PRIORITY PROGRAMMING AND PROJECT SELECTION
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAMSYNTHESIS OF HIGHWAY PRACTICEPRIORITY PROGRAMMING ANDPROJECT SELECTIONTRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARDNATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 1978OfficersPETER G. KOLTNOW, Vice ChairmanSCHEFFER LANG, ChairmanW. N. CAREY, JR., Executive DirectorExecutive CommitteeHENRIK E. STAFSETH, Executive Director, American Assn. of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ex officio)WILLIAM M. COX, Federal Highway Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)RICHARD S. PAGE, Urban Mass Transportation Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)JOHN M. SULLIVAN, Federal Railroad Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)HARVEY BROOKS, Chairman, Commission On Sociotechnical Systems, National Research Council (ex officio)HAROLD L. MICHAEL, Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University (ex officio, Past Chairman 1976)ROBERT N. HUNTER, Chief Engineer, Missouri State Highway Department (ex officio, Past Chairman 1977)GRANT BASTIAN State Highway Engineer, Nevada Department of HighwaysKURT W. BAUER, Executive Director, Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning CommissionL. DEBERRY, Engineer-Director, Texas State Department of Highways and Public TransportationARTHUR C. FORD, Assistant Vice President (Long-Range Planning), Delia Air LinesHOWARD L. GAUTHIER, Professor of Geography, Ohio State UniversityFRANK C. HERRINGER, General Manager, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit DistrictARTHUR J. HOLLAND, Mayor, City of Trenton, Ni.ANNE R. HULL, Speaker Pro Tern, Maryland House of DelegatesROBERT R. KILEY, Chairman, Massachusetts Bay Transportation AuthorityPETER G. KOLTNOW, President, Highway Users Federation for Safety and MobilityTHOMAS J. LAMPHIER, President, Transportation Division, Burlington Northern, Inc.A. SCHEFFER LANG, Assistant to the President, Association of American RailroadsROGER L. MALLAR, Commissioner, Maine Department of TransportationMARVIN L. MANHEIM, Professor of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyDARRELL V. MANNING, Director, Idaho Transportation DepartmentROBERT S. MICHAEL, Director of Aviation, City and County of Denver, ColoradoTHOMAS D. MORELAND, Commissioner and State Highway Engineer, Georgia Department of TransportationGEORGE E. PAKE, Vice President, Xerox Corp.; Manager, Xerox Palo Alto Research CenterDOUGLAS N. SCHNEIDER, JR., Director, District of Columbia Department of TransportationWILLIAM K. SMITH, Vice President (Transportation), General MillsJOHN R. TABB, Director, Mississippi State Highway DepartmentJOHN P. WOODWARD, Director, Michigan Department of State Highways and TransportationNATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAMTransportation Research Board Executive Committee Subcommittee for the NCHRPA. SCHEFFER LANG, Association of American Railroads (Chairman)PETER G. KOLTNOW, Highway Users FederationIIENRIK E. STAFSETH, Amer. Assn. of State Hwy. and Transp. OfficialsWILLIAM M. COX, U.S. Department of TransportationHARVEY BROOKS, National Research CouncilHAROLD L. MICHAEL, Purdue UniversityROBERT N. HUNTER, Missouri State Highway DepartmentW. N. CAREY, JR., Transportation Research BoardProject Committee SP 20-5Topic Panel on Priority Programming and Project SelectionRAY R. BIEGE, JR., Kansas Dept. of Transportation (Chairman)VERDI ADAM, Louisiana Department of HighwaysJACK FREIDENRICH, New Jersey Department of TransportationDAVID GEDNEY, Federal Highway AdministrationEDWARD J. HEINEN, Minnesota Department of HighwaysBRYANT MATHER, USAE Waterways Experiment StationTHOMAS H. MAY, Pennsylvania Department of TransportationTHEODORE F. MORF, ConsultantEDWARD A. MUELLER, Jacksonville Transportation AuthorityREX C. LEATHERS, Federal Highway AdministrationROY C. EDGERTON, Transportation Research BoardJAMES B. CHILES, Pennsylvania Department of TransportationFREDERICK GOTTEMOELLER, Maryland Department of TransportationJAMES 0. GRANUM, Highway Users Federation for Safety andMobilityWILLIAM HILLIARD, Florida Department of TransportationTHOMAS F. HUMPHREY, Massachusetts Department of PublicWorksCHARLES H. MOOREFIELD, South Carolina State Highway DepartmentRICHARD D. MORGAN, Federal Highway AdministrationHENRY L. PEYREBRUNE, New York State Department of TransportationROBERT E. SPICHER, National Cooperative Highway ResearchProgramKENNETH E. COOK, Transportation Research BoardConsultant to Topic PanelBRUCE CAMPBELL, Vice President, Fay, Spofford, and ThorndikeProgram StaffKRIEGER W. HENDERSON, JR., Program DirectorDAVID K. WITHEFORD, Assistant Program DirectorLOUIS M. MACGREGOR, Administrative EngineerR. IAN KINGHAM, Projects EngineerROBERT J. REILLY, Projects EngineerHARRY A. SMITH, Projects EngineerROBERT E. SPICHER, Projects EngineerHERBERT P. ORLAND, EditorHELEN MACK, Associate EditorEDYTHE T. CRUMP, Assistant Editor
