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.

4 Background The delivery of safe, efficient, and reliable transportation infrastructure and services is a major determinant of economic competitiveness and quality of life. The agencies tasked with provid- ing mobility and accessibility for people and freight have a responsibility for ensuring that their decisions result in the highest and best use of the limited resources available to them. State DOTs own, operate, and maintain those highway systems across the United States that carry the most traveled person-miles and ton-miles. State DOTs are required to cooperate and consult with affected parties in urban and rural areas regarding their decisions about priorities and projects before implementation. MPOs were created and exist for the purpose of planning and implementing multimodal transportation systems in urbanized areas that result from a cooperative process that includes state, regional, and local stakeholders. MPOs are required to include operators of public transportation in their federally mandated planning process; the same is not true of state DOTs. This difference, coupled with the fact that most MPOs neither own, nor operate, nor maintain transportation infrastructure and services, would appear to provide other modal projects and strategies greater consideration in the MPO planning process compared to the state DOT planning process. Key Decision Points in Statewide and Metropolitan Planning and Programming Processes The decisions made by state DOTs and MPOs to invest in added highway capacity versus other modal projects and strategies are 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 selection of projects to be included in the respective capital program is determined based on the direction provided by agency management, legislative mandate, and input from stakeholders at other levels of government and the public. Given the level of federal investment in the surface transportation system, these decisions typically align with the three major planning projects required by and allowed for under title 23 § 450 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Statewide long-range transportation plans and MTPs are required to have multidecade plan- ning horizons (no less than 20 years) and typically emphasize strategies to drive more near-term decision making in STIPs and TIPs as well as the identification and evaluation of potential alternatives in plans with more limited geographies, such as corridors or districts. In some cases, these long-range plans contain specific projects with design concepts or scopes, but this practice is limited among both state DOTs and MPOs. The primary purpose of these plans is to C H A P T E R 1 Introduction

Introduction 5 set the direction for activities that maintain the existing functional capabilities of infrastructure (e.g., asset management and operations and management programs) and create parameters for identifying those projects that will increase the capacity, safety, and reliability of the system as identified in subsequent corridor/subarea plans and studies. When corridor/subarea plans and studies are conducted, they include more detailed systems- level analysis to identify and assess potential alternatives to select those for further refinement and eliminate those not warranting further development. This more detailed analysis can involve a sufficient level of investigation to be incorporated or included by reference in the project devel- opment process required by the National Environmental Protection Act. This level of planning also includes public review and opportunity to comment on alternatives that provide a level of specificity whereby interested parties can supply input that can supplement professional judgement with respect to the mode, alignment, and level of service desired. This can be a noteworthy factor when an agency weighs various possible projects for programming in its STIP or TIP. Both STIPs and TIPs are required to be fiscally constrained. This requires that projects included therein not total more than the revenues reasonably expected to be available over the term of the program (a period of no less than 4 years, with any projects included beyond that timeframe being considered informational only). It is in this federally required product where the final evaluation and prioritization of projects is undertaken and the determination of whether or not added highway capacity provides greater benefits relative to costs than other modal projects and strategies occurs. Federal funds are provided on a reimbursement basis and, when reimbursements are made for preconstruction activities (i.e., scoping, design, and right-of-way incidentals and acquisition), they must be paid back if the project is not advanced to completion. This adds another level of commitment to the selection of one modal element over another as part of the programming process. Those projects that state DOTs and MPOs have the most experience in planning, programming, and delivering appear to enjoy a distinct advantage in being selected for inclusion in STIPs and TIPs. Existing and Approved Infrastructure and Services Both state DOTs and MPOs must not only consider but also appreciate the significant investment that has been made in the existing system as this prior allocation of resources to certain modal projects and strategies is reflected in its current and projected contribution to the economic competitiveness of the United States and the quality of life enjoyed by its residents. With that said, state DOTs and MPOs continually strive to improve mobility and accessibility for people and freight. Offering additional opportunities for underserved individuals and areas through new facilities remains a high priority. Traditionally, these opportunities have come through added highway capacity that connects individuals to current and anticipated employment centers. The prevalence of these employment prospects being served by highways— either by automobile or local bus public transportation—is a result of decades of investment at all levels. Federal investment in highways via a dedicated bureaucracy began with a charge limited to inquiries to state and local governments about their practices of building and maintaining high- ways. These activities were undertaken by what would become the Bureau of Public Roads, the predecessor to FHWA, with an appropriation of $10,000 in 1893, its initial year of operation (FHWA 1976). Over the last 125 years, the Federal-Aid Highway Program has grown in scope, responsibility, and budget, both before and after the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act that led to the creation of the Interstate System. Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2017 FHWA apportionments to states and the District of Columbia totaled $40.5 billion before post-apportionment set asides, penalties, and sequestration.

