Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 43


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 42
I-45 Application of the Seven-Step 3.4 Role of Economic Models Target-Setting Approach and Management Systems Within the Private Sector in Target-Setting and Tradeoff Analysis A close look at the private sector experience with perfor- mance management might suggest some revisions, particu- As previously indicated, modeling provides a quantitative larly in the timeframe of targets and in the correspondence of approach to target-setting. This section provides an initial targets to metrics. Three edits would align the 551 process identification and analysis of the potential roles for economic more closely with private sector best practices: models and management systems in setting performance tar- gets and in supporting tradeoff analysis. The focus is on the role A rephrasing of Step 1 ("Define the context for target-setting of economic analysis in these functions. However, since many and establish time horizon(s)") might be "Define the con- of the useful procedures which perform some aspects of eco- text for target-setting and establish annual targets." Private nomic analysis are termed management systems, this discus- sector experience would suggest that time horizons be kept sion also includes those management systems which provide to a minimum. For example, DIY sets its target annually. economic analysis and which already are used for or are poten- Corporation X has short- and long-term targets. None of tially useful for target-setting and tradeoff analysis. The focus the companies interviewed had more than two target time- of this section is on target-setting and tradeoff analysis at the frames. Private sector companies often have a 1-year tar- system or program level, which could apply to the nation, get and a 3-year target. Also, the actual number of number states, metropolitan areas, other regions, or to modal or multi- targets, as they apply to transportation, should be no more modal agencies. Economic models and management systems than a few in order to achieve organizational alignment also are useful for determining the impacts of projects on per- around a common goal. formance targets or for doing project level tradeoff analysis. A rephrasing of Step 2 ("Determine which measures should While examples are provided from current practice, and the have targets") might be "Assign a target to each metric or else potential for extensions of current practice are discussed, it is eliminate the metric." Private sector companies (MNC is an important to keep in mind that economic models and manage- example) are sensitive to "analysis paralysis," and therefore ment systems are by no means sufficient in themselves for prefer to measure only what actually has a target. Measuring setting performance targets or assessing tradeoffs. things that do not have targets can cloud performance man- agement with ambiguity. Measures without targets increase the number of numbers people study, decreasing from the Usefulness of Current Economic Models emphasis on a single core target. It also implies an incom- and Management Systems in Target-Setting pleteness of the target-setting process, as if the architects of the performance management process did not go all the way There are current useful and outstanding examples of the in determining how various metrics are inter-related, and potential for the use of economic models and management which are more important than others. systems in setting performance targets. In some cases, those Step 5 ("Analyze resource allocation scenarios and trade- procedures are not being formally used to help to set targets. offs") might be better split into two steps: (1) determine the In other cases, they have been used by agencies to set short- return on capital investment and (2) compute the cost/ or long-term targets or to illuminate tradeoffs. benefit ratio of operating expenses. This step has two under- The most often cited examples of economic model systems lying and different decision lattices--the first has to do which can be readily adapted to a positive role in target-setting with capital expenditures, and the second has to do with and tradeoff analysis are the FHWA's Highway Economic operating expenditures. Private sector firms (ABC Logis- Requirements System (HERS) and the National Bridge Inven- tics is an example) generally allocate capital dollars accord- tory Analysis System (NBIAS) which are currently used by ing to their return on investment and operating dollars FHWA in highway and bridge analysis for the periodic reports based on their profitability. Most (with the exception of on "Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges and Transit: Con- Corporation X) do not consider scenarios, but they should. dition and Performance," commonly referred to as the "C&P" Return on investment can and should include the costs and reports. The 2008 C&P report, which was recently released in benefits to all stakeholders, public and private. There are late January 2010 includes many exhibits which illustrate how guidelines for calculating return on investment in public- HERS and NBIAS can be used to determine the relationship sector work and in public-private partnerships. The calcu- between investment levels in highways and bridges and impor- lation of profitability depends as much as possible on tant performance measures. The transit sections of the report, assigning benefits and costs to specific user groups, as in which are not discussed here, provide similar information relat- toll road pricing analyses. ing transit investments to transit performance measures.

