Investment Prioritization Methods for Low-Volume Roads (2018)

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.

26 Investment Prioritization Methods for Low-Volume Roads One sixth of the agencies reported using separate or adjusted funding criteria, without sepa- rating LVRs into their own separate funding program (Figure 8). The remaining respon- dents indicated that capital investment funding for LVRs was otherwise ensured. Alternate approaches included allocating funds to specific types of treatments that tend to get used on LVRs, setting agency-wide preservation goals for all facilities including LVRs, and allocating funds to specific tiers or groups of facilities that are not labeled LVR but that are in practice inclusive of low-volume facilities (e.g., local roads or non-federal aid road system) (Figure 8). Six agencies reported using the same prioritization criteria for LVRs as they do for other roads but applying different metrics or threshold values. No agencies indicated the use of specific If you answered no (to using a volume threshold), how does your agency define low volume roads? A combination of functional classification and our state legislative classification (primarily unnumbered routes). Class I = Interstates, Principal Arterials, Urban Freeways/Expressways; Class II = Rural Freeways/Expressways and Minor Arterials; Class III = Major and Minor Collector Routes. Our agency is using the functional classification of the road. Roads less than a principal arterial are considered low volume. We don't specifically differentiate by functional class or volumes but we are able to track percentage of roadway mileage by AADT tiers, for example, 17% of state highway administration miles are AADT ≤2,000 and 1% of state highway administration miles are AADT ≥200,000, et cetera. We use multiple criteria and public input to set the roadway classification, including AADT (but not at a hard threshold level). Non-NHS. Also, less than 400 vpd for design purposes. Source: Survey of state DOTs and Canadian provincial transportation departments. – – – – – – Figure 6. Explanation of LVR definitions not based on volume. For what purpose(s) does your agency differentiate low volume roads from other roads? (Check all that apply) Source: Survey of state DOTs and Canadian provincial transportation departments. 63.2% (n = 12) 73.7% (n = 14) 84.2% (n = 16) 21.1% (n = 4) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Technical design guidelines Investment decisions in new or upgraded roads Funding allocation for preservation and maintenance Other Pe rc en t Figure 7. Reported purpose for differentiating LVRs from other roads.

28 Investment Prioritization Methods for Low-Volume Roads prioritization criteria that are unique to LVRs. Three agencies reported earmarking funds for LVRs (Table 6). When asked about factors used to evaluate capital investments in LVRs, 30 reported using quantitative conditions ratings and 28 reported the use of quantitative metrics for transporta- tion-related conditions or impacts. Agencies use a mix of quantitative ratings, qualitative scoring (e.g., 0 to 10) and descriptive approaches to economic, social, and environmental conditions or impacts. Only one agency reported the use of pass/fail decision rules (Table 7). Note that factors reported by respondents as used in capital investment decision making may in fact be applied to all roads and not just applied to LVRs. 3.3.4 Preservation and Maintenance Fund Allocation Practices As was the case for capital investment decisions, the majority of agencies (54.8%) reported that they do not distinguish LVRs from other roads when making preservation and maintenance decisions. However, in the case of preservation and maintenance relative to capital investment, relatively more agencies reported using either a separate funding process or separate or adjusted funding criteria for LVRs (11.9% and 21.4%, respectively), with fewer reporting alternative methods for ensuring funding (Figure 9). These alternative approaches included other forms What factors do you consider when evaluating capital investments in low volume roads (check all that apply)? Count Quantitative Rating Qualitative Scoring* Descriptive Pass/ Fail** Physical roadway conditions (e.g., pavement quality) 30 10 5 1 Transportation-related conditions or impacts (e.g., travel time or accident rates) 28 12 3 1 Economic conditions or impacts 13 11 10 1 Social conditions or impacts 9 8 12 1 Environmental conditions or impacts 10 6 13 0 Write-in: – Assume social conditions mean feedback from our customers – Emergency or roadway/bridge failure – Redundancy – Safety, if need identified *For example, scoring as high/medium/low or from 0–10. ** Refers to a pass/fail decision rule (e.g., if a certain threshold is passed, invest) Source: Survey of state DOTs and Canadian provincial transportation departments. Table 7. Factors considered in evaluating LVR capital investments. If there is a separate process or application of criteria, what are its characteristics? Count Yes No Earmarked funds 3 5 Specific prioritization criteria for low-volume roads 0 7 Same prioritization criteria as for other roads but application of different metrics or threshold values 6 3 Source: Survey of state DOTs and Canadian provincial transportation departments. Table 6. Characteristics of a separate process for LVR capital investment funding decisions.

