Economic and Development Implications of Transportation Disinvestment (2015)

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.

48 APPENDIX B Descriptive Summary of Survey Results Q1. Has your agency made an intentional disinvestment choice in the last five years? Count Percent Yes 18 43.9% No 18 43.9% Responded: does not deal with issue/no information 5 12.2% Total Responses: 41 Q2. What type of asset did the intentional disinvestment choice address (check all that apply)? Count Percent Disinvestment in a specific facility (roadway segment or bridge) 10 50.0% Disinvestment in an entire corridor or sub-area 3 15.0% Disinvestment in an entire program or class of roads 14 70.0% Total Responses: 20 Q2. Other: If in a specific facility, briefly describe: ID55 Bridge just north of Cascade, ID—Unanticipated scour led to weight restrictions Primarily low use redundant bridges on local roads Temporary closure of six rest areas The disinvestment was in capacity expansion investments and an urban corridor. The maintenance of roadway adjacent condition—grass cutting along the highways Local road no longer serving as state highway Due to funding restrictions, shortfalls, the need for prioritization of resources and other political needs, a disinvestment may occur on a particular facility or project. Carpool parking lot, state-funded programs, scoping, advance right-of-way (ROW) purchases, wetland mitigation and rest area investment have been significantly reduced to focus on larger assets such as pavement and bridges. Recommendations are made for pavement and bridge work. Funding will not fully support recommendations. After a level of deterioration we remove it from the initial list and recommend a more intensive treatment in a future year. The Department has an $8.5 billion backlog of specific facilities that are currently unable to be funded. Choices are made each year when we develop our three-year work program to decide which facilities get funded and which do not. Total Responses: 10

49 Q3. In the last five years, could your agency's intentional disinvestment choices be characterized more as: a) a single disinvestment choice for a particular facility; b) multiple periodic disinvestment choices in different facilities, programs, and services; c) a long-term, gradual process of “wholesale disinvestment” of entire programs or systems (which may have occurred incrementally) in the last five years Count Percent a) A single disinvestment choice 3 15.8% b) Periodic disinvestment choice 4 21.1% c) Wholesale or incremental disinvestment policy 12 63.2% Total Responses: 19 Q4. What was the process by which your agency made the disinvestment choice (check all that apply)? Count Percent Programmatic investment (choice in long-range planning process) 4 20.0% Prioritization decision in long-range planning process 6 30.0% Prioritization decision in the STIP/TIP process 11 55.0% In response to budget cuts from elected entities (governor or elected body) 4 20.0% Directed to disinvest in a specific facility or program by an elected entity 1 5.0% Part of an agreement with another unit of government (jurisdictional turnback or mutual disinvestment decision) 4 20.0% Other (specify): 5 25.0% Total Responses: 20 Q4. Other Cash flow, not enough state revenue to support state-funded initiatives In response to projected budget shortfalls Limited the scope of improvements on lower function highways Suspend CMAQ and TE program Investment planning process in consultation with department leadership and the State Transportation Commission. Total Responses: 5 Q5. What were the criteria or reasons for the disinvestment (check all that apply)? Count Percent Insufficient funds to support the asset 15 75.0% Concerns about the risk associated with partially maintaining an asset in a condition less than its original design or function. (1) 3 15.0% Other investment needs were deemed more important 16 80.0% Asset no longer needed or used 1 5.0% Asset replaced by another, different mode or facility 1 5.0% Asset had safety, environmental, or other costs too high to justify its transportation function 5 25.0% Other (specify): 4 20.0% Total Responses: 20