OCR for page 42
I-46 Several figures included in this chapter are exhibits taken target-setting require repetitive runs and the post-processing directly from the 2008 C&P and illustrate a few of the per- assembly of the results, there will be a great deal of education formance measures that HERS and NBIAS can relate to lev- and training needed to transfer the FHWA capability to use els of investment in bridges and highways. The 2008 C&P HERS for target-setting to the states. It would be highly desir- report contains these and other exhibits which illustrate the able to foster the dissemination of HERS, HERS-ST, and state impacts of different investment levels on performance mea- economic analysis procedures and capacity building at states sures including user costs, user delays, levels of service, pave- and MPOs. ment condition measures, and the backlog of bridge needs. The bridge model, NBIAS, produces the results which are The use of the HERS for producing the exhibits shown potentially useful for target-setting more directly by relating is not straightforward but requires the very sophisticated investment levels to performance measures. However, the states knowledge of those at FHWA and Volpe who produce the have not utilized NBIAS. Most states do have the PONTIS C&P. Many alternative runs of the HERS are needed to pro- bridge management system, which they could use to help duce the results shown in the exhibits. Since most states are inform target-setting and tradeoff analysis. not yet familiar with the use of the state version of HERS Figure 3.5 taken from the 2008 C&P illustrates the relation- (HERS-ST) and since the exhibits which are very useful in ship between alternative investment levels and overall con- Projected Changes in 2026 Congestion Delay and Incident Delay Compared With 2006 Levels for Different Possible Funding Levels and Financing Mechanisms Annual Average Annual Percent Change in Delay on Roads Modeled in HERS Percent Capital Investment Congestion Delay per VMT Incident Delay per VMT Change (Billions of 2006 Dollars) 1 Funding Mechanism 2 Funding Mechanism 2 Relative Total Spending Non- Fixed Variable Non- Fixed Variable to Capital Modeled User Rate User Rate User User Rate User Rate User 2006 Outlay in HERS Sources Charges Charges Sources Charges Charges 7.76% $188.9 $115.7 -1.8% -29.7% 7.45% $182.0 $111.5 -0.3% -4.6% -28.3% -33.1% 6.70% $166.5 $102.0 3.0% -0.7% -24.9% -29.2% 6.41% $160.9 $98.6 4.3% 0.6% -23.7% -27.5% 5.25% $140.6 $86.1 8.8% 5.8% -17.5% -20.8% 5.15% $139.0 $85.1 9.3% 6.5% -17.0% -20.0% 5.03% $137.1 $84.0 9.8% 6.9% -16.4% -19.4% 4.65% $131.2 $80.4 11.2% 8.8% -14.6% -17.1% 4.55% $129.7 $79.5 11.8% 9.4% -8.3% -14.1% -16.7% -36.6% 4.17% $124.2 $76.1 13.3% 11.1% -7.3% -12.7% -14.9% -35.4% 3.30% $112.6 $69.0 17.1% 15.5% -5.4% -8.2% -9.4% -32.7% 3.21% $111.5 $68.3 17.5% 15.9% -5.2% -8.0% -9.1% -32.5% 3.07% $109.7 $67.2 18.1% 16.7% -4.8% -7.4% -8.6% -32.2% 2.96% $108.4 $66.4 18.4% 17.0% -4.6% -6.9% -8.1% -31.9% 2.93% $108.0 $66.2 18.5% 17.1% -4.5% -6.8% -8.0% -31.8% 1.67% $94.0 $57.6 22.8% 22.1% -1.6% -2.3% -2.9% -27.8% 0.83% $85.9 $52.6 25.6% 25.4% 0.0% 1.1% 1.0% -25.4% 0.34% $81.5 $50.0 27.2% 27.3% 1.1% 2.8% 2.8% -23.8% 0.00% $78.7 $48.2 28.4% 28.6% 1.8% 4.0% 4.2% -22.6% -0.78% $72.5 $44.4 31.7% 32.2% 3.0% 8.2% 8.7% -20.5% -0.86% $71.9 $44.1 32.0% 32.5% 3.2% 8.6% 9.1% -20.3% -1.37% $68.3 $41.8 33.9% 34.6% 4.0% 10.6% 11.4% -19.0% -4.95% $48.2 $29.5 44.1% 45.9% 8.9% 23.3% 24.9% -10.7% -7.64% $37.9 $23.2 50.4% 53.0% 10.7% 32.0% 34.1% -7.7% 1 The amounts shown represent the average annual investment over 20 years that would occur if annual investment grows by the per- centage shown in each row in constant dollar terms. The performance impacts identified in this table are driven by spending modeled in HERS; the figures for T otal Capital O utlay" are included to reflect other spending not modeled in HERS. 2The funding mechanism used to cover the gap between a particular funding level and current spending will have different impacts on future travel behavior, which will impact the level of performance that would be achieved. Source: Highway Economic Requirements System, FHWA. Figure 3.5. Relationship between alternative investment levels and delay from the 2008 C&P.

