Prioritization of Public Transportation Investments: A Guide for Decision-Makers (2021)

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.

3   Introduction 1.1 Prioritization of Public Transportation Investments is guide provides practical advice for transportation agencies looking to improve their prioritization practice for public transportation projects. It is appropriate for multiple audi- ences, including leadership, management, and technical and planning sta at metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), state departments of transportation (DOTs), and public transit agencies. Government agencies making public transportation investment decisions have dierent policy, regulatory, and funding environments; serve communities with public transit markets of dierent sizes and needs; and possess a variety of data and technical capabilities. is guide addresses that diversity while also highlighting attributes of successful practice that apply across dierent contexts. is research draws on existing national research, published guidance, an online question- naire of agency prioritization practices, case study interviews, and input from practitioners to develop recommendations for improvements to the state of practice. Figure 2 summarizes the elements of the research approach used to develop this guide. In response to the need identied in interviews with practitioners and based on the guid- ance of the project’s technical expert panel, this guide emphasizes prioritization approaches for transit capital investments and cross-modal decision-making, specically the comparison of public transit and non-transit projects. roughout this guide, the terms “public transportation” and “transit” are used interchange- ably and in a manner generally consistent with the way these terms are used by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 1.2 Background: The Need for Guidance Making Smart Choices as Needs Exceed Resources e demand for transportation investments far exceeds the funds available, including for public transportation. e U.S. Department of Transportation’s (U.S. DOT) 2019 Conditions and Performance Report analyzed a variety of transit investment forecast scenarios. e report estimates that $18.4 billion would need to be reinvested in transit asset preservation annually to eliminate the state of good repair (SGR) backlog by 2034. is investment is 63% higher than the 2014 levels of preservation spending of $11.3 billion. e report also nds that sustaining 2014 levels of transit expansion expenditures at $6.4 billion C H A P T E R 1 The demand for public transportation investments far exceeds the funds available. Communities need methods to help them decide where to allocate limited resources.

4 Prioritization of Public Transportation Investments: A Guide for Decision-Makers annually would only support a 1.3% annual increase in ridership, below the 1.5% annual growth rate in transit demand since 2000 (U.S. DOT 2019). While states and communities seek addi- tional revenue sources to maintain current transit assets and serve changing travel markets, they need methods to help them decide where to allocate limited resources. Performance-Based Prioritization – An Ongoing Evolution e Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act of 2012 formalized and accelerated a nationwide shi toward using metrics and data to improve project decision-making by creating new national requirements for performance-based planning and program- ming. is emphasis on data and metrics continues through the subse- quent Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015. Using performance-based investment decision-making empowers transit, regional, and state transportation agencies to be more account- able, transparent, and rigorous in an environment of limited funding and tough choices. MPOs and state DOTs, in partnership with transit agencies, have invested considerable resources into developing project evaluation capabilities and increasingly quantitative and structured metric-based prioritization methods. Improvements in data availability and analytical capabilities, in part, have enabled this trend. is guide is committed to the idea that better evaluation can support better decision-making. At the same time, shifts toward quantitative approaches create new challenges to ensuring evaluation methods adequately account for the societal goals motivating transportation investments. Decisions in a Multimodal Environment Public transportation investment priorities are set within the broader multimodal transporta- tion environment. Since the emergence of the personal automobile, public transit has tended to serve smaller and oen more concentrated markets across the United States. • Investment in public transit. According to the Congressional Budget Oce (CBO), public spending on mass transit nationally was $70 billion in 2017 (including subways, surface rail, and buses but excluding Amtrak intercity rail)—including capital, operations, and mainte- nance expenditures by federal, state, and local government. • Investment in highways. For comparison, the CBO reports that public spending on high- ways, inclusive of capital, operations, and maintenance expenditures at all levels of government, was $177 billion in 2017 (Congressional Budget Oce 2018). Literature Review Online Questionnaire Agency Interviews Definition of Illustrative Archetypes Identification of Criteria Demonstration of Cross-Modal Prioritization Guidance Figure 2. Research approach. MAP-21 and Performance Management A key feature of MAP-21 was the establishment of a performance- and outcome-based program. The objective of this program is to support investment in projects that will collectively make progress toward the achievement of national goal areas of • Safety, • Infrastructure condition, • Congestion reduction, • System reliability, • Freight movement and economic vitality, • Environmental sustainability, and • Reduced project delivery delays.

