White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments (2020)

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.

49 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments 3. Right-Sizing Through Performance Targets and Trade-offs 3.1. Background and Purpose Strategic reinvestment and disinvestment is not an entirely new concept when determining strategies to manage and fund the maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of transportation assets. In 2015, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) released a research synthesis providing a road map to transportation disinvestment28. The synthesis defined the strategic disinvestment paradigm, provided background information on tools that can be used to evaluate disinvestment decisions, and discussed various case studies of disinvestment across federal, state, and local agencies. A substantial number of state departments of transportation were surveyed to assess their experiences with disinvestment decision making as part of the synthesis. The state-level case studies provided real-world examples of how different states prioritized transportation funds for projects that best fit their strategic plans and goals. This study builds on the prior synthesis by profiling how states can consider asset management standards and techniques to make right-sizing decisions about their overall program investment levels. The paper reviews the performance standards and trade-off analysis efforts involved in right-sizing methods. 3.2. Define Right-Sizing for Performance Standards Right-sizing alternatives. Conventional transportation investment alternatives are typically categorized as either maintenance, repair/replacement, or expansion (meaning new roads or capacity increase). Alternatively, right-sizing projects, or alternatives, can incorporate a series of decisions types, including deferment/do nothing, modify the design standard or performance target, decommission or eliminate the asset, reclassify the asset to change the applicable 28 Duncan, C. and G. Weisbrod, NCHRP Synthesis 480: Economic and Development Implications of Transportation Disinvestment, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 2015. 3

50 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments standards/targets, or change jurisdictions. This NCHRP study will cover all of these in multiple ways, but this whitepaper will review them in the context of performance standard impact. Goal-oriented strategic investment/disinvestment. Decision-makers need to consider both the conventional and right-sizing alternatives for a comprehensive solution whether to invest or disinvest. Strategic investment/disinvestment generally involves29: 1) clearly prioritizing transportation goals and objectives, 2) identifying the projects and/or assets that are most important with respect to obtaining various goals as well as projects and/or assets that are the least important or least critical in obtaining those goals, and 3) consciously defunding or reducing funding allocated to lower priority transportation assets and ideally reinvesting those savings into higher-priority assets. From performance measurement to management: establishing the ground work for right-sizing decisions. Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) 30 has put a significant amount of research into performance measures and analysis related to effective asset management. Performance measures are defined as indicators of system effectiveness and efficiency, and thus can be supportive in effort to right-size. Based on their research, GDOT defines best practices for selecting performance measures and standards as shown in the list of guidelines in Table 10. Table 10 Guidelines for Selecting Performance Measures and Targets 1. Performance measures should flow directly out of an agency’s mission and objectives. 2. Performance measures should provide a balanced picture of an agency’s business and utilize input, output, outcome and productivity or efficiency measures in an appropriate manner. 3. An effective performance measurement system will have a few, well-defined measures tied to a handful of clear goals to be achieved within specific time frames. 4. Performance measurement systems should be periodically evaluated in an iterative process. 5. Performance measures should use reliable and available data that the agency can collect without straining its resources. 6. Performance measurement reporting and communication should be clear and easy to understand. 7. Comparative performance measurement, also known as benchmarking, has been recognized as important among state DOTs. 29 Sentoff, K., J. Sullivan, D. Novak, and J. Dowds. Examining the Potential Impacts of Maintenance Investment and Capital Reinvestment in Vermont’s Roadway Infrastructure Network, University of Vermont Transportation Research Center, TRC Report 17-002, 2017. 30 Amekudzi, A. and M. Meyer. Best Practices in Selecting Performance Measures and Standards for Effective Asset Management, Georgia Department of Transportation, Forest Park, GA, 2011.

51 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments 8. Customer satisfaction, environmental quality and sustainability are increasingly important outcome measures. 9. Performance targets should be set in relation to achieving the agency’s strategic goals, considering policy guidance and public input, funding availability, benefits, costs, risks and trade-offs (or opportunity costs of setting various targets). Scenario analysis is a useful analytic tool when setting targets. 10. A growing number of agencies are using formal performance frameworks to select performance measures. Performance frameworks are structured processes that provide guidance for selecting performance measures, e.g., the Balanced Scorecard Framework. Source: A. Amekudzi, M. Meyer, Best Practices in Selecting Performance Measures and Standards for Effective  Asset Management, Georgia Department of Transportation, Forest Park, GA, 2011.  Right-sizing strategies that include changing performance targets, altering design standards, and/or reclassifying assets may also prove to be effective. Changing performance targets, standards, and measures can be a difficult process, but can lead to revised ways of addressing the transportation network and allocation of limited funds. Many states have committed to using performance measures, but the maturity of the measurement systems and measures themselves can vary. As performance measurement has evolved, there has been a shift in focus from performance measurement to performance management which entails using the data collected to make budget allocation decisions that result in the achievement of strategic goals. This paper provides example and recommendations to show how different agencies use these performance indices in decision making for right-sizing of projects. The guidelines from this research reflect where some DOTs are currently with integration of performance measures to the decision-making process and highlight efforts being made by other DOTs in this direction. 3.3. Current Efforts in Right-Sizing This section includes documentation of current right-sizing or right-sizing related practices within state DOTs. Information was collected through a series of practitioner interviews, as well as through supporting document research. Utah: Funding‐Driven Temporary Disinvestment   In Utah, prior to the additional funding from Utah HB 362 Transportation Infrastructure Funding, the DOT lacked adequate revenues to properly fund the state system. Utah DOT (UDOT) needed to determine priorities and a justifiable balance of needs and existing resources. The decision made was to un-fund the Level 2 roadways while meeting the needs of the interstate and Level 1 pavement. Level 2 roadways (approximately 1,875 miles or 32% of the total system) are defined by UDOT as having AADT less than 1,000 and truck volume less than 200. UDOT has created these Management Levels (Interstates, Level 1, Level 2) for prioritizing the pavements in acknowledgment that current funding levels are not adequate to maintain the entire system. These levels consider the needs of the network as a whole and provides information for a statewide program in an effort to optimize funds over the entire system. Managers compare the benefits and costs for several alternative programs and then identify the program and budget

