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 Q&A

4. Items to Consider When Prioritizing Freight Projects

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?

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 (cont’d)

10. Stakeholder Survey Result (cont’d) • 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

18. When Equally Weighted (cont’d) 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? • What’s next? • Why do we care? • Questions? Slide 20 of 16

21. Who is AMATS?

23. Where are we going? Anchorage and the Matanuska- Susitna Region is poised for increased population & growth. Anchorage’s population hovers near 300,000. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough’s growth rate is one of the highest in the nation. Growth=Traffic=Delay

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.

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. Why do We Care? • 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. 2025 Forecasted Average Daily Traffic

30. Why do We Care? Between 80% and 90% of all of Alaska’s 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.

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. 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 What’s Next?

37. Number 1Reason that we care is: Why do We Care? Economic Development Moving Goods and People Safely & Efficiently throughout the region. Photo Courtesy: Lynden Transportation

38. Why do We Care? 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. 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. What’s 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@muni.org Seong Dae Kim, Ph.D., PMP University of Alaska Anchorage afsdk1@uaa.alaska.edu Photo Courtesy: David Blazejewski, Alaska Railroad