White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments (2020)

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 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments 1. Introduction to Research Assessment White Papers This technical appendix includes three white papers developed as part of NCHRP Project 19-14, “Right-Sizing Transportation Investments.” The white papers were developed through the use document research, interviews with practitioners, and case examples to address key topics of relevance to right-sizing through an assessment of the current state of practice and research. The three white papers address: 1. The role of jurisdictional transfer in right-sizing. 2. Approaches to right-sizing through establishment of performance targets and consideration of performance trade-offs. 3. Right-sizing through project (and network) design. While the research from these white papers has in some cases resulted in similar content in the final project guidance document, the white papers in their entirety can serve as an additional resource for readers interested in more in-depth findings and context not incorporated into the guidebook. The following sections of this chapter summarize takeaways from each of the white papers that are attached in full as subsequent chapters. Note that while there is some duplication of content, this chapter is intended to provide an overview of the more detailed content subsequently presented. 1.1. Findings Related to Jurisdictional Responsibility and Ownership While not all right-sizing projects involve a change in jurisdictional responsibility and ownership, jurisdictional transfer can be a key tool for implementing right-sizing plans and agreements. Moreover, the inability to reach agreement about jurisdictional transfer, or appropriate practices to follow for transfers within the context of different right-sizing agreements can be an impediment to effectively right-sizing transportation investments. For these reasons, explicit treatment of state policies governing jurisdictional transfers is warranted. Insights from the application of state jurisdictional transfer policies to right-sizing scenarios can be organized into the following areas: (1) Representing the potential need for jurisdictional transfer; (2) Identifying and analyzing the transfer options; (3) Implementation, including negotiations and costs to transfer; and (4) Lessons learned and conclusions for right-sizing. 1

2 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments Understanding the above from practical examples of the current state of the practice is instructive for developing a roadmap of how agencies can and should approach the role of jurisdictional transfers within right-sizing scenarios. It is important to learn from both the successes and unresolved challenges of jurisdictional transfer policies to date from recognition of need, through evaluation and implementation. Three Instructive Examples  Three jurisdictional transfer policies are featured to highlight the opportunities, processes, and challenges of including a jurisdictional transfer in a transportation right-sizing solution. Each example demonstrates some aspects of lessons learned (how the process can be improved) as well as success factors (approaches known to work). These examples include:  Caltrans: Jurisdictional Relinquishment as Right-Sizing  MnDOT: Jurisdictional Realignment as a Means of Right-Sizing  ADOT: Jurisdictional Transfer and Low-volume Roads Caltrans: Jurisdictional Relinquishment as Right‐Sizing  California’s State Highway System (SHS) is defined by Section 300 of the California Streets and Highways Code. In practice, Caltrans interprets the mission of the SHS as being oriented toward serving interregional travel and providing for longer-distance connections of statewide importance, rather than local-serving travel. Over time, however, the original purpose of certain parts of the SHS has evolved to be out of alignment with this overall statewide objective. Caltrans is aware of locations where road segments on the SHS are serving more as local arterials or main streets than as intercity highways. Addressing this mismatch, Caltrans has a series of processes in place to achieve relinquishment of portions of the SHS to applicable local governments. There are four formal types of relinquishments: (1) Legislative enactment (locality requests transfer through CALTRANS) (2) Superseded by relocation (state facility has new alignment; hence old facility is transferred) (3) Collateral facilities (state relinquishes a frontage/backage or supporting roadway) (4) Nonmotorized Transportation Facilities (bicycle, pedestrian, or equestrian facilities) While jurisdictional transfers can always appear as right-sizing from the state’s point of view (matching the statewide resources to statewide needs), in many cases California’s relinquishment policy also supports local jurisdictions in fully embracing a local purpose by greatly streamlining the approvals and state design codes associated with complete streets, bike lanes or even in some cases restaurant seating in street right-of-way. The need for jurisdictional transfer may also occur when state ownership becomes an impediment to land development. For example, developers may face a dual permitting process with both local governments and the state when building new sidewalks or driveways that encroach onto a state highway segment. In these cases, the mismatch might be best addressed by changing the ownership status of the roads. There are also specific regulatory situations in which local ownership enables particular types of changes to the nature of infrastructure that would not be possible under state

