tool. Comments This section allows the reader to quickly reference the key points in the critical documents that relate to specific strate- gies or measures. Summary of Major Findings The team made every effort in the literature review to identify only those documents that were not focused on operations of work zones within a project. The 135 documents identified as “highly relevant” focused on planning and/or design at the network and/or corridor levels. However, the team found that approximately 94 of the documents identified as “highly rel- evant” (69.6%) included information on work zone opera- tions, including 53 documents (39.2%) focused primarily, if not solely, upon work zone operations. Although the matrix (Appendix C) identifies strategies named in the RFP and the work plan, the literature is replete with a number of other strategies that appear to be more applicable to the operation of project-specific work zones. Although these strategies are not included in the matrix, the team has considered them carefully in the development of the research products, especially when they may be applied as part of systematic application for all renewal projects. Other strategies, such as public involvement and informa- tion, are very applicable to this project and require additional attention in the research products. Providing information about alternate routes and schedules has proven useful in mitigating and managing the impacts of renewal programs. From the literature review, the team found that work zone impacts were not typically assessed at a network or corridor level, but rather were evaluated on the basis of whether or not they were significant. However, the strategies that were applied to mitigate these significant impacts were implemented at a cor- ridor or network level and are therefore relevant to this study. Most network-level strategies were evaluated and considered at the planning level (as depicted in Table 2.2 and Figure 2.1), while corridor-level strategies were evaluated and considered either in the planning level or design level of implementation. Several documents identified in Task 1 with specific regard to performance measures contribute significantly to this project. One of the most significant documents is the SHRP 2 C02 report, Performance Measurement Framework for High- way Capacity Decision Making. SHRP 2 C02 states that the decision to add capacity “typically engages many stakeholders in an array of policy, planning, fiscal, public involvement, and engineering activities that are staged over a lengthy time period and involve consideration of many factors ranging from environmental impacts to safety concerns.” The team believes Table 2.2. Amount of Literature That Looks at the Different Project Stages and Their Scale Network Corridor Project Planning 24 30 42 Design 4 8 11 Operations 2 12 33 Note: Some of the 135 documents fit into multiple categories. Figure 2.1. Percentage of studies at different levels (project, corridor, network) during different stages of program delivery.

13 that the work completed under SHRP 2 C02 provides a very useful foundation and framework for performance measure selection under renewal programs and that much of the work is transferable. Another significant finding in the performance measures arena (discussed more fully later in this chapter) is that a survey of state DOTs found that most of the attention in performance measurement applies to operations of work zones within spe- cific projects. However, several states have undertaken signifi- cant work in performance measurement outside of the project level, and these states have received considerable attention in Tasks 3 and 4. These states include, but are not limited to, Minnesota, Missouri, Florida, Arizona, and California. Of the 135 reviewed documents, 10 were identified as directly relevant to subsequent tasks of this project. These 10 key documents are briefly summarized here. • Identifying the Appropriate Contract Types for Highway Maintenance and Rehabilitation Projects on the Basis of Project Characteristics. Traditional versus innovative con- tracts are analyzed in this report using simultaneous equa- tion models. This work will provide useful insights into cost–benefit decision making with regard to innovative contracting. Use of calendar completion versus working day completion contracts as well as incentive or disincentive clauses in contracts shifts some of the risk of late completion onto the contractor, but agencies may pay a significant pre- mium for such a shift. A technique to evaluate the cost– benefit of such contracting options will be important to the tools developed under this project. • Developing a Realistic-Prototyping Road User Costs Evalua- tion Tool for FDOT. This report, prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation, outlines a software tool developed to calculate RUCs for various scenarios using readily available data. Estimating RUCs for adverse travel is an especially important element of this project, as are the scenario analysis capabilities presented in this report. This report will also likely tie into the evaluation of innovative contracting options discussed in the previous entry. • Scheduling of Lane Closures Using Genetic Algorithms with Traffic Assignments and Distributed Simulations. This report presents findings of scheduling of lane closures, particularly the redistribution of traffic across a network as a result of such closures. The genetic algorithms presented will provide useful insights into sequencing multiple lane closures so that traffic is not redistributed onto already bottlenecked portions of the network. • Roads Software Tools (HDM-4). The glossary of this docu- ment contains a definition of program management that the team believes could frame a great deal of the work on subse- quent tasks. Table 2.3 presents useful guidance in “bright- lining” application of program management assisted in the decision-tree development for the tool developed in Phase 2 of this project. • Analytical Tools for Asset Management, NCHRP 545. This report provides a very useful framework for evaluating trade-offs in decision-making processes in transportation program development. Evaluation of trade-offs is critical to selection and weighting of performance measures. This is the foundation of development of scenario analysis and comparison models. • Tool Summary Sheet, NCHRP 20-57. This sheet summa- rizes capabilities and limitations of 11 modeling software packages—including HDM-4, HERS/ST, and STEAM—that Table 2.3. Scope of Road Management Functions Management Function Nature and Scope of Actions Involved Network Coverage Time Horizon Management Staff Concerned Planning • Defining road standards that optimize the use of resources • Determining the budget required to support defined standards Entire network Long term (strategic) Senior managers and policy makers Programming Determining the work program that can be undertaken within the budgetary period Sections likely to need treatment Medium term (tactical) Managers and budget holders Preparation • Design of works • Preparation and issue of contract or work instruction Contract of work packages Budget year Engineers, technical and contracts staff Operations Undertaking tasks as part of works activity Subsections where works are taking place Ongoing Works supervisors Source: Road Software Tools: Highway Development and Management Model (HDM-4; http://www.worldbank.org/transport/roads/rd_tools/ hdm4.htm).

