Skip to main content

Full text of "Carolina planning [serial]"

See other formats


Ufcc 



/ 



arc jjia 



i 






mi 11 vi p- 



— ^ 



Are we tn ilie l to Ui kiLie-'f 



Winter 2005 
fol. 30, no.l 






a ! 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2011 with funding from 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 



http://www.archive.org/details/carolinaplanning301univ 



Carolina Planning 

the planning journal of the southeast 



Winter 2005 
Vol. 30, No. 1 



From the Editors 2 

Articles 

Level of Service Measures for Biking: A Comparative Analysis of Calculation Methods 3 

Matthew M. Day. MRP 

Value Pricing Roadways 16 

Julian Benjamin, Ph.D. 

A Business Case for Southeast High-Speed Rail 25 

Tern' Chastatn 

Mass Evacuation and Our Nation's Highways 33 

Gregory B. Saarthoff, M.D. & John B. Noftsmger. Jr., Ed.D. 

Features 

Planner Profile: Janet DTgnazio 40 

News Briefs: Regional Planning and Awards 43 

2004 Master's and Ph.D. Project Titles 46 



Carolina Planning is a student-run publication of the 

Department of City and Regional Planning, 

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 



From the Editors 

The editors of Carolina Planning are pleased to offer 
this issue, which focuses on current topics in 
transportation. Transportation decisions at all levels of 
planning, from neighborhood to national, concern the 
efficient and safe movement of goods and people. This 
issue highlights examples of each of these levels of 
planning, while shedding light on how they are 
interconnected. 

In the opening article, recent DCRP graduate Matthew 
Day writes about bicycle and pedestrian mobility in 
downtown Chapel Hill. Using traditional level of 
service methods, he assesses the perceived comfort 
level of non-motorist users. In the second article, Julian 
Benjamin of NC A&T State University compares the 
experiences of different cities that are using High 
Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes on major highways. 
Next, Terry Chastain from the Metro Atlanta Chamber 
of Commerce presents the case for the creation of a 
high-speed rail in the Southeastern U.S. that would 
stretch from Washington D.C. to Birmingham and 
feature stops in both Charlotte and Raleigh. Finally. 
Greg Saathoff, from the University of Virginia, and 
John Noftsinger, from James Madison University, 
explain why our interstate highways may not be suitable 
for a mass evacuation in response to a terrorist attack. 

This issue also includes an inteview with Janet 
DTganzio from the Center for Transportation and the 
Environment, who has been involved in transportation 
planning at the local, state, and regional levels. She 
offers her insights into the future of North Carolina's 
transportation systems. 

We invite readers to respond to our content and design 
and to submit manuscripts for publication in future 
issues. Thank you for your continued support. 



Editors: 

Helen Chancy 
Adena Messinger 
Laura Sandt 
Rawley Vaughan 

Carolina Planning is published twice a year 
with generous financial support from: 

• The John A. Parker Trust Fund 

• The Department of City and Regional Plan- 
ning 

• The North Carolina Chapter of the American 
Planning Association 

• The Department of City and Regional Plan- 
ning Alumni Association 

The editors wish to thank Asad Khattak and 
the NCAPA for their support. 



Subscriptions: 

Annual subscription rates are as follows: 
Individuals SI 2; Institutions S20 
Students and APA members S 1 
Back issues, including postage $8 

Carolina Planning welcomes comments, 
suggestions, and submissions. We are 
currently accepting articles for our Spring 
2005 issue. Please contact us at: 

Carolina Planning 
UNC-Chapel Hill, CB#3140 
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3140 
Phone:(919)962-4783 

[■"mail: carolinaplanning<</ unc.edu 



Cover : 

Photo and design by Erik Malkemus 

Printed by UNC Printing Services on re- 
cycled paper 

© 2005 Department of City and Regional 
Planning 



Level of Service Measures for Biking: 

A Comparative Analysis of Calculation Methods 



Matthew M. Day, MRP 



Abstract 

Traditional methods for computing level of service (LOS) have implicitly favored mobility at the ex- 
pense of accessibility. The LOS concept was developed by highway engineers in the 1 950s as a method 
of measuring the level of mobility provided by a certain facility (FDOT, 2002). It has been applied in 
recent years to alternative transportation modes such as walking, bicycling and public transit. This 
article analyzes and compares the results of applying several of the LOS methods that have been devel- 
oped for alternative transportation modes to a study area in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 



Introduction 

Traditional methods of measuring the level of service 
(LOS) focus narrowly upon mobility, as determined 
by the relationship of facility capacity to volume of 
traffic, while ignoring accessibility. In the field of 
transportation planning, mobility has been defined as 
the ability to get from one place to another (Hansen, 
1959; Handy. 1994). Accessibility, by contrast, has 
been defined as the potential for interaction. In other 
words, mobility is a measure of how easily a user 
can move through a facility; accessibility, on the other 
hand, measures how easily a user can reach a 
destination using a facility. 

When accessibility is low. a person's ability to reach 
a destination is compromised. Traditional LOS 
measures do not capture this effect. Under traditional 
LOS measures, corridors with high levels of mobility 
will score high on traditional LOS methods, regardless 
of whether they offer accessibility. In many cases a 
facility will offer high mobility but low accessibility. 



or vice versa. For example, a community with 
abundant roads and little congestion but with 
relatively few destinations for shopping or other 
activities displays poor accessibility but good 
mobility. An area featuring high levels of congestion 
but relatively short distances between where residents 
live and all needed and desired destinations has good 
accessibility but poor mobility. 

A more accurate measure of level of service would 
consider both the mobility and accessibility offered 
by a facility ( Levine and Garb. 2002 ). Recently, new 
LOS methods emphasizing accessibility have been 
developed. These new measures allow planners, 
engineers, and others to determine the accessibility 
offered by a broad range of transportation facilities. 



Matthew M Dav is a graduate of the University of North 
Carolina Department ot City and Regional Planning. He is 
currently working as a Transportation Engineer at the North 
Carolina Department of Transportation in the Western 
Planning Group. 



Day 



including roadways, transit facilities, and facilities 
constructed for pedestrians and bicyclists. 

This paper uses a selection of accessibility-based LOS 
measures that have been developed for pedestrian, 
bicycle, and transit facilities to analyze the downtown 
area of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, (see Figure 1 ) where 
traffic levels are low and walking, biking, and public 
transit are popular modes of moving from place to place. 




Figure 1. Franklin Street in Chapel Hill, NC is a 
pedestrian and bike-friendly roadway. Photo by 
Helen Chanev. 



Capacity-based LOS standards 

The Highway Capacity- Manual {HCM) is the standard 
methodological guide in the United States for computing 
automobile level of service (FDOT, 2002). For modes 
of transportation other than private automobiles (for 
which the Hig/nvcn- Capacity- Manual method, though 
flawed, is generally used), there is less agreement among 
transportation planners and engineers as to an acceptable 
approach for computing level of service. The 
Transportation Research Board (TRB) has developed a 
Transit Capacity and Quality of Senice Manual 
(TCOSM) that outlines many different methods of 
computing LOS for transit services based on capacity/ 



mobility, accessibility, and quality measures (Kittelson, 
1 999). Some authors suggest that characteristics of the 
built urban environment (Jaskiewicz, no date) or the 
social or policy environment (Hoehner ct al., 2003) are 
also factors that influence the level of service that a person 
perceives on a particular non-automobile facility. 

Non-capacity Level of Service Models 

Several accessibility-based LOS models have been 
developed to evaluate bicyclist and pedestrian perceived 
safety with respect to motor vehicle traffic and comfort 
in using the roadway corridor. 

The most popular methods for determining Pedestrian 
Level of Service (PLOS) include the PLOS method, 
developed by Sprinkle Consulting, and the Fruin PLOS 
method, which is included in the Highway Safety 
Manual. Emerging national standards for evaluating 
the bike-friendliness of a roadway are the Bicycle Level 
of Service (BLOS) method, developed by Sprinkle 
Consulting, and the Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI), 
developed by the Federal Highway Administration 
(FHWA). The Transit Level of Service (TLOS) method, 
developed by the Florida Department of Transportation, 
computes level of service based on availability of transit 
within a walking distance. Each of these five methods 
are described in detail in the following sections. While 
some of these models focus upon travel demand and 
facility capacity, others are based upon a wider range of 
factors, such as accessibility, environmental quality, and 
safety. 

LOS methodolgies for pedestrian and bicyclist travel 
can be useful to planners in a variety of ways. These 
tools can help planners to identify weak links in a 
network of sidewalks or bicycle facilities, for example. 
Using the results of these models, planners can work to 



Level of Service Measures for Biking 



prioritize sites needing improvement. Planners can use 
the bicycle LOS measures to determine which routes to 
include in the bicycle network. They may also use the 
measures to create a bicycle map, which can help the 
public in choosing which routes to take. 

Pedestrian Level of Senice Method, developed by 
Sprinkle Consulting 

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) uses 
a methodology for computing pedestrian level of service 
that was created by Sprinkle Consulting and is based on 
four major physical characteristics of the street and 
sidewalk space: presence of a sidewalk and lateral 
separation from street; motor vehicle volume; traffic speed; 
and driveway traffic volume and access frequency ( Landis 
et al., 200 1 ). The creation of the model involved a survey 
and a regression analysis of the survey results. The firm 
first conducted a pedestrian facility quality survey in 
Pensacola. Florida, asking users about environmental 
factors, including width of sidewalk, width of bike lane, 
presence of sidewalk buffer, volume and speed of traffic, 
and number of traffic lanes, among others. 

Second, the firm analyzed the results of the survey using 
a regression analysis, in order to determine which 
environmental factors were most closely related to the 
users' perceived quality of the facilities (FDOT. 2002). 
In a later study, the firm sought to determine whether two 
other factors — the presence of other pedestrians and the 
presence of buildings against the edge of a sidewalk — 
were related to the perceived quality of pedestrian facilities, 
but they found that no such relationship existed. 

The PLOS method is focused primarily upon physical 
characteristics of the roadway and sidewalk 
environment, and it provides a simple method for 
computing LOS along a segment of the road/path 



network. This method was chosen because it is relatively 
objective and easily converted into a uniformly- 
applicable level of service measure. 



The basic equation that this PLOS method utilizes 
is (FDOT, 2002): 

PLOS = -1.2276 

InfWol + Wl + fp * %OSP +fb * Wb + fsw * Ws) 
+ 0.0091 (Vol 15 / L) + 0.0004 * SPD2 + 6.0468 
( for English units) 

where, 

Wol = width of outside lane of traffic (including 

on-street parking area); 

Wl = width of marked shoulder or marked bicycle 

lane; 

fp = on-street parking coefficient or factor (0.2 

used in analysis); 

%OSP = percent of segment with on-street 

parking; 

fb = sidewalk buffer factor; 

Wb = width of buffer between street and 

sidewalk; 

fsw = sidewalk coefficient or factor 

(equals 6 - 0.3 * Ws); 

Ws = width of sidewalk; 

Vol 15 = volume of directional motor traffic in 

peak 15 -minute period; 

L = number of directional through lanes; 

SPD = average speed of motor vehicle traffic. 



Under the PLOS method. LOS is calculated for both 
sides of each road segment being studied; grades are 
based on the scale on the following page. 



Day 



LOS Grade 


PLOS/BLOS Score 


A 


< 1.5 


B 


1.5-2.5 


C 


2.5-3.5 


D 


3.5-4.5 


E 


4.5 - 5.5 


F 


>5.5 



Fruin Pedestrian Level of Service Method, developed 
by Fruin and included in the Highway Capacity 
Manual 

The Fruin method, which requires the input of pedestrian 
count data, can provide useful information about the 
capacity of the sidewalks in high-traffic locations, and 
determine whether there is a need for additional sidewalk 
capacity in these locations. 



The Fruin methodology is defined by the following 
equation (TRB, 2000): 

Pedestrian unit flow rate = V 1 5 /( 1 5 * We) 

where, 

VI 5 = peak 15-minute pedestrian traffic rate 

(persons per 15-minutcs); 

We = effective width of sidewalk. 



The flow rate generated by the equation above is used 
to determine a LOS grade for a pedestrian facility based 
on the standards below. 



LOS Grade 


Flow 


(persons/min/ft) 


A 




<5 


B 




5-7 


C 




7- 10 


D 




10-15 


E 




15-23 


F 




>23 



The Fruin method is a capacity-based method and 
assumes that the primary determinant of quality service 
in the pedestrian environment is the ability to move 
through that environment with as little impedance as 
possible. 

Bicycle Level of Sennce Method, developed by 
Sprinkle Consulting 

Sprinkle Consulting developed a BLOS method for the 
Florida Department of Transportation. This method, like 
Fruin's, is based upon physical characteristics of the road 
and bicycle facilities but focuses to a greater extent than 
the Fruin method upon the presence and quality of 
bicycle facilities and the characteristics of motor vehicle 
traffic, including the volume, speed, and number of 
heavy trucks (see Figure 2). The various data are 
combined into a LOS score based on a regression model 
(FDOT, 2002). 




Figure 2. The quality of bike facilities, such as 
bike lanes, may affect a cyclist's BLOS. Photo by 
Erik Malkemus. 



Level of Service Measures for Biking 



7 



This particular method includes a factor on roadway 
condition, which is a variable not included in the BCI 
method (discussed below). Other factors include motor 
vehicle traffic volume and speed, effective outside lane 
width, and amount of truck traffic. 



Bicycle Level of Service is defined by this model 
as (FDOT, 2002): 

BLOS = 0.507 ln(Voll5 / L) + 0.199 * SPt * (1 + 
10.38 * HV)2 + 7.066 * ( 1/PR5)2 - 0.005 * We2 + 
0.760 (for English units) 

where. 

