Section 1: Interchange Analysis Checklist

Interchange Analysis Checklist – ICE (See
Chapter 10, Appendix K
 for sample reports)

Basic informational elements usually necessary or helpful to complete
ICE Stage 1
 include:
  • Location, Context, Roadway Functional Classification, and Project Description
  • Traffic Data (AADT, DHV, vehicle classification, percent trucks)
  • Basic Roadway Characteristics (geometric elements, existing traffic control devices, pedestrian or bicycle features, unique conditions, or constraints, etc.) obtained from roadway inventory or online mapping.
  • Pedestrian and bicycle information, such as activity, volumes, generators, etc. (when available)
  • Existing Safety Performance
    • Long‐term (minimum 5 years) crash history summary and diagram for intersection(s) under study
    • If available, findings and recommendations from a previously completed Road Safety Audit or other expressed safety concerns about the location(s), such as feedback from the local maintenance office or the public.
    • Connection to the emphasis areas, goals or strategies included in the latest Texas SHSP https://www.texasshsp.com/. Specifically, describe how the project addresses the Serious Crash Type – Intersection Safety emphasis area.
Elements required for
Stage 2
 (for each of the short-listed Stage 1 alternatives) include:
  • Prepare high‐level conceptual design/sketch for each short-listed alternative
    • Summarize and compare any right‐of‐ way impacts and extent/significance of land acquisition
    • Include the essential elements or treatments for pedestrians and bicyclists
    • Critical/turning movement analysis of design vehicle and check vehicle(s) (i.e., oversize permit load scenarios)
  • Identify significant environmental impacts (wetlands, parks, historic, etc.)
  • Prepare capital cost estimate and summarize lifecycle maintenance and operation costs.
  • Perform operational analysis to determine intersection delay and V/C ratio; and therefore, operational performance.
  • Perform safety analysis to determine expected reduction in number of crashes, with an emphasis on the difference in severe crashes (i.e., those resulting in fatalities or injuries)
  • Identify level of support from different stakeholders, including TxDOT, local government and other key stakeholders.

Interchange Analysis Checklist – Other Studies

No
Item
Review
Checked By
Date
1
Methodology Coordination
1.1
Methodology & Assumptions Coordination Meeting (M&A) conducted and meeting notes documented
1.2
M&A Memo includes a project description along with a project location map
1.3
Need and Purpose supported by data and justifies the project
1.4
Study area includes surrounding intersections as per M&A
1.5
Analysis years per M&A
1.6
Interchange control types to be considered and their assumptions per M&A
1.7
Operational, safety, and multimodal analysis tools selected per M&A
1.8
Cost benefit analysis tools selected per M&A
2
Data Input & Parameters
2.1
Existing turning movement counts or O-D data and crash data collected per M&A
2.2
Growth rates developed from historical data and approved by TxDOT
2.3
Long-range plans and improvements identified in the study area
3
Operational Analysis
3.1
Traffic operational analysis tools selected per M&A
3.2
Latest guidelines/standards have been used
3.3
Turning movement volumes converted to O-D volumes if comparing multiple itnerchange types
3.4
If microsimulatoon tool was used, the report includes the calibration memo
3.5
Manual calculation of ETT completed when automated software results are not available
3.6
Measure of Effectiveness (MOEs) are consistent with analysis tools and project settings
3.7
The results of traffic analysis have been reviewed for reasonableness
3.8
The results of traffic analysis are compared across every alternative under consideration
3.9
The traffic analysts software files checked to verify input and parameters
4
Safety Analysis
4.1
Safety analysis tools selected per M&A
4.2
Histoncal crash data and analysis conducted for latest 3 to 5 years
4.3
Safety analysis includes predicted crash frequency or evaluation of CMF
5
Multimodal Analysis
5.1
Multimodal analysis tools selected per M&A
5.2
Latest guidelines/standards have been used
5.3
If microsimulatoon tool was used, the report includes the calibration memo
5.4
Measure of Effectiveness (MOEs) are consistent with analysis tools and project settings
5.5
The results of multimodal analysis have been reviewed for reasonableness
5.6
The results of multimodal analysis are compared across every alternative under consideration
5.7
The traffic analysts software files checked to verify input and parameters
6
Other Considerations
6.1
Other MOEs (Including Cost Benefit Analysis)
7
Report
7.1
Summarize results and findings in report format