14 evaluate econometric and other parameters. This sheet assisted in the identification and evaluation of commercially available software products called for under Task 5 of this project. • Lane Closure Policy Development, Enforcement, and Excep- tions: A Survey of Seven State Transportation Agencies. This report provides a very useful summary of performance measure selection by several state DOTs and was useful in developing the performance measure topology, as part of the software tool for this project. It also helped identify interview candidates for Tasks 3 and 4. • Selection and Evaluation of Alternative Contracting Methods to Accelerate Project Completion. The report presents a meth- odology for identifying, evaluating, and selecting alternative contracting procedures. The strategy of minimizing time- to-delivery is specifically identified. This work assisted in developing scenario indexing capabilities during Phase 2 of the R11 project, which are described in Chapter 3 of this report. • Guidance for Cost Estimation and Management for Highway Projects During Planning, Programming and Preconstruc- tion, NCHRP 574. This report was very helpful in building scenario analysis capabilities for the software product in Phase 2 of this project. Analyzing complex variables of material costs, labor costs, and right-of-way costs with imprecise or incomplete information at the planning and program management stages is inherently difficult and uncertain. WISE can evaluate and compare the overall sys- temwide user and agency costs resulting from the imple- mentation of the renewal program. This evaluation can include changes in completion time, innovative contract- ing, and updating of estimated project costs. • SHRP 2 C02: Performance Measurement Framework for Highway Capacity Decision Making. This related SHRP 2 project report provides a decision-making framework with regard to performance measures that will help to for- mulate the topology of performance measures as well as to guide in the selection of performance measures for the R11 project. Other Work Relevant to This Task SHRP 2 Capacity Project C01 and Capacity Project C02 SHRP 2 Capacity Project C01 (A Framework for Collabora- tive Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity) and Capacity Project C02 (A System-Based Performance Measurement Framework for Highway Capacity Decision Making) will develop and eventually implement a web-based resource and highway decision-making web-based tool. The results of R11 and the subsequent tools for evaluating the impacts of renewal projects should be incorporated and inte- grated within web-based resources established for the C01 and C02 SHRP 2 projects. FHWA Work Zone Mobility and Safety Program A review of the materials created by the FHWA Work Zone Mobility and Safety Program was conducted specifically on the development of strategies and performance measures for work zones. Pertinent and important information identified by the FHWA program includes these areas: • Performance measurement development; • Work zone traffic management guidance and examples— state-developed traffic management resources (New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, and Pennsylvania DOTs); • Peer-to-peer program for work zones; and • Work zone mobility and safety self-assessments (includes an assessment by the state DOTs on the integration of work zone mobility and safety as part of the planning process). Identification of Management Strategies and Measures of Success General In Tasks 3, 4, and 5, team members interviewed staff from DOTs and MPOs and other potential users of the products of this research in order to extract a “typical” business model for the sequencing of renewal programs and to develop an understanding of strategies and performance measures being utilized to mitigate work zone impacts. One of the principal purposes of this work was to compare and contrast actual practice with what was found in the literature in Task 2. Another was to begin the documentation of requirements for the software product of this project. That work was finalized in the initial round of workshops described in Task 12, the culmination of the requirements-gathering stage of this proj- ect. The summary of the interviews appears as a matrix in Appendix C. Approach The team attempted to contact representatives of all 50 state DOTs, as well as 22 MPOs, eight TRB committees, and a number of other key stakeholders. Interviews were completed with staff from 11 MPOs and 14 DOTs, and contact was made with all eight TRB committees that cover subject matter that is potentially relevant to the project. The interview matrix

15 depicts the same information derived in Task 2, but also tracks what is happening in practice. (See Appendix C for complete interview matrices.) The matrix categories are sum- marized in the following list. • Interviewee Focus (planning, design, or operations); • Performance Measure Focus (project, corridor, or network); • Strategies Identified (to mitigate impacts of renewal activities); • Performance Measures Identified (to measure various strategies); and • Comments. Interviewee Focus (Planning, Design, or Operations) The team found it particularly challenging to identify the most appropriate person within a DOT or MPO to interview. The team began with the designated SHRP 2 point-of-contact and asked for assistance in identifying appropriate interviewees. In many cases, team members were handed off to various mem- bers of the organization. The team found that the responses to questions varied considerably based upon the interviewee’s per- spective (i.e., planning, design, or operations). The team found that, for the renewal process, it is possible for programming and impact analysis activities to take place within the planning, design, or operations functions of an organization, or in some combination of those functions. Performance Measure Focus: Project, Corridor, or Network (the Where, When, and How) The focus of this research project is on the management and mitigation of impacts to the traveling public and to nearby land uses at the corridor and network levels. Therefore, the interviewees were queried to determine the primary focus of strategies and performance measures for renewal activities within their organizations. Based on the team’s interviews, renewal impacts are only rarely quantified at the network level, and if so, then they are usually considered as part of the plan- ning functions. Rather, work zone impacts are most commonly quantified at the project level during the design and operations phases. There is considerable opportunity to expand consider- ation of impacts to land uses and to redistribute traffic onto alternate routes, both at the corridor and network levels, as part of the planning functions. There also is opportunity to increase coordination among projects, in order to consider and mitigate corridor and network impacts through staging and other strat- egies during the design and operation phases. Figure 2.2 illustrates the program stages and the respective analyses that take place during them. Scheduling and trans- portation management plans (TMPs) dramatically increase in detail and precision, with performance measures and soft- ware tools compressing from the macro to the micro scale, as planning moves toward construction. As identified in the team’s interviews, linkage and ownership of the “meso” scale of analysis are rare. Figure 2.2. Program stages and analysis.

