National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Chapter 3 - State of the Practice Survey
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 50

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

28 The case examples included herein present detailed insights on how the value of added high- way capacity projects is assessed versus that of other modal projects and strategies along with issues and opportunities at five state DOTs and three MPOs. In addition, examples from two state DOTs that do not conduct assessments of added highway capacity projects against other modal projects and strategies but plan to do so in future corridor/subarea plans and studies and STIPs are presented. Six state DOTs conduct crossmodal prioritization that includes added highway capacity proj- ects in either their corridor/subarea plans and studies or STIPs (two state DOTs do so in both). All six of these state DOTs were contacted to be interviewed and serve as case examples; all but one agreed to participate. The three MPOs selected as case examples conduct crossmodal prioritization that includes added highway capacity projects in their MTPs, corridor/subarea plans and studies, and TIPs (i.e., all of the key decision points in the metropolitan planning and programming process). With respect to geography, the United States Census Bureau classifies the nation into four regions (West, Midwest, Northeast, and South) and nine divisions (Pacific and Mountain in the West Region; West North Central and East North Central in the Midwest Region; Middle Atlantic and New England in the East; and West South Central, East South Central, and South Atlantic in the South) (see Figure 14). The case examples in this synthesis report include three of the four U.S. Census Bureau regions and seven of its nine divisions, providing geographic diversity. The following state DOTs completed the synthesis survey: • Alabama • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Georgia • Illinois • Iowa • Kansas • Maryland • Massachusetts • Minnesota • Missouri • Montana • North Carolina C H A P T E R 4 Case Examples

Case Examples 29 • North Dakota • Nevada • New Mexico • New York • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Vermont • Virginia • Washington Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic and Statistics Administration, Census Bureau. Figure 14. Census regions and divisions of the United States.

30 How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies The following MPOs completed the synthesis survey: • Atlanta Regional Commission • Baltimore Metropolitan Council • Broward Metropolitan Planning Organization • Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (Austin, Texas) • East-West Gateway Council of Governments • Greater Bridgeport and Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization • Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization • Metro (Portland, Oregon) • Metropolitan Transportation Commission • Mid-America Regional Commission • Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments • Sacramento Area Council of Governments • San Diego Association of Governments • Southern California Association of Governments • Wasatch Front Regional Council The state DOTs and MPOs that serve as the case examples are not identified by name for two reasons: (1) multiple agencies expressed concern about their project evaluation processes being viewed as deficient, despite the fact that the processes incorporate an additional and difficult method of assessment (crossmodal prioritization that includes added highway capacity projects) that most of their peers are not attempting; and (2) political and cultural implications were cited as impediments to conducting or implementing planning and programming processes that are not highway-centric. State DOT A State DOT A assesses added highway capacity projects against the following modal projects and strategies in its corridor/subarea plans and studies and STIP, including the following: • Bicycle lane (STIP), • Pedestrian walkway (STIP), • Safety (corridor/subarea plans and studies and STIP), and • Operational and management strategies (corridor/subarea plans and studies and STIP). State DOT A uses a collaborative decision-making tool in its project prioritization process. Impetus Many corridor and subarea planning needs are based on concerns raised by citizens. For instance, concerned citizens will contact local officials or the state highway commission and say, “We have a problem here,” “Can we do a bypass of town X?,” or “Can we do a turning lane here?” State DOT A is changing the approach and scope of corridor/subarea plans and studies to become more performance-based. Each of the corridor studies is going to be expected to address the federal performance management requirements included in the FAST Act. Approximately 80% of funding is programmed to projects that will improve pavement quality to ensure that asso- ciated FAST Act requirements will be met. State DOT A generally looks at capacity first but is planning to transition away from this approach by focusing more on how to make a section of roadway more efficient or improve safety via other alternatives. With regard to the STIP, State DOT A completed its first bicycle and pedestrian plan 2 years ago, and bicycle and pedestrian projects are typically funded through the FHWA Transportation

Case Examples 31 Alternatives Program. Although State DOT A transportation planners are facing funding restric- tions, they “have to make sure they pay for highways” so other sources of State DOT A funding can pay for some of the bicycle and pedestrian work but not all of it. In general, programmatic eligibility requirements create funding restrictions that drive what can be considered. State DOT A does not intend to expand the types of projects evaluated against highway capacity initiatives. Currently, each modal element has different funding sources and different commissions and departments (e.g., highways, aeronautics, waterways) overseeing the program- ming of projects. This presents significant challenges to conducting crossmodal prioritization. State DOT A is for the most part a department of transportation in name only; its true function is as a highway department with a highway commission overseeing it. Even though the department is a planning source for different modes, they have different funding sources that do not go through the department—it is difficult to do multimodal. Generally, the funding from the state limits what the offices can do; TIGER grants or other grants help. Difficulties State DOT A attempts to make apples-to-apples comparisons between different projects and modal strategies. State DOT A is doing BCA for certain projects; it has been used in the roadway design section. A few years ago, State DOT A began using a data-driven project prioritization process in which staff develop criteria, use FAST Act performance measures, and assess improve- ments in performance versus costs. In doing so, State DOT A tries to prioritize and select high- value, lower cost programs and projects. This information is then presented to the state highway commission. Difficulties arise when reliability becomes a factor as these benefits are more difficult to project than pavement conditions. State Legislation There are many limits in state legislation on how to spend money. State DOT A activities and projects are funded primarily through fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees. It was not until the passage of the FAST Act and the inability to match federal funds that the state government contributed any additional funding, and these revenues are not considered a stable funding source. Increasing the fuel taxes has been discussed but not implemented as the initiative “died in one house or another.” Federal Performance Management Requirements There is a concern regarding the ability to meet performance targets. As such, the ability to meet the targets is a major consideration in the discussions around how to set them. Setting the right targets and making efforts to meet them “steers the money from political projects to projects that will actually improve the system.” Highway Capacity as a Strategy With anticipated funding restrictions moving forward, State DOT A will likely focus more on highway operations and management as opposed to additional physical capacity to improve system efficiency. Although, this is not a rule and there are expressway widenings being advanced in some areas. In general, there is a distinction between large and small communities in terms of priorities and approaches: small, rural towns are “all about increasing capacity,” whereas bigger cities emphasize better using existing capacity. Operations and management approaches to improve existing capacity are not limited to ITS and traffic incident management (although these are deemed important). These approaches