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAMSYNTHESIS OF HIGHWAY PRACTICE48PRIORITY PROGRAMMING ANDPROJECT SELECTIONRESEARCH SPONSORED BY THE AMERICANASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY ANDTRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS IN COOPERATIONWITH THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATIONAREAS OF INTERESTTRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATIONTRANSPORTATION ECONOMICSTRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARDNATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCILWASHINGTON, D.C.1978
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAMNCHRP Synthesis 48Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective approach to the solution of many problems facinghighway administrators and engineers. Often, highwayproblems are of local interest and can best be studied byhighway departments individually or in cooperation withtheir state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasinglycomplex problems of wide interest to highway authorities.These problems are best studied through a coordinatedprogram of cooperative research.In recognition of these needs, the highway administratorsof the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials initiated in 1962 an objective nationalhighway research program employing modern scientifictechniques. This program is supported on a continuingbasis by funds from participating member states of theAssociation .and it receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United StatesDepartment of Transportation.The Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Board's recognized objectivity and understanding of modern researchpractices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purposeas: it maintains an extensive committee structure fromwhich authorities on any highway transportation subjectmay be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications andcooperation with federal, state, and local governmentalagencies, universities, and industry; its relationship to itsparent organization, the National Academy of Sciences, aprivate, nonprofit institution, is an insurance of objectivity;it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findingsof research directly to those who are in a position to usethem.Project 20-5 FY '75 (Topic 7-07)ISBN 0-309-02758-6L. C. Catalog Card No. 78-55432The program is developed on the basis of research needsidentified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments and by committees of AASHTO.Each year, specific areas of research needs to be includedin the program are proposed to the Academy and the Boardby the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these needsare defined by the Board, and qualified research agenciesare selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance, of research contracts areresponsibilities of the Academy and its TransportationResearch Board.The needs for highway research are many, and the NationalCooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportationproblems of mutual concern to many responsible groups.The program, however, is intended to complement ratherthan to substitute for or duplicate other highway researchprograms.Price: 3.20NoticeThe project that is the subject of this report was a part of theNational Cooperative Highway Research Program conducted by theTransportation Research Board with the approval of the GoverningBoard of the National Research Council, acting in behalf of theNational Academy of Sciences. Such approval reflects the GoverningBoard's judgment that the program concerned is of national importance and appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the National Research Council.The members of the technical committee selected to monitor thisproject and to review this report were chosen for recognizedscholarly competence and with due consideration for the balanceof disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency thatperformed the research, and, while they have been accepted asappropriate by the technical committee, they are not necessarily thoseof the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the National Academy of Sciences, or the program sponsors.Each report is reviewed and processed according to proceduresestablished and monitored by the Report Review Committee of theNational Academy of Sciences. Distribution of the report is approved by the President of the Academy upon satisfactory completion of the review process.The National Research Council is the principal operating agency ofthe National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy ofEngineering, serving government and other organizations. TheTransportation Research Board evolved from the 54-year-old Highway Research Board. The TRB incorporates all former HRBactivities but also performs additional functions under a broaderscope involving all modes of transportation and the interactions oftransportation with society.Published reports of theNATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAMare available from:Transportation Research BoardNational Academy of Sciences2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20418Printed in the United States of America.