OCR for page 42
I-47 gestion delay and incident congestion delay. The table relates useful information about the impacts of alternative future projected annual growth rates in constant dollar investments highway investment strategies. from particular types of fees (non-user, fixed per mile user, Figure 3.6 provides similar information with regard to and variable per mile user) to the outcomes for the system in pavement performance measures as a function of investment terms of the performance measures of the percentage changes levels, also by various types of source of funds. In this case, the in total 2026 congestion delay and incident related congestion fixed-rate user charges and the non-user charges are so close delay, compared to 2006 parameters, which provide highly that although they are numerically different the level of detail Projected Changes in 2026 Pavement Ride Quality Compared with 2006 Levels for Different Possible Funding Levels and Financing Mechanisms 60% Percent Change from 2006 48% Non-User Sources 36% Fixed Rate User Charges 24% Variable Rate User Charges 12% 0% -12% -24% $20.0 $30.0 $40.0 $50.0 $60.0 $70.0 $80.0 $90.0 $100.0 $110.0 $120.0 Average Annual Investment Modeled in HERS (Billions of Dollars) Annual Average Annual Investment (Billions of $2006)1 Percent Change in Average IRI Percent HERS System Rehabilitation2 on Roads Modeled in HERS Change Total Spending Funding Mechanism Funding Mechanism Relative Capital Modeled Non- Fixed Variable Non- Fixed Variable to Outlay in HERS User Rate User Rate User User Rate User Rate User 2006 Sources Charges Charges Sources Charges Charges 7.76% $188.9 $115.7 $51.4 -23.8% 7.45% $182.0 $111.5 $50.0 $50.2 -22.4% -23.1% 6.70% $166.5 $102.0 $46.2 $46.5 -19.1% -19.4% 6.41% $160.9 $98.6 $45.0 $45.4 -17.5% -18.1% 5.25% $140.6 $86.1 $40.2 $40.6 -11.7% -12.2% 5.15% $139.0 $85.1 $39.8 $40.3 -11.1% -11.8% 5.03% $137.1 $84.0 $39.4 $39.7 -10.5% -11.2% 4.65% $131.2 $80.4 $38.0 $38.2 -8.7% -9.1% 4.55% $129.7 $79.5 $37.7 $37.9 $46.2 -8.2% -8.6% -19.3% 4.17% $124.2 $76.1 $36.4 $36.6 $44.7 -6.3% -6.6% -17.6% 3.30% $112.6 $69.0 $33.6 $33.7 $41.2 -1.9% -2.3% -14.0% 3.21% $111.5 $68.3 $33.4 $33.5 $40.9 -1.5% -1.9% -13.6% 3.07% $109.7 $67.2 $33.1 $33.2 $40.5 -0.7% -1.0% -13.0% 2.96% $108.4 $66.4 $32.7 $32.9 $40.1 0.0% -0.2% -12.5% 2.93% $108.0 $66.2 $32.6 $32.8 $40.0 0.3% 0.0% -12.5% 1.67% $94.0 $57.6 $28.7 $28.8 $35.7 7.9% 7.9% -6.7% 0.83% $85.9 $52.6 $26.4 $26.5 $33.0 12.5% 12.4% -2.6% 0.34% $81.5 $50.0 $25.2 $25.3 $31.5 15.0% 15.1% 0.0% 0.00% $78.7 $48.2 $24.5 $24.5 $30.6 17.0% 17.1% 1.8% -0.78% $72.5 $44.4 $23.0 $23.0 $28.5 20.4% 20.8% 5.7% -0.86% $71.9 $44.1 $22.8 $22.8 $28.3 20.8% 21.2% 6.0% -1.37% $68.3 $41.8 $21.8 $21.8 $27.1 23.3% 23.8% 8.4% -4.95% $48.2 $29.5 $15.7 $15.6 $19.9 41.3% 42.0% 25.2% -7.64% $37.9 $23.2 $12.7 $12.7 $16.0 52.3% 53.1% 37.1% 1 The amounts shown represent the average annual investment over 20 years that would occur if annual investment grows by the percentage shown in each row in constant dollar terms. The performance impacts identified in this table are driven by spending modeled in HERS; the figures for "Total Capital Outlay" are included to reflect other spending not modeled in HERS. 2 The amounts shown represent the portion of spending that HERS directed towards system rehabilitation rather than system expansion, which varies depending on the funding mechanism employed. Source: Highway Economic Requirements System. Figure 3.6. Relationship between alternative investment levels and pavement quality from the 2008 C&P.

OCR for page 42