3 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments ownerships. These include situations such as a park-and-rides adjacent to mixed-use development where regulations that apply to state facilities restrict how revenues can be raised and locals want more flexibility for development, as well as other situations that involve the generation of revenue on parts of the SHS. In addition to an ongoing process of locally initiated transfers, in 2012, Caltrans undertook an overall program review effort aimed at being more strategic about how agency resources are used. One outcome of the review was a recommendation that the Caltrans develop a strategy to accomplish the relinquishment of designated routes no longer required as part of the State Highway System that remain Caltrans responsibility. Caltrans is saddled with many road segments that were once intercity trunk routes but that now serve as local arterials. These “stroads” ‒ street-road hybrids ‒ are problematic, because Caltrans frequently imposes auto- centric standards, e.g., by restricting curb bump outs or refuge islands that would improve pedestrian safety in an urban environment. They also require Caltrans resources for maintenance and rebuilding, even though they serve mostly local travelers. Caltrans is already categorizing such facilities to identify streets (some of which never leave city limits) that are good candidates for transfer. Caltrans’ interest in relinquishment is two-fold: First, the agency is interested in reducing lifecycle cost responsibilities which would enable a shift of resources toward actions that are more in line with the DOT mission of serving interregional and statewide travel needs. Second, Caltrans wishes to facilitate, where appropriate, the better meeting of local needs and preferences in terms of the design and function of a road and its compatibility with the surrounding development context. This latter objective has increased in importance over time as Caltrans engages in a more focused manner in complete streets initiatives and associated goals of sustainability and livability, as well as in consideration of land-use transportation interactions. However, there is some anticipation at Caltrans that as the agency becomes more flexible in addressing complete streets type improvements, this may in fact reduce the local incentive for jurisdictional transfers, even when roads are more local serving. When assessing requests for jurisdictional transfer, Caltrans considers factors such as:  The history of the facility, including consideration of whether context-sensitive solutions would be supported by the transfer,  Trends and forecasts in car and truck traffic volumes,  Origin-destination patterns,  Truck traffic,  Destinations and trip purposes served,  Local development plans or trends, and  Costs associated with making the relinquishment operable when turned over (usually in the form of funding for the assuming entity or in the form of an in-kind project by the state prior to transfer).

4 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments The negotiation process for transfers centers on negotiation regarding the cost of relinquishments (and assumption of costs), with formal and legally binding Cooperative Agreements codifying the transfer agreement. The Caltrans example shows how  jurisdictional relinquishment  is and can be a means of achieving a  more right‐sized transportation system, not only from the perspective of reducing a state’s lifecycle cost  burden, but also ‒ and more importantly ‒ by enabling a better matching between local preferences and  development contexts and infrastructure design and operations. The case is particularly instructive in  pointing out how  the  frequency and extent of developers or municipalities challenging state design  guidelines  can be an  indicator of a  right‐sizing  situation  that may  involve a  jurisdictional  transfer.  Furthermore, California’s proactive development of policies and opportunities for jurisdictional transfer  demonstrates that jurisdictional transfer is increasingly understood as a matter of statewide investment  strategy, and not simply a case‐by‐case occurrence.  MnDOT: Jurisdictional Realignment as a Means of Right‐Sizing  Starting around 2011, The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) embarked upon a jurisdictional realignment project the purpose of which was to “ensure that Minnesota roads are owned and operated at the right jurisdictional level.” Prior evaluations completed in the 1980s and 1990s began to describe the issue at a system level and define objectives for realignment but never achieved adequate closure in terms of a defining an actionable program that could then be incorporated into MnDOT’s work going forward. The most recent effort sought to close this gap by from a holistic perspective (a) defining the goals of realignment, and (b) determining what it would take (in terms of process as well as funding) to achieve this objective. In effect, MnDOT’s effort views jurisdictional realignment as a means toward right-sizing in the sense that it brings agencies together to determine what best fits a specific context, and what best serves the public. The DOT outlines a series of indicators for misaligned roads including:  Misaligned roads may not provide appropriate level of service for users in terms of both capacity and customer expectations such as safety, ride quality, and maintenance.  Misaligned roads may use the wrong source of funding, which may not contain required funds for improvements. This may result in a lower service level than if the road was properly aligned/owned by the appropriate jurisdiction.  Misaligned roads may lead to an “impaired” network of roads due to differing jurisdiction priorities (that is, the road conditions may change significantly while traveling and may not meet traveler’s expectations).  Misaligned roads may not receive the priority for funding or improvements, and as a result, misaligned roads that are widely used may be underserved while others may be over-served. Local government interest in acquiring a piece of state trunk highway stems from operational, design, and priority-related considerations. From an operational standpoint, local agencies can respond more quickly to maintenance needs (e.g., at a signal), whereas the state maintenance force may be an hour or two away. Aligning maintenance activity with a local agency provides a better level of service. If ownership is fragmented, MnDOT and localities may have different approaches to programming maintenance (such as seal coats) that can lead to inconsistencies across a route with respect to the ride quality experienced by the public. Ownership also has