16 Based on the interviews, most design and construction evaluation focuses on microscopic congestion issues and associated performance measures at the project level, while most congestion management evaluation looks at longer- range major projects, such that neither evaluation may inter- act with the other on a regular basis. The MPO, in effect, looks into the future through a telescope, while the construction manager looks at the near term through a microscope, and only in a few cases has the state or MPO identified a corridor manager or someone to look at the near-term, broader pic- ture in a systematic fashion. In those rare cases in which someone is charged with looking at the broader picture, that person typically does not have a tool to help them make sense of the very different perspectives of the planner and the con- struction manager, not to mention the different objectives, strategies, performance measurements, and tools that are likely to be employed to achieve those objectives. The evolving understanding has resulted in recognition of one of the key challenges of this project: to bridge the gap between the MPO planner’s understanding of the regional Transportation Improvement Program, regional networks, and congestion (and associated mitigation tools and strategies) and the DOT program and construction managers’ intimate understanding of the PMS and BMS, along with construction techniques and work zone strategies. The team worked to help bridge that gap with tools and information sources that are familiar to representatives of both entities (MPOs and DOTs), in order to arrive at interpretations of congestion and mitiga- tion strategies that are understandable and acceptable to both groups during the planning, design, and construction stages. Figure 2.3 identifies the three major model types appropriate for renewal. As noted in the interviews, MPOs typically employ regional “macro” models of networks and traffic volumes to forecast regional air quality, as well as congestion and broader traffic flow, with appropriate performance measures. Design, construction, and program managers typically employ micro- scopic models to simulate options for intersection design, signal timing, and minor reroutings. The gap between the micro and macro scales is best met via mesoscopic models. In most cases, tools and models that easily migrate information and data from one platform to another, without extensive learning curves and data assimilation, are not available. Strategies Identified (to Mitigate Impacts of Renewal Activities) Six strategies were identified in the RFP and in the work plan: • Total versus partial closures; • Incentive/disincentive; • Short-duration closures; • Grouping nontraffic tasks; • Programming by element; and • Constructability versus project delivery. The review matrix that was developed as part of these tasks focused on the six strategies. However, the interviews also identified other project-based, construction-oriented strate- gies that could have potential applicability to this project: • Early, late, or dynamic lane merge; • Work zone speed management; • Work zone ITS; • Warning lights or markings; • Pavement programming, design, and materials; • Daytime or nighttime work; Figure 2.3. Software model types relevant to renewal projects.

17 • Scheduling around critical events or sensitive land uses (e.g., schools, hospitals); and • Improving parallel roads. These strategies appear to be primarily useful in project or operations applications, which are not the focus of this proj- ect. Although these strategies primarily have an effect at the project level, if they are instituted on a regional basis for renewal projects, then they may have a cumulative impact at the network level. Broader TMP strategies that are more typical for MPO regional planning, but also have applications for network and corridor congestion, include congestion-management tech- niques such as public information and travel demand manage- ment programs (e.g., ridesharing, telecommuting, staggered work hours). There are many examples of well-conducted and extensive public involvement and informational programs advising the public of major renewal construction efforts that have resulted in significant traffic diversions and improved traffic network flow. The impacts of a TMP, including public information programs on reducing the impacts of the renewal program, are included as part of the congestion management process (CMP) evaluation tools provided for this study. Performance Measures to Evaluate Various Strengths (the What) Performance measures can take on a practically infinite vari- ety of forms. The customers and stakeholders interviewed revealed a huge variety of potential performance measures. To assist in comparing these performance measures to those found in the literature, the measures are banded into 16 cate- gories in the matrix: • Maximize Cash Flow (from federal funds); • Maximize Overall System Performance Rating; • Minimize Delays (high peak-hour flows); • Ensure Accessibility (to sensitive land uses); • Minimize Daytime Disruption (commercial areas); • Minimize Nighttime Noise (residential areas); • Maximize Accessibility (partial closure); • Minimize Length of Disruption (full closure); • Minimize Delivery Time to Final Product; • Maximize Safety and Mobility (including worker safety); • Maximize Efficiency, Capacity, and Quality of Flow (impacts to levels of service, LOS); • Manage Life-Cycle Costs; • Maximize Production Rates; • Maximize Customer Satisfaction (stakeholder or commu- nity support); • Maximize Asset Value and System Condition; and • Minimize Environmental Impacts (air quality impacts). While some of these performance measures can be quanti- fied (e.g., delay in seconds or hours or noise measures in deci- bels), others are qualitative in nature, such as customer satisfaction. Developing a topology of performance measures that allows maximum flexibility to the user of the tool, while remaining statistically reliable, is a particular challenge. The team was mindful of gaps between literature and practice in performance measurement, because this understanding shaped the development of the tool. analysis of Interviews The interviews provided major insights that guided the