32 How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies include turning lanes, alternative intersections, signal and timing actuation, and reconfiguring interchanges to make them more efficient. Needs There is concern regarding the extent to which certain improvements or projects can be expected to improve or increase reliability, including predictability in travel time. For certain transportation improvements, the expected outcomes are relatively clear and there is far less uncertainty (especially when the improvements can be measured). With pavement rehabilitation, for instance, the observable measure is from “poor pavement to good.” For safety, rumble strips are known to reduce crash rates. Improved data, methods, and tools are needed to measure effects on reliability. Other Considerations Capacity expansions will always be considered so long as they are part of the popular mindset among citizens. The public commonly requests added highway capacity via additional lanes when asked for potential solutions. However, adding more capacity is difficult and “is probably not the preferred method” because it is so expensive. The perception is that other states (including neighboring ones) are doing better in terms of funding and the ability to carry out necessary projects, so State DOT A is viewing and assessing what other states are doing to provide needed revenues for transportation. The culture of State DOT A and the culture and expectations of citizens were noted as issues: “We’ve built roads for the last 100 years. No one wants [us] to build more roads, but they want to keep driving.” State DOT B State DOT B assesses added highway capacity projects against the following modal projects and strategies in its corridor/subarea plans and studies: • Safety and • Operational and management strategies. State DOT B uses multiple collaborative decision-making tools as well as a BCA tool developed by another state DOT in its project prioritization process. Impetus State DOT B has not conducted many corridor/subarea plans and studies recently, though preparations are underway to begin ones in the near future. These forthcoming corridor/subarea plans and studies will be corridor-based and comprehensive and have a longer-term horizon than typical plans and studies. One goal of these plans is to be more in alignment with what MPOs do in their MTPs but at the corridor level. These forthcoming corridor/subarea plans and studies may involve the assessment of added highway capacity projects against modal strategies in addi- tion to safety and operational and management strategies. This comparison has not carried over into the STIP but will, given the forthcoming FAST Act performance management requirements. The high rate of growth in the state pits highway preservation against capacity, with no funding for capacity being seen as a potential inhibitor of growth. This is the perception and understanding of the general public at the local level. Localities may want to add bike lanes, but if it is viewed as reducing capacity (even when there is excess capacity), then there is resistance from the public.

Case Examples 33 Difficulties Funding flexibility is a key challenge because all of the money that State DOT B can access is for highways. Other uses of the funding are constitutionally prohibited. Funding may be used for operations, but it cannot be used to fund other modes. State DOT B is attempting to assess nonhighway modal options despite the fact that the necessary funding is not available. As an example, State DOT B is commencing a study on a very large industrial park that will serve a major manufacturer. Due to the size of the site and the number of jobs that will be located there, nonhighway modes, including bus and rail public transportation, are being assessed regardless of whether State DOT B can fund projects of this nature if they are the preferred alternatives. This discussion is particularly relevant because the site and the employer are significant statewide, and it may be the state that ultimately will have to fund the improvements. Internal allocation of funding also presents a challenge at State DOT B, where internal categories of funding include preservation, capacity, safety, and operations. This categorization makes it difficult to have the conversation to compare across modes and types of projects because proj- ects are programmed based on what funding they are eligible for. When a particular funding program is exhausted, unprogrammed projects are not typically considered for other funding programs. That is, safety priorities and needs may not be addressed once FHWA Highway Safety Improvement Program funds are fully programmed because remaining safety projects do not compete with nonsafety projects and strategies in other funding categories. The consequence is that funding program eligibility drives resource allocation in addition to identified needs and priorities. Difficulties in accurately estimating benefits and assigning values to certain activities mean that benefits and costs across modes cannot be normalized. And often, for the “economic development and political projects we get assigned to us,” it is possible to do a qualitative but not quantitative assessment of effects, which can present difficulties in terms of comparing results with those of traditional BCA. The culture of State DOT B can be another challenge, with common practices, priorities, and processes, as well as internal allocation of the funding (as noted earlier), limiting a full assessment of projects across modes. One example of this, for instance, is seen in the division performance analysis. According to the interviewee, “If you want to include or assign a value for preservation work, etc., you are getting pushback from engineering . . . it gets down to how do you compare the benefits of safety or preservation versus expansion.” The availability of tools (or lack thereof ) presents a challenge: “Mostly the tools are not available.” The challenge, however, is not limited to tool and data availability. Again, institutional culture can be an issue. Although some people in State DOT B’s transportation planning function want to expand the process for doing BCA (including for preservation work), such staff regularly get pushback from those in other areas resistant to expanding the BCA process because it is outside of common practice. This makes comparisons of other modal projects and strategies to added highway capacity projects nonexistent for the foreseeable future. Considering the challenges presented by the internal culture and resistant stakeholders, the interviewee suggested that though the availability of tools would certainly be valuable for State DOT B to assess alternative modes and approaches, a technical fix would not likely suffice: “We need a leader on this.” State Legislation Programmatic eligibility for state funds does restrict what modal projects and strategies can be advanced beyond preservation, maintenance, and expansion of highways. The state constitution

34 How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies requires that State DOT B program its resources to highway construction and maintenance. State funds may not be used for public transportation (rail or bus). Nonmotorized modes can be considered. However, a recent example demonstrates that these modes need to be accom- modated on roadways to receive state funds. Recently, State DOT B conducted a bicycle study and determined that a separate facility for bicyclists parallel to a roadway was the preferred alternative; it could not be funded. Funding can sometimes be used for bicycle and pedestrian projects, but according to the interviewee, “It gets tricky.” Federal Performance Management Requirements State DOT B has been tracking and reporting on performance measures similar to the federal performance measures for quite some time. The transition will be to performance management with setting of targets and reporting of progress to said targets. However, for the most part these federal measures are viewed as being in silos like the state ones (e.g., asset condition and safety) so significant changes to departmental culture are not anticipated. The greater issue will be demonstrating progress across all categories. State DOT B is relying on its transit operators for information and performance measures, because these entities own and operate the vehicles, facilities, and services. The effect of the federal performance management requirements on public transportation and associated decision making by the transit operators is unclear. It was noted that the state of affairs related to performance measures is in flux, and so answers to the same or similar questions may be significantly different in 1 to 2 years. Highway Capacity as a Strategy State DOT B observed that there is a difference between many eastern and western states, with the former placing a greater amount of scrutiny on adding capacity because eastern states are more built out and have been dealing with greater maintenance backlogs over a longer period than some of their western counterparts. The high rate of growth in some western states brings issues related to the pressure to make public expenditures for the benefit of limited private interests when there is a large site serving a single use. State DOT B does not build something specifically for the interests but will accelerate some existing initiatives planned. Needs State DOT B stated that BCA tools and techniques would be helpful to allow for comparison of proposed projects across modes. An analysis of how all states are comparing and funding different modes would be useful to identify opportunities to update or enhance existing practices. Other Considerations State DOT B is working to better understand the potential effects of emerging technologies such as connected/automated vehicles on travel behavior and the resulting capacity needs. The current means for funding transportation through fuel taxes may be antiquated, and one result may be the reinforcement of highways as the primary option to add capacity. Finally, in discussing the public health effects of different modes, such as bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure, the interviewee noted that State DOT B considers public health benefits for on-road bicycle projects but not for highway expansion or even multiuse trail projects. Analyses of the benefits of these types of projects may be done at the MPO level.