5 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments direct implications for prioritization. For a facility that might not reach the top of a list when competing at the state level, local ownership can enable a higher priority. Finally, when it comes to design, urban and suburban governments (less so rural governments) see value in local decision making for things like access control, rather than being subject to a statewide standard. Local control offers local governments the flexibility to provide a level of service that is more uniform across the network in their jurisdiction. This is also important because from a user/customer perspective, complaints tend to be directed to the most local jurisdiction as drivers cannot “see” ownership. Although some local agencies are willing to take on ownership of roads “as is,” there is typically a cost to implement a jurisdictional realignment. Funding for these types of improvements can occur through: (1) a specific allocation for jurisdictional transfers in the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund (the “Flexible Highway Account), (2) MnSHIP 2017, MnDOT’s 20-year fiscally constrained capital investment plan, which for the first time defined an investment category for trunk highway investment in jurisdictional transfers, (3) MnDOT’s “Investment Opportunity Plan,” which enables opportunistic funding if/when MnDOT releases funding contingencies out of programs/projects at the end of a funding cycle, or (4) in some cases simply by MnDOT transferring funds previously programmed for a project on the facility to the assuming jurisdiction. Overall,  the MnDOT  Jurisdictional  Realignment  Project  demonstrates  clearly  how  criteria  can  be  established for jurisdictional transfers with specific objectives of enabling the right‐sizing of facilities.  The MnDOT example also demonstrates  the  importance of available  streams of money  to  support  jurisdictional  transfers  for  such  changes  to  be  an  integral  part  of  the  agency’s  overall  investment  strategy. Those interested in assessing which level of government is best equipped and motivated to  support  the needs of a  facility  can benefit  from Minnesota’s example. Finally, MnDOT’s practice of  beginning the transfer discussion with  functional requirements and objectives  for the  infrastructure,  addressing funding only after the objectives of a transfer have been determined, is a promising element  of strategy for other states.  ADOT: Jurisdictional Transfer and Low‐volume Roads  In 2017, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) published its first comprehensive planning study of low-volume roads. As defined by the agency, low-volume roads (LVR) include all roads on the state system that carry less than 400 AADT. As of 2017, there were 457 centerline miles of LVR on the Arizona state system (<10% of the total system mileage). The study addresses two potential avenues to more efficient operations from the perspective of the state: (a) potential for transfer of a route to another agency, and (b) other options for reducing ongoing costs for those LVR that do remain on the state system.

6 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments Table 1 Arizona State Transportation Board Policy 16. Transfer of State Routes Policy  It is the policy of Board that the State Highway System consist primarily of routes necessary to provide a statewide network to serve the ever-changing environment with regard to the interstate, statewide and regional movement of people and freight.  In recognition that population and employment growth in Arizona and adjacent states will, over time, create demands for new transportation facilities and later the function of some existing transportation facilities, ADOT will develop and maintain a process for transferring certain state highways to local and tribal jurisdictions and conversely, transferring certain non-state highways to the State Highway System. Routes primarily providing land access and local movement of people and goods should be the responsibility of local governments.  The transfer of state highways will be carried out in accordance with the applicable transfer statutes A.R.S. §28-7046 and §28-7209. Source: Arizona State Transportation Board Policies. 2015.  http://aztransportationboard.gov/downloads/board‐policies.pdf   Arizona benefits from a formal jurisdictional transfer policy (shown above) that recognizes the relationship between network evolution and the need for an ongoing process of route transfers. In addition to the formal policy, ADOT’s Route Transfer Handbook lists specific reasons that transfers might be needed, addressing situations ranging from a shift of trip purposes to serving local needs, to changes in route utilization, and other factors. Arizona has a step-by-step process for both possible directions of route transfer (upwards and downwards). The policy encourages official Memoranda of Understanding between state and local parties to set the stage for subsequent steps. The MOU defines the limits of the segment in question, justification for the transfer, an anticipated timeline, and roles and responsibilities ‒ including data collection and analysis ‒ for the remainder of the process. In the process, Arizona’s route transfer handbook presents significant discussion of issues likely to come up in a transfer negotiation process such as rights of ownership, access control, permits, federal interest, federal-aid funds, conditions and maintenance, design standards, etc. An interesting feature of the Arizona policy is the suggested benefit-cost analysis (from the perspective of both parties) of any elements that can be quantified within a timeframe such as 20 years. Suggests elements for consideration include:  Right-of-way value  Improvements / equipment value  Access control value  Revenue streams and anticipated grants  Required capital investments  Required maintenance and operating costs  Law enforcement and liability costs In an ideal transfer, the benefits to each party to the transfer would be greater than their respective costs.

