A Review of the Virginia Department of Transportation's Scoping Process and Options for Potential Improvements


Book Description

Transportation project scoping is a process where the project's purpose and need, budget, schedule, and scope are developed. Interviews conducted with 27 staff representing VDOT, FHWA, and regional planners, coupled with a review of related literature and federal legislation, suggested 10 options for improving Virginia's scoping process. Although implementation of the first 8 options may involve, to varying degrees, both central office and district staff, the decision regarding whether or not to implement them as a matter of policy rests with VDOT's Chief Engineer. Six options regard changes in process that have already been implemented in some VDOT districts or are under consideration: (1) Select a monthly project day statewide; (2) Delineate scoping-day decisions from other activities in the scoping process; (3) Consider initiatives that have already been deployed successfully in one or more VDOT districts such as the use of a risk assessment page; (4) Allow electronic submission of the scoping report; (5) Provide resources to perform scoping prior to programming (and use this information to influence which projects are placed in the transportation program); (6) Support efforts to link planning and programming. Two options regard specific products: (1) develop a single primer that explains to an outside audience how the scoping process influences project development and is designed to improve the quality of the discussion among VDOT, localities, and other agencies regarding project scoping, and (2) consider database enhancements suggested by interviewees. The final two options regard suggestions for further research. The report gives the rationale for each option, detailing interviewees' descriptions of how scoping is done, challenges that arise when scoping specific projects, and enhancements to scoping that have been considered in individual districts.




A Tool to Aid the Comparison of Improvement Projects for the Virginia Department of Transportation


Book Description

The goal of this effort is to assist the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) in improving the comparison in planning of potential primary and secondary roadway improvement projects. Historical projects that have been implemented or considered for implementation have been used as a case study data set. Methods are proposed for estimating cost, performance gain and crash risk reduction of future roadway projects, with the main focus being the presentation of trade offs among these criteria. If, in a particular case, more accurate and/or appropriate data is available for one or more of these criteria (e.g. from a simulation study that has been performed), then this information can easily be used to supplement or replace the estimations proposed here. The project comparison instrument combines three major decision making attributes in project selection: crash risk, performance, and project cost. By quantifying these attributes across a number of proposed highway improvement projects, projects can more readily be compared to one another, and a more holistic view of potential projects is achieved. This is an important step when choosing a portfolio of projects each year. In order to compare projects, attributes are quantified in the following manner for planning level decisions. Crash risk reduction is calculated as the number of crashes avoided per year at the project site. Particular roadway improvements are typically assumed to decrease the expected number of crashes by a statistically determined and pretabulated percentage. Performance gain is quantified by the vehicle minutes of travel time avoided in the peak hour. Finally, cost is modeled as the sum of preliminary engineering, right of way and construction costs. Once the objectives are quantified, they can be graphically displayed in a Project Comparison Chart. Examples for applying this approach are given in the text and in the accompanying workbook.




Business Process Modeling for the Virginia Department of Transportation


Book Description

This effort demonstrates business process modeling to describe the integration of particular planning and programming activities of a state highway agency. The motivations to document planning and programming activities are that: (i) resources for construction projects are used effectively; (ii) employees know where projects are in their construction life cycles and how projects may have been changed; (iii) the time of agency employees is used effectively; and (iv) the employees are working together to complete transportation projects in a reasonable time. The effort adopts the IDEF modeling capability of the BPWin software (also known as the AllFusion Process Modeler). IDEF modeling encourages consistent documentation of who generates what information, products, services; for whom; how; and for what reasons. Across the agency, the modeling is useful in prioritizing processes for change and maintenance. The modeling empowers employees at all levels, makes institutional knowledge relevant and accessible, and removes bottlenecks. It also encourages the development of integrated systems along functional lines, including administration, engineering, and operations, and focuses agency personnel on the good rather than the perfect system. Highway agencies have multiple business processes that can benefit from an integrated description of business and technology in process models. For example, the information technology division of a large highway agency maintains and develops around sixty software applications at any one time. Business process modeling helps the division improve their allocation of resources and priorities to these applications. This document provides the purpose and scope of the effort, the method behind IDEF modeling and the AllFusion software, the results and discussion of the effort, the deliverables, and the recommendations for future work. Twelve appendices provide the technical results. The authors identify some significant benefits that can be realized by an implementing agency in exchange for modest costs.