52 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments that will have the greatest benefit-cost ratio. Allowing Level 2 roads to deteriorate without preservation or maintenance activities allowed the DOT to focus on higher traffic roadways. Asset management data (through pavement management system analysis) reveal that conditions for interstate and Level 1 roadways have steadily improved over time while Level 2 conditions trend slightly downward31. After the assessment of the additional funding from HB 362 in 2015, UDOT has worked to improve and adjust funding thresholds for Level 1 and Level 2 roadways accordingly – to properly fund the Level 2 roads again – allowing UDOT to subscribe to its asset management philosophy of “Good roads cost less.” In the short term, however, UDOT decided that temporary disinvestment of low traffic roadways was tolerable. Logically, the impact on performance measures (pavement condition in IRI of good/fair/poor) for this class of roads was negative during this period but justified because it enabled UDOT to maintain the overall condition for the other pavement categories. While this case does demonstrate trade-offs made by a DOT to reallocate funds from a lower priority to a higher-priority set of roads, it is nevertheless a temporary action that does not reflect a long-term determination of altered needs. Minnesota: Right‐Sizing Through Condition Targets  Similarly, Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) disinvested in the state highway system to reinvest in the NHS based on the need to match federal funds. This was also triggered by a shortfall in revenue. In contrast to the Utah example, where right-sizing was achieved through reclassification of facilities and reallocation of funds, MnDOT formally lowered the minimum pavement condition of non-NHS class of roads. The conversation began through a trade-off analysis to quantify the differences and options across state categories and assets. Analysis included the DOT management system and an iterative trade-off process following discussions between state planners and engineers. Once the non-NHS class was selected for the disinvestment, minimum pavement condition targets were incrementally increased to coincide with the lowered funding level. In this way, performance targets responded to an understanding of funding availability. In Minnesota, the ability to identify and communicate the outcomes of this type of right-sizing decision is closely tied to the use of performance measures. The measure for percentage of poor ride quality on the non-NHS system is forecast to increase from 7% to 8% in 2013 to 11% to 12% in 2023. This process of forecasting and trade-off analysis was presented to the public as part of an outreach campaign associated with the long-range transportation plan. The premise was difficult to articulate to the general public. MnDOT decided it was more logical to communicate the need and investment in terms of ROI (return on investment), which is an economic-based measure used to quantify growth compared to capital expenditure. The benefit-cost and lifecycle analysis is still present from the pavement system analysis, but ROI provided a more understandable measure for comparison. While states are financially motivated to disinvest in assets and accept lower performance from those assets, the long-term sustainability of these methods are still questioned. Utah only kept the disinvestment for a short period until a new revenue source was implemented. Minnesota 31 UDOT LRTP 2014-2040. https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=23540107153558604

53 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments still has this in place in their 20-year plan as NHS roadways carry a larger economic importance for the state, compared to non-NHS roads. Nevertheless, questions remain about the long-term implications of lowered standards: Should the DOT and commuters adapt to the decreased performance in this tradeoff to ensure better (or maintain) performance on those higher AADT and VMT parts of the network? Does this change truly reflect a right-sizing for the future, or is it a funding-driven decision, only? What happens to the older pavement in the long run? While the previous two examples discuss system-level decision making, MnDOT has also addressed what might be considered right-sizing at the level of overall roadway design. For example: a state road through an urban area in Minnesota began in the 1970’s as a 2-lane road with diagonal parking slips. In the past decade, the parking has changed to parallel parking spaces on the roadside. This opens the lane width, but not enough for additional lanes (though this road does not require more capacity). The roadway is due for a reconstruction to rebuild the base of the pavement. During this time, MnDOT will look to taking the extra pavement area and design the cross section of the corridor to provide wider sidewalks and/or bike lanes, while still retaining the 2-lanes of traffic and parallel parking. This is a result of local and state engineers and planners recognizing an issue and right-sizing a solution. The outcome will provide an economic return to the downtown area by way of wider sidewalks and potential streetscaping plan, but will also lessen the maintenance burden of the state because of the reduced pavement surface area. The performance outcome, as measured, will be moot since the state measure is ride quality by travel lane and not pavement area. However, efforts to right-size road projects such as this example will result in being able to stretch the available funds and improving more miles. This would have a positive impact of the state’s ride quality measure. Vermont: Right‐Sizing Motivated by Disaster Recovery  Vermont used right-sizing methods to evaluate replacement bridges after tropical storm Irene in August 201132. The storm was a major rain event in Vermont, bringing flood levels unseen since the 1926 floods. Tropical Storm Irene severely damaging more than 500 miles of state roads and 200 bridges, isolating 13 communities. The bridges suffered serious damage because of scour. Scour, caused by swiftly moving water, can scoop out holes in the bridge supports, compromising the integrity of a structure. Vermont, through the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans), set out to replace the damaged bridges to help facilitate the post- disaster recovery. Access to isolated town was the priority here as mobility was returning to the network. VTrans and the Vermont natural resources department worked together to replace the bridges – one agency focused on transportation mobility on the bridge and the other concentrated on permitting and fish passage under the structure. The redesign process looked to propose resilient structures with longer spans between pilons. Resizing of the bridges (including the option to downsize) was also reviewed as part of this to ensure capital funds were used effectively. There were limitations to this, however. If Federal Emergency Management 32 Fitch, J., S. Burbank, and G. Goodrich. Fast 4 on VT 73. http://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/highway/documents/structures/Fast%204%20on%20VT%2 073%20White%20Paper.pdf.