Vol 15 = volume of directional traffic in 15-minute 

peak period; 

L = total number of through lanes; 

SPt = effective speed limit (1.1 199 ln(SPp-20) + 

0.8103, SPp = posted speed); 

HV = percent heavy trucks; 

PR5 = FHWA 5-point surface condition rating; 

We = average effective width of outside lane (lane 

width less obstructions). 



Level of service grades are assigned for both sides of 
each road segment being studied using the same scale 
as for the PLOS model (see previous). 

Bicycle Compatibility Index Method, developed by the 
Federal Highway Administration 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has 
developed a BCI that serves as a measure of quality for 
different roads in terms of bicycle traffic. The BCI is 
similar to the aforementioned FDOT pedestrian and 
bicycle level of service methods, in that it primarily 
focuses on physical characteristics of the road, such as 
the presence ofbicycle lanes or the volume of automobile 



and truck traffic, and combines them into a measure of 
facility quality that is not based entirely on capacity 
(FHWA, 1998). While the FDOT and FHWA methods 
of computing BLOS examine similar characteristics of 
the bicyclist's environment, the two models use different 
criteria weights and could produce very different results. 
The FHWA method is different from the Sprinkle BLOS 
method in that it accounts for the presence of a bicycle 
lane, the traffic volume in lanes other than the outside 
lane, and the presence, occupancy, and turnover of on- 
street parking. 



The BCI uses the following equation to compute 
level of service (FHWA, 1998): 

BCI = 3.67-0.966 * BL-0.410 * BLW - 0.498 * 

CLW + 0.002 * CLV + 0.0004 * OLV + 0.022 * 

SPD + 0.506 * PKG - 0.264 * AREA + AF 

where, 

BL = presence of bike lane (no = 0, yes = 1 ); 

BLW = bicycle lane width (meters); 

CLW = curb lane width (meters); 

CLV = curb lane volume (peak hour); 

OLV = other lane(s ) volume in same direction (peak 

hour); 

SPD = 85th percentile of speed; 

PKG = presence of parking lane occupied more than 

30%(no=0,yes=l); 

AREA = type of development ( residential 1, 

other=0); 

AF = truck volume factor + parking turnover factor 

+ right turn volume factor. 



The grading scale for the BCI is presented later, along 
with a discussion on a proposed adjustment to the grading 
scale as a result of the analysis conducted in Chapel 
Hill. 



8 



Day 



Transit Level of Service Method, developed by the 
Florida Department of Transportation 

The Florida Department of Transportation uses a 
sophisticated method for determining transit level of 
service at the system, route, and stop levels. FDOT's 
method is built upon the framework set up in the Federal 
Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, which 
suggests measuring transit accessibility by service 
frequency, hours of service, and service coverage. This 
TLOS method takes into account these factors and uses 
a free downloadable computer program. Geographic 
Information Systems (GIS), and spreadsheets to compute 
LOS based on availability of transit within a walking 
distance (based on a walking network), given vehicle 
headways, and projected wait times for individual routes 
and stops (Ryus et al., 2000). It should be noted that the 
TLOS does not address whether routes connect origins 
and destinations well, or whether transit customers are 
comfortable and safe on their trips. 

The transit level of service in the Chapel Hill Town 
Center will be determined using a form of t£e Florida 
Department of Transportation's TLOS methodology. 
The full version of the TLOS software is a somewhat 
burdensome program to use and requires a great deal of 
data that is not always immediately available to the 
public; however, the program, which is downloadable 
from the Internet at no cost, comes with a spreadsheet 
that allows for a simplified calculation of LOS for route 
segments and stops. The spreadsheet has few data 
requirements. One can obtain a complete output by 
inputting only the scheduled arrival and departure times 
of buses — information which can be easily obtained 
from a schedule book. 



routes operating along that segment, and the times that 
buses are scheduled to stop at the stops along the 
segment. A macro built into the spreadsheet then 
calculates the number of minutes during the day that a 
stop has service available to it. based upon a number 
of variables, including user-defined maximum wait 
times at stops, walking distances, environmental 
characteristics, and the use of straight-line or network- 
based buffers. 

Level of service can be computed two different ways 
using this spreadsheet because the user defines the time 
duration of the calculations. If the user only calculates 
TLOS for a portion of the day (i.e., during the time of 
service), the program defines a letter grade based on the 
frequency of service guidelines in the Transit Capacity 
and Quality of Service Manual, shown below (Kittelson, 
2001 and 1999). 



LOS 


TLOS Score 


Headways* 




(% time served) 


(TCQSM) 


A 


> 50 % 


< 10 minutes 


B 


35.7% - 50% 


10-14 minutes 


C 


25% - 35.7% 


15-20 minutes 


D 


16.7% -25% 


21-30 minutes 


E 


8.3%- 16.7% 


3 1 -60 minutes 


F 


< 8.3% 


> 60 minutes 


*assumes 5 minute maximum wait time 



See Figure 3 for a graphic representation of TLOS 
scores for the Chapel Hill transit system. 



The TLOS route segment spreadsheet allows a user to 
input the names of stops along a street segment, the 



Level of Service Measures for Biking 



On the other hand, if the user defines the calculation period 
as exactly 24 hours, the LOS grade is determined jointly 
by frequency and hours of service. This is done by simply 
multiplying the TLOS score standards ( in terms of percent 
time served) together to create a joint standard. For 
example the "A" standard for headways is less than 10 
minutes and the standard for hours of service is greater 
than 19 hours. Headways of minutes, assuming 5 minute 
wait times, mean that a location is served 50 percent of 
the time. Being served 19 hours out of 24 means being 
served 79 percent of the time. Seventy-nine percent of 50 
percent is 39.6 percent, so any TLOS score over 39.6 
percent would receive a grade of "A." The following 



table summarizes the standards for 24-hour TLOS grading 
(Kittclson,2001 and 1999). 



LOS TLOS Score 


Headways Hours Served 




(TCQSM) 




(TCQSM) 






A > 39.6%< 1 minutes 1 9-24 




B 25.3 - 39.6% 


10-14 minutes 


17-18 


C 14.6-25.3% 


15-20 minutes 


14-16 


D 8.4 - 14.6% 


21-30 minutes 


12-13 


E 1.4-8.4% 


3 1 -60 minutes 


4-11 


F <1.4% 


> 60 minutes 


0-3 




O Downtown bus stops 
-Segments 
| E Operation TLOS 
| D Operation TLOS 
| C Operation TLOS 
B Operation TLOS 
A Operation TLOS 



Figure 3. Example of buffers used in TLOS software that outline areas of Chapel Hill's transit 
service with different grades of TLOS operation. Image courtesy of Matthew Day. 



10 



Day 



For simplicity in calculating TLOS for this comparative 
study, environmental values for the areas surrounding 
stops were not calculated. Calculating environmental 
values would have required the data on pedestrian facility 
quality as well as job and population density around 
stops. When such environmental data arc included in 
an analysis, the researcher weighs the stops according 
to the data. When such environmental data is not 
included in the analysis, all stops are weighted equally. 

Methodology 

This analysis involves computing level of service for 
the various modes of transportation in the Town Center 
area of Chapel Hill using the methods outlined in the 
above literature review as a means of discovering the 
applicability and benefits of existing LOS 
methodologies. 

Chapel Hill is a small city in the Piedmont region of 
central North Carolina and is included in the Research 
Triangle region (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill). Chapel 
Hill's Town Center essentially centers around two streets. 
Franklin Street and Rosemary Street, which run parallel 
to one another. Traffic levels are low in the downtown 
area, due in large part to a scarcity of parking and a 20 
mph posted speed limit. Walking, biking, and public 
transit arc popular forms of transportation in this area. 
The University of North Carolina's main campus is at 
the eastern end of the Town Center. The Town of 
Carrboro lies directly to the west of Chapel Hill. 

For the purposes of this analysis, a study area was defined 
that extended one block from the south side of Franklin 
Street and from the north side of Rosemary Street. The 
streets in this study area were broken into segments, 
which generally spanned from one intersection to the 
next intersection, with a few exceptions. Data used in 



the analyses included GIS parcel data, aerial 
photographs, pedestrian and vehicle traffic counts, and 
GIS bus stop location data. Traffic counts on individual 
street segments were estimated based on known traffic 
counts and estimated trip ends per segment. 

In an effort to compare different methods of computing 
level of service, two different methods have been used 
for each mode of travel being studied. For pedestrian 
level of service, the PLOS method developed by Sprinkle 
Consulting is compared with the capacity-based Fruin 
method, which is the method presented in the Higlma)- 
Capacity Manual. For bicycle level of service Sprinkle 
Consulting's BLOS calculation is compared with the 
Federal Highway Administration's BCI calculation. 
Finally, for transit level of service, a simplified version 
of Florida's TLOS method is used. The TLOS method 
includes two methods of calculations — one which is 
based upon frequency of service and another which is 
based on frequency and hours of service. Both of these 
TLOS methods arc employed in the analysis. 

Findings 

Pedestrian Facilities 

The two methods utilized for calculating pedestrian level 
of service yielded widely divergent results. The Fruin 
method paints a picture of excellence in Chapel Hill's 
pedestrian environment. All of the locations for which 
the Fruin method was applied received a LOS grade of 
"A." The PLOS model, on the other hand, provides a 
more varied picture. PLOS grades for the town center 
ranged from "A" to "E." with most facilities falling in 
the middle of the range ("B" or "C"). 

The variation in scores produced by the two models 
undoubtedly results from their varied approaches. The 



Level of Service Measures for Biking 



11 



Fruin method, being a capacity-based method, bases its 
LOS grades entirely on the volume of pedestrian traffic 
and the capacity of a pedestrian facility. The Fruin 
analysis, which was conducted on the locations in the 
Town Center study area for which there were recent 
pedestrian volume counts, produced a result of all "A's" 
for pedestrian facilities in the area. 

While both models are helpful in evaluating the LOS of 
pedestrians in Chapel Hill, each model is based upon 
assumptions which are somewhat incompatible with the 
Chapel Hill environment. The Fruin method is a 
capacity-based method and assumes that the primary 
determinant of quality service in the pedestrian 
environment is the ability to move through that 
environment with as little impedance as possible. In 
Chapel Hill's Town Center, where pedestrian flows are 
steady, but certainly not crush flows, every pedestrian 
facility will score an "A" (flow is uninterrupted). Clearly, 
this has little utility for determining the quality of the 
pedestrian environment in this situation of examining 
residential and commercial streetfronts. The method 
seems better suited to determining adequacy of 
pedestrian facilities at airports, stadiums, and schools, 
where one would expect very large crowds at certain 
peak times. 

The PLOS method, by contrast, calculates scores based 
upon characteristics of the pedestrian environment. Like 
most level of service models, the PLOS model was 
developed primarily for use on arterial highways. As 
such, the assumptions upon which the model is based 
do not logically apply to local residential streets. For 
example, one assumption of the PLOS is that pedestrians 
do not walk in the street, but walk, instead, beside the 
road — either on a sidewalk or on the grass. Experience 
tells us, however, that many people in Chapel Hill walk 
in the street on low-volume roads which do not feature 



sidewalks. The PLOS model assumes the cars always 
act as a buffer. As such, the PLOS model gives high 
grades to side streets where on-street parking is present. 
In reality, streets in Chapel Hill featuring on-street 
parking and no sidewalks constitute a less-safe pedestrian 
environment, as pedestrians are forced to walk further 
into the street. This problem occurs on several streets in 
the Town Center study area. To account for this 
inconsistency, we must assume that for streets where 
there is no sidewalk but there is on-street parking, both 
sides of the street should have a LOS grade that is close 
to that found on the side of the street that does not have 
on-street parking. 

Bicycle Facilities 

The two methods used for examining bicycle level of 
service models show that bicycle level of service is 
lowest in the areas immediately surrounding the 
University of North Carolina campus. 

The results of the Sprinkle Consulting BLOS method 
portray a relatively safe bicycling environment in much 
of the Chapel Hill Town Center. Most areas north and 
west of the intersection of Franklin and Columbia Streets 
(the de facto center of town) received a score of at least 
"C." Areas around the edge of the UNC campus, 
however, received grades of "D" and "E" for the large 
part. These grades are given in each direction, since 
bicycle traffic flows in the same direction as motor 
vehicle traffic, on the right-hand side of the street. 

The results in the test case generally show lower scores 
on roads with high traffic volumes and narrow outside 
lanes. Locations with on-street parking also generally 
have lower scores than those without on-street parking, 
because this parking is an obstruction and potential 
hazard to bicycle traffic, especially if there is high parking 



12 



Day 



turnover. None of these road segments contain striped 
bicycle lanes, which also leads to the lower scores. 

The Federal Highway Administration's BCI method 
produced a similar pattern of results to the BLOS method 
but generally resulted in lower grades. The BCI also 
found the most deficient areas to be those near the 
university campus, but found the Town Center to be 
more deficient overall. Only Rosemary Street and a 
few residential streets have consistently passing scores, 
arid no segments in the study area received a BCI grade 
of'A." 

The BCI results arc heavily influenced by the weighting 
of the factors in the BCI model. This model includes 
more input factors than the BLOS model, which would 
suggest that it might be a more accurate representation 
of actual conditions. The BCI model, however, seems 
to have results that are very suspect. It may seem 
surprising that a low-volume side street could receive a 
level of service grade of "D." This result in the test case 
is caused by the heavy weight that the BCI model gives 
to the width of the roadway. Considering that many of 
these side streets are narrow, the model has ascribed to 
them a low score. 

This points at the same issue noted in the section above 
pertaining to the PLOS model: these level of service 
methods were created primarily for use on arterial 
highways, not on side streets. The results of the BCI 
model still have some utility. They point to locations 
that could certainly be improved in terms of the bicycling 
environment. However, they are not as useful as the 
BLOS results for determining mitigation priorities 
because of the skewed results of the analysis. 