devel- opment of the workshops and will influence the development of the tool(s) in subsequent tasks. Highlights from the inter- views that relate to potential users of the tool(s) and to spe- cific strategies or measures are summarized in this section. Definitions The first step to understanding how MPOs and DOTs analyze the corridor and network level impacts of renewal processes was to understand how they define “networks” and “corridors.” DOT and MPO staff provided various definitions of net- works that can be broadly classified as • Funding jurisdiction: For example, in Hawaii, state roads are considered to be part of a different network than county roads and federal aid roads. • Functional classification of roadways: Several transporta- tion agencies identified a network as composed of road- ways that have higher functional classifications, such as arterials, significant corridors, beltways, and interstates. • All hard transportation assets: Such assets are a “system” of transportation nodes and links that includes roadways, transit, rail, and all other transportation assets. The definitions associated with corridors were better formed than for networks and were associated with the following: • Sections of roadway that had more than one segment or one intersection; and • Primary routes such as interstates or major arterials. It is important to note that a majority of the interviewees indicated that they consider work zone impacts and that they conduct analyses as part of the planning processes at the net- work level. Further examination, however, indicates that analy- sis of pavement condition (PMS) is typically conducted as part of the planning functions, and analysis of work zone impacts arising from air quality requirements is typically held out as a quantitative network-level analysis. These network-level analy- ses and work zone impacts are distinct from analyses of the

18 impacts of sequencing programs of projects across corridors and networks. An analysis of the interview data set indicates that the major- ity of the work zone impact assessments are made at a project level, followed by the network and then finally the corridor level. This is shown in Figure 2.4. Some interviewees picked more than one assessment level for their jurisdictions. Although a significant number of interviewees indicated that they were conducting network-level impact assessment, the network-level analyses were limited to pavement analysis systems and considered only budget and schedules. It was only in the case of highly urbanized MPOs, like Saint Louis and Houston, where more elaborate network-level impact analyses on traffic from renewal activities were addressed. For work zones, congestion, safety, and delay (road user costs) are commonly analyzed. Figure 2.5 shows the percentage of interviewees who use PMS, BMS, or CMP for project evalu- ation. Very few analyze the impact of work zones at all stages of their projects. A majority of interviewees consider work zone impact at the planning stage as a by-product of traffic impact assessment within the limited context of air quality macro- scopic planning. However, this level of assessment does not generate the depth of analysis that is sought for construction staging and coordination of decisions across a network. Fewer agencies and MPOs conduct analysis in the operational and design phases, and these analyses are usually at the microscopic project level. Performance Measures Based on the literature review, the team identified several key performance measures and strategies. The team also Figure 2.4. Percentage of interviewees using PMS, BMS, or CMP as their understanding of project, corridor, or network analysis. Figure 2.5. Percentage of interviewees considering work zones as a by-product of macroscopic air quality analysis at planning stage and maintenance-of-traffic microscopic impacts at design and operations stages.

19 conducted additional analysis to better understand which performance measures are used to evaluate renewal impacts, which strategies are implemented to reduce these impacts, and at which stage of the project and at what level are these impacts considered. Consistent with the findings on levels of analysis (Figure 2.4) and planning stages (Figure 2.5), performance measures were primarily identified within the contexts of the PMS, BMS, and CMP and are not specifically applicable to renewal coordination as required for this project. Safety and mobility were found to be the most used perfor- mance measures, with almost 83% of the respondents utiliz- ing them. Minimizing daytime disruptions was the second most used measure, followed by minimizing delay, customer satisfaction, maximizing overall system performance (pave- ment), quality of flow, partial closure, maximizing accessibil- ity, and maximizing cash flow. The summary results are shown in Figure 2.6. Other identified performance measures can be broadly classified as qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative • Population data to evaluate equity; • Equity and political considerations, which play an impor- tant role in project selection; and • Impact on neighborhoods (Delaware Valley Regional Plan- ning Commission). Quantitative • Safety (e.g., crash rates, fatality rate, exposure rate); • Freight flow (e.g., heavy truck percentage, origins, and destinations); • Budget; • Schedule; • Number of work change orders; • Population data to evaluate equity; • Road user costs (e.g., anywhere between $7 to $22 for value of time per hour of delay per person were observed); • Pavement condition surveys; and • Facility level of service. Strategies Main Strategies The three main strategies employed were short-duration clo- sures, incentive/disincentive contracts, and total versus par- tial closures (see Figure 2.7). In the figure, the strategy “grouping nontraffic tasks” refers to coordinating items such as utility relocations, sidewalk replacements, and lighting or other enhancements to mini- mize impacts from potential multiple (noncoordinated) disruptions. The strategy “programming by element” involves consider- ation of multiple facilities or special jurisdictions within the Figure 2.6. Percentage of interviewees using performance measures within the contexts of PMS, BMS, or CMP.