54 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments Agency (FEMA) funds were used, since this was a catastrophe response effort, the bridge had to be replaced with a similar structure in scope and design. Nevertheless, this single event sparked a thought process around right-sizing infrastructure at VTrans. This thought process has not yet been extended to more routine planning. Tennessee: Right‐Sizing the Project Development Process  Repurposing, redesigning and rethinking of projects for context-sensitive and right-sizing techniques are also part of a 2012 Tennessee DOT (TDOT) study. TDOT, along with Smart Growth America, looked at the existing project process from planning to construction and developed improvements to the methodology and policies which regulate it. The project “aims to create a process within TDOT to enable and encourage flexible, lower-cost ways to increase capacity on the state’s transportation system while expediting job creation and economic development in Tennessee.”33 TDOT reviewed the existing strengths and weaknesses of current approaches to transportation project identification and development. From there, the team explored how to identify and analyze the investment strategies. A matrix of investment alternatives was developed, which assess:  maximizes job creation and economic development;  cost-saving potential;  applicability to capital improvements;  maintenance and/or operations;  stability and sustainability;  equity; and  ease of implementation Related performance measures where developed and tied to state principles for tracking and prioritization purposes. TDOT applied this matrix of investment alternatives to existing state transportation improvement program (STIP) projects in hopes of finding cost-conscious alternatives that also achieve the desired objective of the original solution. After reviewing just the first five projects, TDOT found a cost savings of over $171 million through right-sizing the scope of work34. The study found that many transportation projects could get 80-90% of the desired outcome needed with an improvement to the network that cost up to one-tenth of the initial proposal. All the while, during this process, the rideability performance measure for pavement condition (percent of IRI) was maintained above national standards for the state 33 Transportation Process Alternatives for Tennessee: Removing Barriers to Smarter Transportation Investments, Tennessee DOT, 2012. 34 Chester, C. Transportation Commissioner John Schroer sets ambitious goals for Tennessee Department of Transportation. https://smartgrowthamerica.org/transportation-commissioner-john- schroer-sets-ambitious-goals-for-tennessee-department-of-transportation/.

55 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments network. Thus, this effort allowed limited resources to be allocated across more assets without having to compromise the roadway performance measures, resulting in a significant potential gain to the DOT budget and the state budget overall. Right‐Sizing/Cost Reduction Strategies for Vehicle Fleets  Self-Evaluation Approach. The US Department of Energy35 explains a helpful process that could be used to right-size vehicle fleets as a management tool. Several steps are suggested in building and maintaining sustainable, fuel-efficient fleets: 1. Self-evaluation questions ‒ suggests a series of questions for fleet managers to begin an evaluation of their existing vehicle fleet. Such questions ask about vehicle mileage, tasks, size, etc. and question whether such conditions are both optimal in operation and cost efficiency 2. Driver Input ‒ can be received through face-to-face conversations/interviews or surveys to get a consensus of how the fleet is used on a day-to-day basis The agency has the option to reassign, replace or eliminate each of their fleet vehicles so a business case per fleet vehicle must determine how each would reduce gas and maintenance costs in relation to impacts on fleet activity. 3. Define Evaluation Criteria ‒ the business cases can be established through defining criteria for evaluation like fuel efficiency, miles traveled, etc. 4. Rank ‒ each fleet vehicle relative to its counterparts finally considering an option to make smart vehicle purchases like transitioning to smaller more efficient engines, lighter vehicles, or alternative fuels and vehicles External Auditing. Some agencies like Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) have made efforts in right-sizing their vehicle fleets in this case through external auditing. The initial audit was performed to assess overall operations, including organizational structure, decision making, communication methods, and external relations as well as an efficiency and optimization assessment of fleet and operation. The efficiency and optimization assessment (which solicited information similarly as suggested above through recent department data and interviews) indicated the fleet’s reliance on informal systems and workarounds, kept it from maximizing efficiency. Based on ODOT’s further recommendation, they have plans to conduct an efficiency study to establish where vehicle fleet reductions can be made. 35 US Department of Energy (USDOE), Rightsizing Your Vehicle Fleet to Conserve Fuel, USDOT Alternative Fuel Data Center, Washington, DC, 2017.