Based upon the results calculated, the BCI grading scale 
seems inadequate for explaining bicycle level of service 



on minor side streets. Almost all side streets in the study 
area received very low grades under the initial grading 
scale for the BCI method, due to the relatively low weight 
the BCI places on traffic volume and the high weight it 
places on lane width and the presence of bicycle lanes 
which arc generally not found on minor streets. For this 
reason, a modified grading scale presented below was 
developed for low- volume residential streets. In general, 
the low-volume road BCI grading scale that was 
developed simply increases the acceptable BCI score 
for each corresponding letter grade. This was determined 
to be a simpler, albeit a less methodologically-sound, 
method of modifying the BCI than attempting to modify 
the BCI equation itself. This grading scale was 
developed somewhat arbitrarily. However, with the 
original data used in developing the BCI, it might be 
possible to generate a less arbitrary revised grading scale 
for low-volume roads. 



LOS Grade 


High- volume 


Low-volume 




(original) 


(adjusted) 




BCI score 


BCI score 


A 


< 1.50 


<2.0 


B 


1.51-2.30 


2.01-3.0 


C 


2.31-3.40 


3.01 -4.0 


D 


3.41 -4.40 


4.01-5.0 


E 


4.41 -5.30 


5.01 -6.0 


F 


>5.30 


>6.0 



Transit Facilities 

As a baseline determination of level of service, a simple 
one-fourth mile buffer analysis for each bus stop in the 
Town Center was performed. The entire study area was 
determined to be within one-fourth mile of a bus stop. 
Traditionally, a determination of the quality of bus 



Level of Service Measures for Biking 



13 



service in an area would stop at this point. Based on this 
simple spatial accessibility analysis alone, the Chapel 
Hill Town Center appears to have excellent transit service 
(refer back to Figure 3). 

The route segment worksheet in the TLOS software 
offers two methods for computing transit level of service. 
First, a 24-hour level of service can be determined based 
on service frequency and hours of service standards in 
the TCOSM. Second, an operation-period level of 
service can be determined based only on service 
frequency during the hours that a route is in service. 
The two methods produce similar, but slightly different 
results. Using a GIS program, it is possible to graphically 
display the results and find spatial patterns and 
differences in the results generated. 

An examination of the 24-hour TLOS accessibility 
results for Chapel Hill reveals that service coverage is 
actually veiy good in the Town Center. While some 
corridors may not have good service, there is good 
service nearby on parallel corridors. Mapping the TLOS 
spreadsheet results in GIS allows recovery of the spatial 
analysis that is lost by using the simple spreadsheet 
instead of the full TLOS program to compute level of 
service. Almost all of the Town Center study area falls 
within one-fourth mile of a transit stop with a TLOS of 
"B" or better — only the far northwest comer of the study 
area has poor accessibility to good transit service. 

The operation-time TLOS analysis produced similar 
results. The corridor and stop locations that do not meet 
a minimum standard of TLOS "C" are identical — the 
accessibility results are almost identical to the results 
for the 24-hour TLOS/accessibility. The main difference 
between the two methods is in determining the level of 
service along Franklin Street, which is the main street 
through the study area. The operation-time analysis 



shows that during the time buses operate along Franklin 
Street, the frequency of service is not as good in the 
westbound direction as in the eastbound direction. 
Information such as this could be useful in shifting bus 
schedules to maximize headway efficiency in this 
corridor. 

Conclusion 

Pedestrian, bicyclist, and transit service quality vary 
widely across the Chapel Hill Town Center. Levels of 
service vary from "A" to "E" in all modes of 
transportation. There is certainly an opportunity for the 
town to improve conditions in low-scoring areas, and 
several potential mitigation measures can be determined 
based on the factor values and data used in the various 
LOS models. Potential mitigation strategies include the 
addition of sidewalks and bicycle lanes, the addition or 
removal of on-street parking, the spatial and temporal 
addition of transit service, and other physical 
improvements. Many of these mitigation measures, 
which are designed to allow a segment to reach a passing 
grade in one of the level of service methods, are at odds 
with mitigation measures suggested by other level of 
seivice models. For example, a PLOS grade can be 
improved by adding on-street parking, but a BLOS grade 
is improved by removing the parking. While it is possible 
to continue adjusting mitigation strategies in each model 
so the strategy suggested in one does not conflict with 
that of another model, it would be useful to have a 
standard method for combining the various models 
across the different modes of travel to ensure that the 
needs of users in each mode can be met by a proposed 
mitigation measure. This type of model integration 
would also allow for a holistic approach to prioritizing 
improvement projects, since automobile, bicycle, and 
pedestrian improvements to roadways tend to be made 
simultaneously. 



14 



Day 



Level of service can be a very useful conceptual 
technique for quantifying the quality of a transportation 
facility. LOS does have its drawbacks as a quality 
measure, though. Depending on what characteristics are 
used to determine level of service, the results can be 
very biased or skewed. Traditionally, LOS has been 
used to describe the flow of motor vehicle traffic and 
level of congestion on roads. Here, however, this concept 
has been successfully applied in a way that determines 
service quality for modes of transportation other than 
private motor vehicles. These methods are not based 
on capacity and traffic flow, as the highway LOS 
methods are, but instead on environmental 
characteristics, accessibility, and other diverse measures 
of service quality rather than simply ease of use. Whether 
these methods adequately capture all the variables that 
affect the quality of a transportation facility is debatable, 
but they do at least get beyond the simple traditional 
notion of demand/capacity-based level of service. 

The level of service models used in this analysis were 
developed for many purposes. The BLOS, BCI, PLOS, 
and Fruin methods were developed largely to determine 
the adequacy of pedestrian and bicycle facilities along 
arterial highways and other main roads, similar to the 
Highway Capacity Manual method of calculating 
automobile LOS (which is generally applied to major 
streets as part of the metropolitan planning process). The 
TLOS route spreadsheet method determines the 
adequacy of transit service frequency and hours of 
service (although the full TLOS method also accounts 
for environmental factors such as the sidewalk network 
and density of residents and employees in an area). 
Necessarily, these methods are not able to account for 
all factors that influence the quality of service on a given 
transportation facility. The differences in LOS scores 
derived from the different methods used in this analysis 
show that there is some need for integration of factors 



and methods to determine a standard method for 
computing level of service for alternative transportation 
facilities. While beyond the scope of this paper, future 
research could be done to determine whether additional 
factors could be added to these calculations, as well as 
determine how to integrate these various methods and 
the factors used in each method. 

References 

Federal Highway Administration. "The Bicycle 
Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept." 
Implementation Manual. Report No. FHWA-RD-98- 
095. 1998. 

Florida Department of Transportation. 2002 Quality/ 
Level of Service Handbook. FDOT: Tallahassee, 2002. 

Hoehner, Christine M., et al. "Opportunities for 
Integrating Public Health and Urban Planning 
Approaches to Promote Active Community 
Environments." American Journal of Health Promotion. 
Vol. 18, No. 1 (September/October 2003). 

Jaskiewicz, Frank. "Pedestrian Level of Service Based 
on Trip Quality." Transportation Research Board E- 
Circular E-C019: Urban Street Symposium. 
Transportation Research Board: Washington D.C., no 
date. 

Kittelson and Associates. Transit Capacity and Quality 
of Service Manual. Transportation Research Board: 
Washington D.C., January 1999. 

Kittelson and Associates, et al. Transit Level of Service 
(TLOS) Software Users Guide. FDOT: Tallahassee, 
November 200 1 . 



Level of Service Measures for Biking 1 5 

Laiidis, Bruce, et al. "Modeling the Roadside Walking 
Environment: Pedestrian Level of Service." 
Transportation Research Record, No. 1 773 ( 200 1 ): 82- 
88. 

Levine. Jonathan and Yaakov Garb. "Congestion 
Pricing's Conditional Promise: Promotion of 
Accessibility or Mobility?" Transport Policy. 2002. 

Meyer. Michael D. and Eric J. Miller. Urban 
Transportation Planning. Second Edition. McGraw: 
Boston, 2001. 

Rodriguez, Daniel. "Transit Service Characterization: 
Key Points." Lecture, January 2 1 . 2004. 

Ryus, Paul, et al. "Development of Florida's Transit 
Level-of-Service Indicator." Transportation Research 
Record No. 1731 (2000): 123-129. 

Steiner, Ruth L. et al. "Refinement of the Roadway 
Segment Level of Service." FDOT: Tallahassee, 
December 2002. 

Transportation Research Board. Higinva}- Capacity 
Manual. TRB: Washington, D.C.. 2000. 



Value Pricing Roadways 

Julian Benjamin, Ph.D. 
Abstract 



Traditional congestion pricing strategies are meant to reduce demand on heavily congested roads 
by charging every user a toll during times when the facility experiences congestion. Value pricing 
refers to the practice of requiring drivers to pay the right toll for the first class service of a guaran- 
teed congestion-free lane. This article describes the successful implementation of four such pro- 
grams launched in California and Texas: State Route-91 in Orange County, CA, 1-15 in San Diego, 
CA, and the I- 10 Katy Freeway and US 290 Northwest Freeway in Houston, TX. The article also 
describes a current ongoing effort to research value pricing projects in North Carolina. 



Introduction 

Traditional congestion pricing strategics are intended 
to reduce demand on heavily congested roads by 
charging every user a toll during times when the facility 
experiences congestion. 

When properly implemented, High Occupancy Toll 
(HOT) lanes provide a less congested lane, which helps 
reduce travel time and increase driving ease. Such 
schemes are intended to better balance the private 
benefits of automobile use with its social and 
environmental costs. Research shows that congestion 
pricing can serve to persuade people to carpool. vary 
the times they travel, alter their routes, choose other 
destinations, change the departure time and avoid or 
combine trips (TRB, 1994). In several cases, value 
pricing has been applied to High Occupancy Vehicle 
(HOV) lanes in order to increase their usage and the 
overall throughput on the roadway without reducing 
the incentive to rideshare. 



Four original HOT lane facilities are currently in 
operation. These include SR-91 in Orange County 
California, 1-15 in San Diego, and the I- 10 Katy 
Freeway and US 290 Northwest Freeway in Houston. 
This article describes the successful implementation 
of each of these four projects and describes a current 
ongoing effort to research the feasibility of a value 
pricing project along 1-40 in North Carolina. 

Legal Authority for Value Pricing 

Legal authority for exemplary projects is provided at 
the Federal level by the Value Pricing Program included 
by Congress in the 1998 TEA-21 legislation. In 
reauthorizing the program (originally specified in the 
ISTEA legislation of 1 99 1 ) as a pilot program. Congress 
recognized value pricing as a new and innovative 
approach to congestion relief and noted the need to for 



Julian Benjamin u-orks in the Department ot Economics and 
Transportation/ Logistics at North Carolina A&T State 
University. 



16 



Value Pricing Roadways 



17 



more information on its effectiveness in different urban 
settings. Both technical and financial support is provided 
to support state and local efforts to plan, implement, 
manage, evaluate, and report on value pricing initiatives 
(FHWA, 1998). State legislation may be needed, for 
one or more of the following: ( 1 ) to permit conversion 
of existing HOV lanes to HOT lanes, (2) to permit 
charging a fee to use a state highway, and (3) to permit 
enforcement via video and electronic means. 

The implementation of a value pricing program may 
entail numerous benefits and costs, as described in the 
next sections. 

Benefits of Value Pricing 



Reduction of new construction in conversion of existing 
HOV lanes — Conversion of existing HOV lanes to 
HOT lanes requires much less road infrastructure 
investment than building to meet demand, by using 
existing capacity more efficiently. 

Provision of a less congested path for transit and 
emergency vehicles — Under value pricing, transit 
vehicles gain access to a faster-moving lane, giving 
them a competitive advantage over auto use in the 
regular lanes. This possibly may lead to a shift in travel 
mode choice, away from the automobile and toward 
public transit. Emergency services benefit from the 
implementation of value pricing, as it allows them 
access to a less congested path. 



Reduced congestion in general purpose lanes — The 
impact of HOT lanes upon traffic congestion will differ 
depending on local conditions, particularly the level 
of latent demand and the availability of alternate routes. 

Overall optimization of facility usage — Value pricing 
lane projects have resulted in overall improvements in 
speed and throughput. Value pricing spreads peak 
demand over a longer period, thereby smoothing the 
flow of traffic. A shift in a relatively small proportion 
of peak-period trips can lead to substantial reductions 
in overall congestion. 

Easily fine-tuned user charges presei~ve fi~ee flow 
conditions — Under value pricing, user charges are set 
at a level that is expected to produce the desired effect 
of congestion relief while maintaining sufficient usage 
of the facility (Hyman and Mayhew, 2002). Variable 
pricing based on time of day (SR-91) or both time of 
day and volume has proven effective in shifting demand 
and maintaining free flow on the value priced lanes. 



Additional revenue to pay for transportation 
improvements — Experience shows that HOT lanes are 
capable of providing adequate revenue to fund 
operations, and possibly pay for a portion of capital 
expenses. The Inland Breeze bus service along San 
Diego's 1-15 exemplifies how HOT lanes can generate 
revenue to improve alternate modes of transportation. 

Reduction of harmful externalities — Improved traffic 
flow reduces air pollution, incidents, noise levels, and 
fuel consumption. 

Costs relating to Value Pricing 

Significant investment in technology — Toll 
infrastructure requires significant up-front investment 
in electronic equipment, communications, accounting 
software and personnel, public information, and 
management. 

Enforcement — Enforcement is needed at each entrance 
and exit point. Camera enforcement is the only safe 



13 



Benjamin 



and cost-effective method of addressing toll violations 
under current conditions. 

However, if carpools were allowed to use the facility 
for free or at a discount, manual "credit" would need 
to be provided via a manned facility at some location 
in the corridor because camera technology does not 
exist for accurately determining the number of persons 
in a vehicle. 

Safety concerns — Implementation of HOT lanes 
without barrier separation may pose a safety hazard, 
as it results in more traffic in the inside lane and 
increases the propensity of drivers to weave in and out 
of lanes at will. Concrete barriers help to improve safety 
by eliminating random ingress/egress problems but 
may also limit access by police and emergency 
vehicles. 

