Engineering Economic Analysis Practices for Highway Investment (2012)

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.

112 Appendix B interview Guide [NOTE TO PANEL MEMBERS: This interview guide is based on the case example information called for in the Scope of Work. It is a generic guide, since the details of each state DOT (or other agency) interview will depend on (1) the focus of the particular case example, (2) the role and respon- sibilities of each interviewee regarding the case example, and (3) the documented information that already exists and can be used in the case example.] initiAl interviews The initial interviews—several of which have already been conducted—seek to find out from the primary agency con- tact what is addressed in the agency’s candidate business/ decision process, the role of engineering economic analyses within this process, and the type, detail, and maturity of the economic method used. The interviews identify documents that are available to describe the process and the specific eco- nomic analyses used. The agency contact may be asked to help gather and provide additional information. These inter- views are the basis of recommendations to the panel regard- ing likely case examples, and to the interviewed agency as to which specific applications of their engineering economic analyses are most beneficial to include in this Synthesis report. The information gathered in these initial interviews enables me to begin case example development. Follow-Up interviews Follow-up interviews with each agency will look to fill in gaps, flesh out useful details, clarify points, and correct any misconceptions on my part. If warranted, the context of the case example will be strengthened—that is, how does the business/decision process that is supported by engineering economic analyses fit into the agency’s overall decision framework for highway investments? At this stage of the Synthesis study, prior to obtaining survey results, I will be conducting these follow-up interviews after coming up with a preliminary case example draft based on the information identified in the initial interviews. Once survey results are obtained, the information gathering and interview process will likely be compressed to move more quickly, since the drafts of the initial set of cases will have established road- maps and guidelines enabling work to proceed more quickly. To some degree I am “overprogramming” the number of candidate case examples, realizing that (1) some case exam- ples may, on fuller development, turn out not to bear fruit in meeting the study’s objectives and therefore need to be downgraded or dropped, and (2) attempts to schedule future interviews with some agencies may not be successful within the time frame needed for Draft 1 completion in June. The follow-up interviews will address the following items, drawing on items required in the Scope of Work: • The characteristics of the case example, with an eye toward providing a diverse set of examples in the report, and comments on unique, innovative, or com- prehensive aspects. • Types of highway investments analyzed; e.g., pavement program, bridge projects, durable pavement marking materials options, safety improvement project/program, corridor improvements (e.g., ITS investments, capital proj- ects, managed lanes/pricing, operational improvements). • Economic methods and elements; e.g., for methods, life- cycle cost, benefit–cost, measure of cost-effectiveness; for elements, agency costs (design, other pre-construction, construction, maintenance, inspection, etc.), agency costs avoided, road user costs or benefits (e.g., savings in travel time and vehicle operating costs, crash/accident reduc- tions), non-user costs or benefits. • Level at which analyzed; e.g., project, corridor, program (e.g., all pavement projects on a network or sub-network), program tradeoffs (e.g., preservation vs. mobility; pave- ment vs. bridge), network (involving spatial or temporal shifts in demand due to a particular alternative), or com- bination of these. • Stage of asset management life cycle; e.g., planning, project scope development, programming (includes ranking and project selection), resource allocation, project design and development, bid evaluation (e.g., in a best-value procurement), post-construction evalua- tion of outcomes, or combination of these. • Who performs the analysis, who exercises oversight, and who receives the results. • How the results are applied to assist decision makers at various organizational levels; what performance mea- sures and decision criteria are used. • Methods, data, or displays, if any, that capture risk or uncertainty. • What other measures or decision criteria are used in deci- sion making at various organizational levels, and how these other considerations affect the economic results (e.g., use of “second best” solutions to accommodate geographic equity criteria; superposition of environmen- tal impacts on economic results to yield long-term, more sustainable solutions; incorporation of non-monetary impacts such as network connectivity, land-use impacts, quality and cohesion of affected neighborhoods, or air quality, water quality, and noise impacts). • Particular resources needed to support economic analy- ses; e.g., professional staff skills; specialized analytic packages; data availability, feasibility, currency, com- pleteness, and accuracy; public outreach.