6 How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies By contrast, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, the predecessor to FTA, was created in 1964 to provide financial assistance for public transportation projects. A decade later, in 1974, a dedicated formula grant program was created. As its name signified, its primary role was to serve the needs of cities. In 1991 the agency was renamed FTA, and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act elevated its role by allowing states and MPOs to use FHWA funds for public transportation projects. FTA apportionments for grant programs totaled $6.6 billion in FFY 2017, including dedicated funds for rural and small urban areas. Beyond federal aid, many states and localities appeal directly to voters for funding to imple- ment transportation projects, programs, and services. Based on a database created and analyzed by the Eno Center for Transportation, 436 ballot measures seeking more than $250 billion were put before voters in 34 states on Election Day (November 8) 2016. As Eno noted, “While transit garnered a lot of attention and did well on Election Day, most ballot measures covered our ailing roads and bridges” (Eno Center for Transportation 2016). Roads and bridges, and transit had similar success rates at the polls (68.8% and 70.7%, respectively); however, there were six times as many roads and bridges ballot measures voted on as transit ones. Figure 1 presents the results of the Election Day 2016 ballots by modal element. The Election Day 2016 ballot measures and the associated results are consistent with the level of growth in highway facilities compared to other modes. Between 1985 and 2014 (the latest year for which data are available), public road mileage in the 50 states and the District of Columbia increased by more than 310,000 miles. During the same period, the mileage for commuter rail, heavy rail, and light rail public transportation increased by 6,043 miles, with 70% of this increase attributable to commuter rail. Intercity passenger rail (Amtrak) and Class 1 freight railroad mileage declined by 2,644 miles and 51,392 miles, respectively. Figure 2 displays mileage by mode from 1985 to 2014. Source: Eno Center for Transportation, 2016. Figure 1. Pass or fail of Election Day 2016 transportation ballot measures by mode.

Introduction 7 Over this same period (1985–2014), absolute growth in passenger-miles-traveled on high- ways increased nearly 1.4 billion miles, while passenger-miles on rail increased approximately 17.1 million miles. The relative change was very similar with highway passenger-miles-traveled increasing 45.1% and passenger rail miles-traveled increasing 43.7%. However, the additional investment in the various modes has yielded different returns in terms of additional passenger- miles-traveled per new mile of system added. Figure 3 shows heavy rail, which carried 24.1 million additional passenger-miles for every new mile added, at the high end. This was 5.5 times more than highway (4.3 million additional passenger-miles for every new mile added), which was 3.6 times higher than commuter rail and 2.8 times higher than light rail, respectively. New capacity on highways is also being gained by using additional space on existing facilities designed for but not originally intended to accommodate vehicle traffic. A key example of this is the use of freeway shoulders for travel under certain circumstances. Existing examples of this practice date to the 1990s and primarily occur via bus-only use of shoulders, use by most (if not all) vehicles during predetermined periods, and use of shoulders as needed based on real-time conditions (Jenior et al. 2016). Beyond increasing capacity through physical expansion and addition, transportation agencies have also recognized and (to varying degrees) embraced technology to better manage their infra- structure and programs. From the introduction of the first tricolored traffic signal in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1914, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) have enabled improved operations. Early electronic mapping applications, ramp management (including to enhance public transportation), dynamic message signs, and vehicle detection systems have been deployed for the past 35 years. The 1980s ushered in the recognition that coordination was necessary to maximize the benefits provided by technology. TRANSCOM was formed in 1986 to serve the New York City Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics, Table 1-1: System Mileage within the United States (Updated April 2017) Figure 2. System mileage within the United States, 1985–2014.