PREFACEThere exists a vast storehouse of information relating to nearly every subject ofconcern to highway administrators and engineers. Much of it resulted from researchand much from successful application of. the engineering ideas of men faced withproblems in their day-to-day work. Because there has been a lack of systematicmeans for bringing such useful information together and making it available to theentire highway fraternity, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has, through the mechanism of the National Cooperative HighwayResearch Program, authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake acontinuing project to search out and synthesize the useful knowledge from all possible sources and to prepare documented reports on current practices in the subjectareas of concern.This synthesis series attempts to report on the various practices, making specific recommendations where appropriate but without the detailed directions usuallyfound in handbooks or design manuals. Nonetheless, these documents can servesimilar purposes, for each is a compendium of the best knowledge available onthose measures found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems. Theextent to which they are utilized in this fashion will quite logically be tempered. bythe breadth of the user's knowledge in the particular problem area.FOREWORDThis synthesis will be of special interest and usefulness to transportation administrators and others seeking information on factors to be considered in determiningproject priorities and making project selection decisions. Detailed information ispresented on methods used by transportation agencies at all levels of government.By StaffTransportationResearch BoardAdministrators, engineers, and researchers are faced continually with manyhighway problems on which much information already exists either in documentedform or in terms of undocumented experience and practice. Unfortunately, thisinformation often is fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence,full information on what has been learned about a problem frequently is notassembled in seeking a solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuableexperience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviating the problem. In an effort to correct thissituation, a continuing NCHRP project, carried out by the Transportation ResearchBoard as the research agency, has the objective of synthesizing and reporting oncommon highway problems. Syntheses from this endeavor constitute an NCHRPreport series that collects and assembles the various forms of information into singleconcise documents pertaining to specific highway problems or sets of closely relatedproblems.
The basic programming process is quite complicated and has never been definedin a way useful to most transportation administratOrs. In addition, there has beenno compilation of accepted definitions for planning-programming terms. This reportof the Transportation Research Board contains the results of a selective survey ofpriority programming and project selection methods being successfully used bytransportation ageneS. A 1 5step "Basic Programming Process" ranging fromproject initiation through modification is outlined, and a list of definitions for thebasic terms used in planning and programming is provided.To develop this synthesis in a comprehensive manner and to ensure inclusionof significant knowledge, the Board analyzed available information assembled fromnumerous sources,1ncluding a large number of state highway and transportationdepartments. A topic panel of experts in the subject area was established to guidethe researchers in organizing and evaluating the collected data, and to review thefinal synthesis report.This synthesis is an immediately useful document that records practices thatwere acceptable within the limitations of the knowledge available at the time of itspreparation. As( the processes of advancement continue, new knowledge can beexpected to be added to that now at hand.
CONTENTS1SUMMARY3CHAPTER ONE5CHAPTER TWOIntroduction and DefinitionsIntroductionDefinitionsThe Basic Programming ProcessIntroductionBasic Programming ProcessIICHAPTER THREE16CHAPTER FOUR19CHAPTER FIVE25CHAPTER SIX28CHAPTER SEVEN30REFERENCESFinancial Aspects of.Priority ProgrammingTwo-Column ProgrammingOverprogrammingCategorical GrantsGeographical DistributionFiscal-Year Projections (Fund Forecasting)Manpower AnalysisFinancial ModificationsPolicy and Systems PlanningChanging TimesTies Between Planning and ProgrammingPlanning Versus ProgrammingPrioritizingTechnical PrioritizingNontechnical PrioritizingFinancial PrioritizingSummary of PrioritizingProgram Modifications Philosophical ChangesProject and Finance-Related ChangesDesign ChangesConclusionsA Framework and Structure for ProgrammingProgrammingDefinitionsThe Basic Programming ProcessPrioritizingFinancial Planning and PrioritizingPlanning Versus ProgrammingPoliticsPolicy UnitProject Planning and Development Versus Design
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis synthesis was completed by the Transportation ResearchBoard under the supervision of Paul E. Irick, Assistant Directorfor Special Projects. The Principal Investigators responsible forconduct of the synthesis were Thomas L. Copas and Herbert A.Pennock, Special Projects Engineers. The synthesis was editedby Judy Wall.Special appreciation is expressed to Bruce Campbell, Fay,Spofford, and Thorndike, Inc., who was responsible for the collection of data and preparation of the report.Valuable assistance in the preparation of this synthesis was provided by the Topic Panel, consisting of James B. Chiles, Director, Bureau of Economic Research and Programming, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation; Frederick Gottemoeller,Director, Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering, StateHighway Administration, Maryland Department of Transportation; James 0. Granum, Director, Transportation DevelopmentDivision, Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility;William Hilliard, Chief, Bureau of Programming, Florida Department of Transportation; Thomas F. Humphrey, Director,Bureau of Transportation Planning and Development, Massachusetts Department of Public Works; Charles H. Moorefield,Planning and Programming Engineer, South Carolina StateHighway Department; Richard D. Morgan, Director of Highway Planning, Federal Highway Administration; Henry L.Peyrebrune, Director, Planning Division, New York State Department of Transportation.Kenneth E. Cook, Transportation Economist, and Robert E.Spicher, NCHRP Projects Engineer, both of the TransportationResearch Board, assisted the Special Projects staff and the TopicPanel.Information on current practice was provided by many highway and transit agencies. Their cooperation and assistance weremost helpful.