Survey of Agency Practice 31 Decreased importance/attention. Please explain (open-ended responses): – Congestion is taking a front seat at the funding table. – Decreased importance for pavement condition only. No change in importance for funding of structures or safety improvements. – Due to funding limitations and priorities. – Agency’s asset management plan prioritizes funding for higher volume roads. – Not enough resources to hold higher volume roads at current levels, so lower volume road targets are decreased to offset resource allocation. – Performance measures are only required on NHS roadways. – Agency is looking at putting more attention to roads that affect economic impact. – This isn't a formal direction and I wouldn’t say a decreased importance ; but as resources become more scarce, the tendency is to focus on the systems with the higher rates of use. – Limited funds focused on higher AADT and NHS. Source: Survey of state DOTs and Canadian provincial transportation departments. This survey has been edited for anonymization. Figure 11. Explanation for decrease in LVR importance. Increased importance/attention. Due to (multiple responses allowed): Other: State DOT's capital program relies heavily on FHWA funding with inconsistent state general funding levels. Capital projects in the state's rural areas are extremely expensive due to material sources and mobilization costs with long lead times. Constraints on the use of federal funding (off NHS) and the new MAP -21 performance management penalties associated with Interstate pavement conditions result in fewer funds available for low -volume roads. Evaluation of low-volume state routes to determine if they should remain in the state highway system Recent state legislation Micro Seal maintenance – – – – – – Dedicated funding source Source: Survey of state DOTs and Canadian provincial transportation departments. This survey has been edited for anonymization. 58.3% n = 7 16.7% n = 2 25.0% n = 3 50.0% n = 6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Tighter budgets Major shifts in population or economic activity Increased public scrutiny (for example: concerns about equity) Other Pe rc en t Figure 12. Explanation for increase in LVR importance.

Survey of Agency Practice 33 Response Very important (%) Somewhat important (%) No major change needed (%) Total (N) Methods to capture the full range of importance of low-volume road investments 75 6 19 100% (16) Availability of data 56 25 19 100% (16) Sufficient agency resources 56 38 6 100% (16) External stakeholder buy-in or interest 33 33 33 100% (15) Internal agency buy-in or interest 27 47 27 100% (15) Improved coordination between agencies 20 53 27 100% (15) Write-in: Economic analysis 100 0 0 100% (1) Leveraging the Tribal Transportation Program funds for larger capital improvement projects in the villages 0 100 0 100% (1) Matching customer expectations with available resources and/or vice versa 100 0 0 100% (1) N = number of responses. Source: Survey of state DOTs and Canadian provincial transportation departments. Which of the following would enable improved investment decision making for low volume roads? (Please rate items according to importance) Table 11. Factors needed to improve LVR funding allocations. – Our DOT understands the importance of low-volume roads but does not have sufficient funding to equally invest in all the roads. – This isn't really a low-volume issue, but an issue for roads that aren't on a designated system. These are generally lower volume/classification roadways. We struggle finding resources for improvements on these roads when needs are identified. Source: Survey of state DOTs and Canadian provincial transportation departments. This survey has been edited for anonymization. Please share any additional relevant details regarding the items you selected above (e.g., specific types of data or methodological needs). Figure 14. Other notes regarding LVR funding allocation issues. 3.4 Survey of Practice—Key Observations The survey of the practice confirmed that there are significant numbers of agencies (nearly half of survey responses) that see the value of distinguishing LVRs from other roads. Agencies approach the definition and naming of LVRs in a variety of ways. While the use of a volume threshold is common, agencies also adopt alternate approaches, particularly those that relate to their overall strategy for classifying facilities on their road network. Importantly, there is a wide range of experience in how much of an agency’s network is classified as low volume. This means that the scale of any program or decision-making process for LVR can differ significantly across agencies. Nevertheless, more than half of the respondents indicated that LVRs comprise 30% or more of their networks, meaning that decisions related to LVRs have important implications for an agency’s program size and maintenance, preservation, and improvement strategies. Even among those agencies that do not adopt LVR definitions, respondents still described the practice