56 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments Right‐Sizing to Addressing Changing Societal Needs  In addition to right-sizing efforts that arise from a recognition of funding limitations and the need to more efficiently use existing resources, right-sizing decisions can also be motivated by recognition of new or emerging needs. Policies that Address Multiple Modes and Managing Demand  Complete streets policies36, set at the state, regional, and local levels, promote the inclusion and mobility of all roadway users from pedestrians to buses and everything in between. Some approaches to complete streets include a road diet, narrowing the roadway and reducing the number of lanes to reduce travel speeds, promote safety, and improve overall traffic operations. As of December 2012, Seattle had installed 34 right-sizing road projects since 1972.37 Thirteen of them have been more recently installed, since 2007. The following are the planner’s factors of importance for right-sizing: 1. Help 16% of the city’s households that lack a car 2. Improve safety 3. Improve access for:  Seniors  Youth  Transit riders  Those getting to and from cars The Seattle DOT begins identifying roadways as candidates for right-sizing based on a number of ways: 1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans 2. Planned road capital projects 3. Community requests to implement Neighborhood Plans Once preliminary candidates are identified, Seattle DOT uses a series of “Guidelines for Road Diets” 38 (applying to a four-lane or five-lane to three-lane conversion) which considers 36 United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Complete Streets, USDOT, Washington, DC, 2015. 37 Ullman, S. Stone Way: 1 of 34 Rightsizing Projects Making Seattle Safer and More Livable, Project for Public Spaces, 2012. 38 Seattle Department of Transportation, Rightsizing Streets: The Seattle Experience, Seattle DOT, Seattle, WA, 2013.

57 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments performance factors like vehicle volumes, critical lane approaches level of service (LOS), corridor LOS, and increase in travel time to guide decisions to implement a road diet on a particular roadway. Though they are just guidelines and no roadway is inherently alike, specific roadway attributes and safety concerns for its users are always additionally considered. Parking and Transportation Demand Management (PTDM) Ordinance39 is a national model implemented in cities like Cambridge, MA, to formalize efforts to regulate and control atmospheric pollution from motor vehicles by reducing vehicle trips and traffic congestion within the city and improving mobility and access. Participation in the ordinance is required when a non- residential property owner proposes additional parking beyond the approved registered number of parking spaces. Projects subject to the ordinance may not obtain necessary permits for their parking infrastructure until an approved PTDM plan is established. TDM measures often proposed in the PTDM plan include transit subsidies, free shuttle bus service, bus shelters, market-rate parking fee to employees or patrons, bicycle parking, car/vanpool matching, etc. These measures have shown to disincentives patrons and employers from taking single occupancy vehicle trips while making other modes more attractive, reducing congestion, and vehicle trips in the city. Both Cambridge, MA, and Boulder, CO, have created similar ordinances that right-size both their city’s parking infrastructure as well as reducing vehicle trips, consequently putting less wear on existing roadways and creating opportunity to invest in alternative modes. Changing Expectations of Environmental Impacts  Natural disaster and climate change often spark conversation within DOTs about the need for repair and maintenance on existing infrastructure. Though infrastructure deteriorates from normal wear, natural disasters create uncontrollable, widespread damage to existing infrastructure while climate change does just the same in a more gradual impact. Connecticut Department of Transportation’s (CTDOT) Walk Bridge Replacement Project is a prime example of acting before such environmental impacts make a bigger problem than already exists. CTDOT’s Walk Bridge is critical to Northeast Corridor rail service. It operates as a swing bridge, allowing marine traffic through it on average 20-30 times a month. Rising temperatures have caused failing closures of the swing bridge after opening for marine traffic about 10 percent of the time and this is anticipated to occur three times more frequently due to rising temperatures by 2050. Each time the bridge closure fails, it causes significant rail backup and if a significant failure occurred due to hurricane damage the traffic would have to go elsewhere, putting more congestion on the roadways. CTDOT has chosen a full replacement of this bridge rather than the initially proposed 25-year rehabilitation plan. Signs of the Time: Right‐Sizing for Safety  While the majority of examples presented in this paper reference pavement and bridge assets, CTDOT also recently found a right-sizing example for another asset through a safety initiative. The 39 City of Cambridge, Chapter10.18 Parking and Transportation Demand Management Planning; Parking Space Registration, City of Cambridge, Cambridge, MA, 2017.

58 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments DOT is moving overhead signs to roadside location for new signs and replacement efforts. The initiative was sparked by safety regulations to increase the sign face area for NHS roadways. A decision was made by CTDOT management to move signs from their overhead location to the roadside where available. The reason for this move was a concern over pole arm replacement needs to accompany the increased sign sizes. The driver for this was financial as total replacement costs were expected to increase because of redesign and construction. While the initial reason was monetary, the decision to move signs to the roadside locations also resulted in:  Safety to maintenance workers ‒ The roadside locations are easier to access and inspect for the maintenance crews, meaning a safer field experience and a decreased cost for traffic control on the maintenance task since they do not have to block travel lanes of the road.  Safety to drivers ‒ A direct replacement of overhead signs with a larger sign would likely have resulted in an increase of hits. The new sign locations meant reduction of those collisions and resulting damage to other commuters from the aftermath of debris.  Saving on maintenance ‒ CTDOT has had a limited maintenance budget for the past three to four years. This means the maintenance department has prioritized its work and left work requests related to lower-profile assets (i.e., signs) unresolved. This sign policy effort has multiple cost savings implications. First, the roadside post construction is a cost savings compared to the overhead arms. Second, fewer sign collisions means less emergency request and unexpected labor expenditures for the maintenance department. Finally, the savings are also routine labor and equipment savings on maintenance and inspections of the roadside location as these activities are far less intense than with overhead signs. This brand of right-sizing was ultimately implemented for both limited access roadways and also secondary system signs. CTDOT extended their policy of sign review to the secondary system, not because of overhead sign requirements, but in order to reevaluate signs for relevance. If the state determined the sign was not justified or unnecessary because of changing demand or surrounding land use, the sign was removed from the inventory. Historically CTDOT would replace in-kind, but this policy sparked a process to review the need and purpose. The resulting right- sizing directly impacts the maintenance needs and resource allocation for signs in the state. While the overall budget is not comparable to roads or bridges, CTDOT expects this effort to have a positive impact that will evaluated in coming years. Hidden Issues in Current Efforts to Right‐Size  Inadequate Accounting for Lifecycle Cost Implications of Deferred Action Deferment of action, as shown in UDOT with Level 2 roadways, is a relatively passive disinvestment strategy that takes advantage of the time element of investment decision making. Delaying the improvement actions allows a continued deterioration of that asset, without the routine maintenance associated with normal business practices at a DOT. In some ways, simple deferment of action may be easier process-wise than other approaches to disinvestment such as

