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.

17 Previous research demonstrates that there are potential frameworks and methods available to state DOTs and MPOs to conduct assessments of added highway capacity projects against other modes, but the lack of actual examples required more direct inquiry into how projects and strategies are considered and evaluated in statewide long-range plans, MTPs, corridor/subarea plans and studies, STIPs, and TIPs. Questionnaire Distribution and Response Survey questionnaires were distributed to the AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning, which includes all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and MPOs with any of the following: light, heavy, or commuter passenger rail systems operating within their urbanized area. The initial distribution occurred via email in February 2017, and a reminder was sent in March 2017. An additional email request was made by AASHTO staff in April 2017 to members of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning whose agencies had yet to complete the survey. Follow-up phone calls were made in April and May 2017 in a final attempt to get the desired response rate of 80% of state DOTs. Ultimately, 29 state DOTs completed the survey (a 58% response rate) as did 15 MPOs. The survey questionnaires for state DOTs and MPOs were similar, with the state DOT version including questions regarding the ownership, maintenance, and operation of public transportation services. Questionnaires (and summaries of the responses) are provided in Appendices A and B. The survey served as the primary means for identifying candidate agencies to serve as case examples. Select results from the survey responses are discussed below. Results Policies, Strategies, and Design Concepts and Scopes in Statewide Long-Range Plans and MTPs Of the 44 respondents (29 state DOTs and 15 MPOs), 42 included policies and strategies in their statewide long-range plans and MTPs (collectively, plans). Two state DOTs included design concepts and one included design scopes compared to 12 MPOs that included design concepts and 11 that included design scopes. This difference is likely explained by the require- ment that MPOs that are nonattainment or maintenance areas for National Ambient Air Quality Standards are required to include design concepts and scopes for existing and proposed facilities in their plans. There is no similar requirement of state DOTs for their statewide long-range plans and, unlike MPO plans, these plans are not required to demonstrate fiscal constraint. Of the C H A P T E R 3 State of the Practice Survey

18 How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies 29 state DOTs that completed the survey, 22 do not produce fiscally constrained statewide long- range plans. Modal Projects and Strategies Included in Plans, Corridor/Subarea Plans and Studies, and STIPs/TIPs State DOTs and MPOs include the same primary modal projects and strategies in their plans. Per Figure 5, all of the respondents include safety and bicycle lanes, and 80% or more of state DOTs and MPOs include highway expansion, local public transportation by bus, and operational Hi gh wa y E xp an sio n Lo ca l P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us Lo ca l P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail Co mm ute r P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us Co mm ute r P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail In ter cit y P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us In ter cit y P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail Sa fet y Op era tio na l a nd M an ag em en t S tra teg ies Fe rry B oa t In lan d W ate rw ay T ran sp or t Fr eig ht Ra il Bi cy cle L an e Pe de str ian W alk wa y M ult i-U se T rai l Av iat ion 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 C ou nt Hi gh wa y E xp an sio n Lo ca l P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us Lo ca l P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail Co mm ute r P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us Co mm ute r P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail In ter cit y P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us In ter cit y P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail Sa fet y Op era tio na l a nd M an ag em en t S tra teg ies Fe rry B oa t In lan d W ate rw ay T ran sp or t Fr eig ht Ra il Bi cy cle L an e Pe de str ian W alk wa y M ult i-U se T rai l Av iat ion 15 10 5 0 C ou nt State DOTs MPOs Figure 5. Modal elements included in plans.