7 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments ADOT’s handbook has many elements that can provide significant value in guidance for jurisdictional  transfers  in right‐sizing situations. The checklists  in ADOT’s manual offer a balance of  flexibility and  consistency  in the structure of the transfer process which  is very conducive to efficiently considering  whether and how transfers may fit into a right‐sizing scenario. Inclusion of factors related to land use  and  transportation  relationships  recognizes  that  there  can  be  significant  economic  development  benefits to a jurisdictional transfer. Furthermore, ADOT’s evaluation of low‐volume roads for transfer  potential as a potential  source of  cost  savings  is  instructive as  several  states  in  the  initial  round of  interviews raised the issue of lifecycle costs for low‐volume roads as a right‐sizing need. Additionally, the  fact that the policy for jurisdictional transfer is codified at the level of the State Transportation Board is  instructive regarding the potential role of executive bodies in establishing policies supportive of right‐ sizing. Finally, ADOT’s guidance on financial considerations for negotiation outlines a more complete set  of factors than just a transfer of operating and maintenance burdens between agencies. This broader  view of potential benefits and costs is important to the question of right‐sizing and whether and how to  determine if all parties emerge from a transfer with net positive outcomes.  1.2. Findings Related to Program-Level Performance Targets and Trade-Offs One major area of right-sizing in transportation departments pertains to the issue of re-allocating resources from one program or performance area to another. The idea of right-sizing the distribution of revenue between facilities has been a focus of many statewide plans and is generally understood as a fundamental objective of many asset management systems. However, there is no consensus among states on how to justify the right-sizing of programs nor how to account for the potential implications of changing standards of condition and performance to arrive at a more efficient investment strategy. Right-Sizing as an Investment Option: Conventional transportation program investment alternatives are typically categorized as either maintenance, repair/replacement, or expansion (meaning new roads or capacity increase). By contrast, right-sizing investment options, or alternatives, can incorporate a series of additional decision types, including deferment/do nothing, modify the design standard or performance target, decommission or eliminate the asset, reclassify the asset to change the applicable standards/targets, or change jurisdictions. Understanding when and how to invoke these options with respect to existing asset classes is a critical element of a right-sizing strategy. In addition, there remain challenges in the use of traditional “tools of the trade” such as pavement and bridge management systems in considering right-sizing options. At present, these tools do not incorporate such options into decision-tree frameworks, thus requiring an engineer to first identify the opportunity then analyzing it with the help of these systems. Goal-oriented Strategic Investment or Disinvestment: Traditionally, agencies have often considered only investment when considering resource allocation, prioritizing facilities, and programs based on which investment appears to have the best payoff. However, this approach simply ignores those facilities or asset classes that never rise to the level of warranting such investment and how such “passive” or “unintentional” disinvestment may undermine the goals of investment. A right-sizing strategy improves on this paradigm, by enabling an agency to assess

8 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments both where (and to what degree) both investment and disinvestment are either tolerable or efficient. A right-sizing oriented strategic investment/disinvestment approach generally involves: 1. Clearly prioritizing transportation goals and objectives, 2. Identifying the projects and/or assets that are most important with respect to obtaining various goals as well as projects and/or assets that are the least important or least critical in obtaining those goals, and 3. Consciously defunding or reducing funding allocated to lower priority transportation assets and ideally reinvesting those savings into higher-priority assets. Three Instructive Examples  The experience of three states is instructive for how right-sizing approaches to statewide performance standards and programmatic investment strategies can contribute to overall decision making. These states include:  Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)  Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)  Vermont Transportation Agency (VTRANS) Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT): Temporary Disinvestment Due to Funding  In Utah, prior to securing additional funding from Utah HB 362 Transportation Infrastructure Funding, the DOT lacked adequate revenues to properly fund the state system. Utah DOT (UDOT) therefore created Management Levels (Interstates, Level 1, Level 2) for prioritizing pavement investments in acknowledgment that current funding levels were not adequate to maintain the entire system. In response to funding constraints, UDOT made a conscious decision to temporarily de-fund the Level 2 roadways while meeting the needs of the interstate and Level 1 pavement. Level 2 roadways (approximately 1,875 miles or 32% of the total system) are defined by UDOT as having AADT less than 1,000 and truck volume less than 200. Managers arrived at this decision by comparing the benefits and costs for several alternative programs and identifying the use of existing resources that would have the greatest benefit-cost ratio. Allowing Level 2 roads to temporarily deteriorate without preservation or maintenance activities allowed the DOT to focus on higher traffic roadways. Asset management data (through pavement management system analysis) reveal that conditions for interstate and Level 1 roadways have steadily improved over time while Level 2 conditions trend slightly downward. After the assessment of the additional funding from HB 362 in 2015, UDOT has worked to improve and adjust funding thresholds for Level 1 and Level 2 roadways accordingly ‒ to properly fund the Level 2 roads again ‒ allowing UDOT to subscribe to its asset management philosophy of “Good roads cost less.” Logically, the impact on performance measures (pavement condition in IRI of good/fair/poor) for Level 2 roads was negative during this period but justified because it enabled UDOT to maintain the overall condition for the other pavement categories. While this case does demonstrate trade-offs made by a DOT to reallocate funds from a lower priority to a higher-priority set of roads, it is nevertheless a temporary action that does not reflect a long-term determination of altered needs.