20 sequencing of a program. For instance, disruption of a major corridor may be preceded by improvement to secondary (relief) routes, which may be preceded by addressing critical “choke points.” A renewal of a freeway or principal arterial corridor may be preceded by improvement of one or more relief routes that will accommodate diversion of traffic from the primary corridor. Improvement of these relief routes may be preceded by improvement of river bridges or railroad crossings that include special jurisdictional consideration. Interviewees who program by element report much stronger correlations to the performance measures. The strategy “constructability versus project delivery” refers to complex projects and programs that may require several design iterations to ensure that they can be built as envisioned. Also, it may be critical that the construction sequencing proposed by a complex project or program is the most efficient sequencing available, given other restrictions. Project delivery may dictate that speed is of the essence in program delivery, and consultants and contractors are much more responsible for figuring out sequencing. Constructability and project delivery are not mutu- ally exclusive, but they are somewhat contradictory, and most DOTs and MPOs attempt to strike a balance between the two. Other Strategies Strategies revealed in the interviews are summarized and organized in the following subsections by the phase in which they are primarily introduced. InItIal PlannIng and PrIorItIzatIon • Innovative prioritization methods: 44 Voter initiative sets priorities (Maricopa). 44 Cooperative basis is used for development of transporta- tion plan (Pima, TRANSCOM): Prioritize based on levels, wherein critical projects are built first based on funding availability, and the next level is built when funds are avail- able. This provides more flexibility in accommodating renewal impacts (Greater AZ), and these decisions are based on traffic counts and safety. • Project scale: It was found that the cost and schedule of a project influence whether or not the impacts of the renewal process will be considered. For instance, work zone impact analysis cannot be justified for a short-term and low-cost work zone (e.g., 1 day). In order to evaluate such projects, several DOTs have set up thresholds, which are rules of thumb and vary by state. For example, in Texas, thresholds are based on the functional classification of roadways; usually, any construction on an interstate requires a work zone impact analysis. In Wisconsin, it is based on a ratio of 10:1 for the cost of the project to the road user costs. • Coordination and communication among agencies to ana- lyze the impact of construction on a network or corridor: These were found to be a significant issue, especially between DOTs and MPOs. Some agencies identified that having “hard asset” communication infrastructures, such as optical fiber connections between traffic management Figure 2.7. Percentage of interviewees utilizing various strategies to minimize impact on traffic from renewal within the context of PMS, BMS and/or CMP.

21 centers, and data sharing provides for easy sharing of information and analyzing impacts of renewal across juris- dictions. This was found to be true in Texas and Missouri. Planning through construction • Context sensitive solutions (CSS): The public and decision makers are involved in the planning process in the early stages of the program. Public hearings and other strategies are considered. • Public involvement: Webinars significantly increased the participation in Missouri. • Other transportation demand management such as car pools, transit, and flexible work hours. • Public–private partnership: These overcome financing hur- dles but are complicated by additional stakeholders and other constraints. Planning, Design, anD oPerations • Construct in parallel to build temporary road relief: This improves capacity on parallel routes (e.g., DVRPC, UTAH). • Utilizing opportunity to improve parallel arterial routes. • Grouping projects in one location to minimize disruptions. This was observed in Colorado. Design anD oPerations Phase • Organizational structure: In most states the performance assessment by project managers is based on maintaining the budget and project schedule and having minimal change orders. This form of assessment disconnects proj- ect managers and the users from the performance mea- sures used to evaluate overall project management. Any kind of renewal impact analysis (probably) increases the cost of the project and affects the sequencing, which may explain why analysis of renewal impacts has not been incorporated seamlessly into the decision-making process. In order to overcome the discontinuity problem, the Mis- souri DOT has assigned Corridor Managers to coordinate and evaluate impacts along a corridor more efficiently. oPerations Phase • Congestion management using ITS deployment such as dynamic lane merges. • Dynamic message signs and websites to inform drivers about alternative routes, travel times, and so forth, which are employed to manage demand. • Contractor-conscious planning, which can promote the safety of workers. Correlation analysis It is particularly interesting to note that despite the gener- ally subjective nature of interviews there is considerable correlation between strategies and performance measures. Details of the correlation analysis are provided in Tables 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6. The team observed that the strongest correlations are attrib- utable to jurisdictions that program by element, which allows planners to consider many more factors when analyzing indi- vidual elements. (See discussion of Figure 2.7 for a more com- plete description of programming by element.) The team also found that agencies that conducted network-level impact assessments usually conducted them at the planning stage. The correlation analyses indicate that the performance measures commonly used to evaluate various strategies focus on the program level and consider maximizing cash flow, overall system performance, accessibility