Corridor Management Strategies Pilot in Region 4 Findings and Recommendations Reported to HMT May...

Corridor Management StrategiesPilot in Region 4

Findings and RecommendationsReported to HMT

May 2013By: Martin Matejsek, Laura Wipper, Steve Lindland

Background

• Issues:– Increasing demands vs. declining funds– Shift from capital improvements to

maintenance and preservation– How to make efficient choices for optimum

results

Background, continued

• Approach to Pilot– Much initial discussion on concept with

leadership teams• Clear boundaries – maintain and preserve

– Approval in July 2012 by HLT• Steering Team• Project Team

– Region 4 location – US 97» Grass Valley-US 197

– Collect and Analyze– Develop asset management and design strategies

Who Was Involved?

• Steering Team:– Bob Bryant– Luci Moore– Laura Wipper– Steve Lindland– Kent Belleque– Dave Polly– Nick Fortey– Amanda Pietz– Dick Reynolds

• Project Team:– Laura Wipper– Steve Lindland– Kent Belleque– Martin Matejsek– Dave Warrick– Joel McCarroll– Della Mosier– Brad DeHart– Rick Williams– Mike Stinson– Ron Snell– Rod Cathcart– Gary Larson– Joe McAndrew

Planning vs. Strategies for Corridors

• Planning Corridor Studies– Focus on

infrastructure improvements

– Public involvement– Coordination with

local agencies

• Corridor Management Strategies– Focus on

preserving and maintaining

– Asset management plan

– Design strategies for preservation

Pilot Corridor – US 97

• Segment Characteristics– NHS Statewide Freight Route– 2010 ADT = 2,000– Rural Two Lane Segments– Narrow Shoulders– Incorporates three smaller

communities• 2015 STIP Project

– Grass Valley to Shaniko

Analysis Based Upon…

• Lots of Data– Asset priority list– Pavement management data– Transportation System Plans– RES/RAZ maps– Contract plans– Vehicle and truck volumes– Crashes and lane departures– Maintenance – drainage and

rock fall issues

Analysis, continued

• Project team evaluation of assets and design standards

• Safety primary focus– Lane departures (shoulder width)– Bicyclists (shoulder width)

• IHSDM analysis required for corridor standards• Maintenance

– Rock fall (widen shoulders with disposed material)– Culverts blocked with sediment– Drainage (icing issues)

• Freight mobility – Maintain 12’ Lane Width

Corridor Management Strategies

• Assets and Program Areas addressed:– Bridges– Culverts– Pavement– Flashing beacons– Traffic barriers– Signs– Freight mobility– Unstable slopes or areas with rock fall– Sidewalks and ADA ramps– Shoulder widths and bike facilities– Approaches

Corridor Design Strategies

―Lane width―Bridge width―Horizontal alignment―Vertical alignment―Stopping sight

distance―Spiral length

―Superelevation―Pavement design life―Design life & mobility

standard―Sidewalk width―Median width

Compared to Highway Design Manual• Generally, updated 3R standards appropriate

and substantially met for

Design Strategy Exceptions

• This segment of US 97 did not meet current 3R standards for – Shoulder width

• Standard is 4 feet, but shoulder width ranged from 2 to 4 feet

– Guardrail shy distance• Standard is 2 feet, but many sections

have none

Status Quo Question

• How to answer the question, Where can we live with the status quo? – Three goals provided place to start:

• Safety• Mobility• Preservation of existing infrastructure

Status Quo Filters

• Non-interstate?• Rural route?• Has V/C ratios below OHP targets?• Has not had routine freight movement

requiring traffic control 12 or more times in a year?

• Does not have areas requiring extraordinary maintenance efforts?

• Does not have critical infrastructure below acceptable condition levels?

Status Quo Suggested Assets/Issues• Bridges• Pavement• Culverts• Traffic Signals• Traffic Barrier• Sidewalks• Bicycle Facilities• ADA Ramps• Unstable Slopes

Measuring Performance

Suggested measure topics are as follows:– Safety

• Corridor miles with no top 15% SPIS sites (need to develop)

• Lane departure crashes, matching approach taken for 1R Program (match that in development)

– Mobility• Corridor V/C highs (need to develop)• Freight mobility (need to choose or develop)

– Preservation and Maintenance• % Fair or better asset condition • Risk

– Unstable slopes (need to develop)

Comparison of Pilot Concepts

Practical Design

• Safety• Corridor Context• Optimize the

System• Public Support• Efficient Cost

Corridor Management Strategies Pilot

• Safety emphasis• Corridor Context• Asset

Management Plan and Design Strategies

• Status Quo?

Specifically Related to Safety

Practical Design

• Safety will not be compromised

• Corridor-basis for safety improvements

• Low-cost mitigation encouraged

Corridor Management Strategies Pilot

• Pilot context: Safety, Mobility, Preservation

• Corridor-basis for safety improvements

• Low-cost mitigation encouraged

Recommendations – Specific to Pilot Location

• Field verify substandard corridor elements findings

• Establish Corridor Design Exception for Shoulder Width and Shy Distance

Recommendations – Corridor Management Strategies

• Corridor-based design exceptions rather than corridor-based design standards

• Consider reviewing 4R standards• Evaluate utility and appropriate

application of IHSDM • Continue efforts to bridge Maintenance

and Project Development– Useful sharing of inventory data and issues

Next Steps

• Refine, define and establish process for programmatic corridor design exceptions analysis– Practical Design Value of Corridor Context

• Apply the process to warranted corridor routes

• Develop methods to share information regularly across business lines regarding significantly sub-standard features

Questions?