National Academies Press: OpenBook

Measuring Transportation Network Performance (2010)

Chapter: Chapter 4 - Regional Scenario Multimodal and Multistrategy Investment Prioritization

« Previous: Chapter 3 - Regional Scenario Defining Community Goals Across Jurisdictions
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Regional Scenario Multimodal and Multistrategy Investment Prioritization." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Measuring Transportation Network Performance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14425.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Regional Scenario Multimodal and Multistrategy Investment Prioritization." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Measuring Transportation Network Performance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14425.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Regional Scenario Multimodal and Multistrategy Investment Prioritization." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Measuring Transportation Network Performance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14425.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Regional Scenario Multimodal and Multistrategy Investment Prioritization." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Measuring Transportation Network Performance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14425.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Regional Scenario Multimodal and Multistrategy Investment Prioritization." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Measuring Transportation Network Performance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14425.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Regional Scenario Multimodal and Multistrategy Investment Prioritization." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Measuring Transportation Network Performance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14425.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Regional Scenario Multimodal and Multistrategy Investment Prioritization." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Measuring Transportation Network Performance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14425.
×
Page 19

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.

13 Scenario In large urban areas, MPOs have a wide range of strategies to choose from when addressing congestion. Whereas the pre- vious scenario addressed how MPOs can facilitate the analysis of network performance to better understand regional goals, this scenario examines how MPOs can use network perfor- mance measures to prioritize and select individual investments. Prioritizing projects for implementation must address road and transit improvements for both major facilities (e.g., high- ways and rail systems) and minor facilities (e.g., arterials and buses) and both capacity and operational improvements. Many MPOs have approached these challenges by following tradi- tional splits of funding to major agencies (e.g., DOT, the tran- sit agency, and local agencies). In an era of decreasing resources and an interest in funding investments with the most favor- able benefit-cost ratio, there is an increased interest in analyz- ing projects across a network. The investment prioritization scenario examines the process of using network performance measures to prioritize projects and make funding decisions, taking into account how individ- ual investments contribute to the performance of the network. Collaborative relationships between MPOs and various key agencies within a region guide the process, providing critical feedback and data to support the calculation of network per- formance measures. The primary focus of this scenario is on programming, though the overarching goal is to identify an approach that supports the region’s vision. Case Studies The primary case study comes from the Metropolitan Trans- portation Commission (MTC), the MPO for the San Francisco Bay Area. The MTC region includes the nine counties that touch the San Francisco Bay, home to 100 municipalities and more than 7 million people in 7,000 square miles. Within this region are eight primary public transit systems; 20,000 miles of local streets and roads; 1,400 miles of highway; six public ports; and three major commercial airports.3 In 2006, MTC began updating its RTP. The Draft Trans- portation 2035 Plan: Change in Motion serves as the roadmap for investing the $226 billion in funding projected to be avail- able over the next 25 years. MTC set ambitious goals to con- sider and incorporate current and impending issues that affect and are affected by the transportation network, including cli- mate change, foreign oil dependency, air quality, economic growth, and social equity in the region. By calling the plan “Change in Motion,” they take on the challenge as a region to “anticipate change, instigate change, and, most of all, succeed in putting change in motion.”4 To achieve these goals, MTC and its partners created a performance-based planning process that provided valuable feedback on how individual investments would impact the region’s defined vision, goals, and performance objectives. Additional information is drawn from case studies of the Florida DOT, SACOG, Washington State DOT, Maryland DOT, Transportation Metropolitan Atlanta Performance (MAP) Initiative, and the Minnesota Twin Cities Metropoli- tan Council. Building Blocks Establish Partnership Agreements The basic partnership agreement for this scenario was defined within the standard MPO planning process. Partnership agreements should • Guide the investment prioritization and programming process by providing (1) critical feedback on regional goals and performance objectives and (2) data to support calcu- lation of network performance measures, C H A P T E R 4 Regional Scenario—Multimodal and Multistrategy Investment Prioritization 3http://www.mtc.ca.gov/about_mtc/about.htm 4http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/DRAFT/Intro.pdf. At the time of this writing, the draft plan was available for public review and comment.

