National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Chapter 4 - Case Examples
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Conclusions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Conclusions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Conclusions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25222.
×
Page 53

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.

51 Based on the review of literature, a survey of 29 state DOTs and 15 MPOs regarding the state of the practice, and case examples, it is apparent that assessing added highway capacity projects versus other modal projects and strategies by state DOTs and MPOs is neither widespread nor sufficiently advanced beyond a handful of agencies that have developed customized methods to allow for prioritization across select modes included in their plans and capital programs. The method for this synthesis was valuable in that it led to increased findings about why added capacity is not assessed against other modal alternatives as frequently as assumed when this topic was originally identified as a research priority. One surveyed DOT included a statement in their response that the author of this synthesis has paraphrased so as to retain the respondent’s anonymity consistent with the state DOTs and MPOs used as case examples. This paraphrase follows: We have a very mature and robust strategic prioritization process, which is codified in law. The intent of the law is to fund the best transportation projects, regardless of mode. However, it is very challenging to effectively and fairly compare six different modes of transportation as each of these has a different pur- pose. In partnership with nationally renowned consultants and peers from other states, we have explored potential options, but determined that there wasn’t an equitable way to make this comparison without favoring one mode versus another. The state DOTs and MPOs that served as the case examples shared sentiments similar to the statement above. These included gaps in understanding how to calculate benefits for other modal projects and strategies consistent with that for added highway capacity projects, and if this would actually achieve mode-neutral evaluation. In each of the case examples, state DOTs and MPOs approached the project and strategy evaluation process as an ongoing effort with iterative improvements being made as data and tools evolved. There was a strong desire for increased dialogue with peers to gain a better understanding of how to improve not only the assessment of added highway capacity projects against other modal projects and strategies but also the other modal projects and strategies against themselves. The following are the findings of this synthesis. More an Ideal than a Practice The concept of a crossmodal prioritization method that levels the playing field between high- ways and other modes is very much desired by transportation agencies at all levels. The primary motivation for this, based on the research for this synthesis, is most admirable: Professionals at state DOTs and MPOs are committed to ensuring that the limited resources available to opti- mize the transportation system’s contributions to quality of life and economic development are being put to the highest and best use. The findings of this synthesis indicate that capturing all of the benefits and costs resulting from every modal project and strategy and then normalizing them from a monetary standpoint in a manner accepted by most stakeholders would require C H A P T E R 5 Conclusions

52 How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies significant agreement on values. Even so, most state DOTs and MPOs actively assessing added highway capacity projects against other modal projects and strategies exhibit a modesty about their efforts, assuming that others are doing more than they are when this is not the reality. Required Institutional Structures 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. State DOTs own, operate, and are responsible for maintaining most of the most heavily used highways in the nation. The most heavily used public transportation systems are under the auspices of transit authorities or other entities that (with few exceptions) have policy-making and investment decision-making functions that are independent of state DOTs. MPOs are responsible for conducting the federally required continuous, comprehensive, and cooperative transportation planning process that includes state DOTs, public transportation operators, and local governments (more and more of which are now raising significant revenues for transportation on their own), but with exceptions do not own transportation infrastructure or operate transit services. In short, state DOTs and MPOs are often looked to as the appropriate organizations on which to place the responsibility for ensuring the proper allocation or apportion- ment of funds to projects across modes. Absent a major transformation of transportation agen- cies at the state and metropolitan levels that redistributes (and likely consolidates) authority, this responsibility is misplaced. Entrenched Acceptance As noted previously, more than 300,000 miles of public roads have been added over the last 30 years. Additional public transportation services and the associated increases in infrastructure and vehicles to provide these services can likely be justified within and between urbanized areas, but many areas will need to be connected by highways for most passenger and freight trips, especially the last mile for freight. As observed by the representative from State DOT A: “We’ve built roads for the last 100 years. No one wants [us] to build more roads, but they want to keep driving.” This attitude garners the support of elected officials and leads to limitations on how state transportation funding can be invested. The prevailing opinion of the elected officials represent- ing these individuals is that if drivers provide the bulk of transportation revenues through fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees, and the like, then those funds should be reinvested in roads regard- less of whether investments in other modes may actually improve the reliability and efficiency of the highway network. This, in turn, reinforces current roles and responsibilities, solidifying the culture of state DOTs as highway agencies with tangential responsibilities for nonmotorized modes and public transportation. Filling the Toolbox Regardless of the difficulties associated with comparing added highway capacity projects to other modal projects and strategies, the state DOTs and MPOs interviewed as case examples for this synthesis uniformly support additional data for the following modes and topics: • Bicycle and pedestrian usage and operating characteristics (including safety), • Freight movement data that are more refined for incorporation into models, and • CAV effects and methods for incorporation into models. Beyond enhanced data, state DOTs and MPOs expressed a desire for associated tools to better address current gaps in their understanding of and ability to calculate the value of benefits for

Conclusions 53 all modes. A combination of analytical tools and high-quality data is deemed a necessity by state DOTs and MPOs for the purpose of evaluating the performance of the transportation system. This system-level evaluation will take on greater importance as state DOTs and MPOs become more familiar with the federal performance management requirements and how such require- ments will affect their planning and programming processes. Future Research and Activities Independent of the modal preferences of the public and elected officials, the ability of state DOTs and MPOs to assess added highway capacity projects versus other modal projects and strategies is dependent on additional data, an improved ability to quantify and normalize benefits, and how decision-making processes are structured and by whom within the agencies. Specific research activities to be considered include the following: • Cost-effective production or provision of data, or both, on usage and operating characteristics for nonmotorized modes and freight movements that are similar to what is available for high- ways and public transportation. To be most useful, the data would be available systemwide with the ability to be parsed to corridors, neighborhoods, business districts, and other geographies for incorporation into models and BCA tools. • Means for integrating connected/automated vehicle effects into macroscopic, mesoscopic, and microscopic models. Current projections of the increased efficiency gained and resulting highway capacity needs vary greatly, creating difficulties in assessing the risk of various added highway capacity investments over their full lifecycle. This degree of uncertainty limits the use of BCA for crossmodal prioritization, because many investments are expected to have service lives in excess of 50 years. • Developing meaningful yet comprehensible methods for state DOTs and MPOs to compare projects and strategies consistently, irrespective of mode. This would provide the basis for sound investment decisions that can be easily communicated to nontechnical stakeholders. As an example, the benefits and costs of a new commuter passenger rail line and additional lanes on an interstate would be standardized, allowing transportation agency staff, elected officials, and the public to understand clearly how the projects compare against common criteria. • Greater understanding of how state DOTs and MPOs develop, assess, and modify their STIP/TIP development practices and the resulting emphasis on various modal projects and strategies in the capital programming process. This would include what roles various internal functions (e.g., planning, design, and finance) play in selecting proposal evaluation criteria, reviewing the effect of existing investment principles against changes in system performance, and addressing other pertinent factors. Overall, there is a commitment by state DOTs and MPOs to maximize the use of limited resources by advancing their collective abilities to make enhanced investment decisions. These investment decisions occur throughout the planning and programming processes that state DOTs and MPOs undertake. A full understanding of how to assess added highway capacity projects against other modal projects and strategies at each stage is critical to fulfilling this commitment.

Next: References »
How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 529: How Transportation Agencies Assess the Value of Added Capacity Highway Projects Versus Other Modal Projects and Strategies summarizes the methods and policies used by state departments of transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to evaluate and compare different types of transportation improvement strategies. This information will help to quantify the full spectrum of benefits, costs, and economic impacts of transportation improvement strategies. Download the following appendices that accompany the report:

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!