Prepared for the first meeting of the Project Steering Committee

1. 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

2. UVa Faculty Prof. James Lambert Prof. Yacov Haimes Prof. Joost Santos UVa 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. 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

12. Schedule

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

23. Literature Review • 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 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

25. 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

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. Available Methodologies Survivability Systems Risk Identification Metrics Methodology Interconnect- edness Complexity Common Definition Inter- & Intra- dependency Quantitative Risk Analysis Risk Modeling, Assessment, and Management (1987-Present) FBI Dept of Homeland Security US Army Corp. of Engineers Defense Threat Reduction Agency VDOT NASA VA Governor’s Preparedness Team National Ground Intelligence Center National Science Foundation US Army I3P Joint Program Office H-EMP Commission (SAIC) PCCIP

29. The Process of Risk Assessment and Risk Management • 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]

30. A Risk Assessment and Risk Management Framework Identify Risks Identify Consequences Prioritize Risks Account for Direct and Indirect Impacts Account for Extreme Events Perform Cost-Benefit-Risk Trade-off Analysis

31. Risk Identification for Transportation Corridor Protection …

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

36. Risk-based Screening of Existing Transportation Facilities

37. Risk-Based Comparison of Implemented Projects Source: http://www.virginia.edu/crmes/comparison

38. 14 Criteria of Development Vulnerability . . .

39. 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. Virginia Economic Development Partnership

46. Virginia Economic Development Partnership

47. Virginia Economic Development Partnership

48. Virginia Economic Development Partnership

49. Virginia Economic Development Partnership

50. Discussion