Political opposition to tolls or variable pricing — Those 

seeking to implement value pricing policies often 

encounter intense political 

opposition, as the policy adds a 

price to something that was 

previously regarded as a free good 

(Hau. 1992). 



Equity — One major concern 
surrounding HOT lanes is that 
lower income populations will not 
be able to afford to use these lanes. 

An Overview of New Projects 

A list of current value pricing 
projects is presented in Table 1 on 
the following page. In addition to 
traditional HOT lanes, other 



<P 



concepts being demonstrated include "cordon tolls." 
which are charged when vehicles enter the perimeter 
of a restricted area. In addition, "fair lanes" are HOT 
lanes that include a method of income transfer to make 
the tolled lanes available to people who have low 
incomes. Also included are existing facilities with 
congestion pricing variations in the toll rate. Usage- 
based tolls are based on the distance traveled. 

Existing HOT Lane Projects 

Currently, HOT lanes are in operation in four areas 
around the United States. The following section 
provides a description of each. 

State Route-91, Orange County, CA 

The State Route-91 Express Lanes project added four 
new lanes for ten miles to the wide median of the 
Riverside Freeway at a total capital cost of S 1 30 million 
(see Figure 1 ). The project is unique because it was 



© 



© 



a 



East Los 




& 




Angeles 








D 


a 

-' Yorto Linda" e 


c3 






U 




Long 
Beach 




fy V— SB91 
Anaheim *•" Express 
Orange Lanes 






4 






Hungbngton 

Beach gj 


Irvine 


Pa zi fi 


Nff*port Beach 

c Ocean 





Q 



' 



© 






Figure 1. Map of State Route-91. Source: A Guide for HOT Lane 
Development (Perez. 2003). 



Value Pricing Roadways 



19 



Existing 
Projects 


SR-91 


1-15 


/- 10 (Katy Highway) US 290 (Northwest Freeway) 


Region 


Orange County, CA 


San Diego, CA 


Houston, TX 


Houston, TX 


Authority 


CalTrans 


SAN DAG 


Houston Metro, TxDOT 


Houston Metro, TxDOT 


Number of 

Miles 


10 


8 


13 


13.5 


Additional 
Lanes Built 


4 new lanes 


no 


no 


no 


HOV 
Conversion 


no 


yes 


yes 


yes 


Name of HOT 
Lane Project 


ExpressLanes 


FasTrak 


QuickRide 


QuickRide 


Date HOT Lane 
Project Started 


1995 


1997 


1998 


2000 


Design of HOT 
Lanes 


2 HOT lanes in each 
direction, fully separated 
in the median; only one 
access point at each end: 
functions as a pipeline 


1 HOT Lane in each 
direction 


1 lane reversible flow 
facility, five access points 


1 lane barrier separated 
reversible flow facility 


Lane Capacity 


1800veh/hour/lane 




1500veh/hour/lane 


6400veh/day 


Tolling 
Structure 


Discounted tolls for 3+ 
carpools, zero emissions 
vehicles, motorcycles, 
disabled, veterans 


2+ carpools ride free, SOV 
pay toll 


2+ carpools may pay to use 
the lane when the 3+ HOV 
is in effect, no SOV 


3+ carpools ride free, 2+ pay 
toll 


ATI 


fully automated; must 
have FasTrak 
Transponder 


fully automated; must have 
FasTrak Transponder 


fully automated, Harris 
County Toll Road Authority 
QuickRide transponders 


fully automated. Harris County 
Toll Road Authority QuickRide 
transponders 


Cost of Project 


$134 million; private toll 
venture, financed by 
CPTC 


$7.96 million from FHWA 
Value Pricing Pilot Program 






Use of 
Proceeds 


ROI to CPTC 


transit service in the corridor 
(Inland Breeze peak-period 
express bus) 






Expansion 
Plans 


n/a 


extend 1-15 HOT lanes, 
creating a 20 mile, 
reversible flow managed 
lane 


possiblity of major 
expansion, HCTRA has 
offered $250 million to 
finance construction of 
Katy special use lanes 


n/a 



Table 1. Current value pricing roadway projects. 



the result of a franchise agreement that was signed 
between CalTrans and the California Private 
Transportation Corporation (CPTC) in 1990 for 
construction, operation, and maintenance of two ten- 
mile toll lanes. 

Demand for congestion relief in this corridor was so 
strong that the company announced the project had 



paid for itself by the end of its third year in 1998. In 
other words, toll revenues paid by drivers choosing to 
use the HOT lanes rather than the adjacent regular lanes 
are now high enough to cover the project's annual debt 
service as well as all operating and maintenance costs, 
with at least the beginnings of a profit to the company. 



20 



Benjamin 



An extensive four-year study by CalTrans and the U.S. 
Department of Transportation (USDOT) evaluated the 
impacts of the variable-toll express lanes, exploring 
overall changes in traffic and travel behavior, vehicle 
occupancy, traveler demographics, alternative travel 
modes, operations and safety, and public opinions. 

The resulting research shows that the express lanes 
provided an average time savings of nearly 13 minutes. 
Other perceived benefits include increased reliability, 
greater safety, and better predictability ( Poole and Orski 
2002). It was found that about 20 percent of commuters 
in each income category used the HOT lanes, 
suggesting that income is unrelated to whether persons 
changed their ridesharing behavior after the toll lanes 
opened. Those commuting to work are more likely to 
travel in the HOV lane than in the Single Occupancy 
Vehicle (SOV) lanes. Roughly 75 percent of HOV-3 
work commuters report to be frequent toll lane users 
as compared to 26 percent and 1 6 percent, respectively. 
for non-work-related HOV-3 and SOV users (ARDFA, 
1998). 

The research also shows that there was no significant 
association between the opening of the managed lanes 
on SR-91 and changes in the HOV traffic on SR-57/ 
60 freeway corridor 15 miles to the north. Thus, the 
toll lane exerted a local influence but did not affect 
traveler route shifts at the regional scale. 

Interstate-15, San Diego, CA 

In 1988, two underutilized HOV lanes were converted 
to reversible HOT lanes along I- 1 5 in San Diego, C A, 
and overseen by a toll authority. The system consists 
of two reversible lanes constructed along an eight-mile 
stretch of I- 1 5 (see Figure 2). The program was initially 
proposed by the San Diego Association of 



Governments (SANDAG). Nearly S8 million of 
Federal funding from the USDOT's Value Pricing Pilot 
Program was provided, matched by S2 million from 
the state to implement first a permit system on the lanes. 
The FasTrak Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) system 
was installed, which charged users of the HOT lane a 
per-trip toll based on congestion levels. Tolls range 



To Oceanside 






Del 
Mar 



£ 



© 



Poway 



1-15 FasTrak 



& 



Santee 



$ 



£ 



San 
Diego 



Coronado 



Pacific Ocean 



Chula 
Visla 



Imperial 
Beach 



MEXICO 



Figure 2. Map of Interstate-15. Source: A Guide 
for HOT Lane Development (Perez. 2003). 

between S0.50 during non-peak times and S8.00 during 
levels of severe congestion. Electronic signs placed in 
front of HOT lane entrances provide advance notice 
of the toll. 



Value Pricing Roadways 



21 



Daily traffic volumes on the express lanes averaged 
18,500 vehieles in November 2001. a 102 percent 
increase from the pre-project level of 9,200. while still 
maintaining the desired high level of service. Under 
worst traffic conditions. FasTrak users save about 20 
minutes of delay over the ten-mile corridor ( DeCorla- 
Souza, 2002). 

The typical HOT lane user was a middle-aged female 
of high income, highly educated, and from a household 
with two or more vehicles. An important feature of 
the 1-15 lanes is that carpooling increased since the 
conversion of the HOV lanes, despite fears that the 
HOT option would discourage carpooling (Poole and 
Orski. 2002). 

The project is self-sufficient, with the conversion 
requiring SI. 85 million in capital costs (not including 



the transponders paid for by individual drivers), and 
is generating revenue at the rate of approximately S 1 
million per year. 

Interstate- 10 Katy Freeway and the US Route-290, 
Northwest Freeway, Houston, TX 

In 1998, a 13-mile HOV lane along a central artery of 
western Houston was converted into a single, reversible 
HOT lane (see Figure 3). Designed to carry 79,200 
vehicles per day, the Katy Freeway now carries over 
207,000 vehicles per day. and it is considered one of 
the most congested stretches of freeway in Texas. 
Congestion may be present for 1 1 hours or more each 
day. Some estimates place the cost of the Katy's traffic 
delays to commuters, residents and businesses, at S85 
million a year. 




San Felipe 




QSjj 




M 



Simonton 






Katy Freeway 
Existing 
Quickride flft 






George Bush 

Intercontinental 

Airport 



Sugar Land 



Q 



Missouri 
City 



d 



i 



o 



Houston 



^F 



® 



Pasadena 



' 



Figure 3. Map of Interstate-10 and U.S. Route-290. Source: A Guide for HOT Lane Development 
(Perez. 2003). 



22 



Benjamin 



As currently configured, the Katy Freeway has three 
general-purpose lanes and two frontage-road lanes for 
most of its length in each direction. Situated in the 
center of the freeway is a barrier-separated High 
Occupancy Vehicle/Toll lane for carpools and buses, 
making a total of 1 1 through lanes. A single reversible 
lane, the HOT facility handles inbound traffic in the 
morning and outbound traffic in the evening. 

When the Katy HOV lane first began operating, only 
buses and authorized vanpools were allowed to use it. 
The resulting underutilization gradually encouraged a 
loosening of the HOV entry rules: gradually, registered 
carpools of HOV-4. then HOV-3, then HOV-2 were 
allowed into the lane. (HOV-4. -3 and -2 refer to lanes 
requiring a minimum of tour, three, and two passengers, 
respectively.) As restrictions were relaxed, traffic grew, 
and more restrictive carpool rules were eventually 
reinstated to HOV-3 at peak hours. With two-person 
carpools no longer allowed, the number of persons 
moved by the lane during peak hours declined 30 
percent. 

Most of the HOV lane users are commuters who 
formerly used the general-purpose lanes (Poole and 
Orski, 2002). Before and after studies of the Katy 
Freeway showed that its HOT lane application had the 
following positive results: 

• The number of 3+ carpools increased during the 
peak; 

• 2+ carpools redistributed to before and after the 
peak hour; 

• Average traffic speeds increased and the HOV's 
level of service improved; and 

• The same number of passengers was transported 
more efficiently. 



While the evolution of the QuiekRide system is a useful 
case study in itself, the number of paying users that 
these two facilities could accommodate is limited. 
Expansion plans for the Katy Freeway are currently 
under consideration and could significantly increase 
the scale and scope of HOT lane operations in the Katy 
Corridor. 

The 1-40 Project in North Carolina 

In August of 2004 a team of researchers and engineers 
began investigating the feasibility of an HOT lane along 
1-40 in North Carolina. The research effort has been 
supported by funding from the North Carolina Depart- 
ment of Transportation (NCDOT) and the Federal 
Highway Administration (FHWA). The project team 
consisted of professors from NC A&T State Univer- 
sity. UNC-Chapel Hill, and the director of the Pied- 
mont Authority for Regional Transportation. 

The team is researching the feasibility of a reversible, 
managed lane (eastbound in the morning and west- 
bound in the evening) along 1-40. The lane will be 
separated from the general-purpose lanes by candle- 
stick markers. Drivers can use the lane for free if their 
car is HOV-3, or they can pay a toll. The toll will vary 
by the time of day so that there will be a higher toll 
during rush hour. The toll will be collected automati- 
cally so that there will be no tollbooths. 

Figure 4 shows how the managed lane may appear once 
it is built. Figure 5 presents a map of where the man- 
aged lane is planned, between the 1-40 Business and I- 
40 interchange, and where 1-40 and 1-85 merge. 

Researchers are currently collecting survey data on the 
opinions of commuters living in close proximity to the 
proposed HOT lane. The researchers are also survey- 



Value Pricing Roadways 



23 



. V. / touopomhi c 



rRANSPONOCR CN 



OFOKC&ENT AREA 
LOCATVO OOWWTKEAU 

or TOLL REMMN 




Figure 4. Sketch of possible design for HOT 
lane on 1-40. Source: Parsons Brinkerhqff, 1998. 



ing stakeholders in the project to determine their level 
of support for the project. The questions of both stud- 
ies deal with the concept of using managed lanes for 
value pricing. This abstract approach was necessary 
because state legislation has not yet been adopted to 
support this form of tolling and enforcement. Sugges- 
tions for such legislation will be one outcome of the 
overall study. 

Other Value Pricing Projects 

The second stage of value pricing is underway either 
in the planning or implementation stage. Newly 
implemented projects include congestion tolls on Port 
Authority bridges and tunnels between New York and 
New Jersey and the Florida barrier island value pricing 
project. Value pricing lanes are also planned for 
Minnesota. Other plans have been investigated for 
Maryland. There are additional plans to expand the 




Figure 5. Location of possible HOT lane on 1-40. Image adapted from NCDOT Strategic Highway 
Corridor Map. 



existing small, eight-mile project to regional HOT lane 
networks. There have even been sketch plan proposals 
for HOT lane systems in the twenty largest American 

cities. 



Hau. Timothy. "An Economic Analysis of Road Pricing: 
A Diagrammatic Approach." World Bank Policy 
Research Working Paper Series WPS 1070. The World 
Bank: Washington D.C., December 1992: 1-96. 



Concluding Remarks 

In recent years, value pricing has become a frequently 
used element of design in areas of the United States 
that experience congestion, as it promises to encourage 
ride-sharing and higher occupancy rates while 
providing drivers the option of avoiding traffic 
bottlenecks. 



Hyman, G. and Mayhew L. "Optimizing the Benefits 
of Urban Road User Charging." Transport Policy. No 
9(2002): 189-207. 