PRIORITY PROGRAMMING ANDPROJECT SELECTIONSUMMARYThe basic programming process does not have a generally recognized format.Nor is there a list of accepted definitions for terms used in programming. Thissynthesis, which draws on published documents and existing practices as obtainedfrom interviews with programming officials, provides some structure for programming and also a starting point for definitions.Defined simply, programming is the matching of available projects with available funds to accomplish the goals of a given period. Thus there are three basicelements to a. program: projects, funds, and priorities (or goals).A program is rarely all new; it almost always contains commitments from prioryears. Within a program the projects are in all stages of development. The fundsmay be restricted to certain categories, and priorities are constantly changingbecause of changing philosophies, transportation needs, economic conditions, andpolitical conditions. The programmer must juggle all these variables to produce aworkable program.The procedures followed in programming generally fit into the 15-step basicprogramming process described below.Project initiation. Projects have two major sources: technical (planningstudies, special studies, and trained observations) and nontechnical (requests andobservations).Initial listing. Lists can come from four sources: the headquarters orcentral office, a district or regional office, a county, and a metropolitan planningorganization (MPO).Preliminary analysis. Projects are analyzed on the basis of existing oreasily obtainable information.Combined listing (first draft). The separate lists of new projects fromheadquarters, regions, counties, and MPOs are combined in a single list.Advanced analysis and prioritizing. There are three major componentsof this step: technical prioritizing, nontechnical prioritizing, and feedback fromproject planning and development. Technical prioritizing includes development orreview of (a) sufficiency ratings that evaluate physical conditions, geometrics,
Oqand alignment of a highway or bridge and (b) priority ratings that add otherfactors, such as safety, capacity, economics, and quantifiable social and environmental items. Nontechnical prioritizing involves weighing in the minds of decisionmakers without a technical analysis and includes such items as political commitments, legislative commitments, system continuity, and position in the pipeline.Feedback from project planning and development refers to the process of reassessing a project after work has advanced to the point where costs and benefitsare more accurately known.Combined listing (second draft). The old projects are combined withthe new projects from Step 4.Financial analysis. Two fundamental issues are to be addressed: ho
National Academy of Sciences. Distribution of the report is ap-proved by the President of the Academy upon satisfactory comple-tion of the review process. The National Research Council is the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering, serving government and other organizations. The
Next we detail the project selection process, discussing the various types of selection models commonly used, the database needed for selection, and the management of risk. 2.2 PROJECT SELECTION AND CRITERIA OF CHOICE Project selection is the process
dinner & family style & buffet selection dinner page 3 theme buffet’s - minimum 80 pax page 4 family style selection - thai page 6 family style selection - asian / indian page 8 family style selection - european page 10 buffet selection - thai page 12 buffet selection - asian / indian page 14 buffet selection - european page 17 prices
Selection Nr.: 0 O Price set to zero Selection Nr.: 5 O Fast up Fast Increase of price or column Selection Nr.: 6 O Fast down Fast Decrease of price or column Selection Nr.: # O Copy function Copy price on next column Selection Nr.: * O Slave selection Request for slave selection Password 4 -2-3-1-4 Entry by selection button 4 key 4
Chapter 11: Priority queues and Heaps 1 Chapter 11: Priority Queues and Heaps In this chapter we examine yet another variation on the simple Bag data structure. A priority queue maintains values in order of importance. A metaphor for a priority queue is a to-do list of tasks waiting to be performed, or a list of patients waiting for an
Danger warning signs Signs regulating priority Priority road End of priority Priority over oncoming traffic Priority for Give way (to vehicles Stop and give way . Most common road markings . Finnish road administration / Traffic engineering 01/2004. Title: esite_englanti1_rajattu.pdf
The E2 priority setting for relay control is defaulted at 5 and can be changed in the E2 Leviton application Setup screen under the C5: Priority tab. NOTE: Priority levels 1, 2 and 3 can NOT be used. If the E2 priority level is changed to 1, 2 or 3, the third-party device will ignore the command. If priority levels are set the same between the .
13 Priority 1 - Leadership 16 Priority 2 - Workforce 18 Priority 3 - Practice 22 Priority 4 - Children in Care, Care Leavers and Permanence 29 Priority 5 - Exploitation . Improvement Plan is delivering the required improvements. The Trust Board is chaired by the Rt. Hon. Jacqui Smith.
BACnet/IPDriver TableofContents BACnet/IPDriver 1 TableofContents 2 BACnet/IPDriver 6 Overview 7 Setup 7 ChannelProperties— General 8 . l Priority 1:Manual-LifeSafety l Priority 2:Automatic-LifeSafety l Priority 5:CriticalEquipmentControl l Priority 6:MinimumOn/Off l Priority 8:ManualOperator
