Upcoming SlideShare
×

Illiana Corridor Impact Study

606 views

Published on

Carried out as a course project at Purdue University. It may or may not resemble the actual scenario.

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
• Full Name
Comment goes here.

Are you sure you want to Yes No
Your message goes here
• Be the first to comment

• Be the first to like this

Views
Total views
606
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
9
Actions
Shares
0
0
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• A Systems Approach: consider the whole affected area surrounding the corridor, which is the part of both Illinois and Indiana.\n\n
• A Systems Approach: consider the whole affected area surrounding the corridor, which is the part of both Illinois and Indiana.\n\n
• A Systems Approach: consider the whole affected area surrounding the corridor, which is the part of both Illinois and Indiana.\n\n
• A Systems Approach: consider the whole affected area surrounding the corridor, which is the part of both Illinois and Indiana.\n\n
• A Systems Approach: consider the whole affected area surrounding the corridor, which is the part of both Illinois and Indiana.\n\n
• A Systems Approach: consider the whole affected area surrounding the corridor, which is the part of both Illinois and Indiana.\n\n
• A Systems Approach: consider the whole affected area surrounding the corridor, which is the part of both Illinois and Indiana.\n\n
• A Systems Approach: consider the whole affected area surrounding the corridor, which is the part of both Illinois and Indiana.\n\n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• \n
• Illiana Corridor Impact Study

1. 1. CE-561Illiana Corridor: Feasibility Study Team
2. 2. CE-561Illiana Corridor: Feasibility Study d ez n an h an iya dr i an Li ng H er rad da r Sa Zh ng a i n a h Z ve ra tP am m an gy o i j ee S h ai n yu i n hib k R ya i sh o ia M Z ri c S at sh if M X E A Ar Team
3. 3. Team
4. 4. I-57 IL-394 US-41 I-65 Team
5. 5. I-57 IL-394 US-41 I-65 Proposed Illiana Corridor (30 miles) Team
6. 6. Overview •Introduction •Performance Measures •Demand Estimation •Construction & maintenance costs •Travel time, Safety and VOC savings •Economic efficiency/Development •Energy Impacts •Visual and Land use impact •Social and cultural impact •Noise/Air/Wetland Impact •Water resource impact •Multiple Criteria Evaluation3 Team
7. 7. Performance Measures 1.Average)Travel)Time TravelTime 2.Average)Speed LevelofService(LOS) Average)Traffic)Density TECHNICAL AssetDurability Life)Cycle)Cost)per)lane)mile PercentofCrashReduction Vehicular)Crashes)per)100)VMT ReductioninDelay Vehicular)Crashes)per)100)VMT Cost)per)laneAmile)of)highway)constructed,)by) CostPerLaneMile functional)class)&)material)type UserCosts NetProfittoOwner/Operator Life)Cycle)Costs)Vs)Life)Cycle)Profits NetPresentValue ECONOMIC LandUseRatio Changes)in)Land)Use)Ratio ChangesinLandUseRatio EmploymentCreated Increase)in)Employment)per)year) IncreaseinPerCapitaIncome ofLocalResidents Percentage)increase)in)Per)Capita)Income LandUseImpact ENVIRONMENTAL AirQualityImpact Tons)of)Pollutants)emitted)per)year NoiseLevelImpact4 Team
8. 8. DemandEstimation A Systems Approach Team
9. 9. DemandEstimation A Systems Approach Team
10. 10. DemandEstimation A Systems Approach Team
11. 11. DemandEstimation A Systems Approach Team
12. 12. Demand Estimation6 Team
13. 13. Demand Estimation I-80 I-80 IL-1 US-231 US-30 SR-2 IL-21 SR-10 IL-24 IL-17 IL-8 IL-1146 Team
14. 14. Demand Estimation •Traffic Volume Shift –Distance Based Approach • The transfer of volume is allocated according to road volume and distance7 Team
15. 15. Demand Estimation •Traffic Volume Shift –Distance Based Approach • The transfer of volume is allocated according to road volume and distance7 Team