Case Examples 35 State DOT C State DOT C assesses added highway capacity projects against other modal projects and strategies in its corridor/subarea plans and studies and STIP, including the following: • Local public transportation, bus and rail; • Commuter public transportation, bus and rail; • Intercity public transportation, bus and rail; • Bicycle lane; • Pedestrian walkway; • Multiuse trail; • Safety; • Operational and management strategies; • Ferry boat; and • Freight rail. State DOT C uses multiple analytical tools (including one for BCA) that feed into a larger project prioritization system process. Highway project effectiveness is evaluated relative to the highway-vehicle equivalence of the other (nonhighway) modal projects and strategies. Impetus The current limitation is that project assessment is tied to assumptions regarding the effect a nonhighway mode has on highway capacity (i.e., how many single-occupancy vehicle [SOV] trips does a non-SOV project, such as additional bus service, park-and-ride lot expansions, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, additional commuter rail cars, remove from a parallel highway). The relative value of proposed highway, transit, rail, passenger, and freight activity is assessed and compared to highway-vehicle equivalence. To the extent that State DOT C can make assumptions (based on documented studies) on the effect of aviation and waterborne transport on SOV travel, these modes could also be analyzed. This comes with the caveat that the projects being analyzed are funded with highway and transit funds. Aviation funding is allocated under a separate process, as is funding for waterborne transport. There are examples where FHWA Surface Transportation Program (now Surface Transportation Block Grant Program) funds have been allocated to expanded barge service, as there were supporting studies showing a reduction in containerized truck traffic on a parallel corridor. There is no known instance where highway/ transit funding has been allocated to an aviation project. Difficulties State DOT C analyses of transit expansion, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, park-and-ride lots, and other nonhighway modal projects and strategies are assumption-based. State DOT uses published surveys and research as a basis for these assumptions. These include transit sur- veys, national research, origin-destination surveys, Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics program data, and other resources to assist in making the assumptions. All assumptions are documented and subject to public review and critique. Screening, assessing, and comparing a large volume of proposed projects over a limited period of time (a recent analytical set involved over 400 assessments) with broad scopes, complexities, and variations has been a challenge. The most challenging aspect for State DOT C was trying to evaluate improvements to existing highway facilities against proposed locations for new facilities. Two separate capacity analy- sis methods were used, with a spreadsheet-based model for existing improvements and travel demand models for proposed new location facilities. Partial transit projects can also be a chal- lenge in State DOT C’s project evaluation process. In any situation where effects were analyzed

36 How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies across modes, the more survey data that were available along with the availability of national research on ridership trends for other modes, the greater the ability to analyze a project. Federal Performance Management Requirements State DOT C began using performance management in project selection before MAP-21 was enacted. That is not to say that the federal performance management requirements will not have an effect on project selection processes. The current federally required performance measures are similar but do not necessarily align completely with current state metrics. The safety and pavement and bridge conditions metrics used by State DOT C are more similar to the federal ones than the systems performance measures. State DOT C anticipates needing to demonstrate how the current (and future) project selection process is “moving the needle” with respect to performance targets. Highway Capacity as a Strategy The statewide legislation that drives the project selection process that State DOT C uses formalized how highway capacity projects are evaluated, selected, and funded. It is no longer just about addressing the worst capacity problems on the transportation network. There is now the requirement to demonstrate what type of benefits a project will have, including assessing effects on capacity prior to having funding allocated. Congestion and the scrutiny on highway capacity projects seem likely to become more important as several regions of the nation are growing and becoming more urbanized. However, it should be recognized that many additional factors, such as transportation safety or interests in having facilities to support economic development, are also matters of interest for nonurbanized and urbanized areas. Needs State DOT C stated that travel surveys, origin-destination data, user preference surveys, and research on the effects of expanding other modal projects and strategies (specifically, public transportation, bicycle, pedestrian, and park-and-ride) on highway performance would all be useful in supporting analysis. Future research needs include how to more fully use technology to expand available data, the effect that connected/automated vehicles will have on travel behavior, and user preference surveys to gauge effects of technology. State DOT C continues to refine its own methods and is willing to consider the use of new tools so long as such tools have demonstrated use, can be readily applied, and are sufficiently transparent that stakeholders can understand the project selection process. Other Considerations State DOT C is cognizant and accepting of the need to make assumptions based on readily available data and document them in order to assess and justify tradeoffs between modal strategies. The use of data from private vendors and universities is becoming more prevalent. With this comes the need to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the data. Accordingly, improved data sets that are low cost would be valuable, especially for non-SOV modes. All of the assumptions that State DOT C uses in its project evaluation and prioritization processes are detailed in a technical guide available on line. This includes resources, technical assumptions and data, analysis methods, and assumptions. A major factor in State DOT C’s analysis is evaluating what the effects are on highways. It is the one common denominator in all analyses—the bottom-line effect on throughput and