50 Q5. Other Preservation was deemed more important than facility expansion. Maximizing system health Reduction of expenses to a new level of acceptable performance Our state is a pay as you go state. Our department also a "fix it first" policy to make sure the current system is maintained. Efforts are made to distribute the limited funding across the regions and between urban and rural communities. Project disinvestment usually occurs because of a lack of funding in various federal and state fund codes. Total Responses: 4 Q6. What was the nature of scrutiny (public/external versus agency/internal) pertaining to the intentional disinvestment decision? Count Percent Mostly Internal (within the agency) = 5 6 30.0% Mostly Internal with Some External = 4 7 35.0% Equally Internal and External = 3 6 30.0% Mostly External = 2 1 5.0% Not Scrutinized = 1 0 0.0% Total Responses: 20 Average: 3.90 Q7. What degree of public scrutiny did the agency receive pertaining to the intentional disinvestment decision (check one)? Count Percent Heavily Scrutinized = 5 3 15.0% Somewhat Scrutinized = 4 4 20.0% Same Scrutiny of Any other Investment Decision = 3 5 25.0% Small Degree of Scrutiny = 2 7 35.0% Not Scrutinized = 1 1 5.0% Total Responses: 20 Average: 3.05 Q8. What level of stakeholder involvement was involved in the intentional disinvestment decision? Count Percent Structured public outreach to obtain input and explain decision = 5 7 35.0% Structured outreach to explain decision only = 4 7 35.0% No structured outreach, but explained decision through media/website = 3 2 10.0% Required legal hearings only = 2 1 5.0% No stakeholder involvement = 1 3 15.0% Total Responses: 20 Average: 3.70

51 Q9. What level of involvement from businesses and economic development entities was included in the disinvestment decision? Count Percent Actively involved through structured outreach targeted to business and economic development community 1 5.3% Actively involved through unstructured collaboration (individual meetings, phone discussions, and other informal input) 4 21.1% Involved within the context of other stakeholder outreach, but none specifically to business/economic development community 7 36.8% Required legal hearings only 0 0.0% No business/economic development involvement 7 36.8% Total Responses 19 Average: 2.58 Q10. What types of analysis did your agency perform to anticipate the potential economic/business effects of disinvestment (check all that apply)? Count Percent Cost-benefit analysis using a spreadsheet 3 15.0% Cost-benefit analysis using an asset management tool that predicts asset conditions (such as HERS-ST or NBIAS) 2 10.0% Cost-benefit analysis using an online model 0 0.0% Economic Impact Analysis (using a model like REMI, TREDIS, etc.) 2 10.0% Consulting historical data on asset performance (traffic counts, safety, pavement condition, bridge rating, etc.). 13 65.0% Consulting data about the improvement history and cost of the asset (frequency and magnitude of maintenance or preservation investments), etc. 10 50.0% Consulting spatial or statistical data about asset utilization (traffic counts, percent trucks, network origin-destination patterns) 7 35.0% Identifying analogous disinvestments in other areas 0 0.0% Interviewing or surveying businesses and economic development entities about their anticipated responses 1 5.0% We did not conduct analysis to anticipate the economic implications 5 25.0% Other (specify): 5 25.0% Total Responses: 20 Q10. Other Decision Lens 3 software for project prioritization dTIM asset management model Performed cash flow analysis to determine that we could support planned and ongoing activities Consulted with businesses, developers, and local elected officials to discuss the potential economic/business effects of the disinvestment. Considered truck counts, available private truck parking options and available traveler services, spacing between rest areas, cost to maintain, age/condition of facility Total Responses: 5

Q11. If used, How confident are you that the findings of these analysis methods adequately enabled you to anticipate the economic effects of disinvestment? Highly Confident = 4 (%) # Somewhat = 3 (%) # Not Confident = 2 (%) # Did Not Use = 1 (%) # Responses Average Cost-benefit analysis using a spreadsheet 9.1% 1 27.3% 3 0.0% 0 63.6% 7 11 2.25 Cost-benefit analysis using an asset management tool that predicts asset conditions (such as HERS-ST or NBIAS) 18.2% 2 9.1% 1 0.0% 0 72.7% 8 11 2.67 Cost-benefit analysis using an online model 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 10 10 - Economic impact analysis (using a model like REMI or RIMS or TREDIS) 10.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 90.0% 9 10 3.00 Consulting historical data on asset performance (traffic counts, safety, pavement condition, bridge rating, etc.). 28.6% 4 50.0% 7 7.1% 1 14.3% 2 14 2.25 Consulting data about the improvement history and cost of the asset (frequency and magnitude of maintenance or preservation investments), etc. 15.4% 2 61.5% 8 7.7% 1 15.4% 2 13 2.09 Consulting spatial or statistical data about asset utilization (traffic counts, percent trucks, network origin-destination patterns) 33.3% 4 41.7% 5 0.0% 0 25.0% 3 12 2.44 Identifying analogous disinvestments in other areas 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 10 10 - Interviewing or surveying businesses and economic development entities about their anticipated responses 0.0% 0 20.0% 2 0.0% 0 80.0% 8 10 2.00 Other (previously specified) 12.5% 1 25.0% 2 0.0% 0 62.5% 5 8 2.33 Confident Total