I-48 of the graph in the exhibit shows them as nearly similar. Both FHWA's analysis for the C&P exhibits and the discussion are Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.6 show logical relationships between fully sufficient to inform any target-setting for highway and investment levels and performance which can be used directly bridge investments. However, both the HERS and NBIAS mod- in informing target-setting. The important caveat is that HERS els, and the measures they support, are oriented to those invest- and all other models are not direct reflections of future ments which are modeled and to the performance measures agency investments at particular funding levels. which are addressed. These include measures related to phys- Figure 3.7 shows the relationship between bridge invest- ical asset conditions, and for HERS, those measures related ment levels and the backlog measures which are commonly to user costs, congestion and delay, and congestion and delay used to relate bridge investment to future bridge conditions. costs. NBIAS covers only bridges, and although it includes Bridges are either termed to be deficient or not deficient estimates of impacts on user costs, the lack of information in (rather than being measured with a sliding numerical scale of NBIAS related to highways connecting to the bridges makes it degree of deficiency). impossible to estimate the user cost impacts of bridge improve- Projected Changes in 2026 Bridge Investment Backlog on the NHS Compared With 2006 Levels for Different Possible Funding Levels Annual Average Annual Capital Investment 2026 Percent Percent (Billions of 2006 Dollars) 1 NHS Change Change Spending Modeled Bridge in Bridge Relative Total in NBIAS Backlog 2 Backlog to Capital On (Billions of Compared 2006 Outlay Total NHS 2006 Dollars) to 2006 5.15% $139.0 $17.9 $7.7 $0.0 -100.0% 5.03% $137.1 $17.6 $7.6 $1.3 -97.4% 4.65% $131.2 $16.9 $7.4 $5.3 -89.6% 4.55% $129.7 $16.7 $7.3 $6.2 -87.8% 4.17% $124.2 $16.0 $7.1 $10.1 -80.1% 3.30% $112.6 $14.5 $6.5 $18.4 -63.8% 3.21% $111.5 $14.4 $6.5 $19.4 -61.8% 3.07% $109.7 $14.1 $6.4 $20.9 -58.9% 2.96% $108.4 $14.0 $6.3 $22.4 -55.9% 2.93% $108.0 $13.9 $6.3 $22.6 -55.5% 1.67% $94.0 $12.1 $5.6 $34.5 -32.1% 0.83% $85.9 $11.1 $5.1 $42.4 -16.5% 0.34% $81.5 $10.5 $4.9 $46.0 -9.4% 0.00% $78.7 $10.1 $4.8 $48.2 -5.1% -0.78% $72.5 $9.3 $4.5 $54.1 6.5% -0.86% $71.9 $9.3 $4.5 $54.6 7.5% -1.37% $68.3 $8.8 $4.3 $57.8 13.8% -4.95% $48.2 $6.2 $3.2 $78.4 54.3% -7.64% $37.9 $4.9 $2.5 $91.1 79.3% Cost to Maintain:3 $4.7 $50.8 0.0% 2006 Spending:4 $4.3 $57.3 12.8% 2006 Baseline Values: $4.3 $50.8 1 The amounts shown represent the average annual investment over 20 years that would occur if annual investment grows by the percent- age shown in each row in constant dollar terms. The performance impacts identified in this table are driven by portion of NBIAS-modeled spending on the NHS. 2 The amounts shown do not reflect system expansion needs; the bridge components of such needs are addressed as part of the HERS model analysis. 3 The amount shown is projected to be sufficient to maintain the economic bridge backlog at its baseline 2006 level. 4 The amount shown reflects actual capital spending by all levels of government on NHS bridges in 2006. Source: National Bridge Investment Analysis System. Figure 3.7. Relationship between alternative investment levels and bridge investment backlog from the 2008 C&P.

OCR for page 42
I-49 Table 3.3. Emerging state and local tools for development of performance strategies. Goal Area Emerging State and Local Tools Safety SHSP process that has emerged over the last few years is an excellent base from which to launch performance analysis, while benefit/analysis can support project-level investment decisions within and across safety related plans and programs, including the STIP, HSIP, Highway Safety Performance Plan (HSPP), Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP), and others. System Preservation Asset management systems for pavement and bridge apply benefit to analyze and develop improvements in Federal and some state programs, and are probably the most mature systems among the states for developing investment strategies. Mobility/Congestion The congestion management process that originated with ISTEA for TMAs and was extended by SAFETEA-LU provides an excellent base from which to develop benefit and investment strategies for this goal. It will require integration of congestion management systems with benefit procedures such as are used in the Intelligent Transportation System Data Analysis System (IDAS). IDAS has not been widely used to date. Freight/Economic Growth The Freight Analysis