Case Examples 37 person-hours of delay. All projects are analyzed through this lens. For instance, a transit project is evaluated in terms of the extent to which it affects throughput on highways. State DOT D State DOT D assesses added highway capacity projects against other modal projects and strat- egies in its corridor/subarea plans and studies as follows: • Local transportation, bus; • Commuter public transportation, bus and rail; • Intercity public transportation, bus and rail; • Bicycle lane; • Multiuse trail; • Safety; • Operational and management strategies; • Inland waterway transport; and • Freight rail. State DOT D uses multiple analytical tools that feed into overall project prioritization. Impetus The main reason that State DOT D evaluates highway capacity projects against a wide array of other modes is that staff believe that, because added capacity highway projects are very permanent and costly, staff need to make sure projects are both viable and warranted. Added capacity highway projects are vetted fully, including considering other alternatives that may be better investments that provide more flexibility than the permanency of new lanes and roadways. State DOT D is working hard to enhance and expand operational and system management programs and projects to complement physical improvements. Staff are getting more advanced in their analysis, with dedicated traffic operations staff helping to better evaluate the effects of potential management and operations solutions prior to expending significant resources on evaluating added capacity highway projects. This is deemed especially important in the urban areas where traditional added capacity highway projects may not be feasible. Therefore, the direct comparison of capacity-building projects against all other modal projects and strategies is important to have confidence in justifying the programming of funds. State DOT D also acknowledges that the relatively rural nature of most of the state limits oppor- tunities for nonhighway projects and modal strategies. STIP development guidelines require the identification of project selection policies and procedures, and all reasonable alternatives are evaluated against each other. A comprehensive project identification and evaluation process is being constructed (including a governance structure). This is providing clarity on what evaluation tools will be needed as the process is driving the identification of tools rather than the process being constructed around the availability of existing tools. The need is for more comprehensive tools throughout the project development process. Those that can be used early in the process would assist project champions in scoping and include long-range transportation plan needs, conditions on the system by location for screening, and other elements critical to developing high-quality projects and determining the preferred mode for addressing the identified need. To assist in programming, a more robust project prioritization tool that includes funding eligibility, complexity, and BCA is being con- sidered. State DOT D is committed to a data-driven process but will rarely make decisions solely

38 How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies based on quantitative analysis tools, acknowledging that professional judgement will always play a critical role in the identification of projects. Difficulties State DOT D is conducting a full reexamination of its entire project selection and develop- ment process along with the tools used to evaluate and prioritize candidates. One benefit of this reexamination is that many of the existing tools are considered very highway-centric. It has been an iterative process to better assess highway projects, and it is anticipated that lessons learned will be applied to other modes. Initial findings of this process include that it is difficult to model and conduct comparative assessments of added highway capacity projects versus other modal projects and strategies. State DOT D has multiple tools to evaluate highway capacity alternatives but is much more limited with respect to tools that can predict the results of improvements to public transportation, biking, and walking. State DOT D does not evaluate aviation projects as an alternative to highway capacity and has a very limited intercity passenger rail system, so efforts to assess this mode are minimal. State DOT D does consider the potential for intercity express public transportation service in corridor plans and studies, as this mode is deemed to have the potential to positively affect highway capacity by shifting passenger traffic to bus or rail. However, this is limited to urban areas where the population levels justify its consideration. State Legislation State statute requires that funds collected from state fuel taxes be spent for improvements to highways or improvements that can be shown to directly benefit the highway system. Therefore, the programmatic eligibility of these funds dictates their use on improvements that directly affect the highway system in a positive manner. Approximately 85% of the total transportation improvement funds received by State DOT D are spent on highways. The remaining funds are dedicated to other modal projects and strategies. Federal Performance Management Requirements State DOT D’s interpretation of the federal performance management requirements are that requirements are largely geared toward and substantiate the need to maintain highway capacity. System reliability metrics best support other modes, as reliability can be met by more than invest- ments in added capacity highway projects only. However, the pavement and bridge condition metrics do not support or encourage crossmodal prioritization. Highway Capacity as a Strategy State DOT D has been applying a greater amount of scrutiny to added capacity highway projects than in the past. Staff believe that there is a growing realization and acceptance that adding highway capacity does not make as much sense as it once did and is not sustainable in the long term. Federal funding levels have not maintained the purchasing power they once had, and this has made the department’s mission of maintaining all assets in reasonable working order a challenge. This, in turn, leads to scrutiny of added capacity highway projects as it becomes harder to justify building new projects when State DOT D cannot maintain its current inventory at a better condition level. In addition, there appears to be greater understanding of emerging technologies and the potential of these to improve the operation of the transportation system without necessarily adding additional lanes to existing facilities or building new ones.

Case Examples 39 State DOT D is incorporating “pause points” during the planning and development of all major projects to determine if there have been any advancements in technology or the introduction of new modal projects and strategies that may result in the added capacity highway project not being the preferred alternative. By articulating this approach at the beginning and building it into the process, State DOT D can incorporate new information and technologies into projects. The pause points are built into the schedule and required to be vetted before moving on to the next phase of project development. Needs State DOT D is committed to consistently improving its assessment of added capacity high- way projects against other modal projects and strategies. Like so many of their counterparts, staff are required to do more with less resources on a continuous basis. Their biggest gap in being able to properly assess investments and resulting benefits across modes is a tool that would allow State DOT D to enter common parameters for various alternatives to highway expansion for the purpose of projecting effects on existing and future capacity. This type of tool would incorporate lifecycle costs, allowing comparative assessments of various modes over their respective design lives. This side-by-side comparison would also include a volume-to-capacity analysis that would be sensitive to the various modal improvement projects and strategies inputted. Other Considerations State DOT D recognizes that elected officials may take advantage of the high visibility of highway capacity expansion projects. The ability to publicize the number of jobs created by a single project and then tout that project as economic development makes it more desirable than a larger number of smaller projects or operational improvements, even if the latter ultimately produce the same or better results for the transportation system. Until there is a more widespread change in mindset, State DOT D believes it will continue to face pressure to prioritize added capacity highway projects over other modal projects and strategies that are less costly to imple- ment and provide a similar result. Ideally, the de facto approach would be to assess other modal projects and strategies first and consider added capacity highway projects only if the desired objectives of the project cannot be met otherwise. State DOT E State DOT E assesses added highway capacity projects against other modal projects and strategies in its corridor/subarea plans and studies, including the following: • Local public transportation, bus and rail; • Commuter public transportation, bus and rail; • Intercity public transportation, bus and rail; • Bicycle lane; • Pedestrian walkway; • Multiuse trail; • Safety; • Operational and management strategies; and • Freight rail. State DOT E does not assess added highway capacity projects against other modal projects and strategies in the STIP. State DOT E has developed a planning-level tool that can be used to conduct least-cost planning that can evaluate and compare a broad range of costs and benefits of various modal solutions; however, the tool is being used in only one MPO area as a pilot test case.