16. 16. Demand Estimation •Traffic Volume Shift –Distance Based Approach • The transfer of volume is allocated according to road volume and distance Transfer load of each Road7 Team
17. 17. Demand Estimation •Traffic Volume Shift –Distance Based Approach • The transfer of volume is allocated according to road volume and distance Transfer load of each Road Transferred Volume on Illiana7 Team
18. 18. Demand Estimation •Traffic Volume Shift –Distance Based Approach • The transfer of volume is allocated according to road volume and distance Transfer load of each Road Transferred Volume on Illiana7 Team
19. 19. Demand Estimation Estimated Truck Traffic for Illiana Corridor for year 20098 Team
20. 20. Demand Estimation Estimated Truck Traffic for Illiana Corridor for year 2009 2009 2030 3874 2980 4595 2317 2384 3535 1782 2748 2827 1426 2114 1691 2704 2080 1617 1663 1244 995 Expressway Trucklane TollRoad Expressway Trucklane TollRoad I-57 to IL-394 IL-394 to US-41 US-41 to I658 Team
21. 21. Demand Estimation Estimated Total Traffic for Illiana Corridor for year 20099 Team
22. 22. Demand Estimation Estimated Total Traffic for Illiana Corridor for year 2009 2009 2030 19732 19285 17966 15396 14867 11802 11534 10745 13857 9208 8892 8288 17783 17405 16268 10636 10410 9730 Expressway Trucklane TollRoad Expressway Trucklane TollRoad I-57 to IL-394 IL-394 to US-41 US-41 to I659 Team
23. 23. OD & DemandGrowthAnalysis10 Team
24. 24. OD I-57 IL-394 US-41 I-65 OD1 OD2 OD3 OD4 OD5 OD611 Team
25. 25. OD I-57 IL-394 US-41 I-65 OD1 OD2 OD3 OD4 OD5 Aj Tij = Pi Where, ∑ n Pi is the trip productions from OD6 j =1 Aj road i, Aj is the trip attractions to road j,11 Kij = Fij =1. Team
26. 26. OD •For the alternative with a dedicated truck lane –Increase in truck volume will be around 30%. •For the alternative of toll road –7% of automobile trips and 20% of truck trips will change their travel routes based on pricing scheme12 Team
27. 27. Demand growth analysis •Population Growth •Economic growth •Land use inﬂuence •Increasing public recognition of Illiana •We assumed an annual growth of 2% β 2 = (1.02) − 1 = 48.6% 20 •Integrating the population growth and other growth, we estimate the growth factor of traffic demand in 2030 will be λ = [(1.074) − 1] + [(1.02) − 1] = 63.9% 2 2013 Team
28. 28. OD Analysis: For Expressway14 Team
29. 29. OD Analysis: For Expressway OD1" OD1" 12" in#Thousands# 2009 in#Thousands# 12" 2030 10" 10" 8" 8" OD6" 6" OD2" OD6" 6" OD2" 4" 4" 2" 2" 0" 0" OD5" OD3" OD5" OD3" OD4" OD4" AADT OD1 OD2 OD3 OD4 OD5 OD6 2009 Total trafﬁc 1198 1650 7131 524 1508 2087 Truck trafﬁc 273 332 939 105 313 388 2030 Total trafﬁc 2003 2759 11923 876 2521 3489 Truck trafﬁc 456 555 1570 176 523 64914 Team
30. 30. Construction Cost Mainline Roadway Interchanges Design Consultant Right of way Bridges15 Team
31. 31. Construction Cost: Roadway (6 •Unit Agency Costs – Flexible Pavements for Interstate Highway (Average Cost in Dollars/Lane-mile) Ref: Muhammad Irfan et al, 201016 Team
32. 32. Construction Cost: Roadway (6 •Unit Agency Costs – Flexible Pavements for Interstate Highway (Average Cost in Dollars/Lane-mile) Ref: Muhammad Irfan et al, 2010 Road type Six-Lane 359 Cons. Cost (M, \$) Minimum (\$, M) \$81 261 Maximum (\$, M) \$359 81 Mean (\$, M) \$261 Minimum Maximum Mean16 Team
33. 33. Construction Cost: •Highway construction cost for diamond interchange Ref: Highway Construction Cost Comparison for Diamond Interchange, WSDOT, Nationwide Survey, April 200217 Team
34. 34. Construction Cost: •Highway construction cost for diamond interchange Illinois: \$6,066,000 Ref: Highway Construction Cost Comparison for Diamond Interchange, WSDOT, Nationwide Survey, April 2002 Interchanges Type Unit Cost (2009, \$) Total Cost (2009, \$) 4 Diamond \$6,066,000 \$30,870,58417 Team