9 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments The Utah case is instructive as it demonstrates how a state can intentionally right‐size its investment  portfolio using time as a critical dimension of the equation. Instead of simply prioritizing facilities and  letting low BCA projects go unfunded, Utah deliberately considered specific classes of roadway based on  performance  needs  and  characteristics,  anticipating  and  preparing  for  the  implications  of  this  de‐ funding  in the near term. The Utah case suggests that states can benefit  from right‐sizing guidance  pertaining to short‐term versus  long‐term changes  in needs and funding, as well as how considering  funding and performance levels for asset classes can provide more leverage in investment decisions than  simply prioritizing individual projects.  Minnesota: Right‐Sizing Through Condition Targets  Much like Utah, Minnesota DOT made a conscious decision to respond to a revenue shortfall by disinvesting in certain parts of the state highway system to reinvest in the National Highway System (NHS) based on the need to match federal funds. However, in contrast to the Utah example where right-sizing was achieved through reclassification of facilities and reallocation of funds, MnDOT formally lowered the minimum pavement condition of non-NHS class of roads. The conversation began through a trade-off analysis to quantify the differences and options across state categories and assets. Analysis included the DOT management system and an iterative trade-off process following discussions between state planners and engineers. Once the non- NHS class was selected for the disinvestment, minimum pavement condition targets were incrementally increased to coincide with the lowered funding level. In this way, performance targets responded to an understanding of funding availability. In Minnesota, the ability to identify and communicate the outcomes of this type of right-sizing decision is closely tied to the use of performance measures. The measure for percentage of poor ride quality on the non-NHS system is forecast to increase from 7% to 8% in 2013 to 11% to 12% in 2023. This process of forecasting and trade-off analysis was presented to the public as part of an outreach campaign associated with the long-range transportation plan. However, the premise was difficult to articulate to the public. MnDOT decided it was more logical to communicate the need and investment in terms of ROI (return on investment) ‒ an economic-based measure used to quantify growth compared to capital expenditure. The benefit-cost and lifecycle analysis is still present from the pavement system analysis, but ROI provided a more understandable measure for comparison. The MnDOT case is instructive in that it demonstrates how a state can disinvest from a lower priority  program or system while still maintaining some degree of minimum tolerable condition. The principle of  testing  and  establishing  condition  and  performance  “floors”  for  disinvested  systems  over  defined  funding periods can enable the state to right‐size its programs while still maintaining some degree of  accountability  for  even  the  disinvested  assets.  A  question  raised  by  both  the MnDOT  and  UDOT  situations pertains to how the performance “floors” are set, how many funding periods it is responsible  to disinvest in this way, and at what point longer term strategies such as jurisdictional transfers or re‐ designs become inevitable.   While states are financially motivated to disinvest in and accept lower performance from lower priority assets, the long-term sustainability of these methods are still questioned. Utah only kept the disinvestment for a short period until a new revenue source was implemented. Minnesota still has this in place in their 20-year plan as NHS roadways carry a larger economic importance for the state compared to non-NHS roads. Nevertheless, questions remain about the long-term implications of lowered standards:

10 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments  Should the DOT and commuters adapt to the decreased performance in this tradeoff to ensure better (or maintain) performance on those higher AADT and VMT parts of the network?  Does this change truly reflect a right-sizing for the future, or is it a funding-driven decision, only?  What happens to the older pavement in the long run? Tennessee: Right‐Sizing the Project Development Process  Repurposing, redesigning, and rethinking of projects for context-sensitive and right-sizing techniques are a significant part of a 2012 Tennessee DOT (TDOT) study. TDOT, along with Smart Growth America, looked at the existing project process from planning to construction and developed improvements to the methodology and policies which regulate it. The project “aims to create a process within TDOT to enable and encourage flexible, lower-cost ways to increase capacity on the state’s transportation system while expediting job creation and economic development in Tennessee.” TDOT reviewed the existing strengths and weaknesses of current approaches to transportation project identification and development. From there, the team explored how to identify and analyze the investment strategies. A matrix of investment alternatives was developed, which assessed:  Maximized job creation and economic development;  Cost-saving potential;  Applicability to capital improvements;  Maintenance and/or operations;  Stability and sustainability;  Equity; and  Ease of implementation. Related performance measures were developed and tied to state principles for tracking and prioritization purposes. TDOT applied this matrix of investment alternatives to their existing State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) projects in hopes of finding cost-conscious alternatives that also achieve the desired objective of the original solution. After reviewing the first five projects, TDOT found a cost savings of over $171 million through right-sizing each project’s scope. The study found that many transportation projects could get 80- 90% of the desired outcome needed with an improvement to the network that cost up to one- tenth of the initial proposal. All the while, during this process, the rideability performance measure for pavement condition (percent of IRI) was maintained above national standards for the state network. Thus, this effort allowed limited resources to be allocated across more assets without having to compromise the roadway performance measures, resulting in a significant potential gain to the DOT budget and the state budget overall. The  TDOT  example  illustrates  the  importance  of  supplementing  any  programmatic  right‐sizing  of  budgets with specific project level design and engineering guidance for realizing the envisioned savings  in the right‐sizing program. It will be important for the NCHRP 19‐14 guidance to recognize that when 