• Oversee the performance-based project evaluation, and • Provide input on investment tradeoffs for project prioriti- zation and programming. As part of the development of the Transportation 2035 Plan, MTC formed a Partnership Ad Hoc Committee consisting of representatives from state, regional, and local transportation agencies, as well as the Bay Area Air Quality Management Dis- trict, the Association of Bay Area Governments, and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. All of the processes for developing the Transportation 2035 Plan and the results of these processes were developed and reviewed in con- sultation with the Partnership Ad Hoc Committee. Define Performance Measurement Framework A performance measurement framework helps to establish how investments will be prioritized. This section discusses how MPOs can define a vision for the transportation system and the related goals and objectives that reflect that vision. Define the Vision The development of a performance measurement frame- work for investment prioritization begins with establishing a vision for the region. Though the tendency is to focus first on available funding and how to “slice the investment pie,” a performance-based approach defines a vision for what a region’s transportation system ought to look like in the future. The vision should incorporate key changes and trends on the horizon (e.g., climate change, volatile oil prices, an aging pop- ulation, rising construction costs, and the uncertainty of federal transportation funding). The anchors of MTC’s Transportation 2035 vision are the three “E” principles of sustainability: a prosperous and globally competitive economy, a healthy and safe environ- ment, and equity wherein all Bay Area residents share in the benefits of a well-maintained, efficient, and connected regional transportation system.5 Guided by the three Es, the plan establishes a vision for the future of transportation in the San Francisco Bay Area, which includes • Providing mobility and accessibility for all residents; • Using a multimodal approach to system maintenance; • Considering market-based pricing for the region’s carpool lanes, bridges, and roadways; • Focusing on creating complete communities with close access to jobs, shopping, and services connected by transit; • Making use of technological advances, including clean fuels and vehicles, sophisticated traffic operations sys- tems, accessible traveler information, and improved tran- sit operations; • Providing improved ability to travel to work, school, shop- ping, services, or recreation without needing a personal automobile; • Developing an approach to addressing climate change that is a national model; • Reducing the impact of transportation investments on nat- ural habitats; and • Improving the quality of life for Bay Area residents. 14 SACOG has initiated several successful collabora- tive efforts. The region has several ITS cooperative initiatives facilitated via the Sacramento Region ITS Partnership, an advisory committee made up of local and state transportation personnel. There is also a multimodal, multijurisdictional “smart corridor” collaborative effort of the County of Sacramento, the Sacramento Regional Transit District, Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol, and the American River Fire District. The Georgia Regional Transportation Authority spearheads the cooperative effort of the Author- ity and its partner agencies, the Federal Highway Administration, Atlanta Regional Commission, Georgia DOT, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, and Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) to complete the annual Transportation Metropolitan Atlanta Per- formance (MAP) report. A steering committee composed of the representatives of the regional transportation agencies and others guides the development of this annual transportation per- formance measurement effort. The MAP report provides a regional performance snapshot of progress toward improving mobility, transit accessibility, air quality, safety, and the overall performance of the Atlanta transportation net- work. Performance targets are established based on review and discussion by the steering commit- tee. The collaborative process of the region’s agencies extends beyond performance measure- ment. The process has also helped to identify data 5http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan collection issues, improve data quality control pro- cedures, and identify data gaps and needs.

Establish Goals and Performance Objectives The vision frames the development of goals and perfor- mance objectives for the region to set the direction for the future, measure progress, evaluate transportation projects and programs needed to maintain the system, improve system effi- ciency, and strategically expand the system. Performance objectives should reflect the improved conditions described in the vision and be developed based on partner agencies’ plans and policies. Table 4.1 summarizes the goals and performance objectives established by MTC in the Transportation 2035 Plan. The collaborative process of the region’s agencies includes iden- tifying data collection issues, improving data quality control procedures, and identifying data gaps and needs. Develop Measurement and Data Collection Methodologies Early definition of data needs and analysis approaches can help ensure that measures selected for evaluation can be calculated and communicated effectively. Data are needed to conduct financially unconstrained “what if” analyses, assess the impact of individual investments based on qualitative and quantitative network performance measures, and use network performance measures for project selection and investment decisions. Conduct a Financially Unconstrained What If Analysis Typically, MPOs begin planning and programming efforts within set funding limits, often by program or mode. A net- work performance approach can benefit from an analysis of unconstrained What If scenarios to determine whether the region’s goals and objectives are achievable and what it might take in terms of investment and policy to get there. MTC evaluated three hypothetical infrastructure invest- ment packages to determine what would be required to reach the performance objectives of the Transportation 2035 Plan: 1. A program of freeway operations strategies; 2. A regional high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane network with bus enhancements; and 3. Extensive rail and ferry expansion. The budgets for these projects were not constrained and ranged from $600 million to $64.2 billion in capital costs. Two sensitivity tests also were conducted to capture the impact of demand-based strategies. A pricing sensitivity test measured how a set of user-based pricing strategies would impact travel behavior. A land use sensitivity test looked at an alternative land use forecast that shifted employment and res- idential growth to existing centers and areas with existing or planned transit. Like the investment alternatives, the sensitiv- ity tests were meant to test bold approaches, not specific pol- icy alternatives. Relative to the performance objectives, the What If sce- narios demonstrated the following: • Reduce congestion. This was the only objective for which an investment package had a marked impact. • Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). None of the scenar- ios or strategies brought the projected VMT down to the target level. • Reduce particulate emissions. The land use and pricing strategies have more impact than the infrastructure invest- ments, but none of them achieve the objective target levels. • Reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The land use and pric- ing strategies have more impact than the infrastructure investments, but none of them achieve the objective target levels. • Improve affordability of transportation and housing for low- and moderately low-income households. The pricing and land use strategies have bigger impacts than do infra- structure investments. Focused growth policies decrease the 15 WSDOT is well known for applying performance management tools to nearly every aspect of agency business. When traditional metrics such as level of service (LOS) thresholds yielded billions of dollars in improvements needed over a 20-year time frame, WSDOT began using throughput measures of efficiency such as speed thresholds to better identify highway deficiencies. Maximum throughput measures are now used to select projects for inclusion in the Highway System Plan. In addition to identifying and prioritizing improvements for congested corridors, perfor- mance measures have also been used to support funding increases for operations and manage- ment strategies such as incident response and demand management programs. Performance measures have also helped to reveal trends or emerging problems requiring corrective action by the agency, such as detecting increased travel times on high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes resulting from more frequent use, identifying major sources of nonrecurring congestion, and focusing commute trip reduction programs on the most congested corridors in the region.

