University of Virginia
Risk-based Approach to Protecting Accessibility,
Mobility, and Safety Options for Transportation
Corridors
Prepared for the first meeting of the Project Steering Committee
Convened at the Rappahannock Rapidan Regional Commission,
Culpeper, Virginia
February 6, 2007
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
1
Steering Committee
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
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
University of Virginia
UVa Faculty
• Prof. James Lambert
• Prof. Yacov Haimes
• Prof. Joost Santos
UVa Graduate Students
• Alex Linthicum
• Nilesh Joshi
• Kuei-Yung Teng
2
University of Virginia
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
Motivation
Scope of work and tasks
Literature review
Candidate methodologies
Sample of data obtained to date
Discussion
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
3
University of Virginia
Motivation
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
4
University of Virginia
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.
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
5
University of Virginia
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.
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
6
University of Virginia
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 statecontrolled 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.
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
7
University of Virginia
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.
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
8
University of Virginia
Scope of work and tasks
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
9
University of Virginia
Mission
Develop and test a methodology supporting
identification, prioritization, and protection of
transportation corridors that could face significant
development in five to ten years.
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
10
University of Virginia
Project Tasks
Task 1: Project steering committee
Task 2. Survey of the best practices and literature
Task 3: Acquisition of new comprehensive data sources
Task 4. Risk-based models and metrics for corridor protection
Task 5: Integration in a multi-objective approach to prioritizing
corridor sections
Task 6: Case study with a selected Virginia county
Task 7: Recommendations developed with steering committee
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
11
University of Virginia
Schedule
Tasks
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Steering committee
Review
New data sources
Risk-based metrics
Multi-objective methodology
Case studies
Recommendations
Duration Start month End month
(months)
2
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
5
4
4
7
4
6
9
7
6
12
2
13
14
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
12
University of Virginia
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
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
13
University of Virginia
Literature Review
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
14
University of Virginia
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 regulations
Source: Armour, Rose, Butler, and Waters, 2002
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
15
Literature Review
University of Virginia
• 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
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
16
Literature Review
University of Virginia
• 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
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
17
University of Virginia
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
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
18
University of Virginia
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
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
19
University of Virginia
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
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
20
University of Virginia
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
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
21
University of Virginia
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
Source: Armour, Rose, Butler, and Waters, 2002
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
22
University of Virginia
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
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
23
University of Virginia
Literature Review
2. 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)
Source: Armour, Rose, Butler, and Waters, 2002
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
24
University of Virginia
Literature Review
3. 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
Source: Armour, Rose, Butler, and Waters, 2002
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
25
University of Virginia
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
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
26
University of Virginia
Candidate Methodologies
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
27
University of Virginia
Available Methodologies
Risk Modeling, Assessment, and Management (1987-Present)
FBI
National
Ground
Intelligence
Center
Dept of
US Army
Homeland Corp. of
Security Engineers
Metrics
Defense
Threat
Reduction
Agency
Survivability
Systems
VDOT
NASA
VA
Governor’s
Preparedness
Team
Risk
Identification
US Army
Joint
Program
Office
PCCIP
Interconnectedness
Inter- & Intradependency
National
Science
Foundation
Methodology
Complexity
Common
Definition
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
Quantitative Risk
Analysis
I3P
H-EMP
Commission
(SAIC)
28
The Process of Risk Assessment
and Risk Management
University of Virginia
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]
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
29
A Risk Assessment and Risk
Management Framework
University of Virginia
Identify Risks
Identify Consequences
Prioritize Risks
Account for Direct and
Indirect Impacts
Account for Extreme
Events
Perform Cost-Benefit-Risk
Trade-off Analysis
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
30
University of Virginia
Risk Identification for
Transportation Corridor Protection
Land
D evelopment
Temporal
Geographic
Stakeholders
State
VD OT
Region
VD EP
County
VDR PT
C orridor
PD Cs
C orridor
section
Localities
Properties /
Parcels
Developers
C orridor
Protections
Right of Way
…
Transportation
modes
U tilities
Analysis tools
Automombile
Water
C ost -benefit
analysis
Transit
Sew er
Multiobjective
analysis
R ail
Telecom
R isk
Assessment
Pedestrian
Electric
R isk
management
Current
Ow nership
N ext 5 years
Easement
N ext 10 years
Access control
N ext 15 years
N ext 20 years
Transportation
demand
management
Bike
Equity analysis
Property
transfer
Air
D ecision trees
Employment
Water
SWOT
analysis
Land ow ners
Travelling
public
Population
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
R eal estate
assessment ,
taxes
Risk filtering ,
ranking and
management
N etwork
modeling
31
Prioritization and
Comparison of Statewide
Corridors
University of Virginia
Source: Adapted from VTrans 2025
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
32
University of Virginia
Risk-Based Screening of Road Sections
Source:http://virginia.edu/crmes/guardrail
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
33
University of Virginia
Risk-Based Screening of Intersections
Source: http://www.virginia.edu/crmes/lighting/
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
34
University of Virginia
Risk-Based Screening of New Project Locations
Crashes per 100 million VMT
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
100 million VMT per Year
Source: http://www.virginia.edu/crmes/prioritization
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
35
Risk-based Screening of
University of Virginia
Existing Transportation Facilities
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
36
University of Virginia
Risk-Based Comparison of
Implemented Projects
Legend:
A
cc
e
bi ssib
lit il
iy ity
/M
o
Crash Rate
700
500
300
Ec
on
D om
ev ic
el
op
m
en
t
100
0 -100
10
1000
100000
Sy
ste
Pr m
es
er
v
at
io
n
Sa
fe
ty
In
te
rM
od
al
En
vi
ro
nm
en
t
O
pe
ra
tio
ns
Average Daily Traffic
Source: http://www.virginia.edu/crmes/comparison
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
37
University of Virginia
14 Criteria of Development
Vulnerability
Vulnerability levels
Criterion
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
.
.
.
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
38
14 Criteria of Development
Vulnerability
Criterion
University of Virginia
Vulnerability levels
Not Applicable
Low
Medium
High
Not applicable
Not sensitive to
environment
--
Unknown sensitivity or
sensitive to environment
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 applicable
Not accessible to
competing interests
--
Unknown accessibility or
accessible
Cost prohibitive
Not applicable
Affordable
--
Unknown unaffordability
or unaffordable
System environment
Situation complexity
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
39
University of Virginia
Sample of data obtained to date
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
40
University of Virginia
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
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
41
Data Sources (cont.)
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
University of Virginia
42
Data Sources (cont.)
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
University of Virginia
43
Virginia Economic
Development Partnership
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
University of Virginia
44
Virginia Economic
Development Partnership
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
University of Virginia
45
Virginia Economic
Development Partnership
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
University of Virginia
46
Virginia Economic
Development Partnership
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
University of Virginia
47
Virginia Economic
Development Partnership
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
University of Virginia
48
Virginia Economic
Development Partnership
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
University of Virginia
49
University of Virginia
Discussion
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
50
University of Virginia
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?
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
51
University of Virginia
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?
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
52
University of Virginia
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”?
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
53
University of Virginia
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.
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
54
University of Virginia
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.
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
55
University of Virginia
Project Website
www.virginia.edu/crmes/corridorprotection
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems
56