59 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments intentionally modifying the performance targets of a corridor or asset to justify the increased time between maintenance actions taken by the agency. However, simply deferring action without defining a new (lower) acceptable condition level can lead to problems downstream, and a situation that cannot properly be described as right-sizing. Planners within DOTs are not necessarily anticipating how failure to perform routine maintenance could lead to escalated asset deterioration and asset impairment ‒ resulting in increased risk and failure of the asset. Nor are they necessarily addressing what the long-term target condition of an asset is. Recently, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) emphasized the need for long-term transportation funding since deferred maintenance and winter storm-related emergencies have accelerated the deterioration of the state highway system. California has about $6 billion in annual, unfunded maintenance needs40. Deferred maintenance needs lead to a “worst-first” improvement strategy and runs counter to classic asset management practices. Deferring maintenance, when unchecked, can also have a negative impact on analysis through management systems because of the additional deterioration caused by extreme weather events. Such events can cause exponentially more deterioration than the models can account, resulting in poor decision making from the systems. It also has a negative overall impact on resources as the improvements undertaken after a period of ignoring regular maintenance needs are often more costly than what the agency would have spent simply doing the maintenance work. Missouri, like most states, has a mounting issue with deferred maintenance. Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) will begin to underfund the non-National Highway System (NHS) roadways in coming years as its $325 Million annual investment will focus primarily on roads and bridges on the NHS. Missouri has forecast the costs of this deferment strategy, assuming roads will ultimately be brought back in line with current conditions standards: The estimate of deferred costs on the secondary roadway system shows that over the next 10-years costs would reach $2.8 billion ‒ $1 billion more than the cost if funds were available for annual maintenance41. Again, this is due to the pavement deteriorating at an accelerated rate requiring more extensive and costly repairs down the line. Safety and Accessibility Measures in Right-Sizing The right-sizing process must also have a way of recognizing issues of critical importance of society, so as to ensure that any right-sizing alternative pursued does not impose unacceptable costs to society as a whole. Specifically: Right-sizing improvements need to consider access to critical services (i.e., access to hospitals and police / fire services). This should be an aspect of planning and design, but attention given to area land use and the traffic on an asset may be specific enough to warrant an individual strategy. For instance, the ability for a fire engine to turn at major intersections may limit the project(s) planned for that corridor or change the bridge design to account for oversized vehicles ‒ even if the asset is a low-utilization facility. As safety is 40 Caltrans (California Department of Transportation) April 14, 2017. 41 Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission, “View from the Chair” newsletter, March 26, 2015.

60 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments often a key performance measure and project criteria within agencies, right-sizing projects should make sure the trade-off analysis is comprehensive to all users of the asset, routine and non-routine. For example, Seattle DOT has right-sized a four-lane roadway down to a three-lane roadway. The three-lane road accommodates the lane of traffic in each direction and has the turn lane in the center. For those emergency times, though, the design allows emergency vehicles to travel hindrance free in the center lane, improving response time even during high congestion periods. 3.4. Who Is Involved in Right-Sizing? This question is both easy and difficult. The simple answer is to include everyone to provide input on the process. However, time and scheduling likelihood make this unlikely. Therefore, right- sizing conversation needs to occur with the planners and engineers. Most decisions that affect project outcomes are made in the first three phases of a project development process ‒ planning, environmental, and design. TDOT recommends the following composition of a review group:42  An engineer or roadway designer from the Design Division;  A planner from the Long-range Planning or Project Planning Divisions;  An environmental planner from the Environmental Division; and  A project manager from the Project Management Office.  Optional = partners from MPOs, RPOs, and/or local governments. Involving individuals across these areas will not only help identify right-sizing potentials, it will also help the funding conversation at the programmatic level and into construction and properly implementation of the project. Other states could similarly review who needs to be involved in right-sizing type decisions and consider whether there needs to be a review team within the DOT to orchestrate multi-discipline review of projects. The right-sizing process is supported by existing policy efforts from management and executive levels within an agency. As discussed in the previous section, these policies can help dictate who and how people should be involved. These policies and efforts can also shape the goals and objectives of the agency, and ultimately performance measures, which are guiding the choices made by the personnel. Policies also provide transparency to the DOT process and allow stakeholders to understand how and why decisions are made. The public should be involved at some level of every process as they are the end user of the roadway system – whether as a grassroots effort to initiate a specific improvement or to gauge support for a DOT design. 42 Transportation Process Alternatives for Tennessee: Removing Barriers to Smarter Transportation Investments, Tennessee DOT, 2012.

