Prioritizing Future Freight Infrastructure Projects within the AMATS Area

1
Prioritizing Future Freight Infrastructure
Projects within the AMATS Area

• 13th TRB National Transportation Planning
  Applications Conference
• May 9, 2011

Seong Dae Kim, Ph.D., PMP (University of Alaska
Anchorage) Teresa M. Brewer (Municipality of
Anchorage) Gary Kretchik, PMP Donghwoon Kwon,
MS Harrison Yeoh, MS Kelly Brown, PMP
2
Prioritizing Future Freight Infrastructure
Projects within the AMATS Area

• Outline
• Introductions
• Where is Anchorage?
• Presentation by Dr. Seong Dae Kim, UAA
• Presentation by Teresa Brewer, AMATS
• QA

3
(No Transcript)
4
Items to Consider When Prioritizing Freight
Projects
Categories of Impact Impact Types
Technical Facility condition
Travel time
Vehicle operating cost
Accessibility, mobility, and congestion
Safety
Intermodal movement efficiency
Land-use patterns
Risk and vulnerability
Environmental Air quality
Water resources
Noise
Wetlands and ecology
Aesthetics
Economic efficiency Initial costs
Life-cycle costs and benefits
Benefit-cost ratio
Net present value
Economic development Employment
Number of business establishments
Gross domestic product
Regional economy
International trade
Legal Tort liability exposure
Sociocultural Quality of life
5
Project Flowchart
Update Data on Map and Website
Anchorage Freight Movement Survey
Objective Data
Export Data to Spreadsheet Ranking Model
6
Stakeholder Survey

• On-line survey was used to gain stakeholder
  input.
• Employer information
• Freight driver information
• Length of experience
• Size of vehicle
• Pre-determined route
• Perception about each candidate area
• Problematic?
• Why?

7
(No Transcript)
8
Stakeholder Survey Result

• 52 responses by March 24, 2010
• 42.3 of responders said that their company
  provides the transportation service of truckload
• 52.2 of responders are not a freight driver
• 29.5 of responders drive single-trailer tractor

9
Stakeholder Survey Result (contd)
Area Problem? Type of problem
Ocean Dock Road and Terminal Road intersection 34.1 road congestion (54.2)
Industrial Area circulation and access area 34.2 turning radius (36.8)
School Bus storage area 13.9 road congestion (36.8)
3rd Avenue and Ingra/Gambell area 54.3 road congestion (50.0)
Ocean Dock alignment near the Port entrance 31.4 road congestion (84.6)
3rd Avenue Post Road and Reeve Blvd 45.5 road congestion (50.0
Dowling Road New Seward Hwy to Lake Otis Pkwy 51.6 turning radius (77.8)
International Airport Road and Postmark Drive 3.2 merge lanes (50.0)
Ocean Dock Railroad Crossings 43.3 road congestion and poor signage (43.8)
C Street and 5th/6th Avenue Intersection 43.3 road congestion (72.2)
Lake Otis Parkway Debarr Road to Northern Lights Blvd 40.0 road congestion (53.3)
West Northern Lights Blvd and Wisconsin Street intersection 16.7 road congestion (37.5)
C Street/Potter/64th Ave intersections 33.3 road congestion (50.0)
North C Street and Ocean Dock road Intersection 40.0 road congestion (41.7)
Ocean Dock road access and crossing from Port to Terminal Rd 26.7 road congestion (55.6)
C Street and International Airport Road intersection 17.2 road congestion (50.0)
New Seward Hwy and OMalley Interchange 41.4 turning radius (53.3)
C Street Tudor Road to 36th Avenue Northbound 31.0 road congestion and turning radius (50.0)
Postmark Drive and Point Woronzof/West Northern Lights Blvd 10.3 road congestion (40.0)
10
Stakeholder Survey Result (contd)

• Most problem types are road congestion and
  turning radius.
• Some of the candidate areas need more attention
  than other areas.
• The respondents are not necessarily truck drivers
• Causal relationship of problem types
• Problem types in the questions are not exclusive.
• Some problem types are the caused by other
  problem types
• E.g. Road congestion can be caused by merge
  lanes, turning radius, etc.
• Need to distinguish symptoms and causes of the
  perceived problems

11
Model

• Direct Weighting Method is used as the ranking
  model
• Without pairwise comparison, decision makers
  assign numerical weight values directly to
  performance criteria.

12
Prioritization Criteria

• Truck crash data (relative frequency) wA
• Subjective from the survey wB
• Traffic data (relative volume) wC

13
Truck Crash Data

• Count of truck crash from 2005 to 2009
• Maximum 7 at Dowling Road New Seward Hwy to
  Lake Otis Pkwy
• Minimum 0 at Ocean Dock Railroad Crossings and
  six others
• Relative crash count (count/countMax) is used in
  the ranking model

14
Subjective Data

• Percentage of respondents who said problem area
  in the survey
• Maximum 54.3 at 3rd Avenue and Ingra/Gambell
  area
• Minimum 3.2 at International Airport Road and
  Postmark Drive
• The percentage for each area is directly used in
  the ranking model

15
Traffic Volume Data

• 2008 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
• Maximum 23,976 at C Street Tudor Road to 36th
  Avenue Northbound
• Minimum 2,068 at Industrial Area circulation and
  access area
• Relative AADT (AADT/AADTMax) for each area is
  used in the ranking model