Perez. Benjamin G.. and Gian-Claudia Sciara. A Guide 
for HOT Lane Development. Repo .1 No. FHWA-OP- 
03-009. Federal Highway Administration: Washington. 
D.C.. March 2003. 



Acknowledgement 

This paper made use of materials from the North 
Carolina Value Pricing Program. I want to thank in 
particular Dr. Daniel Rodriguez and the team of 
researchers from the Department of City and Regional 
Planning at UNC-Chapel Hill. 

References 

Applied Research and Development Facilities and 
Activities (ARDFA). "Continuation Study to Evaluate 
the Impacts of the SR 9 1 Value-Priced Express Lanes 
Final Report." CalPoly State University. 2000. 

DeCorla-Souza. P. "The Price of Congestion." 
Transportation Management and Engineering 
Magazine. Vol. 7, No. 4 (August/September 2002). 



Poole. Robert W. and C.K. Orski. "Building a Case 
for HOT Lanes: A New Approach to Reducing Urban 
Highway Congestion." Policy Study No. 257. Reason 
Public Policy Institute, 2002, available online at 
<www.rppi.org/257.html>. accessed December 2004. 

Small, K. A. and J. Yan, 200 1. "The Value of 'Value 
Pricing' of Roads: Second-Best Pricing and Product 
Differentiation." Journal of Urban Economics, No. 49 
(200 1): 310-336. 

Transportation Research Board. "Curbing Gridlock: 
Peak-Period Fees to Relieve Traffic Congestion." 
National Research Council Special Report 242, Vol. 
1 (1994). 

Value Pricing Program Office, Program Update. 
Washington. D.C.. 2004. 



DeCorla-Souza. P. "The Long-Term Value of Value 
Pricing in Metropolitan Areas." Transportation 
Quarterly. Vol. 56, No. 3 (Summer 2002): 19-31. 



24 



A Business Case for Southeast High-Speed Rail 



Terry Chastam 



Abstract 

As the Southeastern region of the United States continues to experience increasing levels of con- 
gestion on the regional highways, the Southeast High-Speed Rail corridor presents an appealing 
alternative to automobile travel. The corridor is slated to run from Washington, D.C. to Charlotte, 
North Carolina and eventually from Charlotte to Birmingham, Alabama. The key to implementing 
the project is the privatization of operations, a model not traditionally used for rail in the U.S. With 
the Southeastern states moving ahead with the environmental impact statements, the outstanding 
issues include setting the timeline, choosing the operators, and designing the routes. 



Introduction 

With tremendous economic and population growth, the 
Southeast needs a comprehensive, multimodal 
transportation system. High-speed rail (HSR) service 
will provide business and leisure travelers with a 
competitive alternative to air and auto for trips between 
100 and 500 miles. 

The Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor (SEHSR) is 
one of five originally proposed high-speed passenger 
rail corridors designated by the U.S. Department of 
Transportation (USDOT) in 1992. The corridor was 
designated to run from Washington. D.C. through 
Richmond, VA and ending in Charlotte. NC It is part 
of an overall plan to extend service from the existing 
( ACELA. or Amtrak) high-speed rail on the Northeast 
Corridor (Boston to Washington) to points in the 
Southeast (see Figure 1 ). 



High-speed rail in the Southeast will mean a top speed 
of 1 10 mph and average speeds between 85 to 87 mph. 
Virginia, North Carolina. South Carolina, and Georgia 
have joined together with the business communities jx*. 
each state to form a four-state coalition to plan, develop 
and implement high-speed rail in the Southeast. Under 
the current plan, the system will be developed 
incrementally, upgrading existing rail rights-of-way. 
Portions of the Washington-Charlotte SEHSR corridor 
could be completed by 2010. depending on funding 
availability. 

The Need for High-Speed Rail 

A regional approach to transportation will help states 
in the Southeastern region to meet the challenges of 



Tern" Chastam is the Executive Director ot the Southeastern 
Economic Alliance, a coalition of 14 chambers trom across six 
Southeastern states that represents business leaders in cities 
located on or near the Federally designated Southeast High- 
speed Rail Corridor trom Atlanta to Charlotte. 



25 



26 



Chastain 



growth, while improving air quality. The highways 
of the region and the airports along the Eastern 
seaboard simply cannot handle the present traffic 
volumes, let alone accommodate future travel needs. 
The South has the highest per capita vehicle miles 
traveled ' and ranks second in carbon monoxide 
emissions (USDOT, 200 1 ). Recent figures from the 
USDOT reveal the growing transportation needs of 
the Southeastern states. As implied in Figure 2, 
traffic congestion on urban freeways in the 
Southeastern region is expected to increase by 400 
percent by 2020 (Southeast High-Speed Rail, 2003 ). 



centers. Refurbished and expanded stations could 
be transformed into mixed-use facilities, and SEHSR 
could also encourage significant public/private 
investments. 

Compared to air travel under three hundred miles. 
HSR has many advantages. First, most airports are 
located miles away from city centers, whereas HSR 
could connect directly to downtown areas. Second, 
a business traveler could make use of electronic 
equipment (cell phones, laptops, etc.) the entire trip, 
thus providing an opportunity for increased 



EESJEja-— 



l : l .'I.'. IV 



2522E23-* 



NORTHERN 
NEW ENGLAND 

IORTHEAST 
CORRIDOR 

^.m, 1 . .rem 




Figure 1. High-speed rail corridor destinations. Image courtesy of Terry Chastain. 



Meanwhile, $4.5 billion must be spent on roads to 
accommodate existing levels of congestion. 

From an economic development perspective, 
SEHSR could facilitate urban revitalization by 
bringing more travelers directly to downtown 



productivity. Third, HSR could arguably be less 

Ntivssliil ih, in the an experience given today's current 
security situation. 

As congestion continues to increase along major 
interstate corridors. HSR travel times will also 



A Business Case for Southeast High-Speed Rail 



27 



Southeast Growth Rate Double That of Northeast 






MO 

70% 




nr 
72% 



(Population Growth 1960 - 2000) 



PA 
8% 



35% 



NY Kl 

8% 16% 

CT 

30% 



Figure 2. Southeast growth rates and implications for traffic congestion. Image courtesy of Terry Chastain. 



continue to improve in comparison to driving times. 
The intercity business traveler choosing the auto for 
transportation will often have to compensate for the 
unpredictable nature of interstate congestion due to 
accidents, construction, or volume by leaving earlier 
than otherwise necessary. 

High-speed rail will allow for time-efficient travel 
between cities in the Southeast (see Figure 3). 
Assuming only an average speed of 75 mph and a 
45 minute check in allowance, HSR from Richmond 
to Washington would be a little over two hours; four 
and a half hours from Raleigh to Washington; three 
hours from Charlotte to Raleigh; four hours from 
Atlanta to Charlotte; two hours and forty-five 
minutes from Atlanta to Greenville; and two hours 
and forty-five minutes from Birmingham to Atlanta 
(see Figure 3). 



A New Business Model for High-Speed Rail 

This new model calls for the privatization of 
operations, user, and market driven route planning, 
and changes in funding, with a focus on rapid service 
to major population and financial centers with a 
minimum of stops. ; 

Currently. Amtrak operates all passenger rail service 
in the Southeast. Amtrak. known officially as the 
National Railroad Passenger Corporation, began 
service in 1 97 1 . Its route map and budget are subject 
to Congressional oversight and appropriations, 
which could be described as too little to allow 
success and too much to force insolvency. Few 
routes turn an operating profit, and in fact most 
routes operate in the red to a shocking degree. 
SEHSR. however, will benefit from competition 
because privatization allows the operator to choose 



28 



Chastain 



Example Routes 
Chattanooga- Atlanta 

Birmingham- Atlanta 
Atlanta-Greenville 

Atlanta-Charlotte 

Charlotte-Raleigh 
Raleigh- Washington 

Richmond-Washington 



Travel time 



!h 58m 



-2hl9m 
2h3Pm 



3h0rh 



Tilp Time lo Business Destination 



Road 
Air 

High-Speed Rail 



3h IQj n 

2hJ4m 



2h 45m 



> 



3PT 

2b_4Sm 



Hn 



?h ji'n 



4h 10m 



3h 54ml 



zh NJm 



3h~5r) i 
?h St un 



4 h 7m 1 



|h 46m 



J2H 



3h Ori 



4-i I'm 



Improved reliability, 
ability to use 
laptops & cell 
phones, coupled 
with spacious 
seating results in 
more efficient use 
of time 



J 



_m 



Figure 3. Travel savings for high-speed rail users. Image courtesty of Terry Chastain. 



the profitable routes and stops rather than have the 
government choose them. 

The Alliance's model proposes that the operator 
choose the routes and stops, which will be dictated 
by demand. As opposed to the current system, the 
operator will not be forced to run on unprofitable 
routes or make stops which are counter-productive. 
Also, the targeted riders of the Alliance's model are 
time-sensitive to business persons and short-haul 
leisure travelers. 

Finally, the Alliance's model calls for a change in 
funding. Under the SEHSR proposal, the Federal 
government will make the initial investment in 
infrastructure for SEHSR, while operational costs 
will be maintained by the operator. 



Cost 

The Alliance's model estimates that total 
construction of the first phase of SEHSR, from 
Washington. D.C. to Birmingham, would cost 
approximately S5.5 billion dollars. Initial studies 
indicate tickets will cost about 20-22 cents per mile 
(based on calculated demand for the service). This 
compares to air travel at 22-75 cents per mile and 
auto travel at 30-35 cents per mile. 

The U.S. Department of Transportation, in reviewing 
the high-speed rail plans for 23 states, came to the 
conclusion that the SEHSR route will produce more 
revenue than any other proposed corridor. It is 
estimated that it will generate S2.54 in public benefits 
for each dollar spent to build and operate the corridor. 
SEHSR is the only proposed corridor projected to 
cover its total operational costs from the fare box. 



A Business Case for Southeast High-Speed Rail 



29 



Growing Support for High-Speed Rail in the 
Southeast 

Numerous studies eonducted to date reveal the 
benefits of a high-speed rail service in the Southeast. 
According to a USDOT study, High-Speed Ground 
Transportation for America ', the Southeast is the 
best investment for new high-speed rail service. The 
report concluded that, as an extension of the 
Northeast Corridor. SEHSR operated at a top speed 
of 1 10 mph will "generate more revenue than any 
other" proposed expansion. The ratio of public 
benefits to public costs is 27 times greater than any 
other corridor. The average trip would be longer 
and generate more revenue than any other route. 
SEHSR will also provide economic benefits both to 
Southeast states and the Northeast Corridor since it 
"would increase traffic levels on the Northeast 
Corridor itself. ..thus creating synergistic ridership. 
revenue, expense, and income effects" for both 
regions. 

North Carolina has completed an extensive 
economic development study on the impact of the 
construction and operation of SEHSR (Southeast 
High-Speed Rail Cooridor. 1999). The project is 
expected to generate S700 million in new taxes; 
approximately S 1 0.5 billion in employee wages over 
20 years; over 31,000 new one-year jobs from 
construction; over 800 permanent railroad operating 
positions; and nearly 19.000 permanent full-time 
jobs from businesses which choose to locate or 
expand in the state as a result of SEHSR. 

In addition. North Carolina. Georgia, and South 
Carolina have recently completed a HSR feasibility 
study from Macon to Charlotte, via Atlanta. 
Greenville, and Spartanburg. The report concluded 



that HSR trains are feasible in the corridor. Now, 
the states are in negotiations with Norfolk Southern 
- the railroad company that owns the line - for a 
detailed capacity study to see how implementation 
of SEHSR would impact the company's freight 
business. Following that, the states are committed 
to beginning work on a Tier I Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) along the route. 







Key Advances 

Virginia is making 

great strides to 

extend SEHSR 

from Washington 

to Richmond (see 

Figure 4. Existing Rail 
Figure 4). A total Statjon m Ashland , V A. 

of S2 1 million in Source: Time to Act (South- 
funds have been east High-Speed Rail 

Cooridor, 2003). 
committed tor 

infrastructure improvements along the line. 

Agreement has been reached with the railroads and 

a timetable for construction has been set. The City 

of Richmond has recently completed a S50 million 

renovation and conversion of the Main Street Station 

into a multimodal facility in anticipation of service 

in the near future. 

For S7 1 million. North Carolina purchased the North 
Carolina Railroad, which owns the Raleigh to 
Charlotte section of SEHSR. The state is also in 
negotiations with CSX to purchase the railroad line 
from Raleigh to the Virginia border. North Carolina 
has also spent close to SI 00 million of state and 
Federal funds to refurbish and reconstruct rail 
stations. 



30 



Chastain 



In 2000. North Carolina and Virginia prepared a Tier 
I EIS, examined the need for the projeet, and looked 
at potential impacts on both natural and built 
environments along nine possible routes. Public 
involvement was critical during this phase with 26 
public information workshops and 18 public 
hearings that solicited feedback about the project. 
Citizens, political leaders, planners, resource 
agencies, railroad officials, and other interested 
parties were among the many participants of the 
workshops and hearings. 

The Final EIS, which outlines why the recommended 
alternative was selected, was completed in June 2002 
and a formal Record of Decision was issued in 
October 2002. This Federal document confirms and 
approves the corridor recommendation by the Tier I 
EIS. Virginia and North Carolina are now 
proceeding with the next phase. Tier II, which 
provides a detailed analysis on the impacts, including 
track location, station arrangement, and detailed 
design. Rather than a single large document, smaller 
Tier II environmental studies will be conducted for 
specific segments of the route where track work will 
be needed. The document should be available for 
public review in early 2005. At that time, public 
hearings will be held along the affected corridor. In 
2005, the final Tier II EIS is expected to be 
completed and the Record of Decision obtained for 
the Petersburg to Raleigh segment. Right-of-way and 
permit acquisition can begin at that time. 



remainder of the SEHSR into South Carolina. 
Georgia and Florida will follow by several years. 4 

Conclusion 

Leaders in North Carolina and Virginia have 
committed a great deal of political and financial 
capital into laying the foundation for the future of 
SEHSR. Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama are 
themselves becoming convinced that the SEHSR 
will be operational at least from Washington to 
Charlotte in the foreseeable future and have thus 
began preparations for future extensions from 
Charlotte to Birmingham (see Figure 5). 