61 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments 3.5. Tools of the Trade There are many tools that could potentially be used for analysis and consideration while attempting to determine the impacts and trade-offs of right-sizing projects and programs. This section will review generic categories to provide some context of their capabilities and purpose. Pavement Management  Pavement is the most visible of all assets and typically the most costly to build and maintain for a DOT. The performance of just this asset can largely dictate how an agency is viewed by stakeholders. For this reason, many DOTs have pavement management systems to help with the decision making for their roadway network. According to NCHRP Synthesis 50143, 49% of the DOTs have customized, proprietary pavement management software in place. While there are multiple software programs available for purchase, and some DOTs have internally developed their own management system other times, the premise of the pavement methodology is similar: 1. Inventory road segments with length, material, and class. 2. Evaluate each segment for condition (quantifiable rating). 3. Forecast deterioration of the road segment condition per historical averages or national expectations. 4. Identify the segments that will have deteriorated beyond a desired condition for the analysis period. 5. Apply pre-established treatment strategies given the severity of the road condition. 6. Constrain the decision per available funding or material resources 7. Review with engineering logic to establish a road improvement program. In a basic pavement management approach, the above process would be done by a technician annually after some survey check of roadway conditions (every few years) and input of any improvements or new roads from the last year. Benefits of roadway improvements can be quantified also within the model to provide a benefit-cost comparison to assist in the prioritization of improvement and maintenance tasks on the road network. This will be a familiar process with all forecasting and predictive models for assets. Benefits can be calculated in several different ways, but routinely involve user costs such vehicle maintenance and value of time. More mature models evaluate both the long-term benefits (for selection) and short -term (for prioritization). 43 Zimmerman, K. A., NCHRP Synthesis 501: Pavement Management Systems: Putting Data to Work, 2017. http://nap.edu/24681

62 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments The benefit of these analytical capabilities to the DOT is readily apparent – quantify the future needs of the pavement network in a defensible and repetitive process. As highlighted by AASHTO,44 the variety of benefits of pavement management systems may include:  The effective use of available resources to improve pavement performance.  The ability to justify funding needs.  An understanding of current and projected pavement conditions and needs.  Improved access to pavement information throughout the agency.  Increased accountability and transparency in the decision process.  Objective decision making based on data. With respect to right-sizing, pavement management systems can help identify those candidate roads that are due for strategic improvement, yet the unit cost is higher than normal (example: the MnDOT urban roadway) or help assess the impact of deferred maintenance on a roadway. PMS can also determine the proper improvement while showing and quantifying for the user how an alternative improvement will fare worse or result in the same performance at a greater cost. However, there are certain aspects about the current use of these systems that would have to be modified to anticipate the results of lowering conditions or performance standards. First, all DOTs should have a management system for pavement in order to replicate this analysis effort. Second, many PMS have a direct analysis capability to evaluate and forecast need (as mentioned above) yet do not have a way to allow performance as a scenario target. Meaning, DOTs need the capabilities to analyze a target-oriented objective rather than just a budget- constraint forecast scenario. Pavement management system look to optimize benefit-cost per area of a segment rather than the linear mile (centerline or lane-mile). Third, and the most difficult, is tying right-size alternatives into the PMS repair alternatives decision tree to allow for analysis on a system-wide level and not a project-by-project case. The issue here is two-fold: fuzzy logic for the system to choose a right-size alternative and connectivity of the segments for a corridor. Pavement Management Systems, unlike travel demand models, do not see pavement segments as a connected system, rather as individual pieces of roadway with a length and a width and a condition. Thus, an engineer must assess candidate segments and assign them into a final program after determining is adjacent segments should be included in an overall project. Both instances will require human intervention in the near term to help make decisions and ensure the comprehensiveness of the corridor is maintained. Bridge Management  All state governments gather bridge inventory and inspection data in conformance with the national bridge inspection standards (NBIS). Nearly all state DOTs also routinely perform element-level maintenance inspections in accordance with the AASHTO Manual for Bridge 44 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Pavement Management Guide, Second Edition, AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2012.

63 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments Element Inspection. Asset management for bridges apply this basic data to enable proactive agency decision making and stakeholder communications. Some of the most important objectives are the following:  Communicate past, present, and future bridge performance across the DOT, in a manner that is readily understood and is compatible with pavements and other assets.  Use forecasts of performance to help ensure that agency decisions have desired outcomes.  Develop the feedback loop that confirms that planned projects are reliably delivered, expected outcomes are achieved, and planning metrics are evaluated and improved.  Build a partnership with outside stakeholders via communication and negotiation, wherein the agency is accountable for realistic performance goals, based on agreed funding levels. Nearly all state DOTs have licensed the AASHTOWare™ Bridge Management software (BrM), formerly Pontis, as their management system for bridge and use it in varying degrees. There are many other customizable off-the-shelf (COTS) systems which states can use also. Bridge management software focuses on the complete bridge management cycle, including inspection, inventory data collection, and analysis, recommending an optimal preservation policy, predicting needs and performance measures, and developing projects to include in agency capital plans. Bridge Management Systems, while data rich with the bridge element information, do assess overall system-wide benefits better than pavement management systems and have adopted performance measures more easily as both are based on an area unit of measure. Nevertheless, as is the case with pavement, bridge systems are not set up in a way that can consider a right- sizing alternative within a decision-tree logic to automatically choose the correct project type. The tool has no way to differentiate when/how a right-sized project may be applicable. Rather, this will again require engineers to identify and input those “potential” right-sized bridge replacements into the system for analysis. Right-sizing will continue to be a human interaction with the tool and an iterative process. We can use the tools to help assess the investments, but this cannot be an automated process right now. Maintenance Management Systems  Maintenance management systems (MMS) began in the 1950s with research into management of maintenance operations in Connecticut and Iowa. The idea of applying management principles to highway maintenance gained popularity as the systems were better defined. At its core, MMS collect the activities of the maintenance department in costs and effort. The systems are valuable when management practices are applied to the computerized MMS to help plan, budget and monitor activities to accomplish a pre-determined level of service. In analysis, data within a MMS can begin to reflect the negative impact of inaction or deferred maintenance of an asset. Alternatively, MMS can also help quantify the savings of changing a roadway or bridge through right-sizing, because of the potentially smaller number of lanes, road width, or structure size.