Q12. If you could have had any types of data, tools, or methods available to you to assess likely impacts of the disinvestment decision, how desirable would the following models or tools be? Highly Confident = 3 (%) # Somewhat Confident = 2 (%) # Not Desirable = 1 (%) Total Response Average Cost-benefit analysis using a spreadsheet 36.4% 4 36.4% 4 27.3% 3 11 2.09 Cost-benefit analysis using an asset management tool that predicts asset conditions (such as HERS-ST or NBIAS) 69.2% 9 30.8% 4 0.0% 0 13 2.69 Cost-benefit analysis using an online model 36.4% 4 36.4% 4 27.3% 3 11 2.09 Economic impact analysis (using a model like REMI or RIMS or TREDIS) 41.7% 5 58.3% 7 0.0% 0 12 2.42 Consulting historical data on asset performance (traffic counts, safety, pavement condition, bridge rating, etc.). 54.5% 6 45.5% 5 0.0% 0 11 2.55 Consulting data about the improvement history and cost of the asset (frequency and magnitude of maintenance or preservation investments), etc. 50.0% 5 50.0% 5 0.0% 0 10 2.50 Consulting spatial or statistical data about asset utilization (traffic counts, percent trucks, network origin-destination patterns) 54.5% 6 45.5% 5 0.0% 0 11 2.55 Identifying analogous disinvestments in other areas 18.2% 2 63.6% 7 18.2% 2 11 2.00 Interviewing or surveying businesses and economic development entities about their anticipated responses 30.0% 3 50.0% 5 20.0% 2 10 2.10 Other (previously specified) 0.0% 0 28.6% 2 71.4% 5 7 1.29

54 Q13. How confident are you that you adequately anticipated the economic implications of disinvestment? Count Percent Very Confident = 3 4 20.0% Somewhat Confident = 2 8 40.0% Not at All Confident = 1 8 40.0% Total Responses: 20 Average: 1.80 Q14. If you did not undertake any analysis to anticipate the economic effects of the disinvestment choice, why was such analysis not undertaken? Count Percent Limited time, budget, and staff availability 7 58.3% Concerns about political implications of findings 2 16.7% Lack of confidence in available methods and tools 3 25.0% Stakeholders, agency, or political leadership did not scrutinize decision/analysis would not have affected decision 6 50.0% Total Responses: 12 Q15. Has your agency ever gone back and performed an evaluation to assess the potential economic effects of an earlier disinvestment choice? Count Percent Yes, we have performed this type of assessment 3 15.8% No, but we have been approached about, or have considered such assessments 9 47.4% We have never considered such assessments 7 36.8% Total Responses: 19

Q16. What indicators would you consider the most appropriate for assessing the economic implications of a disinvestment choice (check one level of usefulness for any methods that apply)? Highly Useful = 3 % # Somewhat Useful = 2 % # Not Useful = 1 % # Responses # Average Changes in transportation costs (including travel time, operating costs, reliability, safety or environmental costs) accruing to households and businesses 75.7% 28 24.3% 9 0.0% 0 37 2.76 Changes in the accessibility of households and businesses to key locations (such as, population within a 40-mile commuting radius of a business district or businesses within a same-day delivery radius of a key center of activity) 62.2% 23 37.8% 14 0.0% 0 37 2.62 Changes in household or business locations 25.7% 9 62.9% 22 11.4% 4 35 2.14 Changes in property values 22.2% 8 55.6% 20 22.2% 8 36 2.00 Complaints from stakeholders 36.1% 13 55.6% 20 8.3% 3 36 2.28 Other 36.4% 4 18.2% 2 45.5% 5 11 1.91 Q16. Other: Traffic counts Future costs of asset replacement Loss of asset value Return on investment. Effects on future revenue both for transportation agency and state and local government. Total Responses: 4