Washington. DC -fa 



Richmond "^S^ 
Petersburg/J ^^ 
RGIN1A Hampton 

Roads 



Charlotte 
6rMnv 'JJ>Cr £ spartan)*fr'g 
Atlanta. 



Raleigh 

NORTH 
CAROLINA 




To Birmingham 



FLORIDA 



Savannah 



Jacksonville 



The Washington, D.C. to Charlotte portion of the 
SEHSR corridor could be implemented by 2010, 
depending upon funding availability. In the 
meantime, other projects will reduce travel time 
within the next few years. Implementation of the 



Figure 5. Possible route for high-speed rail line 
across the Southeast. Image courtesy of Terry 
Chastain. 



A Business Case for Southeast High-Speed Rail 



31 



The eventual completion of the SEHSR corridor is 
inevitable due to the commercial viability of the 
trains themselves, the region's continued population 
growth and environmental challenges. The main 
questions that remain are: when will it be built; who 
will operate it; and where will the routes and stops 
be located? 



Endnotes 

1. Regional miles per capita: South — 11,057; 
Midwest— 9,812; West— 9,806. Northeast— 8.218. 
Source: from website http:// 

www.southeastalliance.com/files/businesscase2-28- 
03.pdf 



About the Alliance 

Formed in 2000, the Southeastern Economic 
Alliance (Alliance) is a coalition of 15 chambers of 
commerce from 6 states: Atlanta, Birmingham, 
Charlotte. Charleston. Chattanooga. Columbia, 
Greensboro, Greenville, Hampton Roads, Macon, 
Raleigh. Richmond, Savannah, Spartanburg, and 
Winston-Salem. The Alliance recognizes that 
implementation of the Southeast High-Speed Rail 
(SEHSR) corridor would efficiently link business 
centers in order for the Southeast to compete in 
global and regional economic markets. The Alliance 
does not select routes, are not rail technical experts, 
and is not linked to Amtrak. 



2. For more detail on the business model, see 
www.southeastalliance.com. 

3. For a copy of the report, see: http:// 
www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/515. This study 
focused on the Washington to Charlotte leg, because 
Charlotte to Birmingham has yet to be designated a 
HSR corridor. 

4. For a more detail chronology, see http:// 
www.sehsr.org/history.html. 



References 

Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor. A Time to Act. 
1999. Available online at http://www.sehsr.org/ 
reports/time2act/time2act.html. accessed January 
2005. 

Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor. A Time to Act. 
(updated) October 2003. Available online at http: 
www.sehsr.org/reports/TimeAct%204page.pdf. 
accessed January 2005. 



USDOT, "Environmental Defense Scorccard. 
Annual Mobility Survey. McKinsey & Co., 200 1 . 



Call for Papers 

Articles • Opinion Pieces • Case Studies • Book Reviews 
Artwork • Project Descriptions 



Carolina Planning, a student-run publication of 
the Department of City and Regional Planning at 
the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, is 
seeking articles for the Spring/Summer 2005 and 
Winter 2006 issues. Our journal focuses on topics 
relevant to practicing planners in the Southeast. 

Submission Guidelines: 

Manuscripts should be typed in MS Word and no 
longer than 25 pages (approximately 7500 
words). Please submit one copy via email or on a 
CD. If you have photos or images, please submit 
them in .tif format in the best resolution possible, 
preferably 300 dpi. Citations should follow the 
author-date system in the Chicago Manual of 
Style, with endnotes used for explanatory text. 
Legal articles may use Bluebook format. Please 
include the author's name, address, telephone 
number, and email address, along with a 2-3 
sentence biographical sketch. Carolina Planning 
reserves the right to edit articles accepted for 
publication, subject to the author's approval. 

Submission Calendar: 

March 1 5 for Spring/Summer issue submissions 

October 15 for Winter issue submissions 

We also accept submissions on a year-round basis. These dates are flexible. If you have 

any questions about when you should submit an article, please contact us. 

Carolina Planning Journal 

Department of City and Regional Planning CB 3140 

The University of North Carolina 

Chapel Hill, NC 27599 

(919)962-4783 

carolinaplanning@unc.edu 



LAND USE 

HOUSING 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

COASTAL ZONE PLANNING 

HAZARD MITIGATION 

PARTICIPATORY PLANNING 

TRANSPORTATION 

PLANNING LAW 



32 



Mass Evacuation and Our Nation's Highways 

Gregory B. Saarthoff, M.D. & John B. Noftsinger, Jr., Ed.D. 



Abstract 

Americans use the interstate highway system as a means of escape from natural disasters, but these 
roads may offer false hope with regard to escaping terrorist attacks. Such disasters require a differ- 
ent and creative approach to prevent chaos and the overuse of the highway system in evacuating 
metropolitan regions which could potentially lead to other harmful consequences. 



Marshalling Eisenhower 



Although not as glamorous as battlefield heroics, 
visionary logistical planning is often the key to 
victory. Just as it is crucial in conventional warfare, 
this leadership attribute will determine the success 
or failure of public preparedness and response in 
the current climate of war and terrorism. 

Two important Americans, George Marshall and 
Dwight Eisenhower, provide illustrative examples. 
During World War I. then-Lt.Col. Marshall 
identified nodes of transportation and 
communication along the route to the Argonne in 
order to very quickly relay 660.000 troops and their 
supplies (Goldhurst. 1977). Marshall understood 
the possibilities of the transportation infrastructure, 
and he used logistical planning to assure major 
Allied victories in France. His evaluation of 
roadway capacity, during a critical time and amid 
unprecedented events, showed that victory on the 



battlefield could be achieved largely through 
preparation and planning. 

Dwight Eisenhower's travels over rough roads as a 
young officer, and his later experience with the 
German autobahn during World War II. led him as 
President to support the development of an 
interstate highway system in the 1950s. The 
highway system was initially developed with 
defense purposes in mind. Eisenhower envisioned 
a modem network of highways across the continental 
U.S. that could serve civilians during peacetime but 



Oregon' B. Saathoft. hl.D. is an Associate Professor of Research 
m Psvchiatn' at the Umversm' of\ Irginia School ot Medicine 
and serves as the Executive Director of its Critical Incident 
Anahsis Group (CIAG). 

John B. Noftsinger, Jr., Ed.D. is Associate \ ice President ot 
Academic Affairs and Executive Director ot the Institute tor 
Infrastructure and Information Assurance at James Madison 
Universitv. He is the Co-Chairman of the \ 'irginia Research 
and Technologv Advisorv Commission and was the Secreran' 
otthe Congressionallv Appointed \ irginia Interstate SI Satetv 
Commission. 



33 



34 



Saathoff & Noftsinger 



could also accommodate 
aircraft on strategic runways 
and transport troops between 
strategic outposts in times of 
war. 



The expansive U.S. highway 

system may at first glance 

seem to be a very appropriate 

mechanism for evacuation and 

self-preservation in the event 

of a terrorist attack. However, 

while a mass movement of 

troops in World War I solved 

a great problem for George 

Marshall, massive movement 

of civilians in the current war on terror is not so 

much a solution as a potential risk. It may be that 

the most valuable transport after a weapon of mass 

destruction (WMD) attack will be the delivery of 

necessary provisions and services to communities 

in order to enhance their resilience and ability to 

remain intact. 

The Role of the U.S. Highway System 

For better or worse, our highway system has stood 
as a model for the world, sparking a cloning of 
similar transportation networks in industrialized and 
developing countries alike. As the greatest 
transportation infrastructure project ever tackled by 
the Federal government, our vast, maintained, and 
seamless interstate highway system is a testament 
to Eisenhower's vision half a century ago. However, 
a closer look reveals cracks in the pavement. 
Extensive usage by commuters and commercial 
vehicles has caused our interstates to be 
overcrowded and dangerous (see Figure 1). 







Figure 1. Congestion on highways from evacuators fleeing a terrorist 
arrack could put even more of the population at risk. Photo by Erik 

Malkemus. 



Furthermore, much of the current interstate system 
in the United States is rather archaic, since it does 
not yet fully integrate car and driver with the road 
by using the latest information technology such as 
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). ITS refers 
to the confluence of information technology and 
transportation systems. Intelligent Transportation 
Systems have been heralded as the solution to many 
of our current and future transportation challenges. 
For example, Smart Roads, as they are often called, 
can boast video cameras, sensors, and the latest 
wireless communication systems. However, 
entrenched state highway departments, incompatible 
standards, insufficient regional cooperation, 
immature technology, and large costs have limited 
the application of ITS. Although funding has 
increased for pilot projects and research involving 
Smart Roads, their greatest benefits do not yet 
directly accrue towards homeland security. 

While no longer the most modern or safe, our system 
of highways and interstates is still looked upon as a 



Mass Evacuation and Our Nation's Highways 



35 



secure place to ensure a "fast getaway." It is this 
feature, in fact, that may attract anxious citizens to 
rush to the roads in mass evacuations in the event 
that our cities are attacked with weapons of mass 
destruction. 

Evacuation as Solution 

According to the dictionary, the definition of 
"evacuation" is the "organized, phased, and 
supervised dispersal of people from dangerous or 
potentially dangerous areas" (Glossary of Disaster 
Management, no date). The concept of evacuation 
may seem simple, but in the context of national 
security, it is an umbrella term encompassing various 
procedures and detailed planning. Ideally, an 
evacuation order would constitute a responsible 
directive that leadership provides to a population 
facing grave danger within its community. This type 
of evacuation can be voluntary or mandatory, 
depending on the seriousness of the threat. In other 
words, when other alternatives are not safer, a 
responsible leader directs a responsive population 
to depart from the current location in order to move 
to a safer specified location. 



Evacuation during Natural Disasters 

Over the past five decades, government leaders have 
improved upon their ability to communicate with 
the public in a way to target evacuation for specific 
populations that arc otherwise subject to grave 
dangers posed by floods, fires, and the like. 
Although natural disasters are often dramatic events, 
citizens most often respond in logical, rational ways, 
and they will not only make rational choices for 
themselves, but will often assist fellow citizens in 
collaborative and even altruistic ways. Research 
demonstrates that panic in natural disasters is 
extremely rare. This, in part, may be due to the 
amount of time people have to prepare themselves 
for an evacuation. Often, the threat of a natural 
disaster (such as a hurricane) is picked up in advance 
and information is dispersed in a timely manner 
(Peek. 2003 ). Even in the case of earthquakes, where 
there is no warning, structural engineering has 
evolved to mitigate some of the havok that serious 
quakes can unleash. While valuable in understanding 
known threats, this research tells us little about our 
response to threats that are unnatural and occur with 
little or no advance notice. 



Knowing Eisenhower's keen appreciation of the dual 
needs of citizens and the military in times of war, 
this concept of targeted evacuation is consistent with 
his vision. Citizens would benefit from the orderly 
departure from an area of greater danger to an area 
of less danger, while the military would be able to 
utilize the highway system in order to protect 
national security. This has often proven to be the 
case during natural disasters. However, past 
successes with evacuation for natural disasters may 
provide a false sense of security in the use of the 
highway during future unnatural disasters. 



Shadow Evacuation during Unnatural Disasters 

Thankfully, the world's experiences with unnatural 
disasters involving radiation, chemical, and 
biological weapons are extremely limited up to this 
point in time. However, a review of unnatural 
disasters at home and abroad belies less cause to be 
sanguine about expected public responses. We do 
know that in the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor 
incident, unnecessary evacuation — known as 
shadow evacuation — occurred. In this instance, 
individuals who were outside of the perimeter of 



36 



Saathoff & Noftsinger 



* 



contamination also chose to evacuate, thereby 
clogging the transportation arteries at a time when 
they were most needed by those who were within 
the contaminated area. During a 1997 chemical spill 
in West Helena, Arkansas, although 90 percent of 
those who were told to evacuate did so, an additional 
32 percent chose to evacuate after they were 
instructed to shelter in place (Oak Ridge. 2002). This 
converse of evacuation, sheltering in place, consists 
of "selecting an interior room or rooms within your 
facility, or ones with no or few windows, and taking . 
refuge there. In many cases, local authorities will 
issue advice to shelter in place via TV or radio" (U.S. 
Department of Labor, 2005). 

Spontaneous Evacuation 

Targeted^eyacuation has an evil twin that has rarely 
surfaced in our experience with natural or even 
unnatural disasters. Known as spontaneous 
evacuation, it is the stuff of dramatic action films. 
Complete with ineffectual government officials and 
hysterical citizens, the scene of spontaneous 
evacuation is a true goal of terrorists, since it 
represents societal entropy; a chaotic situation that 
impacts the economy, the inability for government 
to adequately access its existing infrastructure, and 
ultimately, the public's disconnection from 
government. Spontaneous evacuation occurs when 
"residents or citizens in the threatened areas observe 
an emergency event or receive unofficial word of 
an actual or perceived threat and without receiving 
instructions to do so. elect to evacuate the area. Their 
movement means, and direction of travel, is 
unorganized and unsupervised" (Glossary of 
Disaster Management, no date). A spontaneous 
evacuation can be ultimately deleterious to the 
government's goal of protecting citizens and 



transporting victims in need of healthcare. Therefore, 
government plans for evacuation after a natural 
disaster may not prove effective in the case of a 
terrorist attack. 

Planning for Unnatural Disasters 

How can communities prepare for unnatural 
disasters? The issues of public response involve 
complex logistics. The key to a safe and successful 
public response is preparation. Without prior 
planning, we may provide an all too anticipated 
response to an attack. 

