Prepared for the first meeting of the Project Steering Committee

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems

University of Virginia

1

Risk-based Approach to Protecting Accessibility, Mobility, and Safety Options for Transportation CorridorsPrepared for the first meeting of the Project Steering Committee

Convened at the Rappahannock Rapidan Regional Commission, Culpeper, Virginia

February 6, 2007



2

UVa Faculty• Prof. James Lambert• Prof. Yacov Haimes• Prof. Joost SantosUVa Graduate Students• Alex Linthicum• Nilesh Joshi• Kuei-Yung Teng

Steering Committee• John Giometti, VDOT Culpeper • Rick Carr, Planning Director, Fauquier County• Elizabeth Cook, Chief of Planning, Fauquier County • Jeff Walker, Executive Director, RRPDC• Wayne Ferguson, VTRC• Mary Lynn Tischer, Multimodal Office • Bryan Kelly, TMPD, GIS Team • Chad Tucker, TMPD• Karen Henderson, Fauquier Chamber of Commerce• Talmage Reeves, Director of Economic Development,

Fauquier County • Kimberly Spence, Multimodal Office• Mary Davis, VEDP• Beverly Pullen, Fauquier County• Marsha Fiol, VDOT

Steering Committee



3

Agenda

• Motivation• Scope of work and tasks• Literature review• Candidate methodologies• Sample of data obtained to date• Discussion



4

Motivation



5

Motivation

• VDOT is increasingly involved with the land development process in rapidly evolving transportation corridors.

• The land development process on transportation corridors includes rezoning, points of interest, real estate, public utilities, right of way, access management, and the transportation facilities themselves.

• Localities may hesitate to share plans for developing corridors, or they may be surprised by sudden large scale developments.



6

Motivation

• It is important that VDOT transportation planners anticipate and address future development along corridors and avoid surprise, regret, and belated action.

• Timely action includes working with the localities and others to protect rights of way and access for roads, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and other intermodal facilities such as park and ride lots.

• However, with thousands of miles of undeveloped corridors

across the Commonwealth, it is important to prioritize what are the corridor sections most in need of attention.



7

Motivation

• VDOT (2006) summarizes Section 15.2-2222.1 of the Code of Virginia

Localities required to submit comprehensive plans and amendments that will substantially affect transportation on state-controlled highways to VDOT for review and comments.

Localities required to submit traffic impact statements along with proposed rezonings, site plans, subdivision plats, and subdivision development plans that will substantially affect transportation on state-controlled highways to VDOT for comment.



8

Motivation

• Chapter 527 of the 2006 Acts of Assembly directs VDOT to promulgate regulations for the implementation of these requirements.

• VDOT is working to establish a comprehensive access management program that includes corridor protection.

• At present, right of way purchases are managed in the project development process of the Six-Year Program and State Transportation Improvement Program.



9

Scope of work and tasks



10

Mission

Develop and test a methodology supporting identification, prioritization, and protection of

transportation corridors that could face significant development in five to ten years.



11

Task 1: Project steering committeeTask 2. Survey of the best practices and literature Task 3: Acquisition of new comprehensive data sourcesTask 4. Risk-based models and metrics for corridor protectionTask 5: Integration in a multi-objective approach to prioritizing

corridor sectionsTask 6: Case study with a selected Virginia countyTask 7: Recommendations developed with steering committee

Project Tasks



12

Schedule

Tasks Duration (months)

Start month End month

1. Steering committee 2 1 2 2. Review 2 2 3 3. New data sources 3 3 5 4. Risk-based metrics 4 4 7 5. Multi-objective methodology 4 6 9 6. Case studies 7 6 12 7. Recommendations 2 13 14



13

Summary of Deliverables

• Review of literature• Databases, with new data and data from Statewide Planning