through partial clo- sures, safety and mobility, managing life-cycle costs, mini- mizing delivery time, and achieving customer satisfaction. See Tables 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6. At a network level, one of the critical performance mea- sures is minimizing delivery time, which is most likely a prod- uct of the project sequencing from the PMS. Customer satisfaction is also utilized as a performance measure during network-level analyses. At a corridor level, minimizing dis- ruption time is a significant performance measure. Minimizing the length of disruption and maximizing accessibility are the performance measures consistently used for all strategies that were studied. Most performance mea- sures are utilized in the programming-by-element strategy, which could be attributed to the ability of planners to con- sider many more factors when analyzing individual elements, as opposed to multiple elements together. Software products and applications The interviews revealed that many software products are being used for project impact analysis, such as STEAM, HERS, CA4PRS, AIMSUN, and MITSUM. In addition, sev- eral DOTs, MPOs, and Councils of Governments (e.g., in New York, New Jersey, Utah, Iowa, and Oregon) have devel- oped their own Microsoft Excel-based spreadsheet tools. One of the key findings was that, because most of the decisions are made at the planning level and in conjunction with PMS, the number of inputs required by the tool should be minimal. For this reason, several of the existing models are not being utilized. The interviews also revealed that any proposed work zone impact tools should require minimal inputs and should recognize that the amount of information available is limited, such as the known effects of incentive/disincentive contracts on traffic delays. Design and operations engineers are also using macro travel demand models used by planners and micro-simulations. Because there appears to be a general lack of ownership for

Table 2.4. Correlation Matrix Between the Strategies Identified and the Performance Measures Maximize Cash Flow From Federal Funds Maximize Overall System Perf. Rating Minimize Delays (High Peak- Hour Flows) Ensure Accessibility (Sensitive Land Use) Minimize Daytime Disruption (Comm. Area) Minimize Nighttime Noise (Res. Area) Maximize Accessibility (Partial Closure) Minimize Length of Disruption (Full Closure) Minimize Delivery Time to Final Product Safety/ Mobility Efficiency/ Capacity Quality of Flow Manage Life Cycle Costs Production Rates Customer Satisfaction Enhance Asset Value/ Pvmnt Cond Minimize Environmental Impacts Total vs Partial Shutdown 0.67 0.49 0.32 0.50 0.22 0.10 0.50 0.50 0.43 0.41 0.17 0.33 0.39 0.49 0.29 0.50 Incentive/ Disincentive 0.41 0.38 0.38 0.41 0.27 0.04 0.41 0.41 0.34 0.25 0.07 0.10 0.16 0.38 0.22 0.41 Short-Duration Closures 0.49 0.45 0.26 0.49 0.34 0.16 0.49 0.49 0.43 0.30 0.14 0.21 0.29 0.63 0.32 0.49 Grouping Non- Traffic Tasks 0.33 0.24 0.24 0.15 -0.01 0.27 0.51 0.51 0.01 0.31 0.51 0.40 0.34 0.24 0.29 0.15 Programming By Element 0.56 0.44 0.26 0.39 0.01 0.51 0.72 0.72 0.30 0.44 0.72 0.76 0.60 0.44 0.60 0.39 Constructability versus Project Delivery 0.43 0.43 0.26 0.43 0.17 -0.01 0.43 0.43 0.35 0.36 -0.07 0.07 0.09 0.43 0.21 0.43 Project 0.69 0.62 0.22 0.50 0.07 0.23 0.50 0.50 0.45 0.66 0.31 0.46 0.39 0.62 0.35 0.50 Network 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.04 0.27 0.17 0.33 0.43 0.41 0.33 0.17 0.39 0.49 0.13 0.33 Corridor 0.07 0.20 0.38 0.24 0.09 0.39 0.07 0.41 0.34 0.04 0.24 0.10 0.34 0.20 0.22 0.24 Planning 0.11 0.02 0.22 0.11 0.07 0.03 -0.08 -0.08 0.26 -0.05 0.11 -0.11 0.18 0.22 -0.21 0.11 Design -0.14 -0.08 -0.08 -0.32 -0.34 -0.34 -0.14 0.04 -0.43 0.13 0.21 -0.21 -0.47 -0.08 -0.32 -0.32 Operation -0.17 0.04 -0.14 -0.33 -0.22 -0.10 0.00 -0.17 -0.26 0.00 0.00 -0.17 -0.39 0.04 -0.13 -0.33 Note: The shading identifies correlations greater than 0.40. 22

23 Table 2.5. Correlation Between Stage and Scale of Project and Strategies Total vs Partial Shutdown Incentive/ Disincentive Short-Duration Closures Grouping Non-Traffic Tasks Programming By Element Constructability vs Project Delivery Project 0.50 0.16 0.42 0.35 0.50 0.26 Network 0.33 0.07 0.32 0.15 0.23 0.10 Corridor 0.24 0.31 0.20 0.10 0.16 0.17 Planning -0.08 -0.03 -0.18 -0.07 -0.07 -0.31 Design -0.14 -0.20 -0.08 0.15 -0.09 -0.08 Operation -0.17 -0.24 0.04 -0.15 -0.23 0.07 Note: The shading identifies correlations greater than 0.40. Table 2.6. Correlation Between Stage of Project and Scale Planning Design Operation Project 0.12 0.18 -0.11 Network 0.50 0.04 0.00 Corridor 0.16 -0.20 -0.07 Note: The shading identifies correlation greater than 0.40. level. Population densities and traffic volumes are low enough that congestion-based mitigations are not typi- cally warranted, and other performance measures are of higher priority (such as pavement condition). 2. Most DOT interviewees rely heavily upon their PMS, BMS, congestion management system (CMS), and travel demand model (TDM) to identify the universe of need. It is critical that the products of this project accept outputs from and not require significant modification to these systems. 3. In many cases, DOT organizational structures and prac- tices tend to focus on and reward narrowly focused project performance (e.g., project completion on budget and on schedule, limited change orders) rather than broader- based corridor or network performance, such as delays, congestion, or public convenience (e.g., road user costs). Exceptions may be found in highly urbanized areas such as the Northern Virginia Megaprojects or the New York Metropolitan Area TRANSCOM, where project inter- dependencies and coordination are considered vital to maintaining traffic flow. 4. The team found divergent perspectives from the MPO representatives interviewed. Many MPOs have little or no authority over the sequencing of programs within their bounds. More common, however, is a sense of confusion regarding the roles and responsibilities of DOTs and MPOs, that is, each believes the other to be responsible for handling analysis and mitigation of program impacts. It is uncommon for an MPO to have direct authority over project sequencing and to have a program in place for mitigation of impacts. One significant exception to this is Maricopa County, Arizona, which does have authority over project sequencing and mitigation and has developed a business process for dealing with such issues. 