Surge Capacity and Surge Suppression 

In order to appreciate our infrastructure's 
vulnerability, we can look to the capacity of 
metropolitan highways. Surge capacity is 
traditionally a medical concept which refers to the 
point at which caring for patients overstresses the 
health care system's ability to comfortably provide 
patient care. Just as we speak about surge capacity 
in terms of health care and its ability to meet peak 
needs, we can apply issues of surge to our 
transportation system. The traditional view of surge 
capacity that looks only at static resources, such as 
hospital beds, is not sufficient in planning for 
potential terrorist events. A modern understanding 
of surge capacity requires us to look at resource 
availability in a dynamic, interdependent way. In 
the flow of a crisis, it is important to understand not 
only the issue of surge capacity but also the issues 
of surge suppression. For the purpose of this article, 
the concept of surge suppression (a term borrowed 
from electronics), refers to the means to prevent 
damage or overload to critical infrastructure during 
transient spikes in usage. Surge suppression is a 



Mass Evacuation and Our Nation's Highways 



37 



complementary concept central to a more complete 
understanding of surge capacity. A thoughtful 
understanding of both surge capacity and 
suppression appreciates the dynamic interplay 
between physical, psychological, and social 
elements of critical infrastructure. 

Critical infrastructure, whether referring to highways 
or hospitals, is often geographically based, tied to 
existing population density and predicated upon the 
ability of human resources to operate, maintain, and 
repair various aspects of that infrastructure during 
times of crisis. 

In the event of terrorist attack, our critical 
infrastructure will be threatened if individuals 
choose to flee their communities rather than to 
remain. The stakes are enormous. If population 
density shifts through unplanned, spontaneous 
evacuation, population surges will create 
overloading spikes in resource utilization in areas 
that are ill equipped to handle the resultant stresses. 



Community Shielding 



During the past two years, the Critical Incident 
Analysis Group (CIAG) has developed a concept 
called "community shielding" that has broad policy 
implications for public response to weapons of mass 
destruction attacks. This concept entails a pre- 
planned, community-wide, shelter-in-place 
response, with an emphasis on communication and 
delivery of essential services to affected populations. 



cases the wisest choice for survival will be to stay 
within one's own home or work community. The 
choice is complicated by the very success of our 
interstate highway system. Serving as a seductive 
route for evacuation, it can result in a static gridlock 
during a spontaneous evacuation, leaving citizens 
trapped and vulnerable in vehicles. 

The decision to preserve our options by remaining 
in our home communities is known as community 
shielding, and it can serve to support our individual 
and community needs. By preparing community 
shielding plans, we may be able better match those 
in the area who need assistance with those best able 
to provide it. Community shielding is a means for 
the public to shelter in place and, if necessary, be 
supported in that status through the delivery of 
essential items. We know that coping with crisis is 
easier when we are in a stable environment. 
Knowing where we will sleep, eat, and receive 
infonnation is comforting and beneficial, and these 
survival functions take on greater significance during 
a crisis ( Saathoff. 2002 ). Better than any medication 
that we know, information treats anxiety during a 
crisis. When that information is trusted and from a 
local source, it is more likely that it will be specific 
to the needs of our community. When citizens are 
able to safely support their neighbors while engaging 
in community shielding, the needs of those 
Americans who are truly needy due to homclessness 
or isolation can be much more effectively addressed 
by targeted government, medical, faith-based, and 
other private sector services (Stein, in press). 



In the event of a terrorist attack, individual and 
community responses will be the most important 
predictors of survival. Although there can be a 
natural inclination to flee from a disaster, in most 



Since each community is unique in its strengths and 
vulnerabilities, proactive planning for effective 
community shielding is necessary on a community- 
by-community basis. Service organizations such as 



38 



Saathoff & Noftsinger 



Citizens' Corps can facilitate this type of planning. 
Distribution and dissemination of Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) and community specific 
information can be distributed through public sector 
channels (like schools) and private sector channels 
such as local shopping centers. 



decision-making in the national government may 
also be poor counter-terrorism policies. Populations 
are better protected by redundancy than by 
centralization, since redundancy permits most units 
to continue functioning even after some arc damaged 
or destroyed" (Terwillinger, 2003). 



Implications for North Carolina 

The Tar Heel State is not as far removed from these 
scenarios as on; might think. Major U.S. Army and 
U.S. Marine Corps installations reside in Eastern 
Carolina, and their emergency mobilization would 
occupy Interstates 95 and 40. Regarding Interstates 
85 and 95, should an evacuation surge southwards 
from Washington D.C., North Carolina could feel 
its effects, particularly if the medical capabilities of 
the Triangle were in demand. Also, Charlotte is the 
nation's number-two financial center, following 
New York, whose financial prowess already has 
been a victimized target. While North Carolina may 
not be considered an obvious target for terrorist 
attacks, each state and local community should 
consider developing planning strategies to deal with 
the effects of unnatural disasters and the spontaneous 
evacuations that could arise in the wake of these 
events. 

The Role of Leadership 

Leadership, top-down planning, and local-level 
planning are all essential for the development of 
adequate surge capacity within our critical 
infrastructure, whether it be related to transportation 
or healthcare. While this central aspect of Federal 
planning is vital, the physical, psychological, and 
social value of decentralization must not be 
overlooked. "Centralization of functions and 



This redundancy is perhaps best represented by 
individual households, neighborhoods, and 
communities. As Barkun has described in his report 
entitled "Community Shielding and the Political 
System," the multiple layers of the shielding model 
consist of households, local communities, states and 
the Federal government. This complementary 
"bottom-up" strategy recognizes that households are 
the fundamental units in the event of a terrorist 
attack. The household's ability to manage the lives 
of its members is critical, and its success constitutes 
the "surge suppression" previously described. The 
next higher level of government, social, and medical 
resources should not be utilized during a crisis unless 
absolutely necessary (Barkun. 2002). 

The Department of Homeland Security has made a 
commitment to partnering with stakeholders in 
public preparedness. Through development of 
homeland security strategies, the Department 
demonstrates an appreciation of the dynamic that 
exists between first responders, the government, and 
citizens. When cultivated, this enhances the 
development of effective grass roots tactics required 
by individual communities. To the extent that 
communities play the lead role in developing these 
plans, they will also own them. 



Mass Evacuation and Our Nation's Highways 



39 



Conclusion 

What can we learn from past wars? In order to 
accomplish his miraculous transport of troops to the 
Argonne in 1918, Lt.Col. George Marshall relied 
on the concept of redundancy and the delegation of 
leadership. To accomplish his mission, he supplied 
the vision and strategic plan and relied on officers 
posted in the field. Marshall credited the mission's 
success to the one thousand officers posted at 
strategic points along the routes. These officers 
demonstrated remarkable leadership in 
accomplishing the logistical feat of transporting 
more than a half million troops under dangerous 
conditions in record time. 

The Department of Homeland Security continues to 
develop partnerships with community leaders who 
are placed strategically within vulnerable 
metropolitan areas. Their actions will be the 
determining factor in the preparation and response 
of citizens who suffer a terrorist attack from weapons 
of mass destruction. The promise of the distant 
future may reside in smart technology for highways 
and transportation systems. However, the demands 
of the present require that community leaders 
develop meaningful alternatives to evacuation such 
as community shielding, so that citizens can receive 
the support that they require in order to effectively 
shelter in place. 

References 

Barkun. M. "'Community Shielding and the Political 
System." International Journal of Emergency Mental 
Health. Vol. 4, No 4. (2002): 265-270. 



"Glossary of Disaster Management." Suburban 
Emergency Management Project Web site, available 
online at www.ben.edu/semp/htmlpages/ 
glossaryvl.html, accessed December 2004. 

Goldhurst, R. PipeClay and Drill. Readers Digest 
Press: New York, 1977: 284-285. 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review. Vol. 35. 
No.2 (2002). 

Peek, L.A. and J.N Sutton, "An Exploratory 
Comparison of Disasters. Riots, and Terrorist Acts." 
Disasters. Vol. 27, No. 4 (2003):3 19-335. 

Saathoff. G.B. and G. Everly. "Psychological 
Challenges of Bioterror: Containing Contagion." 
International Journal of Emergency Mental Health. 
Vol. 4. No 4. (2002): 245-253. 

Stein. DB. T.L. Tamilian. D.P Eisenman, D. Keyser, 
M.A. Burnam, and H.A. Pincus. "Emotional and 
Behavioral Consequences of Bioterrorism: Planning 
a Public Health Response." Milbank Quarterly, in press. 

Terwilliger, G., et al. "The War on Terrorism: Law 
Enforcement or National Security?" National 
Security White Papers, The Federalist Society Web 
site. 2003. available online at www.fed-soc.org/ 
Publications/Terrorism/mi litarytribunals.htm, 
accessed January 2005. 

U.S. Department of Labor. "Shelter-in-Place." 
Ecacuation Plans and Procedures Web site, 2005. 
available online at http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/ 
etools/evacuation/shelterinplace.html. accessed 
January 2005. 



Planner Profile: Janet D'Ignazio 



This issue's Planner Profile features Janet DTgnazio, Senior Research Associate at the Center for 
Transportation and the Environment (CTE) based at North Carolina State University. Janet has 27 
years of experience in the planning field, beginning with her first job after graduate school as the 
first transportation planner for the Town of Chapel Hill. 



CPJ: Wc understand that you began your transpor- 
tation career with the Town of Chapel Hill and that 
you have been back in North Carolina now for six 
years. Tell us about the "in between years." 

JD: After working for the Town of Chapel Hill, 1 
worked on a grant that sought to set up ride-sharing 
programs throughout North Carolina. My next stop 
was Roanoke, Virginia where I ran the transit sys- 
tem as the Assistant General Manager. My main 
responsibilities included planning, contracts, and 
financials. I then held a similar position in Birming- 
ham, AL and then again in Chapel Hill. 



JD: Looking back, both of my experiences in Chapel 
Hill stand out as my best jobs. I think that is because 
Chapel Hill provides a unique environment with a 
university that enabled opportunities to implement 
transit items that I usually could not elsewhere: bike, 
pedestrian, and bus programs. As I moved from one 
transit position to another, 1 began to see the pieces 
of my career puzzle fitting together; I was moving 
from specializing to integrating. This change was 
career-shaping for me, as it led to my next position 
as the Assistant Secretary to the Director of Trans- 
portation at the Michigan Department of Transpor- 
tation (DOT). 



In each of these positions, I always attempted to in- 
tegrate other programs with transit. For example, in 
Roanoke I worked on a ride-share and transit pro- 
gram, which made use of downtown parking garages. 
We arranged for shuttles for various events that trans- 
ported people from the garages to the event site. In 
Binningham, as a means of broadening the economic 
development strategy, we designed transit services 
to serve the racetrack. 

CPJ: Which of these job positions or locations did 
you enjoy the most? 



CPJ: How did your Michigan planning experience 
fit into that puzzle? 

JD: Michigan has one of largest public transporta- 
tion programs in country. For example, when I was 
there we were working with a S200 million budget. 
I was able to work on many aspects of transit, in- 
cluding bus. rail (passenger and freight), and a ferry 
which supports the bus system. Again I was able to 
practice integration of modes and take a broad-based 
approach to transportation. 



40 



Planner Profile 



41 




Planner Janet D'lgnazio has worked across the 
nation , contributing to the planning field for 27 
years. Photo courtesy of Janet D 'Ignazio. 

At the time, Michigan DOT was in a process of self- 
examination. They were approaching operations 
from a new angle: that of a strategic business plan 
for DOT. This prompted the department to ask ques- 
tions like, "what kinds of changes need to occur?" 
and "what skill sets do we need?" It was a private 
sector approach to a government agency and a great 
application of planning skills. 

My time at Michigan DOT was career shaping in a 
new way: it was the beginning of my interest in or- 
ganizational change. I believed, and still do, that 
government can and should be better than it is. It 
was this realization that helped me choose to stay in 
the public sector because I saw that that is where 
transportation planning needs to happen. Michigan 
was an ideal place for me to begin my quest for how 



to make government work better because it was a 
transforming system from all sides — data, process, 
and structure. 

And this brings me back to North Carolina. My work 
at Michigan DOT led me to become involved in "pro- 
cess work" and this is what I focus on now at the 
Center for Transportation and the Environment. I see 
this as bringing together all of the pieces of my pre- 
vious work experiences. I see my primary charge as 
"how can we make planning in North Carolina work 
better and how can it be more important than it has 
been in past?" 

CPJ: What aspect do you find most satisfying about 
your work? 

JD: I have the opportunity to design a planning pro- 
cess for North Carolina that is state of the industry. 
For example, bringing an environmental steward- 
ship ethic to NCDOT requires a cultural change. But 
by doing so, we are working to make NCDOT as 
effective and efficient as it can be. And this is a true 
application of long-range planning that is taught in 
a planning program. 

For all 27 years of my career, I have been lucky to 
have challenging and interesting work, and. perhaps 
most significantly, I feel I have made a difference. 
To me, that is what job satisfaction is all about. 

CPJ: You are working on a number of innovative 
projects at CTE. What project are you most excited 
about? 

JD: Definitely the NCDOT project focusing on 
streamlining the planning process. It is very concep- 
tual, but it is basically the ability for long-range trans- 



portation planning and the intended product to con- 
nect. Typically, long-range plans (LRP) end up on 
some shelf. What we are doing at CTE is finding a 
way to connect long-range planning and the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. As these 
two processes function now, there is a lot of wasted 
time. Therefore, there is a critical need to figure out 
how to combine the two processes so that NEPA 
can pick up where the LRP left off. Now, the LRP 
becomes relevant and makes projects better because 
what is evaluated and what is implemented are in 
line. I sec this as a way to integrate what is impor- 
tant to the community; it comes out in the LRP, but 
traditionally it does not filter to the implementation 
process. 