State of the Practice Survey 19 management strategies, and pedestrian walkways. The largest differences between the two are the inclusion of aviation in state DOT plans (86% compared to 20% in MPO plans) and local public transportation by rail in MPO plans (93% compared to 45% in state DOT plans). Corridor/subarea plans and studies conducted by state DOTs include highway expansion, safety, operational management strategies, and bicycle lanes at a frequency of 80% or higher. Local public transportation by bus, commuter public transportation by bus, freight rail, and aviation are not as prevalent in corridor/subarea plans and studies as they were in the state DOT plans. All were above 80% in the plans but are included in less than 70% of corridor/subarea plans and studies, with aviation seeing the largest drop from 83% to 23%. MPOs, on the other hand, included all of the “high-frequency” modal projects and strategies from their plans (80% or greater inclusion) in corridor and subarea plans/studies: safety, bicycle lanes, highway expansion, local public transpor- tation by bus, local public transportation by rail, operational management strategies, pedestrian walkways, and multiuse trails. Figure 6 presents the modal projects and strategies included in corridor/subarea plans and studies by state DOTs and MPOs by number of occurrences. Figure 7 shows the inclusion of modal projects and strategies in TIPs and STIPs. Projects selected to receive FHWA and FTA funds (with limited exceptions), as well as regionally significant funds that require an action by FHWA or FTA regardless of fund source, must be programmed in the STIP and, in urbanized areas, the TIP in order to have funds obligated for project activities. As such, transportation agencies have the least discretion of what to include and not include in STIPs and TIPs as project sponsors’ reimbursements depend on their inclusion. Still, the high- frequency modal projects and strategies of the state DOTs and MPOs plans are, for the most part, reflected in STIPs and TIPs (with the exception of aviation for state DOTs because FAA funds are not programmed in the STIP). Consideration of Costs and Benefits in Plans, Corridor/Subarea Plans and Studies, and STIPs/TIPs The survey asked state DOTs and MPOs what costs (including “soft” costs for engineering, design, and environmental work) they consider or forecast in plans, corridor/subarea plans and studies, and STIPs/TIPs. The types of costs available for selection by respondents were initial construction, annualized maintenance, full lifecycle, and travel costs to households and businesses. Findings include the following: • State DOTs considered or forecast costs in their STIPs more than in their plans or corridor/ subarea plans and studies. • MPOs considered or forecast costs in their plans more than in their corridor/subarea plans and studies and TIPs. • The five modal projects and strategies for which costs were most commonly considered and forecast across all three major products by state DOTs were (1) highway expansion, (2) opera- tional and management strategies, (3) safety, (4) bicycle lane, and (5) pedestrian walkway. • The five modal projects and strategies for which costs were most commonly considered and forecast across all three major products by state MPOs were (1) local public transportation by bus, (2) highway expansion, (3) operational and management strategies, (4) local public transportation by rail, and (5) commuter public transportation by bus. • The five modal projects and strategies for which costs were least commonly considered and forecast across all three major products by state DOTs were (1) inland waterway transport, (2) ferry boat, (3) aviation, (4) local public transportation by rail, and (5) intercity public transportation by bus. • The five modal projects and strategies for which costs were least commonly considered and forecast across all three major products by MPOs were (1) inland waterway transport, (2) aviation, (3) ferry boat, (4) intercity public transportation by bus, and (5) freight rail.

20 How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies Hi gh wa y E xp an sio n Lo ca l P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us Lo ca l P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail Co mm ute r P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us Co mm ute r P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail In ter cit y P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us In ter cit y P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail Sa fet y Op era tio na l a nd M an ag em en t S tra teg ies Fe rry B oa t In lan d W ate rw ay T ran sp or t Fr eig ht Ra il Bi cy cle L an e Pe de str ian W alk wa y M ult i-U se T rai l Av iat ion 20 18 16 14 12 10 2 4 6 8 0 C ou nt Hi gh wa y E xp an sio n Lo ca l P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us Lo ca l P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail Co mm ute r P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us Co mm ute r P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail In ter cit y P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us In ter cit y P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail Sa fet y Op era tio na l a nd M an ag em en t S tra teg ies Fe rry B oa t In lan d W ate rw ay T ran sp or t Fr eig ht Ra il Bi cy cle L an e Pe de str ian W alk wa y M ult i-U se T rai l Av iat ion 15 10 5 0 C ou nt State DOTs MPOs Figure 6. Modal elements included in corridor/sub-area plans and studies.

State of the Practice Survey 21 Hi gh wa y E xp an sio n Lo ca l P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us Lo ca l P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail Co mm ute r P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us Co mm ute r P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail In ter cit y P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us In ter cit y P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail Sa fet y Op era tio na l a nd M an ag em en t S tra teg ies Fe rry B oa t In lan d W ate rw ay T ran sp or t Fr eig ht Ra il Bi cy cle L an e Pe de str ian W alk wa y M ult i-U se T rai l Av iat ion 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 C ou nt Hi gh wa y E xp an sio n Lo ca l P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us Lo ca l P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail Co mm ute r P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us Co mm ute r P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail In ter cit y P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us In ter cit y P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail Sa fet y Op era tio na l a nd M an ag em en t S tra teg ies Fe rry B oa t In lan d W ate rw ay T ran sp or t Fr eig ht Ra il Bi cy cle L an e Pe de str ian W alk wa y M ult i-U se T rai l Av iat ion 15 10 5 0 C ou nt State DOTs MPOs Figure 7. Modal projects and strategies included in STIPs/TIPs.