5. Some DOTs and many MPOs rely upon a CMP within metropolitan regions. These programs take into account congested areas and look at alternatives for retrofitting roads at choke points or for providing people with route or mode choices. Currently, areas with an urbanized pop- ulation of more than 200,000 are required to utilize data (i.e., level of service, travel times, volume-to-capacity ratios) mesoscopic models, any mesoscopic model that is developed should minimize the number of inputs (to be as consistent as possible with existing systems such as BMS, PMS, and CMP) and should be targeted toward both groups (macro- scopic planners and microscopic design and operations managers). Summary of Major Findings from Interviews 1. The team found that responses from DOTs fell into three major bands: • DOTs in highly urbanized areas (New York, Virginia, and New Jersey) place a great deal of emphasis on miti- gation of impacts at the planning stage, and many have software tools and established coordination programs already in place to assist them. Those that do not have software tools often rely upon consultants for such analyses. • DOTs in moderately urbanized areas (Missouri, Kansas, Ohio, and New Mexico) are concerned about mitigation of impacts, either because of the emergence of conges- tion issues or because of recently applicable regulations (air quality nonattainment, for example). However, these DOTs consider them largely at the project level and do not typically quantitatively analyze such impacts at the network level as part of planning functions. • DOTs in less urbanized areas (South Dakota, Wyoming, and Mississippi) are concerned about mitigation of impacts, but not at the program or even the corridor

24 to analyze their transportation networks and identify projects and studies that will increase mobility. By using the CMP to pinpoint the congested areas within a net- work, the MPO can provide input to states and localities to share with the public on alternate routes or strategies for motorists during renewal activities. 6. A region’s status as to air quality conformity or non- conformity is often a trigger for a mandatory traffic impact analysis for renewal projects. This may or may not lead to consideration of parallel projects in the corridor or region, or to potential ripple effects from multiple concurrent projects. However, the traffic impact analysis mandated by air quality conformity requirements may well be one of the more promising thresholds for those agencies that will find useful the tools developed in this project. Metro- politan regions that are in nonattainment or mainte- nance for pollutants must decide upon ways to reduce the number of vehicles on the road and ease congested areas. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently proposed to strengthen the standards for ground-level ozone, making it even more critical to curb mobile source emissions, particularly from idling cars. Tech- niques such as advanced warning signs to divert traffic prior to reaching a construction area, offering discounts on public transit during construction, and ensuring early awareness of projects through public meetings are tools to lessen congestion and maintain air quality during renewal activities. 7. Some interviewees indicated an awareness of potential impacts to nearby land uses as a result of renewal projects, but none indicated such impacts as a significant factor uti- lized, or even considered, in the development (sequencing) of programs. Target Audience As discussed in the Summary of Major Findings for the inter- views, DOTs fall into three principal bands: • Highly urbanized; • Moderately urbanized; and • Less urbanized. Many, although not all, highly urbanized DOTs have busi- ness processes and software tools in place to assist in the sequencing of programs in order to minimize, manage, or mitigate impacts to roadway users. Although highly urban- ized areas have software tools such as travel demand models, they do not all have tools that specifically evaluate maintenance of traffic strategies. Less urbanized DOTs are primarily con- cerned with performance measures such as pavement condi- tion. In these cases, it is not necessary to prioritize the consideration of congestion-based impacts. In consideration of these factors, the team believes that the target audiences for this project’s products are most appro- priately defined as follows: 1. Program managers for DOTs in highly and moderately urbanized areas of the country, where population density and congestion are enough so that mitigation of congestion- based impacts is a very high priority; and 2. Program managers for MPOs, particularly where con sensus must be reached between multiple member jurisdictions, in order to sequence projects in the Transportation Improve- ment Plan (TIP). The identified target audiences are subject to modification and must not be interpreted as excluding more urbanized or less urbanized DOT program managers. The team took care to include appropriately diverse key stakeholders in the initial workshops in order to validate these target audience definitions. The following major findings focus upon the identified primary target audiences. 1. Most interviewees described a program sequencing busi- ness model that was almost entirely qualitative. 2. As noted in Major Finding 2, most DOT interviewees rely heavily upon their PMS and BMS to identify the universe of need. This is typically the first step in establishing a pro- gram of projects, and significant resources have been committed to the development and maintenance of these systems. It is imperative that this project’s products accept outputs from and do not require significant modification to these systems. 