Framework and state-specific freight plans (and freight models) are in an evolutionary stage and are not widely used at this point for investment/analysis, but these could be enhanced towards a more comprehensive freight and economic growth performance framework which utilizes benefit. Environment and Environmental Management Systems offer good promise for this goal area but are clearly in an Community early evolutionary stage in regard to investment/analysis. ment actions. For example, information on whether or not of "what if " scenarios in helping agencies understand the adjacent highways are improved is needed to estimate whether implications of different funding options. For example, what bridge improvements (for example, widening a bridge to have would be the impact on pavement performance if pavement more capacity) would have an impact on levels of service. funds are increased by 10 percent over the next 10 years? What For FHWA or for the national level, there are no current would be the impact on bridge performance if this money was economic models or management systems which are used shifted from the bridge program? In the context of the overall for informing target-setting for the safety, environmental, or performance management framework, this type of analysis can freight/economic performance measures. As economic, safety, help agencies establish relative priorities, set targets, allocate and environmental modeling methods and procedures are resources, and better manage stakeholder expectations. developed in these areas, they can be used for national target- As with the discussion of target-setting, this discussion of setting and potentially adapted for target-setting at states or tradeoff analysis addresses the system or program level rather MPOs. Table 3.3 identifies the emerging state and local tools. than the project level. Tradeoff analysis also is useful in select- At the state level, current asset management systems for ing among project alternatives. To conduct system level or pro- pavements and bridges are used by many states to inform per- gram level tradeoff analysis, an agency must have the results of formance targets and could be more broadly applied. economic models or management systems or other estimates for the relationships between investments of particular types Usefulness of Current Economic Models and and the performance measures to be impacted. Few agencies have systematically used the results of their eco- Management Systems in Tradeoff Analysis nomic models and management systems for tradeoff analysis. While a detailed description of tradeoff analysis is beyond the A recent pioneering example is the Detroit metropolitan area's scope of this paper, it is nonetheless important to note that the Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) concept of "tradeoffs" summarizes the main challenge facing which utilizes HERS, asset management systems, and other transportation agencies; there are more needs then resources sources to develop relationships between investment levels available to address them. In this environment agencies must and performance measures for a wide range of programs.6 continually make difficult decisions on which areas of the trans- It then graphically presents the results in a manner which portation network to focus their limited resources. Transporta- tion is often a zero-sum game, so additional investment in one 5Cambridge Systematics, Development of a Multimodal Tradeoffs Methodology for area means that an agency must invest less in another. Use in Statewide Transportation Planning, developed as part of NCHRP 08-36 Guidance on the role of tradeoff analysis in the transporta- (Task 07), November 2001. tion planning process was initially developed through NCHRP 6Guerre, Joseph and Evans, Jennifer, "Applying System-Level Performance Project 08-36 (Task 07).5 This project report described the use Measures and Targets in Detroit's Metropolitan Planning Process," January 2010.

OCR for page 42