It is by no means an easy change and right now ev- 
erything seems possible. Yet, if NCDOT can imple- 
ment only half of what they are working on, things 
will be so much better. 



that will emphasize aesthetics to make transporta- 
tion a process that is seamless with the natural beauty 
of the State; greater integration of freight move- 
ment — rail, highway, aviation, ports. An ideal world 
of transportation is attainable in North Carolina. 
Policy makers recognize that the State needs to be 
economically competitive and provide the quality 
of life North Carolinians want. It's not an easy road, 
but it is possible. 

CPJ: How do you envision the future of your ca- 
reer? 

JD: Opportunity will drive the direction my career, 
as it always has. However, my dream opportunity 
would be to serve as a Secretary of a State DOT, to 
be the second-in-command. In this capacity, I could 
implement the organizational changes that I am 
working on now. But such an opportunity would be 
a chance thing. 



CPJ: Do you have a vision for the future of trans- 
portation in North Carolina'? 

JD: Let me preface my answer by acknowledging 
that North Carolina is growing fast, and that it is 
also a State that places a high value on its natural 
beauty and environment. My vision is something like 
this: 



I will more likely stay in the academic world (like 
my current position with CTE) or I will do consult- 
ing with the right kind of firm. For me, the key word 
is integration: modes, systems, economic develop- 
ment, environment, and land use. 



It is critical to look at transportation issues from a 
mobility perspective, not a moving car perspective, 
and the State is moving in that direction. So I see the 
State as being very multimodal: being a midpoint 
for a high-speed train from D.C. to Atlanta; includ- 
ing modem public transit systems in all of the large 
cities; having regional connectivity by rail or High 
Occupancy Vehicle ( HOV) lanes; building a system 



42 



News Briefs: Regional Planning and Awards 



TTA Rail Project 

The Triangle Transit Authority is a regional public 
transportation authority serving Durham, Orange and 
Wake Counties. The agency is currently planning 
for the development of a Regional Rail system, which 
will be supported by shuttle and local bus service. 
Construction of the rail line should begin in early 
2005. 



Washington, D.C. The Award recognizes outstand- 
ing achievement in Smart Growth by governments 
of localities, regions, or tribes in five categories: 
Overall Excellence, Built Projects, Policies and 
Regulation, Community Outreach and Education, 
and Small Communities. 

This year, planning departments in North Carolina 
received two of the five awards granted. 



This service, planned to be operational by 2007, 
would use self-propelled, bi-directional, diesel rail 
cars using the existing railroad rights-of-way to con- 
nect Durham, Research Triangle Park (RTP), Cary. 
Raleigh, and North Raleigh. The costs for construc- 
tion are approximately S724 million (2002 dollars). 
This service is expected to carry about 28.000 daily 
riders by 2025. 

Shuttle or feeder bus systems are being planned to 
connect people to future rail stations. Existing local 
bus services will also be coordinated to serve the 
rail stations. 

EPA National Awards for Smart Growth 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) an- 
nounced in November of 2004 the five winners of 
the 2004 National Awards for Smart Growth 
Achievement at the National Building Museum in 



Overall Excellence in Smart Growth: The Town of 
Davidson Planning Department, North Carolina 

The small community of Davidson. North Caro- 
lina — located just 20 miles from Charlotte — has suc- 
ceeded in building vibrant neighborhoods while 
maintaining its historic heritage. In recent years, the 
town has been working to revitalize existing build- 
ings and build new neighborhoods that incorporate 
a variety of lot sizes and housing types, affordable 
housing, and parks in a walkable environment. 

In an effort to preserve Davidson's small town char- 
acter, the town adopted the Davidson Land Plan in 
1 995 and an innovative Planning Ordinance in 200 1 . 
The ordinance calls for significant public involve- 
ment, including charrettes for each new development 
project. The town's ordinance also requires pedes- 
trian, bicycle, and street circulation plans for all new 
development. Traffic calming devices, including 



43 



44 



narrow, tree-lined streets that are equipped with side- 
walks and feature on-strect parking that discourages 
cars from speeding, ensure that town residents have 
a safe place to walk or ride bikes. In addition, the 
town requires that developers ensure that 12.5 per- 
cent of all new housing built is affordable to fami- 
lies making less than the county's median family 
income. Recently, the old Davidson Cotton Mill 
complex has been transformed into offices, condo- 
miniums, and a restaurant. 

Built Projects: City of Greensboro, Department of 
Housing and Community Development, North Caro- 
lina 

Just one-and-a-half blocks from Greensboro's his- 
toric main street lies the innovative Southside rede- 
velopment project. Once a blighted area, Southside 
has been transformed into a thriving district featur- 
ing historic buildings and vibrant public spaces, all 
within walking distance of downtown. The Southside 
neighborhood, a 10-acre revitalization project, is one 
of Greensboro's first significant mixed-use, infill 
projects. The project features 30 single-family 
homes, 10 two-family homes, 50 townhouses, 10 
restored historic homes, and 20 live/work units where 
business owners live upstairs from their shop or of- 
fice. Some residences include studio apartments 
above rear-detached garages, providing another 
housing choice. A public square serves as the neigh- 
borhood center. The city of Greensboro has con- 
tributed new sidewalks, historic streetlights, deco- 
rative brickwork, and landscaping. To facilitate the 
redevelopment process, the city's Department of 
Housing and Community Development developed 
a Traditional Neighborhood District Ordinance. All 
of the rehabilitated and new homes in the Southside 
district have sold out. What is more, the tax rev- 



enue generated for the city by the neighborhood is 
expected to rise from S400.000 before redevelop- 
ment in 1995 to an estimated S10 million once the 
development is completed. 

The AIA Grants Housing Professional Interest 
Area (PIA) Awards 

On March 19, 2004, the American Institute of Ar- 
chitects (AIA) announced the eleven recipients of 
the 2004 Housing Professional Interest Area (PIA) 
Awards. The AIA Housing PIA Awards Program, 
now in its fourth year, was established to recognize 
the best in housing design and promote the impor- 
tance of good housing as a necessity of life, a sanc- 
tuary for the human spirit, and a valuable national 
resource. Two of the awards were granted to devel- 
opments in Florida. The recipients of the 2004 
awards were formally recognized in June at the 2004 
AIA National Convention and Design Exposition in 
Chicago, Illinois. 

Category: Community Design 

Project: Belmont Heights Estates, Tampa, Florida 

Architect: Torti Gal las and Partners — CHK, Inc., 
Silver Spring, Man land 

Client: The Tampa Housing Authority. Tampa. 
Florida 

The Belmont Heights Estates in Tampa, Florida 
transformed a dismal and isolated public-housing 
project into an inviting mixed-income community, 
featuring 860 units with tree-lined streets, front 
porches, and civic gathering places. The design pro- 
cess for this development involved a week-long 



News Briefs 



45 



charrettc, during which residents voiced their needs 
and desires for their neighborhood. To encourage 
rcvitalization of the area, the community provides 
education, social and family development services, 
economic and personal-growth opportunities. The 
initiative constitutes the city's most significant neigh- 
borhood rcvitalization effort in the last 30 years. 

Categoiy: Single-family Custom 

Project: Blue Ridge Farmhouse Addition, Washing- 
ton, Virginia 

Architect: Robert M. Gurney, FAIA, Architect, Al- 
exandria, Virginia 

Client: Robert and Elizabeth Haskell. Washington, 
Virginia 

The Blue Ridge Farmhouse Addition is an 1 8th cen- 
tury white, clapboard farmhouse in the rolling hills 
of Virginia's Blue Ridge Mountains situated among 
500 acres of stunning vistas. The architect has in- 
creased the clients' living space by adding a new liv- 
ing and entertaining area, bathroom, and changing 
facility. The thoughtfully designed space pays hom- 
age to the existing architecture. The glass and steel 
pavilion is transparent and linear, with a low-pitched 
roof matching that of the original farmhouse, which 
allows stunning views of the surrounding landscape 
and historic architecture. 



Charleston, South Carolina, with the ASLA Olmsted 
Medal, for his environmental leadership, vision, and 
stewardship. The medal is named for Frederick Law 
Olmsted, the founder of the American landscape ar- 
chitecture profession and an early steward of the en- 
vironment. 

During his nearly 30 years in office, Mayor Riley 
has guided Charleston's downtown revitalization and 
historic restoration effort. At the same time, he has 
carefully planned for future development to ensure 
protection of the built and natural environments. 
Mayor Riley has worked tirelessly to restore exist- 
ing parks and create new projects to draw the public 
back to the waterfront. Mayor Riley also serves as 
president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and has 
created the Mayor's Institute for City Design, which 
has provided design education for hundreds of may- 
ors, showing them how to shape the public realm 
and improve the quality of life for citizens. 



ASLA Medal Awarded to the Mayor of the City 
of Charleston 



In 2004, the American Society of Landscape Archi- 
tects (ASLA) has awarded the Honorable Joseph P. 
Riley Jr.. Honorary ASLA, Mayor of the City of 



2004 Master's and Ph.D. Project Titles 



The following is a list of Master's Project and Ph.D. 
dissertation titles prepared by students who 
graduated from the Department of City and Regional 
Planning at UNC-Chaptl Hill in May and August 
of 2004. To obtain a copy of one or more of these 
projects, contact Carolyn Turner at (919) 962-4784. 



NAOMI CYTRON 

Putting Infill to Work as a Community Development 

Strategy: The Franklin - Portland Gateway 

MATTHEW DAY 

Chapel Hill Town Center Alternative Transportation 

Level of Service 



Master's Project Titles 

DAVID ANSPACHER 

Rail Feeder Shuttles: Who Will Use Them? 

CLAY BARKLEY 

A Guidebook For Mitigating Potential Inlet Hazards 

In the Outer Banks of North Carolina 

ELLEN BECKMAN 

The Handbook of Tools and Techniques for Coastal 

Inlets Management 

MARCUS BECTON 

Mixed-Income/Mixed Finance Developments: 
Meeting Policy Rationales and Fulfilling Goals or 
Falling Short of Expectations? 

JODY BERWICK 

Identifying Criteria for Effective Regional Economic 
Development Organizations in The United States 



HEATHER DEUTSCH 

Walltown: The History of a Neighborhood and a 
Housing Renovation Program 

CHRISTINE EDMONSON 

The Role That Volunteer Monitoring Plays in 
Watershed Planning and an Evaluation of the USDA 
Stream Visual Assessment Protocol in the Booker 
Creek Watershed 

{CATHERINE ESCHELBACH 

Statewide Risk Assessment Methodology for the 

North Carolina Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 

SAMUEL EYRE 

Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and Private 

Activity Bonds: A Guide to Affordable Housing 

Development 

SUSAN FAULKNER 

What Should We Do With Our Cars While We Take 

the Train? 



46 



2004 DCRP Masters Project Titles 



47 



JENNIFER GENZLER 

Roaster Decision-Making for Coffee Certification 
Specialty Coffee Roasters in the North Carolina 
Triangle Region 

JEREMY GOLDSTEIN 

Zoning Alternative: Current Trends and New 
Direction 



ROBYNN MORAITES 

A Critical Examination of North Carolina*s Historic 

Preservation Statute 

KEIR MORTON 

An Evaluation of the North Carolina Community 
College System's Pre-Homeownership Counseling 
Program 



MICHAEL HAYES 

Mental Health and Low Income Housing: Designing 
a Healthier Environment 



HELEN O'SHEA 

Growing with Green Space Creating Neighborhood 

Parks Through the Development Process 



LEANNA HUSH 

An Evaluation of State Coastal Program Efforts at 
Hazard Mitigation Through the Coastal Zone 
Management Act 



GILLIAN ROSS 

Are Communities in the Triangle Ready to do Their 
Fair Share? Developing a Regional Affordable 
Housing Strategy 



RACHEL JOHNSON 

University Growth Plans: The Effects of 
Collaboration on Smart Growth Content: A Case 
Study of the University of North Carolina and North 
Carolina State University 

GRETCHEN KOSARKO 

The Geography of Opportunity and Programmatic 

Approaches for Enhancement in Milwaukee. 

Wisconsin 

KELLY LOWRY 

Smart Connections: Green Affordable Housing and 

City Planning 

KARL MONAST 

Neighborhood Quality Assessment 



ELIZABETH RUDD 

Micro Credit and Women's Well Being: Grameen 

Bank as Compared to Work Force Opportunities in 

Bangladesh 

JANE SIBLEY 

Engaging Faith-Based and Community 
Organizations in the Local Hazard Mitigation 
Planning Process 

ANDREW SPROUSE 

Historic Preservation and Workforce Housing in 
North Carolina 

RICHARD THORSTEN 

Does Private Sector Participation Improve Water 
Utility Performance? A Literature Review and 
Analysis of Water Utilities in Asia 



48 



ASHLEY WEBER 

Inner City Purchasing Power: A Case Study on The 

Jeffvandcrlou Neighborhood in the City of St. Louis 

Missouri 

STEVEN WERNICK 

Telecommuting: Working From Home in the 21 s1 

Century 

WILLIAM YEAGER 

Infill Development and Research Parks: A Case 

Study of the Piedmont Triad Research Park 

MICHELLE KORNBERG 

Rethinking the Outmoded Industrial City: 
Inferences From Los Angeles' Policy Documents 
and Practical Application 

ZACH SEAL 

Assessing the Socioeconomic and Property 
Valuation Impacts of Tax Increment Finance 
Districts in Los Angeles 

Ph.D. Dissertation Titles 

SHANNON VAN ZANDT 

Achieving the American Dream: The Impact of 
Homeownership on Opportunity for Low- and 
Moderate-Income Individuals 



Carolina Planning 

The University of North Carolina 

CB3140 

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3140 



Nonprofit Organization 
U.S. Postage 

PAID 
Permit No. 177 
Chapel Hill, NC 



North Carolina Collection 

Wilson Library 

CB# 3930 

Chapel Hill, NC 27599 



Carolina Planning