3. CMPs and TDMs are similarly important elements of MPOs, and it is imperative that this project’s products accept outputs from and do not require significant modi- fication to these systems as well. 4. This project’s products must not rely upon the collection and maintenance of new data and must not require com- plex or extensive calibration efforts. 5. This project’s products will likely be most useful if they are based upon a readily available software platform such as Excel. 6. Management of expectation is important. The general business process of the interviewees in the development and execution of programs is described as follows: • Universe of need is established. • Projects are sequenced. • Projects are programmed. • Projects are designed and constructed. This project’s products are not designed to replace PMSs, BMSs, CMSs, or TDMs in identifying the universe of need. Nor are they designed to replace the public and political deci- sion processes in sequencing programs. Rather, they are designed to inform the decision-making processes and to

25 provide a rational basis for final sequencing and estimating the impacts of maintenance of traffic strategies. Evaluation of Tools Traffic analysis tools that have the potential to be used to study work zone impacts and strategies were identified based on functional classifications and characteristics. Their evaluation determined the functionalities that are critical for a work zone evaluation tool and how they can be incorporated in the framework for a work zone evaluation tool. It was also critical to understand whether some of these software tools are open source or nonproprietary so that they can be combined with the new software to make it more robust and easy to use. (Traffic analysis tools are listed by category in the glossary.) Geographic Scale The geographic scale of a work zone becomes important when attempting to model potential traffic impacts. A variety of software packages for modeling different-sized networks exist across a broad spectrum. Software on the lower end of the spectrum, such as HCS, describes traffic with simple in–out patterns and is a good match for isolated work zones. Other types of software capable of modeling entire regional road sys- tems would be a good fit for network (grid) and regional work zones where detours may need to be analyzed. The geographic scale of a work zone is determined by both the size and impact of any potential roadwork. The main types of work zone geographic scales fall into four main categories: isolated, corridor (pipe), network (grid), and regional. (See glossary for definitions.) functionality Software tools are utilized to make decisions regarding plan- ning, operations, construction management, and logistics. Based upon each field’s purpose, the functionality ranges from cost–benefit analysis to traffic impacts and delay to effi- cient material transport and management. methoDology The Traffic Analysis Tool primer (ops.fhwa.dot.gov/traffic analysistools/tat_vol1/vol1_primer. pdf) developed by FHWA provided the starting point for a list of 130 software tools con- sidered in this project. These tools were classified based on the transportation modeling categories (i.e., sketch planning, travel demand model, traffic signal optimization, analytic/ deterministic, macroscopic, mesoscopic, microscopic, and whether it is a tool suite). From the identified packages that were listed, a “short list” of 35 packages that have been used, or have the potential to be used, in work zone analysis was com- piled. The 35 packages were rated based on (1) the total num- ber of characteristics available in the software and (2) the characteristics important to the evaluation of their capability to evaluate the impacts of work zone impacts. Of the 35 packages, the top 13 nonproprietary and state DOT software packages were evaluated in detail. The results of the software evaluation are tabulated in Appendix B. Final evaluation General Software tools that are nonproprietary and easily available were evaluated. The software packages were selected for fur- ther evaluation based on their potential to be utilized as a component of the WISE tool. The tools were studied in depth to determine the used inputs and the generated outputs that would be useful and could be incorporated into WISE. An analysis of software tools appears in Appendix B and more complete descriptions and screenshots are in Appendix E. Findings 1. Microsimulation software, which is part of a software tool suite that has multiple simulation models through which one can migrate between macroscopic and micro- scopic analysis (e.g., VISUM-VISSIM, TRANSCAD- TRANSMODELER, and CUBE), performed the best. TRANSIMS showed a lot of capabilities but was not user friendly. 2. Among nonproprietary software, the software developed by Oregon performed extremely well, followed by DynusT and QuickZone. 3. A database of strategies and alternatives that include production rates and costs would make the tools more powerful. 4. Work zone impacts due only to queues are being evalu- ated, but impacts due to lower speed limits are not. 5. Leveraging nonproprietary software for evaluating and determining strategy would be the most effective way to create the WISE tool set. 6. STEAM, LCCA, and QuickZone were found to be the most robust estimation tools. DynusT’s router capabilities are useful to studying the impact of ITS and capacity changes. 7. SSAM was evaluated for microscopic evaluation, prelimi- nary engineering (PE), and design phases of the projects. 8. Several state DOTs have developed their own spreadsheet- based tools. Although these tools use very coarse estima- tion procedures, they are easy to use. 9. WISE was designed to be extremely user-friendly, flexi- ble, and able to accept inputs from PMSs and travel demand models. 10. Most of the software packages, such as QuickZone and STEAM, estimate the impact of work zones as a snapshot comparison between the area before and after construction. This process crudely estimates road user cost, and similarly the WISE tool takes into consideration the excessive road user cost resulting from the prolonged renewal activity.