11 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments lower  investment  levels and performance standards are  indicated as part of a statewide right‐sizing  investment/disinvestment strategy, practical ways to achieve optimal performance even at these lower  thresholds is essential to realizing the envisioned savings and performance on the right‐sized system.  1.3. Findings Related to Design and Re-Invention of Facilities Among the most challenging and creative areas for right-sizing is its implementation in the design of specific facilities and corridors. Implementing right-sizing at the design level is difficult because almost every facility when built, was designed to what the designer at the time understood to be the “right-size” and never the “wrong-size.” Yet, the nation is rife with cases of infrastructure that does not match the world that has evolved around it. Designers face a growing challenge of building and preserving billions of dollars’ worth of infrastructure for a population base which in some regions is growing very rapidly, while other regions have almost no growth, and sometimes negative growth. Yet one thing is common among nearly all areas ‒ the cost of maintaining or developing the infrastructure investment footprint keeps growing whether the population is growing or not. That’s a problem for funding long-term maintenance. How do regions with negative population growth deal with the growing costs of maintaining and updating their investment footprint? Designers now revisiting projects near the end of their useful life realize that as yester-year’s “new and shiny” land uses and infrastructure deteriorate, businesses and residents sense the downward trajectory, and those with the means often move to the next “new and shiny” greenfield development. Thus, the areas they fled will deteriorate even faster because there is even less tax base for maintaining what is in place. Therefore, the big picture of the challenges for designers in different environments to be solved by right-sizing efforts includes several angles: 1. Help emergent greenfields right-size the first time. 2. Looking beyond “size,” foster resilient design that will not be abandoned by adjacent uses, but instead will retain and increase the tax base that supports it. 3. Create retrofit strategies for corridors and areas that have deteriorated, so that the infrastructure they already have can compete anew for investment that would otherwise expand the infrastructure burden at the fringes. Getting it Right the First Time  Today’s problems are easy to see and tend to consume a large proportion of resources in discerning the root causes and devising effective remedies. Nevertheless, in any location where greenfields are urbanizing, it is essential to apply best practices to solve tomorrow’s problems before they become problems. To right-size Greenfield development, it is important for communities to understand that how they structure their background land uses and network connectivity will ultimately dictate the multimodal needs of the macro-level arterial network.

12 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments For example, a good rule-of-thumb published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in the early 1990s recommended ideal network spacing of a modest-sized freeway every 5-miles, a principal arterial every 2-miles, a minor arterial every 1-mile, and a collector street at least every half-mile. Salt Lake County, Utah, applied that recommendation as part of a network analysis and arterial best practices effort to compare what they have ‒ existing and planned ‒ with that ITE guidance. The resulting “Scottish plaid pattern,” shown at right, is becoming iconic – used in presentations by MPO staff, UDOT, Envision Utah, and others to drive home the message that congestion exists largely because drivers have relatively few network options. The next graphic (Figure 2) shows five common types of development. At one end is the tight-grid pattern, which dominated the American landscape prior to WW2, and is resurgent again, often as a curvilinear grid, within many New Urbanist planned communities. When most streets are through streets, arterials and collectors can often do fine with just one through-lane each direction, and can also accommodate on-street parking, lower speeds, etc. It is also possible to accommodate bikes, transit, and other needs on parallel streets – because there are parallel streets. At the other end of the spectrum are suburban “super-grids” and more haphazard networks. Super-grids are common where farm access roads along USGS section-lines became the default “plan” for urban arterials, and everything in between was left to individual developers, who historically derived their maximum value from cul-de-sacs and discontinuous streets. The arterials that define super-grids become all- important, to all modes and most businesses, because they are the only streets available. Land uses along such arterials tend to degrade over decades but might be stabilized with certain techniques that can protect land values. Figure 1 “Scottish plaid” road network spacing Figure 2 Common types of development Source: Metro Analytics. Source: Metro Analytics.

13 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments In general, the tighter the grid, the more adaptable the area is to changing conditions. However, there are still a great many greenfield areas emerging or likely to emerge with super-grids, and communities that want to or will emerge this way need to understand that right-sizing in these cases could mean protecting much larger right-of-way footprints, and/or more alignments, than their normal practice would dictate, in part for multimodal uses that have no other location available. Corridor‐Level Best‐Practice Patterns  Ideally, new greenfield development would have tight local grids. But regardless of how the background grid may emerge, odds are most communities will create multi-lane arterial streets that will eventually carry 20,000 vehicles per day or more. Such arterials will continue to attract and be zoned for commercial and multi-family uses. A major problem with similar arterials from the 1950s through today is that development along them has only had access from the fronting arterial. Figure 3 highlights the disjointed, dendritic background streets traced from a real place. A community would do well to protect its arterial streets more than this. For example, if they also had back-side access, as highlighted in yellow in Figure 2 above, it would greatly relieve the arterial and create flexibility for the future. Developers could have flexibility in the curvilinear nature of these back-side streets. Continuity is the key. When such streets meet with other arterials, perhaps right-in /right-out access would be required until signals are warranted. This pattern does not necessarily require any additional pavement beyond the previous. It just arranges it in a way that improves local circulation and creates a buffer between arterial uses and neighborhood uses. Figure 4 zooms out to show how a square-mile of the pattern in Figure 3 might look. More significant arterials would be flanked with parallel backage roads, while interior collectors need not be. The crossing of significant arterials creates a grid for localized circulation at what is likely to be a significant activity node. Overall, right‐sizing for newly developing areas can learn from the well documented experience of more  mature areas by adopting a minimum standard of access density. Furthermore, experience suggests that  allowing  for  flexible  right‐of‐way  standards may  allow  for more  flexible  designs  in  the  long‐term  (including room  for complete streets and related elements that may come to be needed over time).  Finally, flexible design techniques like continuous backage roads for arterials and innovative intersection  Figure 3 Corridor Connectivity Figure 4 Network connectivity Source: Metro Analytics. Source: Metro Analytics.