35. 35. Construction Cost: Design •Highway construction cost for diamond interchange Ref: Fee Guide Line for Consulting Engineering Service (January 2004 – 1st edition, produced by The Association of Consulting Engineers NZ Design Consulting Fee=7.5% of total Construction cost18 Team
36. 36. Construction Cost: Right of •The typical right of way widths for cross section –6-Lane Rural – 400 feet •The additional area for per interchange is estimated as 80 acres •Per acre land cost is \$40,000 (for additional land) •The cost for 6 lane road is \$48,174,54619 Team
37. 37. Construction Cost20 Team
38. 38. Construction Cost \$72 Bridges Interchanges \$31 Mainline Roadway \$479 Right-of-Way Design Consultant \$54 Construction Cost (in M, \$) \$31 \$359 Construction Total Cost (in M, \$) \$36 Four-Lane 373.0 \$31 \$239 Six-Lane 527.8 Eight-Lane 682.6 \$54 \$48 \$42 \$36 \$47 \$25 Four-Lane Six-Lane Eight-Lane20 Team
39. 39. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION COSTS21 Team
40. 40. Maintenance & Operation Cost •Maintenance –Major –Minor •Operations •Major Maintenance –Toll Collection –HMA Overlay –Toll Facilities Functional Maintenance –HMA Overlay –Traffic Management & Structural •Minor Maintenance –Thin HMA Overlay –Micro Surfacing22 Team
41. 41. Maintenance & Operation Cost (6 Lane)23 Team
42. 42. Maintenance & Operation Cost (6 Lane) Pavement Maint. (in Million \$) Bridge Maint. (in Million \$) \$46 \$44 44 \$36 \$23 23 \$6 6 HMA Micro S HMA (F) HMA (S) Resurfacing Rehab. Deck Repl. Sup. Repl.23 Team
43. 43. Maintenance & Operation Cost (6 Lane)24 Team
44. 44. Maintenance & Operation Cost (6 Lane) Annual Toll facility related costs (in 1000’ \$) \$100 (in M, \$) \$2.2 \$50 \$40 Facilities Maintenance Money Transport Equipment Maintenance Tolling Operations24 Team
45. 45. Travel Time Saving25 Team
46. 46. Travel Time Saving –Due to congestion relief •Using other existing roads •Reduction in traffic volume •Travel time reduction, and monetary savings •COMSIS Method, and Value of Travel time –Due to route change •Traffic shift to Illiana Freeway •Selection of shorter routes •Avoiding congested routes •Travel time savings for 6 OD pairs26 Team
47. 47. Travel Time Saving Due to congestion relief27 Team
48. 48. Travel Time Saving Due to congestion relief Link Characteristics Road Segment Length27 Team
49. 49. Travel Time Saving Due to congestion relief Link Flow Characteristics Characteristics27 Team
50. 50. Travel Time Saving Due to congestion relief Link Flow Value of Characteristics Characteristics Travel Time Small \$17.54 Autos per hour Truck \$30.61 Trailer per hour27 Team
51. 51. Travel Time Saving Due to congestion relief Link Flow Value of Characteristics Characteristics Travel Time Due to route change F n BPR Function t0 [1 + α ( ) ] t= C27 Team
52. 52. Travel Time Saving Monetary Saving of travel time for Illiana Corridor for year Expressway Truck lane Toll road Total Monetary Saving in 2030 \$66,555,468 \$64,665,485 \$63,448,197 70 62 60 58 Travel Time Savings( in M, \$) 53 35 18 5 5 6 0 Expressway Trucklane Toll road Route change Congestion relief28 Team
53. 53. Safety Impacts Same Dir. Side Swipe Off Road Crashes Rear End Crashes Head On Crashes Opposite Direction Side Swipe29 Team
54. 54. Safety Impacts •Transportation projects generally have a direct or indirect safety component that reduces the rate or severity of crashes –Approach A: using crash rate or equation30 Team
55. 55. Safety Impacts •Transportation projects generally have a direct or indirect safety component that reduces the rate or severity of crashes –Approach A: using crash rate or equation Motor vehicle traffic fatality and injury rates by functional class Unit crash cost on the basis of the KABCO injury scale (NSC 2001) Ref: Sinha and Labi, 2007 FHWA, 1998 NCS website30 Team