8 How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies metropolitan area, which includes portions of New Jersey and Connecticut. “In its early years, TRANSCOM was important for recognizing the institutional dimension to technology development and deployment. Since that time, TRANSCOM’s role has expanded to include a multiagency testbed for implementing ITS technologies” (Auer, Feese, and Lockwood 2016). Advances in technology continue to accelerate, and integrated strategies that harness the poten- tial of vehicles and infrastructure connected to each other are projected to increase throughput (vehicle- and passenger-miles-traveled) on existing capacity and improve safety. Even with this growth in highway capacity (including its maximization through ITS and system management and operations) and, as noted, a much lesser degree in high-capacity pub- lic transportation, the case for expansion across all modes of travel at the national level and in urban areas in particular is acknowledged. According to AASHTO, expanding highways is a critical need as usage of the Interstate System saw a 150% increase between 1980 and 2006 while capacity (as measured by lane miles) saw a concomitant increase of only 15%. AASHTO recognized that this is only part of the solution, calling for measures to be taken to double transit ridership between 2010 and 2030 (in part with an 89% increase in federal assistance for transit) and to invest $50 billion in intercity passenger rail transportation inclusive of high-speed rail (AASHTO 2010). It is against this backdrop of well-defined planning and investment decision-making processes for an aging transportation system and the need for additional infrastructure to fulfill stated and revealed needs that this synthesis report identifies the extent to which added highway capacity projects are assessed against other modal projects and strategies. In those instances where trans- portation agencies are conducting these assessments or have expressed a desire to do so in the future, the impetus, difficulties, effects of state legislation (if any) and forthcoming federal per- formance requirements, and prevailing attitudes toward highway expansions and additions have been identified. Common themes and needed resources to better enable evaluations of added Source: T.Y. Lin International analysis of Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics, Table 1-1: System Mileage within the United States (Updated April 2017) and Table 1-40: U.S. Passenger-Miles (Millions) (Updated April 2017). 30.000 25.000 20.000 15.000 10.000 5.000 0.000 Highway Commuter rail Heavy rail Light rail Figure 3. Millions of additional passenger-miles traveled per new system mile by mode, 1985–2014.

Introduction 9 highway capacity projects against nonhighway projects and strategies are presented to inform future discussion and, potentially, research. Synthesis Objective The objective of this synthesis is to summarize the methods and policies used by state DOTs and MPOs to evaluate and compare different types of transportation improvement strategies. This synthesis identifies how the value of different types of transportation projects is calculated to determine the best use of public funds to increase mode choices, reduce congestion, improve travel times, improve safety, and efficiently move freight. Study Approach This synthesis used various methods to identify how transportation agencies evaluate and compare different types of transportation improvement strategies. These included (1) a literature review of domestic practice to gain an understanding of previous research conducted on assess- ments of added highway capacity projects versus other modal projects and strategies, (2) a survey of state DOTs and select MPOs whose urbanized areas included some form of rail-based public transportation (a high-capacity alternative to highway expansion and addition), and (3) 10 case examples of state DOTs and select MPOs (those with rail-based public transportation) that conduct these assessments as part of their planning and programming processes or plan to do so in the future. The literature review revealed that there is a lack of prior research that directly discusses state DOTs’ and MPOs’ assessment of added highway capacity projects against other alternatives; previous work involves higher level discussions about broader policies and activities such as performance-based planning and programming, crossmodal prioritization, and resource allo- cation across asset classes. As would be expected, the limited examples of actual assessment of added highway capacity projects versus other modal projects and strategies by state DOTs and MPOs in practice restricted the ability of the survey to provide a complete understanding of the gamut of issues affecting said assessment. Accordingly, additional case examples were added to the scope of the synthesis (ten were conducted as opposed to four as originally proposed) to cover a wider range of projects and obtain meaningful insights. The survey questionnaires and the associated graphic summaries of the responses for state DOTs and MPOs, respectively, as well as the case example interview guide are provided as appendices. Organization This synthesis consists of five chapters (as well as references and a glossary): • Chapter 1, Introduction, provides the purpose of this synthesis, a description of key decision points in the selection of projects, an overview of the current extent and usage of the primary modes of travel, and the approach used to conduct the research. • Chapter 2, Review of Literature and Practice, discusses the history, existing knowledge base, and trends in transportation agencies’ consideration of alternatives to the expansion of highways (altogether new facilities and additional lanes on existing ones) as a means of increasing capacity. • Chapter 3, State of the Practice Survey, presents an overview of the modal projects and strategies that select state DOTs and MPOs include in their long-range statewide transportation plans/ MTPs, corridor/subarea plans and studies, and STIPs/TIPs, including whether or not added highway capacity projects are compared to other modal projects and strategies.

10 How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies • Chapter 4, Case Examples, provides insights on how the value of added highway capacity projects is assessed versus that of other modal projects and strategies and presents associated issues and opportunities at seven state DOTs and three MPOs. • Chapter 5, Conclusions, summarizes the key findings of this synthesis and the proposed next steps related to research needs. The references section lists the academic and professional resources consulted to produce the background and literature review components of the synthesis; these resources were instrumental in developing the survey and interview questionnaires. The glossary provides definitions for some of the terms used in the synthesis. The appendices from the contractor’s final report present the survey questionnaires for state DOTs and MPOs, summaries of the results for the questionnaires, and the case example interview/ discussion guide instruments used to gather data; these appendices can be found on the TRB website by searching for “NCHRP Synthesis 529.”