I-50 Table 3.4. Measures of effectiveness used in SEMCOG prioritization process. Program Area Measures of Effectiveness Pavement Preservation Percent of pavement in good or fair condition Highway Capacity Hours of congestion delay per 1,000 vehicle miles traveled Bridge Preservation Percent of bridges in good or fair condition Safety Fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled Transit Extent of the transit network (the existing network or the region's transit vision) Nonmotorized Percent of population and employment within mile of a nonmotorized facility Roadway operations Not applicable Source: SEMCOG and Cambridge Systematics would allow decision-makers to address the tradeoffs between Nonmotorized--This program covers the maintenance and investments that achieve alternative levels of performance expansion of the region's nonmotorized network, which across different performance goal areas. This is the type of consists of bike paths, sidewalks, roadways that accommo- analysis which helps inform the nation, the states, and the date bike traffic, and other amenities such as bike storage regions on how investments in support of various system and facilities. performance goals could be traded off against each other. Roadway Operations--This program covers traffic oper- SEMCOG's investment prioritization process consists of ations, studies, and routine maintenance. The bulk of the following steps: the budget for this program (82 percent) is used for routine maintenance. 1. Define measures of effectiveness and assess current performance. To support the new prioritization process, SEMCOG revis- 2. Analyze the relationship between funding and perfor- ited its list of existing measures of effectiveness (MOE) and mance within each program area. selected a single measure in each program area for analysis 3. Develop funding scenarios (each scenario represents a dif- (Table 3.4). ferent way of splitting anticipated funds across the program The next step in the process was to analyze each MOE to areas used in the RTP). determine the relationship between future performance and 4. Present the results of the analysis to decision-makers in a for- expenditure level. The analysis was first done separately for mat that enables them to conduct program-level tradeoffs, each MOE. The results were then combined into AssetManager with the goal of reaching consensus on long-range funding NT so that they could be reviewed and better understood. and performance targets for the region. AssetManager NT is a visualization tool that enables users to explore the performance implications of various resource allo- SEMCOG's LRP is organized by the following program areas: cation scenarios. The tool brings together analysis results from multiple decision-support tools (e.g., pavement and bridge Pavement Preservation--There are 22,820 miles of pub- management systems) and provides a quick-response "what-if" lic roads in the SEMCOG region. The maintenance, reha- analysis tool for testing different investment options. Asset- bilitation, and reconstruction of these roads falls into the Manager NT was originally developed through NCHRP pavement preservation program. Project 20-57, "Analytical Tools for Asset Management," and Highway Capacity--The highway expansion program has subsequently been adopted by AASHTO.7 addresses recurring sources of congestion. Work in this area SEMCOG identified discrete funding scenarios which includes widening existing roads. emphasized different themes for investing resources. Figure 3.8 Bridge Preservation--The bridge preservation program illustrates the results of this process. For each scenario, the fig- area covers work on the region's 3,560 bridges. ure shows the percent of available funding allocated to each Safety--The work in this program area focuses on improv- program area and the resulting performance in 2030. It includes ing high-crash locations. the following four scenarios: Transit--The transit program covers the maintenance, operations, improvement, and expansion of the region's 7Guerre, Joseph and Jennifer Evans, "Applying System-Level Performance Mea- fixed-route transit network. sures and Targets in Detroit's Metropolitan Planning Process," January 2010.