56. 56. Safety Impacts Total Savings (2009)31 Team
57. 57. Safety Impacts User Safety savings (in Million \$) \$21 \$20 \$19 Expresslane Truck lane Toll Road Total Savings (2009)31 Team
58. 58. Vehicle Operating32 Team
59. 59. Vehicle Operating Costs •Estimating the unit rates with and without intervention •Estimating the amounts of travel (VMT) with and without intervention •Calculating the user VOC beneﬁts of intervention •Unit VOC using Hepburn Model •Saving in VOC due to congestion relief and route change33 Team
60. 60. Vehicle Operating Costs 2030 Congestion relief Route change 11.0 10.9 10.6 VOC Benefits (in M, \$) \$0.8 \$0.8 \$0.7 Expressway Truck lane Toll road Expressway Truck lane Toll road Congestion relief \$0.8 \$0.8 \$0.7 Route change \$11 \$10.9 \$10.6 Total VOC saving \$11.8 \$11.7 \$11.334 Team
61. 61. Economic Efficiency35 Team
62. 62. Economic Efficiency •NPV Method –Base year 2009, ﬁnal year 2030 •Beneﬁts: Benefitn –Travel time savings PWn = n − 2009 (1 + i ) –Safety savings –VOC savings –Toll revenue (for toll road only) •Costs: –Construction, Maintenance, Toll Collection etc. –Different periods/cycles (annual, 10 yrs…) Costn PWn = n − 2009 (1 + i )36 Team
63. 63. Economic Efficiency37 Team
64. 64. Economic Efficiency \$447 \$358 NPV (in M, \$) \$243 Expressway Trucklane Toll road NPV (in M, \$)37 Team
65. 65. Economic38 Team
66. 66. Economic Development •Economic Activity Generation: Every \$1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure generates more than \$2 billion in economic activity. • (USDOT, 2005)39 Team
67. 67. Economic Development •Per every \$1 billion in construction spending, 42,100 new jobs are created. • (FHWA, 2005)40 Team
68. 68. Energy Impacts41 Team
69. 69. Energy Impact Assessment (Caltrans, 1983.)42 Team
70. 70. Energy Impact Assessment Direct Indirect 19625 16625 16527 3544 Billion BTU 11889 227 260 227 Do Nothing Expressway Truck lane Toll Road43 Team
71. 71. Social & Cultural44 Team
72. 72. Social & Cultural Impacts The impacts depend on the manner of social change interpretation, the level of anticipation, and the resilience of the affected population. Ref: Sinha and Labi, 200745 Team
73. 73. Social & Cultural Impacts The impacts depend on the manner of social change interpretation, the level of anticipation, and the resilience of the affected population. Targeted Facilities: Targeted Groups: 1.Schools 1.All persons in the impact area 2.Religious institutions 2.Elderly, handicapped, non- 3.Playground, parks and drivers, and transit-dependent recreational areas persons 4.Hospitals, clinics and other 3.Minority groups medical facilities 4.Low-income or poverty-stricken 5.Residential and social facilities for individuals the elderly people. 5.Groups vulnerable to conﬂict, 6.Social service agencies, etc. violence, or economic shocks, etc. Ref: Sinha and Labi, 200745 Team
74. 74. Environmental Justice Consideration •Proposed alignment corridors do not disproportionately displace poverty-stricken households •The paths of the three alternatives go through primarily rural land with poverty-stricken households Ref: Joseph et al, 2009 Overall, there are few signiﬁcant environmental justice concerns within this primarily rural46 Team
75. 75. Strategies to Enhance Social Well-being •Engage communities and stakeholders •A transit-oriented development •Develop multi-modal transportation alternatives •Promote active, healthy living: walking2009 Ref: Joseph et al, and47 Team
76. 76. Visual Impacts48 Team
77. 77. Visual Impacts •Visual Quality Evaluation Method (FHWA): –Vividness, Intactness and Unity Forest&Area& !! & Illiana&Corridor49 Team
78. 78. Visual Impacts •Larger medians with vegetation will reduce intactness and increase unity between infrastructure and landscape50 Team
79. 79. Land Use Impacts51 Team