40 How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies Impetus State DOT E operates in a state known for its commitment to planning, where transportation system-level planning across all modes is conducted at the state, regional, and county levels. State DOT E is committed to identifying the best solutions regardless of mode. State DOT E, in collaboration with stakeholders, developed a value- and cost-informed transportation planning tool. This allows State DOT E and its partners to conduct transparent analyses of various types of projects across modes, including bundles or packages of projects. State DOT E considers its strength to be in evaluating highway, bicycle, and pedestrian projects, as well as some types of goods movement improvements. Aviation projects are not evaluated against added highway capacity projects, as there is a separate state department of aviation. Difficulties Even as a progressive state for planning, State DOT E has identified limitations to fully assess- ing added highway capacity projects against other modal projects and strategies. Specifically, it is difficult to coordinate with the Class 1 railroad operators. Although the rail freight industry is significant with respect to goods movement and reducing the number of trucks on highways, the rail freight industry can be a difficult stakeholder to integrate into the planning process. Also, as with many of the other agencies, State DOT E encounters limitations in understanding and capturing the full range of benefits and costs for each mode and then normalizing them across all modes. This difficulty in creating a level playing field to analyze environmental, social, user, lifecycle, and other benefits and costs is exacerbated by the general public being heavily involved in planning, as extensive analysis is required by State DOT E to overcome some positions that may be based more on perceptions than reality. State Legislation State DOT E was mandated to develop a least-cost planning tool and method, which was developed with consultant assistance with broad stakeholder involvement. Least-cost planning is intended to consider all alternatives, including travel demand management and supply of infra- structure and services. State transportation revenues from the fuel taxes and vehicle registra- tion fees are required to be used for improvements within the highway right-of-way, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities. These funds cannot be programmed for public transportation operations. Federal Performance Management Requirements State DOT E is concerned that the federal performance management requirements include system performance measures for highways but neglect metrics to determine the effectiveness of bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The aforementioned tool allows for crossmodal analysis, but additional effort will be needed to incorporate the federal requirements into their larger, established PBPP system going forward. Highway Capacity as a Strategy For State DOT E, limiting capacity expansions has been the standard practice for years. The MPOs generally support this approach, with the largest one having established policies to limit added highway capacity projects in its region. Most highway expansion projects come from legislative direction, although most of these projects have been identified in past planning pro- cesses at either the state, regional, or local level.

Case Examples 41 Needs State DOT E believes that much can be done at the national level in terms of research, including ways to measure and predict outcomes of various modal projects and strategies (including added highway capacity alternatives) to enable improved investment decisions by state DOTs and MPOs. Ensuring that the various elements of the in-house tool developed by State DOT E receive required maintenance so that it does not become outdated while enhancing its capabilities is and will continue to be a challenge. Other Considerations State DOT E continues to monitor the effects of connected/automated vehicles, including the implications related to increasing throughput on existing and planned capacity. The perspec- tive is that this is a “gamechanger,” and understanding how the overall transportation network will operate when these vehicles are operating at various levels of penetration in the fleet mix is critical. State DOT F State DOT F does not assess added highway capacity projects against other modal projects and strategies in its statewide long-range plan, corridor/subarea plans and studies, or its STIP. It has expressed its desire to do so in future STIPs. State DOT F uses multiple analytical tools (including one for BCA that it developed). Impetus State DOT F recognizes that it cannot build its way out of congestion. As a result, there has been a reluctance to program and advance added highway capacity projects to the extent that other states might in a similar situation. Added highway capacity projects are therefore considered after or in conjunction with other modal projects and strategies. State DOT F works closely with MPOs, and many counties have voter-approved funding for their transportation priorities. State DOT F is also looking at freight much more carefully and is considering projects and strategies in the context of economic effect and growth. The relative emphasis on freight has increased in recent years, with the development of a sustainable freight plan that prioritizes modes other than highway whenever possible. A statewide bike/pedestrian plan is being developed. Difficulties Current state legislation includes a formula that distributes a larger share of revenues raised for transportation to local and regional governments, with the remainder going to State DOT F. However, MPOs and others have a significant say in how the funding to State DOT F is pro- grammed, and there is a percentage that comes off the top for transit (effectively limiting the amount programmed by State DOT F). State Legislation Recently enacted state legislation will result in significant changes in the department as fees and taxes on transportation activities, including commercial vehicle fees, excise fees, registration fees, and fuel taxes, will be increased. This will provide much-needed funds to State DOT F. The state transportation commission is discussing how this new funding will be allocated and establishing guidelines for programming.

42 How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies Federal Performance Management Requirements State DOT F has a strategic management plan that includes numerous metrics and targets that align with its strategic objectives. Federal performance management requirements are being fully considered, and some of State DOT F’s metrics are similar to those for system performance included in federal legislation. With respect to effects on funding, State DOT F has an advanced assessment team that considers many different criteria when making funding decisions. Highway Capacity as a Strategy As discussed previously, added highway capacity always receives a high level of scrutiny, because State DOT F has a policy of not trying to build its way out of congestion. Part of this realization came from exploring other modes through the development of freight, bicycle, pedestrian, and other nonhighway systems plans. In addition, air quality concerns are a major factor in prioritiz- ing other modes over added highway capacity projects. State DOT F works closely with the state agency and regional entities responsible for environmental protection. This is consistent with the goals and objectives of the MPOs in the state and their member agencies (e.g., counties and cities) that have their own dedicated funding sources and are choosing to advance nonhighway projects and programs to relieve congestion at bottlenecks. This common viewpoint allows State DOT F to work well with and support local decisions to not add additional lanes or new highways altogether (with physical space being a constraint for both in urban areas). Needs State DOT F has a research and innovation division that will assess analytical needs based on the decisions made by the state transportation commission as it implements the recently enacted legislation that increases funding for transportation. The need for more mode-specific or mode- neutral tools and resources will be determined to at least some degree by how funds are allocated across programs (i.e., if emphasis is placed on funding projects of a particular mode or modes, the tools to assess those types of projects and programs will be a higher priority than tools to assess projects and programs of other modes). Other Considerations State DOT F did not offer observations or input on additional items to be considered. State DOT G State DOT G does not assess added highway capacity projects against other modal projects and strategies in its statewide long-range plan, corridor/subarea plans and studies, or its STIP. It has expressed its desire to do so in future corridor/subarea plans and studies and STIPs. State DOT G uses a collaborative decision-making tool in its project prioritization process. Impetus State DOT G is still primarily a highway agency, which it was in name until the enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991 when the state was compelled to change the name. Part of the reason for the emphasis on highways and additional capacity is because the state is large geographically and is growing at a fast rate. Some of the cities are investing in light rail, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure, but only 1 or 2% of State DOT G’s budget goes to nonhighway modes.