34 Investment Prioritization Methods for Low-Volume Roads of dividing networks into different groups that were often correlated with volume to guide the decision making of agencies. While the survey investigated both capacity expansion decisions and decisions related to pres- ervation and maintenance, the responses paint a picture of current practice that is dispropor- tionally aimed at maintaining a state of good repair, particularly within the context of funding limitations. Responding agencies view LVRs, and their continued upkeep, as being important for several reasons, most prominently for access to rural or isolated areas, for their role in sup- porting economic activity (e.g., farming, logging, mining, or other industry), and for their sup- porting network coverage role within the transportation system. A sizable minority of agencies have developed resource allocation and prioritization processes that are specific to LVRs, in recognition of the fact that these roads may not be competitive for funds if grouped with higher usage facilities or may merit special considerations to address their unique roles in providing access. In terms of quantitative metrics, traditional engineering mea- sures such as asset condition and transportation-related conditions or impacts (e.g., travel time or accident rates) dominate. Regarding preservation and maintenance decision making, quan- titative measurement of physical roadway condition is particularly prominent. Nevertheless, agencies do use a mix of quantitative ratings, qualitative scoring (e.g., 0 to 10), and descriptive approaches to capture the economic, social, and environmental conditions or impacts of LVR investment decisions. The case examples in the next chapter investigate in more detail these approaches to broader strategic issues. Practitioners have mixed attitudes toward LVR prioritizing trends. On the one hand, some agencies reported decreased attention paid to these facilities, as funding constraints push agen- cies to direct their resources elsewhere. On the other hand, the same funding pressures are causing some agencies to take a closer look at LVRs and their roles within the broader transpor- tation system. Of note are the reported interdependencies between federal policies regarding performance measurement and target setting on the NHS, and an agency’s resulting decisions for LVRs, which are typically not on the NHS. Most agencies report satisfaction with their current approaches to LVRs. However, there is interest in methods that can better capture the full range of importance of LVR investments. Also cited are the ever-present challenges of data and agency resource availability. The case examples in the next chapter provide a closer look at individual state approaches to LVRs, including ways in which they seek to differentiate the importance of LVRs beyond what can be captured in conditions-based or volume-based metrics alone.

35 4.1 Overview This chapter profiles six case examples to illustrate in more detail the current state of the practice for prioritization of low-volume roads. Candidate case examples were identified based on agency responses to the survey of practice described in Chapter 3 and then further researched through telephone interviews with individual state DOT staff members. The cases were selected to represent a range of situations, addressing different regions across the United States, different approaches to defining LVR, and a range of ways in which those definitions are brought to bear on the planning, resource allocation, and prioritization process. In addition, each case specifi- cally considers the ways in which critical strategic issues, that is, the broader social, economic, and environmental importance of LVRs are considered within an agency’s process. This latter investigation addresses a key question of the overall research effort, namely, “how can decision processes address the value of LVR investments, over and above that captured by traditional volume- or condition-based metrics alone?” Table 12 presents a summary of selected case example attributes. As can be seen in the table, cases represent experiences from the Far West, Rocky Mountain, Southwest, Plains, and Southeast regions of the United States. Four cases are from states that define LVR using a volume threshold, one of which is for truck traffic rather than for total traffic. The other two cases show how LVRs tend to be grouped into specific road classes or funding programs that are not defined strictly in terms of volume but nevertheless in practice primarily include LVRs. The purposes for which LVRs are defined in these cases are either (a) to support the resource allocation and prioritization process within an agency or (b) to facilitate planning about future investment and management strategies. In all cases, agencies are balancing life cycle costs and investment needs with the overall value provided to society by LVRs. Critical strategic issues are considered by agency decision makers through a mix of descriptive criteria and qualitative scoring. These criteria are in addition to typical engineering metrics such as volume, cost, and system condition. For each case example, write-ups in the next section address the following questions: • Definition of a low-volume road: How is a low-volume road defined? How much of the network falls into this classification? • Low-volume roads within the investment prioritization process: How are low-volume roads treated within the DOT’s investment prioritization process? Are there ways in which LVRs are singled out collectively to form a separate program area or are otherwise treated differently from other roads? • Consideration of critical strategic issues: How does the planning and investment decision- making process account for critical strategic issues related to the broader social, economic, or environmental role or importance of LVRs? C H A P T E R 4 Case Examples