80. 80. Land Use Impacts Activity TRANSPORTATION! patterns and Patterns and number of accessibility transportation in an area systems LAND USE!52 Team
81. 81. Land Use Impacts •Used gravity model TRANSPORTATION! Activity patterns and –Employment Growth Patterns and number of transportation accessibility in an area –Accessibility systems computation LAND USE! –Population Growth52 Team
82. 82. Land Use Impacts •Used gravity model TRANSPORTATION! Activity patterns and –Employment Growth Patterns and number of transportation accessibility in an area –Accessibility systems computation LAND USE! –Population Growth Land use Change(Vs. no build) Comparison (in Acre) County Expressway Truck lane Toll road Will 157699.72 157699.80 157700.25 Kankakee 500.48 500.40 499.95 Lake 22996.10 23015.00 22798.1652 Team
83. 83. Noise Impact Assessment53 Team
84. 84. Noise Impact Assessment •Sources (Vehicles, Roads, Driver, Construction & other activities) •Impacts on (Humans, Buildings, Wildlife) •Mitigation (Vehicles, Surface design, Road Geometry etc) Ref: Roads and Environment: A handbook, World Bank54 Team
85. 85. Noise Impact Assessment55 Team
86. 86. Noise Impact Assessment Acceptable55 Team
87. 87. Noise Impact Assessment Acceptable •Threshold Sound Level: 66dBA55 Team
88. 88. Noise Impact Assessment Receivers! Barrier! Acceptable •Threshold Sound Level: 66dBA55 Team
89. 89. Noise Impact Assessment 80.0\$ 40\$8\$ 80\$8\$ 120\$8\$ 75.0\$ Noise&Level&(dBA)& 70.0\$ 65.0\$ 60.0\$ 55.0\$ Express\$ Truck\$ Toll\$ Express\$ Truck\$ Toll\$ 2009\$ 2030\$56 Team
90. 90. Air Quality Assessment57 Team
91. 91. Air Quality Assessment Ref: Roads and Environment: A handbook, World Bank58 Team
92. 92. Air Quality Assessment Ref: Roads and Environment: A handbook, World Bank Emission (Vehicle Type, Road Geometry, Engine, etc)58 Team
93. 93. Air Quality Assessment 2009 Pollutants(million grams) 2030 Pollutants (million grams) 1,365 2,283 1,363 2,280 2,278 1,360 2,275 1,358 2,273 1,355 2,270 Express Truck lane Toll Road Express Truck lane Toll Road lane lane59 Team
94. 94. Air Quality Assessment •Causes: –Trafﬁc Volume (VMT) –Trafﬁc composition –Trafﬁc Speed –others (Road surface, dispersion of pollutants) •Remedies: –Capacity of highway –Alignment of roads –Vegetation –Reducing trafﬁc intervention60 Team
95. 95. Air Quality Assessment •Causes: –Trafﬁc Volume (VMT) –Trafﬁc composition –Trafﬁc Speed –others (Road surface, dispersion of pollutants) •Remedies: –Capacity of highway –Alignment of roads –Vegetation Ref: Roads and Environment: A handbook, World Bank –Reducing trafﬁc intervention60 Team
96. 96. Wetland Impact Assessment61 Team
97. 97. Wetland Impact Assessment •Ecological –Keep surface and groundwater clean –Act as ﬂoodwater reservoirs –Habitat for many species of animals –Ground-Water recharging •Social –Maintain water Quality –Controls Floods •Economic –Serve as Recreational Areas Source62 Team
98. 98. Wetland Impact Assessment •Ecological –Keep surface and groundwater clean –Act as ﬂoodwater reservoirs –Habitat for many species of animals –Ground-Water recharging •Social Clean Water Act –Maintain water Quality Coastal Zone Management Act –Controls Floods National Environmental Policy Act •Economic –Serve as Recreational Areas Source62 Team
99. 99. Wetland Impact Assessment •Ecological –Keep surface and groundwater clean –Act as ﬂoodwater reservoirs –Habitat for many species of animals –Ground-Water recharging •Social Clean Water Act –Maintain water Quality Coastal Zone Management Act –Controls Floods National Environmental Policy Act •Economic –Serve as Recreational Areas Source62 Team
100. 100. Wetland Impact Assessment Wetland Ioss (Acre) Min Max 1239 908 Minimum Wetlands (Acre) Illinois 98.86 Indiana 604.28 376 309 316 70 317 33 Freshwater Emergent Fresh Water Pond63 Team