Case Examples 43 There is a directive to include bike lanes and pedestrian walkways, including in those rural areas where such facilities make sense and improve safety. It is now State DOT G’s policy that other modes will be considered, but the value of this is questionable because State DOT G does not own, maintain, or operate public transportation services and, in many rural areas and expanses, highways are the only reasonable mode because of the distances between locations. It is becoming cost-prohibitive for State DOT G to continue to add highway capacity via new roadways and additional lanes. Beyond maintenance costs for existing highway facilities, state law prohibits the banking of rights-of-way, which limits the ability to hold land for future expansion through new lanes. From the fiscal side, the state did not index the gas tax, which has not been raised over 25 years, and the construction of toll roads by State DOT G is not allowed. The executive and legislative branches of state government are in agreement that nonhighway modes are expensive and any additional funds to be raised should go toward highways. Even the raising of funds (presumably through taxes) for highways is not gaining traction with the conservative legislature. MPOs are leading the way in nonhighway modes with the extension of public transportation and pedestrian facilities occurring in areas where it would not have been considered a decade ago. Even so, there is lack of awareness regarding funding mechanisms among the state’s citizens and businesses. This lack of popular support for additional invest- ment in all modes will continue absent some form of public education campaign to create more informed discourse. Difficulties With respect to the culture of State DOT G, the perspective, experience, and education of many employees may be a barrier to the active discussion of other modes and strategies. Highways are generally the best way to serve 90% of the population, so they will continue to garner at least that amount of attention within State DOT G. A lesser concern may be that beginning to consider nonhighway modes would reduce the need for engineers who do not know rail or other modal strategies, introducing a partial self-preservation reaction. Larger nonhighway capacity projects or multimodal projects might be more feasible if FHWA’s annual obligation requirements were loosened. The inability to accrue funds for larger projects over multiple years creates a situation where there is never enough funding for large intermodal projects to progress. Some of the current difficulties faced may recede or subside as a generational shift occurs where younger people who do not want to have to use a car to make every trip begin to influ- ence policy both from within (as employees of) State DOT G and outside with respect to electing likeminded legislators. State Legislation The current funding structures at the state and federal level support the almost exclusive investments in highways that are programmed and planned. As noted earlier, state legislation prohibiting the banking of rights-of-way and the construction of toll facilities are also detrimental to considering other modal projects and strategies. Federal Performance Management Requirements State DOT G has purchased and modified a decision-making application, allowing it to con- duct predictive modeling of asset conditions. The results are being incorporated into project

44 How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies evaluation and selection. The need to select the best highway projects and make the most out of existing funding is now recognized and accepted. At this time the need to set targets does not affect State DOT G’s ability to evaluate and com- pare different types of transportation improvement strategies, because none of the targets have to be met until 2018; that will be the “litmus test.” In the event that not meeting the targets results in some form of punitive action by FHWA, State DOT G plans to have readily available information documenting how and why certain choices were made or certain projects were chosen and implemented. Going forward, it is anticipated that there will be a greater documen- tation of the data and process used to evaluate and select projects. Highway Capacity as a Strategy Added highway capacity projects remain the preferred choice for addressing delay and accommodating projected growth. Such projects can be justified more easily than other modes, but documentation does not keep people from opining or politicians from criticizing State DOT G decisions. The importance of public education to inform people was raised again as being critical as many residents do not understand that, regardless of mode, transportation is part of their standard of living. In recognition of the importance of public opinion, an infor- mational campaign was conducted to raise the level of appreciation for better transportation conditions. Part of this State DOT G public education campaign included the importance of maintenance of transportation infrastructure, “bringing out [samples of] boards and pavement” to demon- strate the effects of deferred maintenance. In illustrating the costs of deferring maintenance rather than doing it as scheduled, the campaign used the example of filling a cavity at the dentist at a cost of $100 versus waiting and having a crown at $2,000. Needs State DOT G expressed an interest in additional tools but noted that such tools have their limitations in practice. Standardized tools developed at the federal level that are shared with state DOTs are not “intricate enough” to work at the state level where geography, climate, and other factors ultimately limit their usefulness in project evaluation and selection. These types of tools may be more appropriate for new MPOs that do not necessarily have funds for project evaluation tools and can do additional analysis to overcome the lack of detail. According to State DOT G, future research should put an emphasis on instances where targets were not attained to better understand the limitations of planning and engineering. As an example, safety targets may not be met due to impaired and distracted driving. Further understanding the limitations of what can be achieved by the agency being held accountable would be helpful. Additional data sharing and knowledge transfer on data-driven, performance- based project evaluation would be useful, with TRB’s involvement welcomed. Other Considerations Regardless of what form additional research and resources take, State DOT G believes it would benefit from more frank discussions carried out by analytical planning and engineering staff. Too much of the current discussion is conducted among executives who are not “in the weeds” and are limited in the candor they can provide. This hinders peer-to-peer learning supplemented by high-end research and results in the development of tools, initiatives, legislation, and regula- tion that are not as helpful as they could be.