64 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments Trade‐off Analysis Tools  Cross-asset resource allocation is a relatively new area of activity for DOTs. There are few agencies currently implementing any tools related to the practice and standards are still formative. NCHRP Report 806: Guide to Cross-Asset Resource Allocation and the Impact on Transportation System Performance (and subsequent implementation study) reviewed practices and outline the guidance for cross-asset trade-offs. While this is a “new area.” the effort of trade- off analysis in scenario analysis and planning has been going on for years. The capabilities to relate performance to cost ‒ a prerequisite for trade-off analyses ‒ are now available in many modern pavement and bridge management systems and certain maintenance management tools. However only a few states have a structured consideration of trade-offs. The purpose of these tools is to allow transportation agencies to better analyze and communicate the likely impacts of system performance across multiple investment types to essentially make good on performance targets. This is a data-driven and performance-based framework to allocate resources between multiple asset types to provide the best programmatic mix for the DOT. There are multiple challenges in establishing and implementing such tool ‒ namely legislative mandates, department silos, intense amounts of data, and comparable criteria across the multiple asset types ‒ but much progress has been made in recent years. Ultimately, the trade- off analysis tool can provide decision techniques to score projects on a level playing field and optimize their selection for programming based on their anticipated benefits and the relative importance of those benefits to the decision maker. This will reinforce scenario planning within a financially constrained world and help achieve the performance targets for the DOT. This final point is what makes it so useful for right-size analysis. The ability to seamlessly compare project alternatives between assets (primarily roads and bridges) in a single scenario application. Fleet Management  Fleet management and right-sizing of vehicle fleets is a growing operation through many industries as vehicle technology grows and agencies begin to see the long-term savings of investing in more fuel-efficient fleets and being intelligent about how vehicles are used. The Vehicle Allocation Methodology which was developed by the US General Service Administration (GSA) is an evaluation framework used by federal agency fleets to ensure cost-effectiveness and the optimization of the number of vehicles. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy45 provides access to the latest information, applications, and resources that can be used in improving your fleet’s efficiency. Federal fleet managers and other stakeholders may learn about these many tools which help federal agencies manage vehicle fleets and increase the use of alternative fuels. The USDOE and GSA has developed a downloadable matrix where the tools are overviewed and categorized by agency, outputs, inputs, etc. 45 US Department of Energy (USDOE), Federal Energy Management Program: Federal Fleet Management, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Washington, DC.

65 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments 3.6. DOT Guideline Takeaways The literature indicates that DOTs have right-sized their infrastructure and investments for many reasons including: 1. Revenue Shortfalls 2. Infrastructure Maintenance Needs 3. Recognition of Agency Inefficiencies (sometimes triggered by audits) 4. Policy implementation 5. Environmental impacts (current or anticipated) In some cases, these factors individually have triggered a right-sizing event, while in other cases more than factor works in in conjunction to precipitate the recognition of a right-sizing need. Those cases that involve revenue shortfalls and infrastructure maintenance needs supplemented by another factor provide the greatest potential of right-sizing as in these cases strategic investments can correct or address multiple aspects simultaneously. Following such occurrences, the agency finds the direction of their next efforts by considering agency mission, vision, and goals and long-range plans and how they influence their decisions. The goals of an agency (i.e., safety) influence the options the agency may consider and who is involved in this process. Often included are the following individuals or groups, at varying capacities: 1. Engineers/Planners 2. Corporate Stakeholders 3. Public Performance measures and targets are evaluated using tools of the trade to estimate how modifying these standards and targets influences transportation assets and their allocation, safety, performance, operations etc. Various right-sizing options and their trade-offs of implementation are considered before a right-sizing solution is identified. The agency can now quantify how the right-sizing solution influences many other areas and assets of the agency both when implemented and in the years following. The following are guidelines to consider in right-sizing analysis pertaining specifically to performance measures: The first key step is to identify the method for evaluating and comparing different investment options: 1. Review of projects and their variables. 2. Determine what is anticipated to change. (i.e., adding lanes should cause a reduction in congestion measures).