cost of transportation, but pricing increases cost because many people will continue to use vehicles for some trips. Overall, the freeway operations package was the most cost- effective; however, when the pricing and land use strategies are added, the gap between the freeway and the transit packages closes significantly. This set of network performance measure- ment calculations provided a baseline and context for MTC to begin looking at the performance of individual investments. Use a Mix of Quantitative and Qualitative Measures An investment assessment based on quantitative and qual- itative performance measures captures the effect of individ- ual projects in the context of regional performance objectives. The purpose is to identify project outliers (i.e., those invest- ments that would most strongly support the performance objectives and those that would most strongly undermine the objectives). The analysis procedures are not precise enough to distinguish among investments with very close benefit–cost ratios. This exercise provides valuable feedback on how indi- 16 Table 4.1. MTC’s Transportation 2035 performance objectives. Es Goals Performance Objectives Economy Maintenance and safety Improve maintenance Local streets and roads: Maintain pavement condition index of 75 or better. State highways: Distressed land-miles no more than 10% of system. Transit: Average asset age no more than 50% of useful life and average distance between service calls of 8,000 miles. Sources: State and local strategic plans Reduce injuries and fatalities Motor - vehicle fatalities: 15% fr om today. Bike and pedestrian injuries and fatalities: 25% each from 2000 levels. Source: California State Strategic Highway Safety Plan Reliability Reduce delays 20% per capita from today. Source: California ’ s Strategic Growth Plan Freight Environment Clean air Reduce vehicle miles traveled and emissions Vehicle miles traveled: 10% per capita from today. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5): 10% from today. Course particulate matter (PM10): 455 from today. Carbon dioxide (C02): 40% below 1990 levels. Sources: State regulations and laws Equity Access Improve affordability 10% reduction from today in share of earnings spent on housing and transportation costs by low- and moderately low- income households. Source: Adapted from the Center for Housing Policy Source: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/Supplementary/T2035Plan-Perf_AssessmentReport.pdf, p. 3. For the 2004 Oregon Transportation Plan update, Oregon DOT evaluated a set of policy and investment scenarios to help set the policy direction for the department. These scenarios examined business as usual, focusing state investment on system operations and making significant new investments in capacity. The DOT also tested funding scenarios that include continuation of current revenue sources, flat revenue, and pricing. Each scenario was evalu- ated against a set of performance scenarios linked to Oregon DOT’s objectives. The analysis helped focus the DOT on the benefits of increasing funding for operations and the need to address potential future funding shortfalls.