Considerations in the Development of Procedures for Prioritizing Transportation Improvement Projects in Virginia


Book Description

The transportation programming process is undergoing a fundamental change akin to that which transpired with the advent of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991. Some stakeholders have expressed a desire that the programming process be transparent, and some have expressed an interest in using data-driven performance measures. Although there is widespread agreement concerning broad criteria, stakeholders may disagree over specific performance measures. Thus, transportation agencies have become interested in methods for selecting projects based on their merits rather than the more traditional approach of "first in first out." Accordingly, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requested that the Virginia Transportation Research Council develop a template that VDOT could use to prioritize capital improvement projects. The role of the template is to help VDOT decide which project should be undertaken first. The scope of the template is limited to projects that are already being programmed. A template based on 14 of 75 performance measures examined was developed and applied to two projects. The template is oriented toward projects relating to the interstate and primary systems, but it is flexible enough that key policy choices can be made in its framework. These include controversial issues, such as access management and land use configurations, and more tedious but critical considerations, such as the relative importance of crash risk, infrastructure maintenance, economic development, and congestion relief. A promising benefit of the template is that it provides an opportunity to manage the debate as to the approach for deciding the order in which projects are programmed. The template will not eliminate disagreement, but it can foster discussion when parties have legitimate and differing opinions as to how projects should be prioritized. To that end, the template may be used as a discussion instrument between VDOT and some of its key stakeholders, including metropolitan planning organizations, planning district commissions, the Commonwealth Transportation Board, and advocacy groups who influence transportation infrastructure decisions




Federal Register


Book Description




A Review of the Virginia Department of Transportation's Business Relocation Process


Book Description

This report details a study that reviewed the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) business relocation program, with a focus on the relocation difficulties of retail gasoline service stations operating on leased property, as mandated by House Joint Resolution 490 passed by the Virginia General Assembly in 1999. The researchers reviewed reports and legislation related to business relocations and conducted interviews with VDOT field relocation agents, senior FHWA staff, and a representative of the Virginia Gasoline Marketers Council. The study also included a mail survey of businesses relocated by VDOT between 1993 and 1999 and surveys and interviews of relocation agents in other state DOTs. Statistical analyses were performed on relocation payment data for 262 Virginia businesses to estimate what the average payments would have been in the absence of the limits in the federal Uniform Act and how much higher the limits would need to be to ensure that the majority of relocated businesses were compensated appropriately. The recommendations were: (1) FHWA should strongly consider increasing the federal maximums for reestablishment and in lieu of actual moving costs (ILO) payments, given the evidence from Virginia and numerous other states. (2) FHWA should index their reestablishment and ILO payment maximums to the Consumer Price Index to account for inflation. Virginia should also index its relocation payment ceilings to inflation. (3) As long as relocation payment ceilings exist, Virginia should monitor actual payments to businesses and conduct analyses similar to those done in this study every few years. (4) VDOT may wish to consider the potential value of conducting a prospective study of business displacees. Ideally, any future study of the impact of displacement on businesses would follow a sample of businesses from initiation of negotiations to the conclusion of displacement process.




Options for Enhancing the Effectiveness of Virginia's Safety Management System


Book Description

In 1993, Virginia began to formalize the relationships and organizational structure for its Safety Management System (SMS). Although the SMS is no longer a federal requirement, Virginia decided to continue its implementation. The Focal Point for the SMS is within the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the SMS Steering Committee in Virginia is composed of representatives of VDOT, the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Virginia State Police, the Office of Emergency Medical Services of the Virginia Department of Health, and the Commission on the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program. This report outlines options that have the potential to enhance the ability of Virginia's SMS to facilitate traffic safety in the Commonwealth. The report recommends that Virginia's SMS Steering Committee consider the following options: (1) establish an SMS coordinator position, (2) formalize a strategic planning process, (3) use the SMS to vitalize local traffic safety commissions, (4) encourage the use of the holistic corridor approach by community traffic safety programs, (5) provide for more integral involvement of the public health community in Virginia's SMS, (6) determine whether electronic communication would further Virginia's transportation safety goals, and (7) provide for the implementation of improved traffic records.







Review of Operations in the Virginia Department of Transportation's Project Development Process


Book Description

The Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT's) project development process (PDP) directs how construction projects are developed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the manner in which operations is currently considered throughout the PDP and to identify opportunities to expand and enhance the consideration of operations such that the outcome is a more efficient and effective roadway system. The term operations refers to the safe, efficient, and effective movement of traffic on the highway system. Overall, the PDP is working well with regard to addressing traffic engineering issues. The project team process is valuable in reviewing and developing plans. Although there is some variety in the manner in which TE staff participates in the PDP across regions, there is consensus that the process is most effective when TE staff members are involved regularly and throughout the process. A blend of flexibility to account for the uniqueness of projects and project teams and consistency in the application of the basics of the PDP is important. Communication among all PDP team members is a critical component of the process. The resolution of recommendations brought by any team member needs be documented and disseminated to all team members. Checklists used to ensure that all issues have been addressed are not currently universally employed but are considered valuable in instances where team members are new to the process or the team desires the additional structure checklists provide. Clear procedures for dispute resolution are needed to improve the PDP process when consensus cannot be reached on recommendations. Recommendations are offered for improving the operations aspect of the PDP, including providing a description of role and responsibilities of the TE staff in the PDP, providing guidance as to who has responsibility and accountability for TE and safety-related items in the plans, reviewing the process for establishing a schedule and budget to make certain that adequate time is provided for project development and reviews with a focus on program management, and examining the opportunity to begin the PDP concurrent with the end of the planning process.