Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:


Pages 1-56

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 1...
... SHRP 2 Capacity Project C39A2 Pilot Testing of the TCAPP Decision Guide and Related Capacity Products: Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization, Virginia Sarah Rhodes and Marie Scheetz Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization John Miller and Peter Ohlms Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research Thomas M Guterbock, Deborah Rexrode, and Matthew Braswell University of Virginia's Center for Survey Research TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD Washington, D.C.
From page 2...
... © 2015 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
From page 3...
... DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this document are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors.
From page 4...
... The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters.
From page 5...
... Contents 1 Executive Summary 5 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 5 Overview of the TCAPP (PlanWorks) Decision Guide 7 Contribution of TCAPP to the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO 7 Contribution of the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO to TCAPP 9 CHAPTER 2 Purpose and Scope 10 CHAPTER 3 Methodology 10 Task 1.
From page 6...
... Executive Summary The Transportation for Communities -- Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP) , now known as PlanWorks, Decision Guide lays out a logical process for moving through the many decision steps for planning, prioritizing, and developing improved transportation system capacity.
From page 7...
... Performance measure areas matter more than specific performance measures within those areas. There are large nominal differences, in terms of importance to stakeholders, between performance measure areas.
From page 8...
... Most TCAPP steps, as implemented, add value to the planning process. A majority of the TCAPP steps in the LRP series add value to the planning process.
From page 9...
... percentage point)
From page 10...
... CHAPTER 1 Introduction The development of a long-range transportation plan (LRTP) is always challenging for a metropolitan planning organization (MPO)
From page 11...
... Table 1.1. LRP Portion of the TCAPP (PlanWorks)
From page 12...
... Contribution of TCAPP to the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO MPO staff believed that TCAPP offered two clear opportunities to enhance the long-range transportation planning process: improved structure and greater objectivity. The first opportunity was structure.
From page 13...
... were most important to stakeholders, realizing that this information might be helpful to those who are implementing TCAPP elsewhere. Second, once such measures had been identified, it seemed appropriate to determine whether these measures could influence decisions.
From page 14...
... CHAPTER 2 Purpose and Scope The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO's pilot test of TCAPP focused on three key research questions: • Which performance measures are most important to stakeholders? Because TCAPP emphasizes the use of performance criteria throughout the LRP steps, being able to identify which measures, as well as which performance areas, were most valuable to stakeholders was an initial motivation for this work.
From page 15...
... CHAPTER 3 Methodology The case study approach was used, where the TCAPP process was applied to a single region in central Virginia. Four specific tasks were undertaken and are detailed in this chapter: 1.
From page 16...
... • Environment • Land Use • Social Justice, Community, and Alternative Modes of Transportation • Economy • Public Safety • Passenger Mobility • Freight Mobility From these seven categories, the MPO and its project partners worked to develop specific evaluation criteria within these categories that assessed elements for the categories differently. For example, some measures considered positive impacts and some measures assessed adverse impacts.
From page 17...
... traveled on auto modes, which in this case had been calculated to be a 0.4% reduction, influenced respondents' support for the scenario. The survey then asked whether "low" or "high" values (which were given for each measure)
From page 18...
... general public. An effort was made to distribute the survey to the same respondents who had completed the first round MPO survey.
From page 19...
... Figure 3.1. LRTP process diagram.
From page 20...
... less familiar with the LRTP. For example, in the environmental areas, a JACS question was, "How important is the impact of the proposal on sensitive habitats, wetlands and areas near rivers or streams for you in deciding your support or opposition to any proposal?
From page 21...
... CHAPTER 4 Results -- The Most Influential Performance Measures As previously noted, the questions asked in the JACS and the initial stakeholder survey were not the same questions but were related in that both surveys sought to determine performance areas, or evaluation criteria, that were important to respondents. Figure 4.1 shows the evaluation criteria results from these initial surveys.
From page 22...
... Figure 4.1. Results from the first round JACS (left)
From page 23...
... exceed regulatory limits" was extremely important compared with 33% of MPO stakeholder respondents indicating that "lost acreage of wetlands" was extremely important (Figure 4.2)
From page 24...
... Figure 4.3. Percentage of MPO stakeholder respondents indicating that support from a group would influence respondents' support or opposition for a particular transportation project "a lot." Without individual respondent information, it is not possible to determine precisely if the proportions shown in Figure 4.3 are significantly different because p1 and p0 are not completely independent.
From page 25...
... CHAPTER 5 Results -- The Influence of Performance Measures on Decision Making A second stakeholder survey focused on the degree to which evaluation criteria or performance measures can influence the support decision makers give to a scenario of projects. Beginning in February 2014, the University of Virginia's Center for Survey Research (CSR)
From page 26...
... Respondents were given the following options with which to respond: 1. Definitely 2.
From page 27...
... Table 5.1. Percentage of Respondents Indicating That Changing the Value of the Performance Measure Would "Definitely" or "Probably" Influence Their Support for the Scenario Performance Measure Performance Measure Is Total Smaller Than for Scenario X Larger Than for Scenario X Environment 36% 81% 60% Land Use 35% 44% 40% Social Justice 38% 64% 51% Economy 44% 58% 51% Passenger Mobility 17% 28% 22% Freight Mobility 55% 57% 56% Safety 40% 67% 53% Average (all measures weighted equally)
From page 28...
... for passenger mobility is between 12% and 33%. The 95% "confidence interval" was calculated with the formula n/)
From page 29...
... By contrast, the confidence interval for the passenger mobility measure does not overlap with the intervals for the five measures mentioned above. Further, the percentage of responses indicating that a change in the value of the passenger mobility measure would influence their support for a scenario (22%)
From page 30...