Case Examples 45 MPO 1 MPO 1 assesses added highway capacity projects against a wide array of other modal proj- ects and strategies in its MTP, corridor/subarea plans and studies, and TIP, including the following: • Local public transportation, bus and rail (MTP, corridor/subarea plans and studies, and TIP); • Commuter public transportation, bus and rail (MTP, corridor/subarea plans and studies, and TIP); • Bicycle lane (MTP and TIP); • Pedestrian walkway (MTP and TIP); • Safety (TIP); and • Operational and management strategies (TIP). MPO 1 post-processes outputs from its travel demand model to conduct analysis related to air quality, environmental justice, safety, and access to employment centers and major activity centers. Impetus The goals and objectives of MPO 1’s MTP dictate that systems-level planning that includes all surface transportation modes will be conducted. MPO 1 ensures that significant effort is expended to provide a level playing field through weighing various criteria based on the mode being analyzed. MPO 1 simplified the process in its last MTP in an attempt to better assess added highway capacity projects against other modal projects and strategies. In past MTPs, the proj- ect evaluation process was conducted separately for each mode. In the current MTP, highway, public transportation, bicycle, and pedestrian projects were evaluated against each other. The method used to rank projects includes technical scores based on criteria that directly relates to MTP goals and strategies as calculated by MPO 1 staff and policy scores submitted by the project sponsor based on their priorities and demonstrated community support. The MTP evaluation process is more robust than the one used to develop the TIP due to the respective State DOT being involved to a greater degree in the latter. Difficulties MPO 1 does not believe that applying the same criteria and associated weighting of said criteria to all modes will achieve mode-neutral decision making. Some criteria can, and do, span modes easier, such as environmental effects, greenhouse gas emissions, and historic resources. Others, such as system performance, are nearly impossible to measure comparatively across modes. It has been difficult in some instances to normalize the results across the modes without adjustments to the travel demand model. MPO 1 considers improving its project prioritiza- tion process to be an iterative process that will yield better results in each successive round of evaluation. State Legislation State funds considered, planned for, and programmed by MPO 1 are unrestricted, with no dedicated set asides stipulated. MPO 1 does create set asides for public transportation, bicycle, pedestrian, and complete streets projects; these set asides cannot be programmed to projects that add highway capacity. Federal funds are decreasing relative to the entire amount of funds (federal, state, and local) considered in the metropolitan planning process.

46 How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies Federal Performance Management Requirements MPO 1 established and included several performance measures and associated targets in its most recent MTP that are consistent with federal requirements. In developing the metrics and targets, MPO 1 consulted with FHWA, FTA, the state DOT, and its advisory committees, including the one made up of interested citizens. This has the potential to meet federal requirements and ensure that the metropolitan planning process is transparent and comprehensible to the general public. Project evaluation criteria will be evaluated based on the implementation of the federal performance management requirements. Highway Capacity as a Strategy MPO 1 has been in nonattainment of NAAQS for decades. Accordingly, the resulting confor- mity process has always placed a large amount of scrutiny on added highway capacity projects, and MPO 1 has noted that the general public seems more critical of these types of projects than in the past. MPO 1 notes that scrutiny is increasing for all projects because of increasing needs and near-stagnant funding. This has resulted in a greater emphasis on outcomes. MPO 1 estimates that approximately 25% of the funds is programmed to added highway capacity and major highway rehabilitation projects, and the remaining 75% is programmed to maintaining existing assets. Needs MPO 1 has been working to get more and better data on usage of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This would allow it to enhance its project evaluation process with respect to selecting projects that will be used at the highest rates by cyclists and pedestrians. There does not seem to be enough data available (or funds to obtain data) on the usage of multiuse trails, bicycle facilities, and sidewalks. This limits the ability to predict future usage (particularly for proposed connections between existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities) by having less than ideal inputs to the travel demand model for these modes. MPO 1 has been successful in obtaining SHRP2 funding to better model and conduct analyses of regional freight flows, but additional resources are needed in this area as well. Other Considerations In addition to the implications of population and employment growth in the larger mega- region and the anticipated effects of climate change, MPO 1 is considering what the effects of technology will be on mobility and how to ensure modeling capabilities can keep pace with these changes. MPO 1 held two workshops with a diverse set of interested parties to discuss indicators that might be affected by technological advancements. Participants included the following: • Professors from local universities and colleges; • Staff members from the state modal agencies; • Staff members from local jurisdictions specializing in emergency response and resiliency planning; • Representatives of groups focusing on environmental issues and public health; • Representatives from private transportation providers, including Zipcar; • Representatives of organizations focused on workforce development; • Members of the regional transportation board’s public advisory committee; and • Representatives of consulting firms. MPO 1 plans to continue this discussion on technological advancements and eventually integrate it into its evaluation criteria.

Case Examples 47 MPO 2 MPO 2 assesses added highway capacity projects against a wide array of other modal proj- ects and strategies in its MTP, corridor/subarea plans and studies, and TIP, including the following: • Local public transportation, bus (MTP and TIP); • Local public transportation, rail (MTP); • Commuter public transportation, bus and rail (MTP); • Bicycle lane (MTP and TIP); • Multiuse trail (MTP, corridor/subarea plans and studies, and TIP); • Safety (MTP, corridor/subarea plans and studies, and TIP); • Operational and management strategies (corridor/subarea plans and studies and TIP); • Inland waterway transport (MTP); and • Freight rail (MTP and TIP). MPO 2 did not cite any specific tools used to assess added highway capacity projects against other modal projects and strategies. The documentation regarding its project prioritization pro- cesses for the MTP and TIP indicates that most of the data used come from publicly available sources and outputs from the travel demand model similar to the other MPOs for which case examples have been developed for this synthesis. There is no indication that collaborative deci- sion making, BCA, or other tools were used. Impetus A competitive solicitation is conducted for projects to be programmed in the TIP with Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program and other suballocated funds. Potential proposers are informed of the selection criteria in the application package; 30% of scoring is based on common criteria, and the remaining 70% is based on mode-specific criteria. These predefined criteria are critical, as STBG funds are flexible and can be applied to nearly any surface trans- portation improvement. Having evaluation criteria that allow for crossmodal prioritization and publicizing them ensures that added highway capacity projects and other modal projects and strategies are all given due consideration. Difficulties Although MPO 2 staff recognize that their evaluation processes have significant merit, they also understand that there are limitations. Added capacity projects, both highway and transit, are typically the most expensive project types. This makes accounting for and con- sidering the longer-term lifecycle costs difficult compared to less-expensive modal projects and strategies with shorter lifecycles. In addition, some projects are selected outside of the metro- politan planning process via earmarks. Beyond mode, determining how much to program to alleviate existing issues versus investing in future opportunities is another challenge, because project sponsors typically need to respond to calls to address current deficits in capacity and service. State Legislation MPO 2 has few limitations regarding the mode of projects to be programmed with state funds. The primary limitation is on the phase of work, because funds from certain suballocated programs cannot be used for certain project phases, such as preliminary engineering or right- of-way acquisition.

