Upload
sonia-searls
View
216
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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?