66 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments 3. Perform a scenario with the standard project design, current condition (baseline), and right-sized project alternatives. 4. Compare the various measures of the project. 5. Select the project. The performance measures should be tied to strategic goals and objectives of the agency. When assessing the tradeoff between a “normal” engineering improvement and a right-sized improvement, the performance criteria needs to be something related and measurable between the projects. Many of the national performance measures are not specific enough to show variations between improvements. Evaluation through these could be telling but may not be comprehensive or granular enough to assess the difference between types of improvements. States must develop or adopt their own measures for use in this area. For example, IRI can potentially change with any project, thus the classic measures for monitoring, as outlined by FHWA, likely do not apply to this conversation for pavement. However, a right-sizing measure such as lowering the future maintenance cost per lane mile worked ($/mile) would start to reflect a decrease in forecasted burden on maintenance for the upkeep of the pavement system – either through a lowering of the overall maintenance budget or increase in lane miles improved – due to more available funding because of right-sizing savings. As performance measurement has evolved, there has been a shift in focus from performance measurement to performance management which entails using data collected to make budget allocation decisions that result in the achievement of strategic goals. GDOT46 discusses the maturity model of states as the DOTs related to measures and goals in terms of successive “generations”:  Generation 1 – several measures not integrated with overall strategic goals  Generation 2 – streamlined measures strategically selected to assess progress toward agency strategic goals  Generation 3 – adaptability to respond quickly to external demands to create responsive performance measurement and management Generations 2 and 3 are necessary for a DOT to understand performance management and quantify the measure with useful data in a logical method to use in project evaluation between project types. This evolution of capabilities is likely to coincide with the maturity of asset management tools and policies associated with right-sizing as well. However, this is not a prerequisite, as DOTs may press forward with performance management ahead of procurement efforts for analysis tools. For example, an agency may begin by using a volume-to-capacity ratio, as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, but subsequently come to recognize that the singularity of its focus on traffic service would require multiple additional measures to be evaluated. Similarly, as expressed previously, IRI is a classic pavement assessment measure, but 46 Amekudzi, A. and M. Meyer. Best Practices in Selecting Performance Measures and Standards for Effective Asset Management, Georgia Department of Transportation, Forest Park, GA, 2011.

67 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments may not properly reflect the potential change. Defining comprehensive measures to compare projects and programs will be more likely to exist in the agencies with more mature performance management. This is a characteristic found in Generations 2 and 3 agencies and would demonstrate that a DOT is more prepared for right-sizing conversations and analysis. Assessing the project(s) potential for future traffic growth, economic return, or a change in ownership of the corridor is always an option to assist in right-sizing. The decision criteria for whether to invest or not should be more comprehensive than simply picking between two project types based on a single measure that may not reflect the impact completely. When a project is identified, it usually centers around a reason for the improvement, such as safety or mobility. However, staying within this narrow definition of objectives limits the logical comparison between projects. Rather, choosing to invest in an asset at all can encapsulate many factors and be both short-term and long-term in outlook. The following performance measures are examples of those that can be used to compare potential projects in a more holistic manner:  Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure that relates the quality of the transportation service. LOS is used to categorize the network assets by their levels of performance measure like speed, density, condition, etc. It can serve as a guide for consistency in planning, performing and evaluating programmatic activities with the funds available. LOS can be associated with quantitative ranges and the common A to F scale is easily communicated to stakeholders. The power and issue with this measure is the flexible to change the unit of measure for each asset. LOS of A for traffic congestion means free flow speeds, while for pavement rutting it may equate to < 2.5 percent of the feature being deficient. Both are LOS A but the conditions measured and units of measure are different.  Network Robustness Index (NRI) is a performance measure that can be used to evaluate the relative importance of a specific roadway component, for example a bridge, with respect to the component’s contribution to the overall performance of the roadway network. The NRI incorporates the increase/decrease in vehicle-hours traveled into the measure which shows the criticality of the corridor to the network. The higher the measure, the more critical the component.  Critical Closeness Accessibility (CCA) is a link-focused performance measure that quantifies the “accessibility”. Here, accessibility is defined as the ease with which services and facilities can be reached while using the road network47. This definition shows both movement and the travel time related to the component. Designed to assess the emergency services access in an area, it could be used in a more general form to demonstrate mobility and importance of the segment or bridge.  Return on Investment (ROI) is a performance measure used to evaluate the efficiency of an investment or to compare the efficiency of across an investments program. DOTs are increasingly familiar with ROI when evaluating projects for inclusion in plans and programs as this is an economic measure used to reflect some benefit to the cost of a project or program. How a DOT defines the cost and benefit within the calculations, 47 Sentoff, K., J. Sullivan, D. Novak, and J. Dowds. Examining the Potential Impacts of Maintenance Investment and Capital Reinvestment in Vermont’s Roadway Infrastructure Network, University of Vermont Transportation Research Center, TRC Report 17-002, 2017.

68 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments depending on their maturity and data available, will directly relate to the sensitivity of the measure. This can also refer to Return on Asset (ROA) is singling out a specific project or asset type. As mentioned previously, the measures and project goals ‒ aligned with agency goals ‒ can also utilize the potential cost savings (or increase funding needs) of maintenance and operations for a comparison. Pulling this information from MMS, the agency can see, for example, the short- term savings of doing nothing to a bridge, but also can assess the long-term deterioration impact through other tools like pavement and bridge management system’s predictive capabilities. 3.7. Record of Interviews Interviews were conducted with staff at Minnesota, Connecticut, Virginia, and Utah DOT in support of this white paper: Additional informal discussions were also held with other practitioners that helped in the collection of relevant research and identification of issues.