System• Metrics for risk-based prioritization of corridor protection• Methodology for prioritizing and addressing needs for

corridor protection• Case study of Rappahannock-Rapidan region and Fauquier

county• Automated Excel workbooks



14

Literature Review



15

Literature Review

• Importance of corridor preservation– Exchanging information among stakeholders– Preserving arterial capacity and the need to preserve right of

way in transportation corridors– Minimizing future displacement, relocation, and disruption

of building and other structures– Minimizing irregular land parcels and uneconomic remnants– Minimizing disruption of private utilities and public works– Development of urban and rural areas consistent with

planning documents, laws, and subdivision regulationsSource: Armour, Rose, Butler, and Waters, 2002



16

Literature Review• Challenges reported by Texas ROW administrators

– Early estimates based on planning level maps– Pressure to complete ROW estimations but often 3-7 years

until acquisition– Uncertainties with damages and court costs

• ROW acquisition involves partial takings, compromises parking, access

• Upgrade of highways removes access rights• Court costs 25-40% greater in developed commercial

corridors

Source: Heiner and Kockelman, 2005



17

Literature Review• Challenges reported by Texas ROW administrators

– Preemptive takings in which LU rights are prematurely restricted

– Several variables significantly affect acquisition cost for partial takings

• Size and shape of remainder (rectangles v. odd shapes)• Reduction in highest and best use• Location of remaining access points• Length of remaining frontage

– Utility costs could be as much as 30% of ROW budget

Source: Heiner and Kockelman, 2005



18

Literature Review

• Pitfalls of ROW analysis– It is natural, but incorrect, to observe places where land prices have risen

dramatically in the last 20 years and to point to those as examples of why early purchase would be an effective cost-saving strategy

– Certainly there are places where purchasing land early would have been highly beneficial, but

• Would these places have met some criteria for early purchase?• What other places would also have met the criteria, and what the

overall average rate of return would have been for all the places that would have been purchased early?

– The question is whether early purchase would be profitable on average, not just whether it would be sometimes.

Source: Barnes and Watters, 2005



19

Literature Review

• Pitfalls of ROW analysis (continued)– Do not assigning too much importance to the present

• Land of all types has been appreciating very rapidly in value for several years, even when compared with alternative investments

• Historically, this period of very large price increases is unique; there is apparently no period in the last 60 years that is comparable.

– The relevant question is not how good land is as an investment in the best of times, rather it is how good it is on average

– The example of the previous 50 years provides a strong counter-example to the presumption that the last ten years represent a long-term condition.

• Thus, a prioritization methodology is required to identify those that are likely to appreciate rapidly

Source: Barnes and Watters, 2005



20

Literature Review

• Three main land use categories– Communities/ Developing Areas– Secondary Developing Areas– Rural Areas

• Various Techniques– Alternative access– Entrance consolidation– Service roads– Local road improvements– Coordination with department of agriculture, department of

natural resources and environmental control, etc.Source: CCPP, 2002



21

Literature Review

• Provides assessment of strengths and weaknesses of current status, regulations, ordinances, policies, and procedures employed to acquire property interests

• Recommends a toolkit of practical, best practice techniques and assesses the benefits, resource needs, and other costs to public agencies and private interests of systematic corridor preservation

Source: Armour, Rose, Butler, and Waters, 2002



22

Literature Review

• Three methods of identifying corridors in need of protection– Long-range planning

• Delaware, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota– Project-by-project basis

• Maryland, Wisconsin– Official Map Act

• Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina, Wisconsin




23

Literature Review

1. Corridors identification through long range planning (Minnesota)

The six-step process focused on developing technical criteria for evaluating corridors and establishing performance measures

Source: Minnesota DOT, 1999



24

Literature Review2. Corridor selection on individual project basis (Maryland)

Corridors are selected on a project-by-project basis by a corridor preservation team

The corridor preservation team consists of:– Regional planners– Access permit division (counties regulate permits)– Right of way division (conduct actual purchasing of

property)




25

Literature Review3. Corridors adoption under a map act (North Carolina)

General Assembly gives state DOT and local governments authority to adopt and establish official transportation corridor maps

Projects may be included on the official map provided at least a portion of corridor project has been included in a current TIP or comprehensive plan

Landowners receive an 80 percent reduction in their property taxes for any land included on the official map

Selection to be an official map is limited to those major control access facilities when pressure from development is existing or anticipated