14 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments designs are opportunities in newly developing areas that will give future designers optimal freedom to  respond to unforeseen changes in the nature and volume of demand.  Right‐Sizing Existing Facilities  Every right of way, when first built, was judged to be “right” by stakeholders for its time and context. So, what kind of changes in context can turn a right street into a wrong street? How can designers tell when the reasons to “right-size” start to outweigh the reasons not to? There are several analysis techniques that can help. Methods considered here include traffic volume analysis, safety analysis, modal demand analysis, trip length analysis, and tax-base analysis. Volume Analysis  A significant opportunity for designers seeking to right-size an existing facility is identifying existing streets with excess capacity by considering critical volume thresholds. Table 2 depicts rule-of- thumb traffic volumes at which each facility-type tends to show signs of distress. As an example of how to use this, there are many cases where 7-lane highways, popular decades ago, currently carry only 25,000-35,000 vehicles per day. Yet, they could easily support up to 55,000 per day. In many cases, it would be easy to convert a lane to Bus-Rapid Transit or reorganize to allow on-street parking or other features that aid community objectives for livability and economic revitalization. If the change facilitates mixed uses of land, such right-sizing solutions allow for the possibility that mixed uses emerging over the next 10-20 years result in shorter drives and greater use of alternative transportation modes. This enables the street to operate better in the long run than in the near term. Finally, the near-term implications of using right-of-way differently need not limit how designers envision uses in the long-term. Even if the change may cause an uncongested road to become noticeably more congested today, it is possible that stakeholders may value the modal choice, neighborhood quality and other outcomes that could result from differently using existing right-of-way. Forward‐Looking Safety Analysis  As areas urbanize and markets shift, designers confront the challenges of increased traffic density, concerns about access control needed to support high travel speeds, and safety issues associated with conflicts between vehicular and non-vehicular traffic. Safety analysis need not always wait for evidence of a problem to influence decisions. For example, an arterial may not yet have an apparent pedestrian safety problem because adjacent uses are heavily auto-oriented, blighted, or inactive. If uses are ripe for redevelopment and the community is encouraging a mix of uses at higher intensities than before, then it is easily predictable that a 45-mph highway will result in serious accidents if such uses materialize. Considering the crash rates associated with Table 2 Volume Analysis

15 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments different roadway types under different land development typologies and densities can enable designers to make decisions about integrating safety features such as sidewalks, crosswalks, traffic calming, and innovative intersections when right-sizing facilities in changing areas. Modal Demand Analysis / Trip Length Analysis  As localities change, the nature of trips starts to change, and there may also be significant latent demand for alternative modes. An area may well have more cyclists and pedestrians than before, but if it is a tiny share of the total it can be easy to dismiss as irrelevant compared to the traditional task of unimpeded vehicular flow. Taking bikes as an example, surveys frequently suggest that while biking often represents less than 5% of a corridor’s overall volume, as many as 60% of respondents say they would bike regularly for recreation, exercise, commuting, and small errands if they felt protected from high-speed traffic. Communities that have invested heavily in such safety do in fact tend to see “build it and they will come” results that help justify the projects in retrospect. To help determine how many may be eligible for active modes, it is useful to evaluate the likely trip lengths associated with emergent uses. Figure 5 below depicts two arterials, each with 30,000 vehicles per day. If the top arterial has a bedroom community anchoring one end, an employment center on the other, and little in between, the 30,000 trips on the arterial then will be heavily weighted toward longer-distance trips. In this context, the right-size could skew toward helping most travelers traverse long distances quickly. In the other scenario, there could be a significant mix of commercial and residential generators all along the corridor. At any point on the corridor there may still be 30,000 trips. However, much of that total is using the corridor only for a short distance, and thereby will be only minorly affected by speed changes. In the top case, installing premium features for active modes may attract relatively few patrons, because the overall length of typical trips is too far to walk or bike regardless. In the bottom case, a huge share of trips is short, and thereby likely to respond to premium treatment of active modes. However, without this analysis, it could appear to traffic engineers that nothing has changed, and therefore they conclude it is best to leave the street at high speeds, assuming the majority are on long trips and will therefore value high-speed travel. Corridors with high shares of turning movements and increasingly high densities and usage types are good indicators that there may be significant latent demand that would respond positively to a new arterial context. Figure 5 Comparative Corridor Trip Lengths Source: Metro Analytics 