22 How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies The survey also asked state DOTs and MPOs what benefits they consider or forecast in plans, corridor/subarea plans and studies, and STIPs/TIPs. The types of costs available for selection by respondents included the following: • Improvement to condition assets, • Safety, • Efficiency/travel time savings, • Air quality, • Non-air environmental, • Equity/environmental justice, • Economic development effects, • Sustainability/resiliency, • Public health, and • Changes in the values of affected properties. Findings include the following: • State DOTs considered or forecast benefits in their STIPs more than in their plans or corridor/ subarea plans and studies. • MPOs considered or forecast benefits in their plans more than in their corridor/subarea plans and studies and TIPs. • The five modal projects and strategies for which benefits were most commonly considered and forecast across all three major products by state DOTs were (1) highway expansion, (2) opera- tional and management strategies, (3) bicycle lane, (4) safety, and (5) pedestrian walkway. • The five modal projects and strategies for which benefits were most commonly considered and forecast across all three major products by state MPOs were (1) highway expansion, (2) local public transportation by bus, (3) local public transportation by rail, (4) commuter public transportation by bus, and (5) bicycle lane. • The five modal projects and strategies for which benefits were least commonly considered and forecast across all three major products by state DOTs were (1) inland waterway transport, (2) ferry boat, (3) local public transportation by rail, (4) aviation, and (5) intercity public transportation by rail. • The five modal projects and strategies for which benefits were least commonly considered and forecast across all three major products by MPOs were (1) inland waterway transport, (2) aviation, (3) ferry boat, (4) intercity public transportation by bus, and (5) freight rail. BCA and Crossmodal Prioritization in Plans, Corridor/Subarea Plans and Studies, and STIPs/TIPs Most state DOTs and MPOs have demonstrated they can conduct BCA, albeit choosing to do so at different rates in the statewide and metropolitan planning and programming processes. As displayed in Figure 8, 45% of state DOTs conduct BCA as part of their corridor/subarea plans and studies, and 52% do so as part of their STIP. BCA generally requires design concepts at a minimum, so the much lower rate of BCA in state DOT plans is consistent with the low number of occurrences of design concepts and scopes included in these plans. At least one-third of MPOs that completed the survey conduct BCA for each initiative, with these analyses conducted for nearly 50% of plans and approximately 70% of corridor/subarea plans and studies. Regardless of the method used to conduct crossmodal prioritization of added highway capac- ity projects versus other modal projects and strategies, more MPOs undertake this assessment as part of each initiative than state DOTs. As presented in Figure 9, more than half of MPOs assess added highway capacity against other modal projects and strategies at the highest level of planning (the MTP) while the highest rate of crossmodal prioritization involving added highway capacity projects by state DOTs occurs in corridor/subarea plans and studies (33%).

State of the Practice Survey 23 There were 15 other modal projects and strategies included in the survey for respondents to choose. Only one state DOT conducts crossmodal prioritization in its plan, assessing safety and operational and management strategies against added highway capacity projects. Five of the seven MPOs that conduct crossmodal prioritization in their MTPs assess eight or more other modal projects and strategies against added highway capacity projects, and all of these MPOs include local public transportation by bus and local public transportation by rail in this assess- ment. The greatest number of other modal projects and strategies included in MTP crossmodal prioritizations is 11, by two MPOs, and the least is 4, by one MPO. Figure 10 presents the other modal projects and strategies included in the MTPs of the MPOs that responded to the survey. Per Figure 11, the MPOs that responded to the survey include a greater number of other modal projects and strategies in the crossmodal prioritization conducted as part of their corridor/subarea plans and studies than the state. Eighty percent of the responding MPOs assessed the following Figure 8. BCA conducted by type of initiative and type of agency. Figure 9. Crossmodal prioritization conducted by type of initiative and type of agency.

