How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies (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.

1 This NCHRP synthesis investigates the extent to which state DOTs and MPOs evaluate and compare different types of transportation improvement strategies and, in cases in which these agencies do undertake such evaluations, explores the reasons for conducting this analysis and the concomitant methods and policies. Transportation agencies are responsible for providing the traveling public with a reliable and safe transportation system. In the past, this has meant building new roadways or adding lanes to existing roads, but as the population continues to grow and available land becomes more limited, this approach may not yield the best value for the traveling public. Additionally, as resources become more constrained and infrastructure continues to age, a few transporta- tion agencies have taken a data-driven approach to transportation investment that attempts to compare added highway capacity projects to other modal projects and strategies such as high-capacity transit, active transportation modes, and rail freight. This synthesis identifies the current state of assessment of added highway capacity projects versus how the value of different types of transportation projects are calculated to determine the best use of public funds to increase mode choices, reduce congestion, improve travel times, improve safety, and efficiently move freight. The decisions made by state DOTs and MPOs to invest in added highway capacity projects versus other modal projects and strategies is generally made at three specific points in the statewide and metropolitan planning processes. These represent distinct phases at which agency actions are formulated with varying degrees of specificity related to the detail at which alternatives are developed, reviewed, evaluated, and prioritized. The three decision points are (1) statewide long-range plans/metropolitan transportation plans (MTPs), (2) corridor/subarea plans and studies, and (3) Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs)/metropolitan Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs). There has been significant investment in the existing transportation system. As a result, the traditional means for improving safety, efficiency, and reliability for the traveling public have been the addition and expansion of highways. State DOTs and MPOs tend to have more experience in assessing the benefits and costs of adding highway capacity than in assessing the benefits and costs of other modal projects and strategies. Physical constraints and the desire of the traveling public for other modal options are requiring state DOTs and MPOs to enhance their ability to assess other modal projects and strategies (even if they are not directly compared to proposed highway projects that add capacity). S U M M A R Y How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies

2 How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies Much of the previous discussion and analysis of added highway capacity projects and other modal projects and strategies has been related to broader activities such as goal set- ting and identification of objectives. Examples of specific comparisons of added highway capacity projects to mode-neutral performance measures and prioritization of projects across modes using standardized criteria are limited. Research has indicated that some state DOTs directly allocate resources to various modes and strategies based on system-level criteria, eliminating the need to assess added highway capacity projects against other modal projects and strategies. Based on a review of existing literature and resources, it was determined that a survey of the state of the practice and case examples should be conducted to gather additional infor- mation and insights from state DOTs and MPOs about their activities related to assessing added highway capacity projects against other modal projects and strategies. Survey questionnaires were distributed to the DOTs of all 50 states and the District of Columbia as well as to MPOs that serve metropolitan regions with any or all of the fol- lowing: light, heavy, and commuter rail systems. Twenty-nine state DOTs completed the survey (a response rate of 58%) as did 15 MPOs. The specific modal projects and strategies selected for inclusion in plans, corridor/subarea plans and studies, and STIPs/TIPs by state DOTs and MPOs vary, with a greater number of modal projects and strategies included in plans. With smaller geographies, shorter timeframes for implementation, and a general need to more fully define design scopes and concepts, corridor/subarea plans and studies appear to include those modal projects and strategies that are the most consistent with executive-level–driven priorities in the case of state DOTs and member agency–driven priorities for MPOs. STIPs and TIPs include those modal projects and strategies for which funding is made available to ensure that projects programmed with federal funds are advanced. Crossmodal prioritization is the primary means for assessing added highway capacity projects against other modal projects and strategies. In terms of plans and corridor/subarea plans and studies, MPOs include other modal projects and strategies at a greater frequency in the crossmodal prioritizations conducted for these products. The difference in the rate of inclusion of other modal projects and strategies in crossmodal prioritizations for STIPs/TIPs is less marked. Fewer than half of state DOTs and MPOs that do not conduct crossmodal prioritization indicated that they anticipate doing so in future plans, corridor/subarea plans and studies, and STIPs/TIPs. Based on the survey responses, it was determined that case examples would provide a fuller understanding of the practices used by state DOTs and MPOs to compare adding highway capacity against the implementation of other types of initiatives. Accordingly, ten case examples—seven state DOTs (five currently conducting crossmodal prioritization and two that intend to do so in the future) and three MPOs—were produced that investi- gated the following topics related to the addition of highway capacity versus investment in other modes: • The impetus for conducting the assessment across modes; • Difficulties encountered in conducting the assessments; • Effects of state legislation on investment priorities; • Anticipated effects of forthcoming federal performance management requirements; • General attitudes of agency staff, the general public, and elected officials toward adding highway capacity; and • Associated needs (e.g., data, methods, and models) that can be met through future research.

Summary 3 These case examples led to the following conclusions: • The concept of a crossmodal prioritization method that levels the playing field between highways and other modes is very much desired, but in practice it is not widely used beyond a handful of agencies. • No transportation agency (state DOT, MPO, public transportation operator, or otherwise) is ideally positioned to carry out mode-neutral transportation policy making, planning, and investment decision making. • Legislation and funding mechanisms reinforce current roles and responsibilities, solidi- fying the culture of state DOTs as highway agencies with tangential responsibilities for nonmotorized modes and public transportation. • Regardless of difficulties associated with comparing added highway capacity projects to other modal projects and strategies, state DOTs and MPOs uniformly support additional data and tools, particularly related to nonmotorized modes, freight, and the effects of connected/automated vehicles. Worthwhile future research would address how best to provide data, resources, and tech- nical assistance on nonmotorized modes, freight, and the effects of connected/automated vehicles (and other emerging/disruptive technologies) to state DOTs and MPOs in as timely a manner as possible to allow for holistic assessments of system performance beyond the federal performance management requirements.