OCR for page 42
I-51 1. Current Allocation 2. Public Opinion 3. Preservation First 4. Transit First Projected 2030 Funding 2030 Funding 2030 Funding 2030 Funding Program Area Measure of Effectiveness 2010 Target Split Target Split Target Split Target Split Transit System extent Current Current 21% < Current 12% < Current 21% Transit 41% System System System System Vision Pavement % pavement in good or fair 57% 57% 21% 49% 18% 85% 31% 40% 14% condition Bridge % bridges in good or fair 85% 100% 6% 100% 7% 85% 3% 80% 3% condition Expansion hours of congestion delay per 2.9 2.6 10% 2.6 10% 3.0 2% 3.0 0% 1,000 vehicle miles traveled Safety fatalities per 100 million vehicle 0.77 0.74 0% NA 7% 0.73 1% 0.73 1% miles traveled Nonmotorized % pop. and emp. within -mile 13% 44% 1% 100% 5% 44% 1% 13% 0% of nonmotorized facility Roadway NA 41% 41% 41% 41% Operations Source: SEMCOG and Cambridge Systematics. Figure 3.8. Funding scenarios with targets. 1. Current Allocation. This scenario represents the funding 4. Transit First. In this scenario the entire transit vision is split from SEMCOG's existing regional transportation plan. funded. The remaining funds are then spread among the 2. Public Opinion. The funding splits in this scenario are other program areas. based on the results of a recent public opinion survey in which respondents were asked how they would allocate After producing results for each program and scenario and $100 among the program areas. for the alternative funding levels, the information was assem- 3. Preservation First. In this scenario a target of 85 percent bled in a manner which illustrated what level of performance in good or fair condition is set for pavements and bridges. results the region would achieve at alternative funding levels for The remaining funds are then spread among the other each of the program areas. These results that inform the trade- program areas. off analysis are shown in Figures 3.9 through 3.13. 100 Percent in Good or Fair Condition 80 60 40 20 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Annual Budget ($M) Current performance expectation Maximum performance Source: SEMCOG and Cambridge Systematics. Figure 3.9. Pavement performance versus funding.

OCR for page 42
I-52 120 Percent in Good or Fair Condition 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 Annual Budget ($M) Current performance expectation Maximum performance Source: SEMCOG and Cambridge Systematics. Figure 3.10. Bridge performance versus funding. 5 Hours of Congestion Delay 4 per 1,000 Miles Traveled 3 2 1 0 0 100 200 300 400 Annual Budget ($M) Current performance expectation Maximum performance Source: SEMCOG and Cambridge Systematics. Figure 3.11. Delay versus funding.

OCR for page 42
I-53 1 Fatalities per 100M Miles Traveled 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Annual Budget ($M) Current performance expectation Maximum performance Source: SEMCOG and Cambridge Systematics. Figure 3.12. Fatality rate versus funding. 120 100 % Population & Employment within 1/2 mile of Facility 80 60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Annual Budget ($M) Current performance expectation Maximum performance Source: SEMCOG and Cambridge Systematics. Figure 3.13. Nonmotorized performance versus funding.