48 How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies Federal Performance Management Requirements MPO 2 has been measuring and monitoring safety performance for many years, and its cur- rent measures are similar to the federally required ones. Beyond the effort to meet the reporting components of the federal requirements, there is a concern that the system performance mea- sures may unduly influence project evaluation in a negative way. The urbanized area experi- ences minimal delay, and improvement may be difficult, making programming of funds for this purpose less beneficial compared to other needs. Overall, though, MPO 2 sees value and is supportive of PBPP. Highway Capacity as a Strategy As a former nonattainment area, MPO 2 developed policies that required significant justi- fication for added highway capacity projects. This increased level of scrutiny continues as the level of emphasis on public and active transportation in the current MTP and the possibility of being redesignated as a nonattainment area for a not-yet-promulgated NAAQS (specifically, ground-level ozone) that would require conformity are factors when considering added highway capacity projects. Current levels of funding and the need to maintain existing assets have also reduced the amounts that can be programmed for added highway capacity projects. Combined, the legacy of nonattainment, greater emphasis on other modes, and the additional resources required for asset management limit the feasibility of adding highway capacity as a strategy. Needs The ability to anticipate the phasing in of connected/automated vehicles (CAV) and project- associated effects represents the biggest gap in information for MPO 2. Additional information and guidance on how to incorporate CAV into modeling activities is needed. Informed by more complete analysis, related policies will also need to be developed to guide the creation of evalu- ation criteria that account for their effects (i.e., how much, if any, additional highway capacity will be needed). Other Considerations Recent and potential future shifts in travel preferences among younger generations will have an effect on MPO 2’s metropolitan planning process. Their current models predict trip generation and routing on the behaviors of a different generation. Future data and informa- tion on travel behavior by age cohorts will be critical to usefulness of travel demand and traffic modeling activities. MPO 3 MPO 3 assesses added highway capacity projects against a wide array of other modal proj- ects and strategies in its MTP, corridor/subarea plans and studies, and TIP, including the following: • Local public transportation, bus and rail (MTP, corridor/subarea plans and studies, and TIP); • Commuter public transportation, bus (MTP, corridor/subarea plans and studies, and TIP); • Commuter public transportation, rail (corridor/subarea plans and studies); • Intercity public transportation, rail (corridor/subarea plans and studies); • Bicycle lane (MTP, corridor/subarea plans and studies, and TIP); • Pedestrian walkway (MTP, corridor/subarea plans and studies, and TIP);

Case Examples 49 • Multiuse trail (MTP, corridor/subarea plans and studies, and TIP); • Safety (MTP, corridor/subarea plans and studies, and TIP); • Operational and management strategies (MTP, corridor/subarea plans and studies, and TIP); • Inland waterway transport (corridor/subarea plans and studies); and • Freight rail (corridor/subarea plans and studies). Impetus MPO 3 is directly suballocated STBG and Transportation Alternatives (TA) program funds. There are established processes for soliciting, reviewing, and evaluating project proposals for these fund sources as part of developing the TIP. A prioritization subcommittee reviews and revises the separate evaluation processes for STBG and TA applications on an as-needed basis. The evaluation of projects includes assigning points for common criteria across modes and is based on mode-specific criteria. MPO 3 developed and continues to refine this process to ensure that all modes are considered and evaluated in a consistent quantitative manner (i.e., the number of points assigned for each criterion is well defined, based on the project’s expected effect on system performance). The prioritization subcommittee has the ability to adjust the rankings that come from the quantitative portion of the process. MPO 3 has no intention of evaluating aviation projects, because it is not part of their planning system (although landside access to airports is emphasized). The evaluation of projects in the MTP, corridor/subarea plans and studies, and TIP is con- sistent in that the criteria used across modes and for individual modes directly address the goals and objectives of the MPO. The variations are related to the timeframe that each major product addresses. For example, the project prioritization processes for roadway projects in the MTP and TIP include assessing safety, usage, delay, level of service, and freight volumes. The MTP criteria include one related to feasibility, which is not included in the TIP, and the TIP criteria include pavement/bridge condition and status of the project (those closer to construction receive more points), which are not included in the MTP. With respect to raters, the transportation planning manager oversees the scoring of the common criteria, and staff responsible for various topics and modes conduct the scoring in their respective areas of specialized knowledge. Difficulties The main difficulty experienced by MPO 3 in evaluating added highway capacity projects against other modal strategies and projects is the limited amount of information on the usage and safety of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, the latter often being anecdotal and subjective. Bicycle and pedestrian projects of local scale tend not to score as well as highway and pub- lic transportation projects in MPO 3’s STBG process. These projects, however, do well in the TA process. In addition, the MPO’s technical committees are not as familiar with freight as with other modal projects and strategies, which can limit support for these types of projects, given that members will look more favorably on projects with which they have more experience evaluating. State Legislation MPO 3 is not bound by existing state legislation or internal MPO policy that limits or guides the amount of funding that must be programmed to any particular modal element. Any proj- ect within the urbanized area that meets the eligibility requirements of the funding source and scores high enough in the quantitative evaluation can be programmed in the TIP after MPO board approval.

50 How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies Federal Performance Management Requirements The federal performance management requirements are unlikely to change the approach of MPO 3 with respect to its project evaluation processes. MPO 3 believes that this approach and the resulting processes serve the urbanized area well and meet the core elements of PBPP as included in federal legislation. The federally required tracking and reporting elements for future MTPs and TIPs will be monitored closely to ensure that they can be met in a manner that does not detract from the MPO’s own reporting to policy makers, the public, and other stakeholders of changes in metrics and associated progress. Highway Capacity as a Strategy MPO 3 has always conducted thorough reviews of added highway capacity projects given the financial cost and environmental effects associated with their implementation. Reduced fund- ing relative to existing needs has reduced the propensity for agencies to propose added highway capacity projects in recent years, even though they are still eligible activities. There has been an increase in the number of nonexpressway highway project proposals that include complete streets elements. This is not the result of a formal policy, but it is instead believed to be a response to public demand for bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. Needs MPO 3 believes strongly that the performance-based planning and programming discussion must include more attention on the ability to make material progress given financial constraints. MPO 3 goals and objectives as well as targets set as part of the federal performance management process could be difficult to attain given funding constraints. In addition, additional and better data are required for not only bicycle and pedestrian projects as noted above but also travel times and freight volumes. Other Considerations MPO 3 believes that the higher costs of added highway capacity and public transportation expansion projects combined with a longer timeframe for implementation (which defers the benefits incurred) make comparisons difficult with other modal projects and strategies that are lower cost and have more immediate positive effects.

Next: Chapter 5 - Conclusions »
How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 529: How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies summarizes the methods and policies used by state departments of transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to evaluate and compare different types of transportation improvement strategies. This information will help to quantify the full spectrum of benefits, costs, and economic impacts of transportation improvement strategies. Download the following appendices that accompany the report:

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!