26

Literature Review

• Utah’s experiment with a Property Rights Ombudsman has been overwhelmingly positive

• Office has helped 3000 people resolve grievances• Shifted nature of owner-government interactions from

adversarial to consensus• According to UDOT

– Percentage of negotiations for acquisition of property that fail and result in litigation has been cut by 2/3 in the last 5 years

Source: Spohr, 2006



27

Candidate Methodologies



28

Risk Modeling, Assessment, and Management (1987-Present)

VAGovernor’s

PreparednessTeam

Methodology

Metrics

Quantitative RiskAnalysis

ComplexityInterconnect-edness

SurvivabilitySystems

Inter- & Intra-dependency

RiskIdentification

CommonDefinition

National Ground

IntelligenceCenter

FBI VDOT

JointProgram

Office

PCCIP

NationalScience

Foundation

H-EMPCommission

(SAIC)

DefenseThreat

Reduction Agency

Dept of Homeland

Security

US Army Corp. of Engineers

US Army

I3P

NASA

Available Methodologies



29

Risk Assessment• What can go wrong? • What is the likelihood that it would go wrong? • What are the consequences? • What are the time horizons?

[Kaplan and Garrick 1981] Risk Management• What can be done and what options are available?• What are the associated trade-offs in terms of all costs, benefits,

and risks? • What are the impacts of current management decisions on future

options? [Haimes 1991, 2004]

The Process of Risk Assessment and Risk Management



30

A Risk Assessment and Risk Management Framework

Identify Risks Identify Consequences Prioritize Risks

Account for Direct andIndirect Impacts

Account for ExtremeEvents

Perform Cost-Benefit-RiskTrade-off Analysis



31

Risk Identification for Transportation Corridor Protection

Land Development

Analysis toolsGeographicTemporal UtilitiesTransportation

modesCorridor

ProtectionsStakeholders

Current

Next 20 years

Next 15 years

Next 10 years

Next 5 years

Corridor section

Corridor

County

Region

State

Properties /Parcels

Localities

PDCs

VDRPT

VDEP

VDOT

Developers

Travelling public

Land owners

Transportation demand

management

Access control

Easement

Ow nership

Right of Way

Property transfer

Population

Employment

Real estate assessment ,

taxes

Bike

Pedestrian

Rail

Transit

Automombile

Air

Water

Electric

Telecom

Sewer

Water

Equity analysis

Risk management

Risk Assessment

Multiobjective analysis

Cost -benefit analysis

Decision trees

Risk filtering , ranking and

management

SWOT analysis

Network modeling

…



32

Prioritization and Comparison of Statewide Corridors

Source: Adapted from VTrans 2025



33

Risk-Based Screening of Road Sections

Source:http://virginia.edu/crmes/guardrail



34

Risk-Based Screening of Intersections

Source: http://www.virginia.edu/crmes/lighting/



35

Risk-Based Screening of New Project Locations

Source: http://www.virginia.edu/crmes/prioritization

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 2 4 6 8 10

100 million VMT per Year

Cra

shes

per

100

mill

ion

VMT



36

Risk-based Screening of Existing Transportation Facilities



37

Risk-Based Comparison of Implemented Projects Legend:

Access

ibility

/Mo

bilitiy

Econo

mic

Develo

pmen

t

Access

ibility

/Mo

bilitiy

Econo

mic

Develo

pmen

t

Operat

ions

Operat

ions

Enviro

nmen

t

Enviro

nmen

t

InterM

odal

Safety

InterM

odal

Safety

System

Preserv

ation

System

Preserv

ation

-100

100

300

500

700

0 10 1000 100000

Average Daily Traffic

Cra

sh R

ate

Source: http://www.virginia.edu/crmes/comparison



38

CriterionVulnerability levels

Not Applicable Low Medium High

Undetectability Not applicable Early detection Late detection Unknown or undetectable

Uncontrollability Not applicable Easily controlled -- Unknown or uncontrollable

Multiple paths to regret Not applicable Single path to regret -- Unknown or multiple

paths to regret

Irreversibility Not applicable Reversible -- Unknown or no reversibility

Duration of effects Not applicable Short duration Medium duration Unknown or long duration of effects

Cascading effects Not applicable No cascading effects -- Unknown or many

cascading effects...