16
Spreadsheet Ranking Model
17
When Equally Weighted

• wA 1/3, wB 1/3, wC 1/3

Ranking Area
1 Dowling Road New Seward Hwy to Lake Otis Pkwy
2 C Street and 5th/6th Avenue Intersections
3 C Street Tudor Road to 36th Avenue Northbound
4 C Street/Potter/64th Ave intersections
5 New Seward Hwy and O'Malley Interchange
6 C Street and International Airport Road intersection
7 Lake Otis Parkway Debarr Road to Northern Lights Blvd
8 Ocean Dock Road and Terminal Road Intersection
9 3rd Avenue and Ingra/Gambell area
18
When Equally Weighted (contd)

• wA 1/3, wB 1/3, and wC 1/3

19
Conclusion

• This ranking model shows rankings instantly
  revised from revised weighting.
• The model provide flexibility to the
  prioritization using one subjective criterion and
  two objective criteria, depending on the
  preference of decision maker.
• The model is expandable to include additional
  data and decision criteria.
• Pairwise comparison can be added to assist weight
  assignment in multiple criteria prioritization.

20
AMATS Planning ApplicationsTeresa Brewer

• Presentation Outline
• Who are we?
• Where are we going?
• Whats next?
• Why do we care?
• Questions?

Slide 20 of 16
21
Who is AMATS?
22
(No Transcript)
23
Where are we going?
Anchorage and the Matanuska- Susitna Region is
poised for increased population growth.
Anchorages population hovers near 300,000. The
Matanuska-Susitna Boroughs growth rate is one of
the highest in the nation.
GrowthTrafficDelay
24

Population Growth Rates 2000-2009
Anchorage 9 Mat-Su Borough 42 The growth in
the Mat-Su Borough has generated a 2.53 increase
in commuter traffic on the Glenn Hwy. during the
past two years.
25

26
(No Transcript)
27

• Where are we going?

Delay costs the average Anchorage driver about
17.00 per hour or about 3.1 million annually.
This cost is higher for Freight (fuel, labor)
users.
28

• Where are we going?

29

• Freight to double by 2020.
• Freight needs safe, secure, and easy access to
  retail, commercial, and industrial sites
  throughout the Municipality of Anchorage and
• the region.
• Future freight requirements transportation
  infrastructure needs must be addressed now
• to adequately plan for natural resource
  development
• projects, such as the natural
• gas pipeline.

• Why do We Care?

2025 Forecasted Average Daily Traffic
30

• Why do We Care?

Between 80 and 90 of all of Alaskas freight
moves through Anchorage via the Port of Anchorage
the Ted Stevens Anchorage International
Airport. Port Access. Poor access to the Port
Freight Traffic flows onto Downtown National
Highway System. This is one of the highest
employment centers and tourist locations. Freight
Providers largely located near Port.

Port Expansion Project will accommodate more
freight intermodal, and cruise ship opportunities
(Alaska Railroad). Local roads must be ready to
meet this demand.
31
(No Transcript)
32

Courtesy of the H2H Project
33

Courtesy of the H2H Project
34
Courtesy of the H2H Project

35

Courtesy Knik Arm Crossing
Courtesy Knik Arm Crossing
36
Whats Next?

• GPS Installation in Freight Trucks Private
  Vehicles
• Partnered with the Alaska Trucking Association
• Real-Time Freight Tracking using GPS and Cellular
  Transceivers for Transportation and Community
  Planning.
• Regional Freight Strategy

37

• Number 1 Reason that we care is

• Why do We Care?

Economic Development Moving Goods and People
Safely Efficiently throughout the region.

Photo Courtesy Lynden Transportation
38
Develop Transportation policy, design standards,
road networks, forecasts for freight
distribution and land uses based on actual
traffic movement versus personal diaries or
surveys. Identify land use conflicts,
opportunities (future freight corridors, freight
terminals, distribution centers, etc.). Protect
community livability (noise, lighting,
environment). Note Seasonal Weights/Restrictions
Road Usage. Update Code to reflect
actual/planned Freight Routes.

• Why do We Care?

Photo courtesy Anchorage Daily News
Bill Roth
Identify accident areas, improve safety ,
identify bottlenecks, congestion, delay (i.e.
downtown corridor). Develop screening criteria
best use of public dollars.
39

• Whats
• Next?

Establish not only local, but regional and
statewide strategic freight priorities for
transportation system development
funding. Implement Freight Priority
website. Provide, Seek Funding for Traffic
Control Technologies/GPS Phone Applications and
Downloads on a larger scale for freight
stakeholders, the military, federal, state,
local, and tribal agencies and the public to use
to track traffic delays, congestion. Start work
on near-term projects, such as traffic signal
timing to reduce freight delays. Implement
Future Freight Improvement Projects, such as the
H2H (Highway to Highway) or the Knik Arm Crossing
Bridge. The H2H project will build the
Glenn-Seward connection provide critical links
in support of state, regional, local economies.

40
Questions? Anchorage Metropolitan Area
Transportation Solutions Teresa Brewer, Freight
Mobility Coordinator 907-343-7994 BrewerTM_at_muni.or
g Seong Dae Kim, Ph.D., PMP University of Alaska
Anchorage afsdk1_at_uaa.alaska.edu
Photo Courtesy David Blazejewski, Alaska
Railroad