56 Q17. If your agency has not made an intentional disinvestment choice, how do you (or would you) determine that an unintentional disinvestment has occurred? Count Percent Consistent funding levels below assessed investment needs 24 77.4% Benchmarking condition or performance, and consistently performing below target performance levels 26 83.9% Publicly visible performance failure (bridge collapses, road gridlocked, etc.) 20 64.5% Complaints from business or economic development community 17 54.8% Complaints from stakeholders or elected leaders 17 54.8% Other (specify): 3 9.7% Total Responses: 31 Q17. Other Several of these events have occurred in our example I didn’t check the first option because that is standard operating there are never enough funds available to meet all of the needs. So an alternative response might be an increasing gap between funding needed to maintain system investment needs and funding available for investment. Unintentional disinvestment has occurred if it is defined as not making investments because of insufficient revenues. Total Responses: 3 Q18. If your agency has experienced unintentional disinvestment, why have investment levels or asset conditions reached a point of disinvestment (as evidenced by the indicators given in your answer to question 17)? Check all that apply. Count Percent Recurring funding shortfalls and deferred investment led to condition where the costs of ‘catching up’ seem insurmountable in any given budget cycle. 20 71.4% Asset deteriorated at a rate faster than anticipated by budgeting, planning, and programming models. 10 35.7% Demand for asset increased at a rate faster than anticipated by budgeting, planning, and programming models. 11 39.3% Asset condition or performance not properly understood when funding decisions made. 7 25.0% Other (specify): 4 14.3% Total Responses: 28 Q18. Other In our bridge example, unexpected scour occurred Insufficient revenues Funding levels are not sufficient to overcome the effects of inflation and materials cost escalation over the long term. As inflation erodes revenue and assets age, the condition declines slowly, but steadily. I'm not sure that we’ve experienced unintentional disinvestment; we are achieving our performance goals. However, our system performance charts are on a downward trend, which may be the result of intentional disinvestment due to expanding gap between needs and resources or we might be coming off of a high point in system performance as a result of the additional system improvements from the investment of unanticipated ARRA funds. Total Responses: 4 — —

57 Q19. When allocating resources in your planning and capital programming process, are the implications of both investment and disinvestment considered in assessing points or quantifying the benefits of competing projects/programs? Count Percent The benefits of investment are considered, but the costs of disinvestment are assumed to be limited only to the foregone benefits of investment. = 5 16 43.2% Both the benefits of investment and costs of disinvestment are considered, but the benefits of investment factor more heavily. = 4 10 27.0% Disinvestment costs and investment benefits considered equally. = 3 9 24.3% Both the benefits of investment and the costs of disinvestment are considered, but the costs of disinvestment factor more heavily. = 2 1 2.7% The costs of disinvestment are considered, but the benefits of investment are only understood to be the foregone costs of disinvestment = 1 1 2.7% Total Responses: 34 Average: 4.05 Q20. What would most help your agency in understanding and articulating to stakeholders the likely economic implications of a disinvestment decision? Check all that apply. Count Percent More data about asset conditions, performance, and utilization 20 54.1% More case examples of outcomes that have occurred as a result of disinvestment in comparable circumstances 23 62.2% Better models to predict economic outcomes of disinvestment 27 73.0% Better models to predict the implications of disinvestment on transportation performance measures 24 64.9% Better ways to elicit input from businesses about how they will respond to a disinvestment choice 16 43.2% Other (specify): 2 5.4% Total Responses: 37 Q20. Other Better methods to estimate the opportunity costs of disinvestment Question 19 and 20 are difficult to answer. We approach our allocation process to provide the right treatment at the right time, to avoid overinvesting or underinvesting in a particular area. The cost of disinvestment could end up being facility replacement cost rather than maintenance costs so it is the driving factor in our approach. I think we have communicated this to our stakeholders pretty well. For a direct response to #20, I’d say that showing the stakeholders the future cost of not investing today (in performance and cost to restore condition). —