... cases, a small percentage change in the performance measures between the smaller or larger option and Scenario X actually resulted in a relatively large absolute change between Scenario X and the smaller or larger option. The second and third columns of Table 5.2 repeat information from Table 5.1 (the percentage of respondents who indicated that the changing value of the performance measure would "definitely" or "probably" influence their support for the scenario)
From page 31...
... Percentage Differences Explain Some, but Not All, of the Difference in Performance Measure Influence The environmental performance measure provides a good example of where the observed percentage change affected the respondent's position regarding Scenario X For example, 36% of the respondents said they would "definitely" or "probably" change their position with regard to Scenario X if there was just a 0.1% increase in the total tons of stormwater pollutants per year, an improvement upon the original Scenario X (which was shown as causing a 1.6% increase)
From page 32...
... Figure 5.2. Percentage of respondents influenced by a measure as a function of the percentage change in the measure.
From page 33...
... option, and 28% changing their position with the larger option. It appears that few respondents understood that the measure was assessing total daily trips, and that a small percentage change in auto trips corresponded to a substantial number of trips shifted to transit, bike, and pedestrian modes.
From page 34...
... CHAPTER 6 Results -- TCAPP (PlanWorks) Assessment As previously stated, the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO's implementation of the TCAPP process began in January 2013 and ended in May 2014.
From page 35...
... decisions. The guide implies following these steps successively, but does not mandate it, and in this MPO's case, following each step successively was not an option because the MPO was unable to begin its fiscal-constraint process (LRP-5)
From page 36...
... TCAPP began, the focus of the survey process was unclear. Given this uncertainty, MPO staff avoided discussing the topic out of concern that too much discussion about TCAPP could affect the survey results.
From page 37...
... amount of effort into the development of LRTP goals during the previous two LRTPs. These goals, called the "Regional Mobility Goals," have been key elements in the MPO's previous LRTPs.
From page 38...
... performance and continuing to work on the development of a regional transit authority. While these objectives clearly contribute to the region's overarching vision of a multimodal transportation system, they do not easily lend themselves to the development of performance measures that foster objective comparison between projects.
From page 39...
... Making was a key resource for the MPO in developing additional performance measures; especially those that focused on environmental and community impacts (http://shrp2webtool.camsys.com/Default.aspx)
From page 40...
... The 16 measures developed served as the lens through which all transportation scenarios were viewed and compared. This LRTP update was the first time the MPO explicitly utilized evaluation criteria in the development of its LRTP.
From page 41...
... or other operational problems, as well as inadequate roadway capacity. Source: http://transportationforcommunities.com/shrpc01/kdp_step/21/0/4.
From page 42...
... LRP-4 mentions a variety of deficiencies (e.g., safety, connectivity, and operation issues) that may be identified, but it focuses primarily on the identification of roadway and corridor deficiencies.
From page 43...
... roadway and transit improvements that the community wanted to see evaluated in the Long- Range Transportation Planning process. Every community has transportation project priorities that surface and gain momentum every few years regardless of their feasibility or cause of controversy.
From page 44...
... Table 6.8: TCAPP Step 6 -- Purpose and Outcome Purpose Outcome To develop and evaluate groups of strategies relative to stated needs. A range of strategies to address transportation deficiencies and achieve vision and goals.
From page 45...
... Successes and Challenges With the implementation of TCAPP, the MPO, for the first time in developing its LRTP, approached the development and selection of candidate projects by using a highly methodical approach. Using a process that MPO stakeholders could generally relate to resulted in a more thoughtful and technically grounded approach to the development of the LRTP.
From page 46...
... MPO Process As stated in the LRP-6 summary, LRP-7 is part of a three-step analytical progression that was the heart of the MPO's long-range transportation planning process. This analysis focused on three main steps: (1)
From page 47...
... The goal of this table was to give an impression of the analysis while also providing the data for readers. The MPO also created a how-to guide for reading the table (Figure 6.1)
From page 48...
... not for those outside of the profession. Throughout the process, members of the public would provide input, and they requested projects that had already been deemed unsuccessful by the MPO stakeholders.
From page 49...
... Successes and Challenges The preferred scenario was approved by the MPO's decision-making body, the MPO Policy Board, with relatively little discussion. The almost six-month process of assessing scenarios resulted in the MPO stakeholders having a clear understanding of the projects that were in this scenario and a clear understanding that this particular group of projects achieved regional goals.
From page 50...
... offices for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, regional public libraries, and the VDOT Residency Office. The MPO also writes a press release about the draft LRTP report, hoping that local media will promote the availability of the plan for review.
From page 51...
... CHAPTER 7 Conclusions Nine conclusions are drawn. The first two pertain to how the individual steps of TCAPP are deployed, and the latter seven pertain to the use of performance measures.
From page 52...
... 5. There is less variability in the importance of different performance measures within each area.
From page 53...
... points "won't pique much interest." Despite being provided with absolute changes, respondents continued to be interested more in percentage changes.
From page 54...
... CHAPTER 8 Recommendations Six recommendations are offered. The first three pertain to how the individual steps in TCAPP are applied, and the latter three focus specifically on performance measure selection and interpretation.
From page 55...
... by survey respondents, and the right column gives the measure as quantified by the MPO. (For example, survey respondents indicated that the most important measure in the environmental area was "extent of waterways where pollutants would exceed regulatory limits." The MPO was able to quantify that measure by calculating the "tons of pollutants in stormwater run-off per year.")
From page 56...
... could provide a brief, high-level explanation of why no scenario could alter the measure by more than a few percentage points and could craft a context suggesting what level of change would be considered meaningful. Another option for adding context would be to provide decision makers with examples of how recent local transportation projects (with which they would presumably be familiar)

Key Terms



This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.