36 Investment Prioritization Methods for Low-Volume Roads State (Region) Definition of LVR or LVR Equivalent Purpose of LVR Definition Consideration of Critical Strategic Issues: Social, Economic, or Environmental Role of LVRs Missouri (Plains) Volume based. <400 AADT Resource allocation/Prioritization. Restriction on use of STIP funds for LVR pavement (funded through operational funds only). Descriptive. Qualitative input at the district level for project selection. Arizona (Southwest) Volume based. <400 AADT Planning. Identifying candidates for jurisdictional/agency route transfer and/or cost reduction strategies. Qualitative scoring. Criteria based on markets served; applied to all projects (not just LVR). North Dakota (Plains) Other network segmentation. Lower three tiers of HPCS Resource allocation/Prioritization . High-level prioritization guidelines (not formal) that tend to deemphasize lower-road classes; also used to define conditions goals. Descriptive. Qualitative input at district level for project selection; stakeholder input for HPCS definition; in the future, freight corridor designation may also play a role in prioritization. Nevada (Far West) Volume based. ≤400 AADT (Road Prioritization Category 5) Resource allocation/Prioritization . Paving of Category 5 roads funded exclusively through the maintenance program. Descriptive. Informal “checklist” of considerations based on user profile, with input from district personnel. Idaho (Rocky Mountain) Volume based. Noncommerce routes <300 CAADT Resource allocation/Prioritization . Earmarked funds to maintain current condition on noncommerce routes, leaves most of the funding for commerce routes. Descriptive. Qualitative input at district level for project selection. South Carolina (Southeast) Other network segmentation. Three funding programs: Non-Federal Aid Roads, Non-NHS Bridges, and Load Restricted Bridges Resource allocation/Prioritization. Separate programs, each with its own separate prioritization process. Qualitative scoring. Points allocated by field engineers in prioritization process to reflect broader importance of LVR. HPCS = Highway Performance Classification System. Source: Detailed case example findings. Table 12. Summary of selected case example attributes, by state. • Recent trends and interest in improvements: From the point of view of agency staff, are there recent trends affecting the level of interest in or scrutiny of LVR within their state, and to what degree is the agency seeking ways to address LVRs within fund allocation and prioritization processes? 4.2 Individual Case Examples 4.2.1 Missouri: Restricted Use of State Transportation Improvement Program Funds for Low-Volume Roads Summary. Missouri DOT faces insufficient resources to meet projected main- tenance and preservation needs on its network and in response has chosen to define a class of LVR in order to limit investment on these roads and direct limited resources elsewhere. Missouri DOT uses a volume threshold (400 AADT) to define an LVR. The DOT’s policy dictates that State Transportation Improvement Program