24 How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies other modal projects and strategies against added highway capacity in their corridor/subarea plans and studies: • Local public transportation by bus, • Local public transportation by rail, • Commuter public transportation by bus, • Commuter public transportation by rail, • Safety, • Operational and management strategies, and • Multiuse trail. The only other modal projects and strategies that state DOTs include in their crossmodal prior- itizations in corridor/subarea plans and studies at the same rate (80%) are safety and operational and management strategies. All of the state DOTs and MPOs include operational and management strategies and bicycle lanes in the crossmodal prioritizations conducted for their STIPs and TIP, respectively. Consistent with plans and corridor/subarea plans and studies, MPOs assess the local and commuter public transportation modes at a greater frequency than state DOTs. While MPOs include nonmotorized modes in crossmodal prioritizations conducted for their MTPs and corridor/subarea plans or studies at a higher rate than state DOTs, the state DOTs include nonmotorized projects in the cross- modal prioritizations for their STIPs more frequently than MPOs. The other modal projects and strategies included in STIPs and TIPs are presented in Figure 12. Of the state DOTs and MPOs that do not conduct crossmodal prioritization in their three major products, most do not anticipate doing so in the next iteration of their plans, corridor/subarea plans and studies, and STIPs/TIPs. As presented in Figure 13, state DOTs have stated a higher likelihood of conducting crossmodal prioritization in each of the three major projects, with the largest percentage responding that they would do so as part of future corridor/subarea plans and studies if such were to be undertaken. Lo ca l P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us Lo ca l P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail Co mm ute r P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us Co mm ute r P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail In ter cit y P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us In ter cit y P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail Sa fet y Op era tio na l a nd M an ag em en t S tra teg ies Fe rry B oa t In lan d W ate rw ay T ran sp or t Fr eig ht Ra il Bi cy cle L an e Pe de str ian W alk wa y M ult i-U se T rai l 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 75.0% 100.0% MPOs Figure 10. Modal projects and strategies included in crossmodal prioritization in plans.

State of the Practice Survey 25 Lo ca l P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us Lo ca l P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail Co mm ute r P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us Co mm ute r P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail In ter cit y P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us In ter cit y P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail Sa fet y Op era tio na l a nd M an ag em en t S tra teg ies In lan d W ate rw ay T ran sp or t Fr eig ht Ra il Bi cy cle L an e Pe de str ian W alk wa y M ult i-U se T rai l Av iat ion Lo ca l P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us Lo ca l P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail Co mm ute r P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us Co mm ute r P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail In ter cit y P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail Sa fet y Op era tio na l a nd M an ag em en t S tra teg ies In lan d W ate rw ay T ran sp or t Fr eig ht Ra il Bi cy cle L an e Pe de str ian W alk wa y M ult i-U se T rai l Av iat ion State DOTs MPOs 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 75.0% 100.0% 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 75.0% 100.0% Figure 11. Modal projects and strategies included in crossmodal prioritization in corridor/subarea plans and studies.

26 How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies State DOTs MPOs Lo ca l P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us Lo ca l P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail Co mm ute r P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us Co mm ute r P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail In ter cit y P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail In ter cit y P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us Sa fet y Op era tio na l a nd M an ag em en t S tra teg ies Fr eig ht Ra il Fe rry B oa t Bi cy cle L an e Pe de str ian W alk wa y M ult i-U se T rai l 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 75.0% 100.0% Lo ca l P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us Lo ca l P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail Co mm ute r P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us Co mm ute r P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail In ter cit y P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –R ail In ter cit y P ub lic T ran sp or tat ion –B us Sa fet y Op era tio na l a nd M an ag em en t S tra teg ies Fr eig ht Ra il Bi cy cle L an e Pe de str ian W alk wa y M ult i-U se T rai l 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 75.0% 100.0% Figure 12. Modal projects and strategies included in crossmodal prioritization in STIPs/TIPs.

State of the Practice Survey 27 Summary State DOT and MPO plans are produced consistent with the intent of the federal regula- tions that require them to provide a long-range perspective of existing and projected needs and opportunities and associated policies and strategies to provide direction to more detailed, near-term planning and investment decisions. MPO plans tend to include more project-level detail, which may be due to current or previous status relative to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or the need to demonstrate fiscal constraint (i.e., more specificity is needed to justify costs and benefits related to long-term needs), or both. The specific modal projects and strategies selected for inclusion in plans, corridor/subarea plans and studies, and STIPs/TIPs by state DOTs and MPOs are generally what would be expected based on the purpose, timeframe, and geography covered by these initiatives. Plans are broader in scope and longer in time horizon and cover a greater number of factors, including modal projects and strategies that are integral to safe and efficient system operation but not necessarily fully within the purview of state DOTs and MPOs (at least in terms of funding improvements), such as freight rail. 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. Added highway capacity policies and projects are included in most of the plans, corridor/ subarea plans and studies, and STIPs/TIPs developed by the state DOTs and MPOs that completed the survey—one MPO did not include added highway capacity policies and projects in its MTP and another did not include them in its TIP. Most of these transportation agencies conduct BCA, which provides a mechanism for crossmodal prioritization. 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. Less 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. Figure 13. State DOTs that do not conduct crossmodal prioritization but anticipate doing so in the future by type of initiative and type of agency.