vidual projects would affect the region’s defined vision, goals, and performance objectives. MTC limited their quantitative assessment to higher cost projects only (i.e., those with areawide effects and costs higher than $50 million), because these typically account for the largest percentage of discretionary investment decisions. The primary performance measure was a combined benefit- cost ratio (B/C) that monetized benefits from reductions in collisions, delay (recurrent and nonrecurring), and emissions (Table 4.2). The B/C for each project was assigned a range, regardless of mode type or area of the region: high (B/C of 10 or higher); medium-high (B/C between 5 and 9); mid-range (B/C between 1 and 4); and low (B/C less than 1). A qualitative assessment also was conducted to evaluate how individual investments support the Transportation 2035 goals. This assessment complemented the quantitative evaluation by considering other factors that cannot be mea- sured directly, such as whether projects serve key freight cor- ridors, support focused growth, or improve access for certain categories of users. In an effort to improve the efficiency of the qualitative eval- uation, the investments were first grouped into project types, such as capacity expansion, interchanges, maintenance, tech- nology, HOT lanes, bike/pedestrian, transit efficiency and expansion, transit-oriented development, and others. Quali- tative evaluation criteria were developed to assess support of Transportation 2035 goals (Table 4.3). A ranking of “strongly support,” “support,” or “neutral toward” was assigned to each project type based on how well it met the criteria associ- ated with each goal. Link Network Performance Measures to Project Prioritization and Programming Synthesizing the project performance results for program- ming decisions represents a significant challenge to many MPOs. MTC’s process used a matrix approach that included both quantitative and qualitative measures (Figure 4.1). Proj- ects with high benefit–cost ratios that support multiple goals were included in the Transportation 2035 Plan. Projects with low benefit–cost ratios that address few goals were not, 17 Table 4.2. MTC’s quantitative project evaluation measures. T - 2035 Performance Objective Performance Measures Reduce congestion Reduce emissions Reduce collisions and fatalities Benefit - Cost Ratio (monetized), reflecting • Recurrent delay (vehicle hours) • Nonrecurring delay (vehicle hours) • Transit travel time 1 • Particulate matter emissions (PM2.5 and PM10) • Carbon dioxide emissions • Fatal and injury collisions • Direct user costs (vehicle operating and, in some cases, auto ownership costs) • Public and private cost savings from performing on- time maintenance 2 Reduce vehicle m iles driven Reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and cost per VMT reduced Reduce emissions Reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and cost per ton reduced Improve affordability Cost per low - income household served by transit (trial measure) 3 1. For HOV and HOT projects only 2. For maintenance programs only 3. For transit projects only Source: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/Supplementary/T2035Plan-Perf_AssessmentReport.pdf, pg. 24. Florida DOT’s Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) was established in 2003 to enhance Florida’s economic competitiveness by focusing limited resources on those transportation facilities critical to Florida’s economy and quality of life. The planning process for the SIS includes sys- tem designation based on adopted criteria and thresholds; needs assessment to identify unprogrammed SIS needs based on adopted statewide modal plans; project prioritization to develop a Phased Cost Feasible Plan with 10- and 20-year components; and a finance strategy that incorporates the investment policy and forecasts of anticipated revenues, innovative financing, and joint funding by public and private partners.

18 Figure 4.1. MTC’s synthesized results for project-level performance. Table 4.3. MTC’s qualitative project evaluation measures. Transportation 2035 Goals Qualitative Criteria for Determining Support Maintenance Advances maintenance of the existing transportation system Congestio n relief (reliability and efficient freight travel) Includes roadway safety • • Improves freight mobility • Improves transit mobility, effectiveness, or efficiency • Improves local mobility or circulation • Completes a critical transportation gap (geographic or temporal) • Institutes or enables a new user - based pricing system • Implements technology - based operations or traveler information • Improves roadway safety Emissions reduction • Provides an alternative to driving alone • Improves transit mobility, effectiveness, or efficiency • Establishes marketing, education, and incentive programs that encourage mode shift away from driving alone or during peaks Focused growth • Locates within a proposed or planned priority development area • Connects to priority development areas Access and safety (nonmotorized) • Provides a transit alternative to driving on a future priced facility • Provides an alternative to driving alone • Improves access for those who are young, old, or have disabilities • Improves safety for pedestrians and cyclists • Reduces transport ation or housing costs for low - income households Source: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/Supplementary/T2035Plan-Perf_AssessmentReport.pdf, p. 30.

unless they were of high local priority or addressed special transportation needs. Once project selection was complete, MTC conducted an overall program performance assess- ment to evaluate how well the proposed projects in the Draft Transportation 2035 Plan met the region’s performance goals and objectives. The outcome of MTC’s planning efforts helps identify strategies that provide regional benefits while recognizing that infrastructure investments by themselves produce only modest benefits. The planned investments point the Bay Area in the direction of meeting the stated objectives, but a consid- erable gap remains between the targets and the outcome. Regional objectives cannot be met without additional land use, pricing, and technology strategies that provide additional benefits. 19 The Maryland Transportation Trust Fund is unique in that it allows complete flexibility across modes in project prioritization and selection. Projects are selected based on their support of the goals and objectives set in Maryland’s Transporta- tion Plan, level of service, safety, maintenance issues, economic development potential, avail- ability of funding, and input received from public and local officials. By facilitating a bottom-up approach of project recommendations, Maryland DOT involves the perspective of all levels of gov- ernment while supporting the importance of mode-neutral funding.

Next: Chapter 5 - Peer-to-Peer Scenario Multistate Partnership for System Operations »
Measuring Transportation Network Performance Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 664: Measuring Transportation Network Performance explores ways to monitor transportation network performance by developing new or integrating existing performance measures from different transportation modes and multiple jurisdictions.

  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!