Case Examples 37 Definition of a low-volume road. Missouri DOT defines an LVR as a roadway with <400 AADT. LVRs comprise 11,080 centerline miles of the 33,873 miles in the total state system and account for 2% of state travel (vehicle miles traveled). This high proportion (33%) of LVR mileage is a function of the fact that in the 1950s Missouri DOT took control of many lower volume facilities from local governments. Low-volume roads within the investment prioritization process. In Missouri, the central office of the DOT works closely with district offices to set funding priorities and determine appropriate investment strategies across all roadways. The Missouri Highways and Transpor- tation Commission distributes State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds by formula to district offices. The district offices in turn work with regional planning organizations to determine investment priorities. In practice, LVR investment decisions focus on maintenance and preservation. The DOT has minimal construction of new or upgraded LVRs due to limited funding availability. Missouri DOT recently established a new policy related to the use of STIP funds on LVRs (Missouri DOT 2016). The policy was developed through a 2-year asset management planning process. The policy dictates that STIP funds can no longer be used for pavement treatments on LVRs. Only operational funds will be used on these LVRs, covering routine maintenance activities such as pothole repairs or road clearing activities. No greater level of investment, such as paving or reconstruction, will be applied to LVRs at this point, meaning that these roads will likely degrade below current conditions. The meaningful exception to this LVR investment policy is bridges: Low-volume bridges are still eligible for STIP funding and are prioritized according to district-level priorities. This policy reflects the importance of bridges to local constituents. When developing their Asset Management Policy Guidelines, Missouri DOT received feedback from stakeholders that given constrained funding, it is much more important to ensure bridges were not closed than to keep up the condition of pavements. This is due to the significant costs that would be incurred in the event of a bridge closure by road users from long diversions. Consideration of critical strategic issues. District decision making is supported by asset management modeling and system conditions goals. Typically, “engineering type” information (such as conditions or safety) is supplemented by local input regarding broader social, eco- nomic, and environmental considerations, including for LVRs. For example, regional planning commissions might give priority to a lower volume bridge if it is known that the bridge serves funds no longer be used for pavement treatments on LVR, leaving only operational funding for routine maintenance activities. Missouri DOT has chosen to accept for the time being a reduction in conditions on its LVRs. However, recognizing the outsize cost of detours from closed or load restricted bridges, Missouri DOT is still using funds on low-volume bridges. When prioritizing the limited use of operational funds on LVR, Missouri DOT’s district offices use a mix of traditional quantitative engineering data (e.g., conditions or accident rates) and qualitative community inputs to identify those roads that are more strategically significant. Rather than relying on a prescribed ranking process, Missouri DOT employs a more informal model of “grassroots decision making.” Missouri DOT is interested in the potential to use more quantitative metrics of strategic importance that would facilitate comparison between LVRs.

38 Investment Prioritization Methods for Low-Volume Roads a large farming operation. Missouri DOT relies on the voice of regional planning partners to identify cases where low-volume facilities have outside importance relative to their volume. This is “grassroots decision making” that relies on local knowledge percolating up through the planning process rather than on metrics of the importance of any given facility. Recent trends and interest in prioritization improvements. Missouri DOT reported a lower priority for LVR in agency funding decisions, as codified in the recent Asset Management Policy Guidelines. Nevertheless, Missouri DOT planners are interested in methods to capture the full range of importance of LVR investments. At present, no quantitative information is available to compare one LVR with another, and all available insights are obtained from consulting with the local community. 4.2.2 Arizona: Planning Study for LVRs Within the State System Summary. Motivated by the changing role of a specific LVR that serves a copper mine, Arizona DOT began its first comprehensive planning study of LVRs. Like Missouri DOT, Arizona DOT defines an LVR with a volume threshold of 400 AADT. The study purpose was to provide a basis for subsequent prioritized activities for the future management of each LVR. This included identifying LVR candidates for jurisdictional/agency route transfer or cost saving measures. The study differ- entiates LVRs by using criteria that capture consideration of the markets served or the access provided by the facilities. The DOT is seeking to distinguish LVRs that, despite low volumes, are important to providing systemwide transportation connectivity from those that do not warrant the state highway designation because they do not serve a state or national purpose. While LVRs currently are not treated differently in Arizona’s prioritization process, this planning study could ultimately result in a change in how certain LVRs are funded within the state. In the current agency process, all projects (not just those on LVRs) are evaluated through a combination of technical scoring criteria (e.g., on bridges and pavements, or safety conditions) and policy evaluation criteria that capture the strategic importance of roads in terms of the markets or key destinations served. These criteria are integrated into a multicriteria analysis process for project ranking and prioritization. Definition of a low-volume road. Arizona DOT recently embarked on its first planning study of LVRs. For the purposes of the study, Arizona DOT defines LVRs as those with <400 AADT. Thus defined, there are 457 centerline miles of LVRs on the Arizona state system (<10% of the total system mileage). The study was motivated by conversations regarding a specific LVR, US 191, which transverses an active copper mine in the eastern part of the state. This inspired a broader look at LVR facilities on the state system, with the objective of providing a basis for subsequent prioritized activities for the future management of each LVR. Low-volume roads within the investment prioritization process. There is currently no dis- tinction within the Arizona prioritization process between LVRs and other facilities. Consideration of critical strategic issues. All projects (not just those on LVRs) are evaluated through a combination of technical scoring criteria (e.g., on bridges and pavement, or safety conditions) and policy evaluation criteria. The latter include consideration of the markets served by roadways. For example, facilities that serve primary healthcare facilities, border crossings, and