14 Criteria of Development Vulnerability



39

CriterionVulnerability levels

Not Applicable Low Medium High

System environment Not applicable Not sensitive to environment --

Unknown sensitivity or sensitive to environment

Situation complexity Not applicable Low complexity Medium complexity Unknown or high degree of complexity

Past history Not applicable Mature design -- Unknown or immature design

Uniqueness Not applicable No uniqueness -- Unknown or much uniqueness

Competing interests Not applicableNot accessible to competing interests

-- Unknown accessibility or accessible

Cost prohibitive Not applicable Affordable --Unknown unaffordability or unaffordable

14 Criteria of Development Vulnerability



40

Sample of data obtained to date



41

Data Sources

• VDOT– Statewide Planning System (SPS)– Small urban area plans

• Winchester• Fauquier County

– Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 10 – Transportation– Primary and Secondary highway plans

• Rappahannock-Rapidan Regional Commission (online)– A study of the transportation and land-use planning connection in the

Rappahannock-Rapidan Region, July 2005• VEDP• VEC



42

Data Sources (cont.)



43

Data Sources (cont.)



44

Virginia Economic Development Partnership



45




46




47




48




49




50

Discussion



51

Discussion

• What is VDOT’s current method of ROW acquisition?– How involved are local land use / planning authorities?– How are acquisitions funded? Does VA seek Federal

reimbursement?– What are the primary challenges?

• Transportation investments inherently guide development – does VDOT see itself in a role of guiding development or predicting / reacting to development?

• Is there interest in corridor protection for other modes?– Pedestrian connectivity, bicycle paths, future LRT/BRT/rail

alignments?



52

Discussion

• How does Fauquier County inform VDOT about important transportation initiatives?– Small urban area plans? RLRP? Corridor plans?

• What land-use related approaches are used to protect corridors?– What is the range of reactions among property owners?– Anecdotally, are these approaches and reactions similar in

other counties?• What are the roles of the Chamber of Commerce in long-range

transportation planning?



53

Discussion

• Is there interest in corridor protection for other modes?– Pedestrian connectivity, bicycle paths, future LRT/BRT/rail

alignments?• Is Chapter 10 (Transportation) of the County Comprehensive Plan

the “County Transportation Plan”?



54

References

Armour R., Rose D., Butler S., Waters T. (2002). Assessment of techniques for corridor preservation in South Dakota. A technical report submitted to South Dakota Department of Transportation.

Barnes, G., Watters, S. (2005) The Financial Benefits of Early Acquisition of Transportation Right of Way. MnDOT.

CCPP (2002). Corridor Capacity Preservation Program Guide, Delaware Department of Transportation.

Hakimi, S., & Kockelman, K. M. (2005). Right-of-way acquisition and property condemnationTransportation Research Forum.

Heiner, J. D., & Kockelman, K. M. (2005). Costs of right-of-way acquisition: Methods and models for estimationAmerican Society of Civil Engineers.



55

References

Kockelman, K. M., Heiner, J. D., Hakimi, S., & Jarrett, J. (2004). Right-of-way costs and property values: Estimating the costs of texas takings and commercial property sales dataUniversity of Texas, Austin; Texas Department of Transportation; Federal Highway Administration.

Minnesota DOT (1999). Statewide interregional corridor study. Prepared by SRF consulting group for Minnesota Department of Transportation.

Spohr, D. (2006). Take a look at this bill. Please. Environmental Forum. Vol. 23 No. 2 March/April, 2006. pp 21-27.

VDOT (2006). Sam curling, VDOT, personal communication to Chad Tucker, VDOT, and Jim Lambert, University of Virginia.



56

Project Website

www.virginia.edu/crmes/corridorprotection

Prepared for the first meeting of the Project Steering Committee

Documents

Transcript of Prepared for the first meeting of the Project Steering Committee