16 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments Tax‐Base Analysis  One of the key objectives facing designers in right-sizing situations is the effort to avoid getting caught with more infrastructure than the economy can afford to maintain. In that context, it is helpful to identify districts that create more tax revenues than the same areas cost to maintain, vs. districts that cost more in the long run than they generate. For example, a community may imagine that an ocean of big-box retail will be a financial boon, and each huge parcel will create more revenue than any small parcel, but in aggregate, the small parcels often create more revenue with less overall infrastructure burden. In Figure 6, green areas are revenue positive, while red are revenue negative in a lifecycle analysis. Notice that in this case it’s the lower-income neighborhoods that are generating more revenue relative to their infrastructure burden, most likely because it is higher density. Some of the larger, lower-density parcels are also the costliest in the long run, despite being in affluent areas. In summary, right‐sizing design requires methods and processes for determining strategic right‐sizing  opportunities. Supporting analysis techniques  include methods for  identifying excess capacity and  its  potential uses based on changes in the transportation context, safety analysis that considers a range of  potential crash rates based on emerging and envisioned land uses during the life of the project, as well  as  tax‐base analysis  considering  the  tax  revenue base  served by a  facility  in  relation  the  long‐term  improvement or preservation cost of different levels of design capacity.  What Right‐Sizing Looks Like in Practical Terms  All the previous analysis techniques can help identify when an existing or proposed design is “wrong” for the situation ‒ or not a good fit for the emerging context. But what can be done to make it right? What elements will the final product have that will help property owners, active mode advocacy/user groups, city officials, engineers, and taxpayer watchdogs to all agree that the new plan is “right” for the emerging context? Making the Most of the Cross Section  There are many angles to answering those questions, but a popular focal-point is the typical cross section of the street. The Institute of Transportation Engineers recently combined with the Congress for New Urbanism to produce a joint ITE/CNU best-practice guide called “Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares.” The guide includes a wide array of walkable design techniques, Figure 6 Illustrative Tax Base Analysis Source: Urban3

17 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments but it also includes design criteria for a wide spectrum of contexts, from rural to suburban to heavily urban. The figure below considers three different ways of using the same right of 125’ right-of-way, by integrating different modal, aesthetic and livability elements and operational characteristics assuming different development typologies, planning scenarios and transportation market characteristics. Increasingly designers and planners have access to interactive cross-sectional design “scenario builders” for testing out the size extent and composition of a cross section in comparison to different values and emerging characteristics. These interactive tools can be used by designers working with planners and stakeholders to consider different mixes of desired operating characteristics and contextual variables through iterative processes to arrive at the “right-size” for each lateral element of the right-of-way. Figure 7 Alternate Uses of Right-of-Way Source: StreetPlan.net 

18 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments Right‐Sizing Freeways  Designers are often confronted with either an existing reality or forecast of freeway congestion, finding themselves caught in debates about induced demand and the risk of endless investment in freeway widening with no clear answer to when or where freeways find diminishing marginal returns. Some freeways are so popular that there is seemingly endless demand, and communities debate major double-decker projects, either below or above ground level to find space for ever expanding freeway capacity. On the other end of the spectrum, there are many less critical freeways that are nearing the end of their useful life. Many of those have more volume than can be managed easily on a single at-grade arterial, but nevertheless are at a level of usage that calls into the question the efficiency of replacing in-kind. Right-sizing freeways requires designers to be comprehensive in their accounting for context and options when determining whether more, less or simply different use of freeway right-of-way is in order. The list of cities that have removed freeways is growing: Portland, Milwaukee, San Francisco, Rochester, and internationally in Seoul, Korea, and Madrid, Spain. Many others have been routed underground or relocated to less populated areas. In all cases, post-removal traffic congestion was not as bad as feared. Many more cities are in various stages of planning for removal or major alteration. The following are some factors that could make it worth exploring freeway removal or serious alteration: Central Business District (CBD) Mixed Uses: Has the CBD come to exchange less traffic with the surrounding region due to increasing concentrations of housing or mixed-use development? Restore Urban Fabric: Are there patterns of tight-grid development divided by freeways which if removed, would enable easier access between neighborhoods and other areas on each side of the current freeway? Under-Utilized or Secondary Freeway? Is there enough redundancy that another existing freeway could serve the freeway function of a facility, freeing up the existing facility for a different and more economical use? One-way Couplets, Boulevards, and the Alternative Grid: Could one-way couplets achieve similar traffic flow to what a low-volume freeway is currently carrying? Primary Throughway? Is there sufficient through traffic in a highly developed area (and sufficient alternative use benefit) that re-routing through traffic (either through a bypass or tunnel or other alternative) would enable alternative use of existing right-of-way without the freeway? When addressing right‐sizing, designers should consider how to best apply development typologies and  associated  roadway  cross‐section  features  for different  existing and  future  transportation markets.  Interactive cross‐section design and scenario builders for “mixing and matching” such features can be  helpful  in  this  context. Design  right‐sizing also  can benefit  considerably  from practical  indicators  to  assess  conditions  in  which  moving  from  freeway  designs  to  non‐freeway  designs  or  alternative  management strategies for freeways (such as congestion pricing or managed motorways) can limit the  size, composition and extent of required long‐term infrastructure.