101. 101. Wetland Impact Assessment Min Cost (in M, \$) Max Cost (in M, \$) Restoration (2009 \$) Emergent Forested Fresh Water Lake Shrub Pond Unit Cost (1000’s , \$) 24.3 57.2 33.9 24.3 Min Cost (in M, \$) 11.1 3.0 8.0 0.6 Source: Wetland Replacement Practices and Procedures for Indiana Highway Project. JTRP 200264 Team
102. 102. Wetland Impact Assessment Min Cost (in M, \$) Max Cost (in M, \$) Restoration (2009 \$) Emergent Forested Fresh Water Lake Shrub Pond Unit Cost (1000’s , \$) 24.3 57.2 33.9 24.3 Min Cost (in M, \$) 11.1 3.0 8.0 0.6 Source: Wetland Replacement Practices and Procedures for Indiana Highway Project. JTRP 2002 43.6 Cost for restoration of wetland (in M,\$) 16.4 13.2 9.5 11.1 3.0 8.0 0.6 Emergent Forested Shrub Fresh Water Pond Lake64 Team
103. 103. Water Resource Impact65 Team
104. 104. Water Resource Impact •Two Major Aspect: –Impact on Water Quality: •Pollutant load Increment due to daily traffic •Impact on Water Quantity: –Increase in Surface Runoff Quantities •Other Impacts on Water Quantity: –Impacts on Water Flow Patterns –Impacts on Groundwater Quantity66 Team
105. 105. Water Resource Impact •Impact on Water Quality: –Major precipitation data in Illinois and Indiana are obtained from NOAA Satellite and Information Service database –In Illinois, precipitation data of 2 counties (Will, Kankakee) and the statewide precipitation are considered –In Indiana, precipitation data of 3 counties (Newton, Benton and Jesper) and statewide precipitation are considered –Data shows from 07/31/2000 to 07/31/2011, a67 Team
106. 106. Water Resource Impact •Impact on Water Quality: –Major precipitation data in Illinois and Indiana are obtained from NOAA Satellite and Information Service database –In Illinois, precipitation data of 2 counties (Will, Kankakee) and the statewide precipitation are considered –In Indiana, precipitation data of 3 counties (Newton, Benton and Jesper) and statewide precipitation are considered –Data shows from 07/31/2000 to 07/31/2011, a P = P! + K! H! T! and!K! = 0.007×(ADT)!.!" ! ∆P = K ! H ! T! Where delta P is increment in Ref: Gupta et al., 198167 Team
107. 107. Water Resource Impact68 Team
108. 108. Water Resource Impact 2030 838 821 771 Pollutant load increment(in lb) 821 796 747 933 916 862 Expressway Truck lane Toll road I-57 to IL-394 IL-394 to US-41 US-41 to I6568 Team
109. 109. Water Resource Impact ! •Peak Discharge rate:! = !"#! Description Before Project After Project Cultivated Land Concrete Pavement Asphaltic Pavement Area, A (acres) 1345.46 109.09 1454.55 Runoff coefﬁcient, c 0.245 0.875 0.875 Rainfall intensity, i (in/hr) 3.25 3.25 4.21 Runoff from each area (ft3/s) 1071.32 310.22 5358.2 Total Runoff (ft3/s) 1381.54 5358.269 Team
110. 110. Travel Time Savings Safety SavingsAnalytical Hierarchical Vehicle Operating Cost Process (AHP) Savings Economic Efficiency Air Quality Impacts Noise Impacts Wetland/Water Resources Impacts Visual/Social and Cultural Impacts Energy Use Impacts Land Use Impacts Economic Development Multiple Criteria Evaluation70 Team
111. 111. Multiple Criteria Evaluation •Rating were given by individual group members •Led to formulate 11x11 matrix •Used AHP formulation to compute the weights71 Team
112. 112. Multiple Criteria Evaluation Criteria Weight Do-Nothing Expressway Truck lane Toll Road Travel Time Saving 0.186 4 1 2 3 Safety Saving 0.202 4 1 2 3 VOC Saving 0.079 4 3 2 1 Economic Efﬁciency 0.241 4 2 3 1 Air Quality Impacts 0.044 1 2 3 4 Noise Impacts 0.030 1 4 3 2 Water Resources Impacts 0.062 1 4 3 2 Visual/Social Impacts 0.019 1 2 4 3 Energy Use Impacts 0.031 1 2 4 3 Land Use Impacts 0.029 4 3 2 1 Economic Development 0.076 4 3 1 272 Team
113. 113. Multiple Criteria Evaluation73 Team
114. 114. Conclusio74 Team
115. 115. Conclusio THANK YOU74 Team