Introduction 5   Transit’s mode share in the United States is modest, at least at a national scale, comprising 5% of all commute trips in 2018 (U.S. Census Bureau 2018). As discussed in the following section, overall mode share can obscure the importance of transit for households with lower incomes and households with limited or no access to cars. Overall, transit ridership increased 11% between 1990 and 2019. However, transit ridership has declined in recent years from a high of about 10.7 billion trips in 2014 to 9.9 billion as of the end of 2019 (APTA 2019b). Against this backdrop, public transportation projects seeking to compete for funding are oen at a disadvantage because they have benets that are either dicult to quantify or have tradition- ally been inadequately addressed by methods developed with highway capacity improvement projects in mind. As decision-makers work to support more sustainable portfolios of transporta- tion infrastructure and services, they oen struggle to meaningfully compare outcomes across modes. 1.3 Benets of Transit Investments Transit: Multiple Goals, Diverse and Often Concentrated Benets Transit investments are intended to achieve more than one goal. Table 1 shows the multiple roles that transit can play in the economy and society, including delivering benets to both transit users and non- users (Weisbrod et al. 2017). Moreover, public transit oen provides concentrated benets for specic demographic groups or locations. Litman emphasizes the fact that many public transit services exist primarily to provide “basic mobility for non-drivers” (Litman 2019a). In less urbanized areas, transit users are more likely to be non-drivers out of necessity than choice. In these areas, more dispersed land-use patterns make providing high- quality public transit more of a challenge relative to urban environments, and congestion and parking costs do not provide as signicant a deterrent to travel using personal automobiles. Similarly, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) cites a range of benets of transit including providing mobility to the elderly and those with disabilities and providing access for low-income households (ASCE 2020). For many minority, low-income, and disabled populations, who are more likely to have limited access to cars, public transit acts as a crit- ical link to employment, education, and health services. Overall, 13% of U.S. households have household incomes of less than $15,000, but among households using transit, this gure is 21%. Communities of color comprise a majority of transit riders (60%) with Black/African American riders making up 24% of transit users, compared to 12% of the U.S. population (APTA 2017). Because transit ridership is oen lower in magnitude than private vehicle travel, it is important to also consider distributional and equity impacts. Figure 3 summarizes broad categories of benets typically studied when considering invest- ments in public transportation. Based on a review of literature and practice, these provide a starting framework for transit project evaluation and prioritization. e rst category in Figure 3 focuses on benets that accrue to individual travelers. e second category captures a wider set of benets that capture how transportation performance improvements can benet not only those traveling but also those not traveling and society as a whole. Accessibility is included in this category because improved access can benet both Effective transit prioritization will address the full range of transit investment benefits. Because the number of transit users is in many cases fewer than the number of people traveling by personal vehicle, it is important to also consider distributional and equity impacts.

6 Prioritization of Public Transportation Investments: A Guide for Decision-Makers individuals (by having better access to important destinations, such as jobs or education) and the overall productivity of the economy if businesses see improved access to their desired work- force. System stewardship encompasses factors related to transportation agencies’ ability to manage and maintain a quality transportation system over time. The Role of Transit Varies Across Communities e role and intended purpose of transit investments and services also vary considerably across communities, particularly along the urban- to-rural spectrum (Figure 4). In 2017, urbanized areas (UZAs) in the United States under 1 million in population had a median of 5.16 total transit trips per capita, whereas the median transit trip rate for UZAs over 1 million was 22.29 (FTA 2018). Similarly, 11% of commuters travel Role of Transit Description of Related Goals of Transit Investments Transit investment as a multimodal source of transportation efficiency improvement For transit users: reduce travel time, wait time, and travel- related expenses (compared with do nothing or other modal alternatives). For road users: reduce road congestion growth (and related travel time, reliability, safety, and cost effects) by providing non- road travel options that reduce car traffic growth. For government and the public: reduce investment costs of expanding existing and building new highways (and sometimes also public parking facilities) by reducing the growth in the number of vehicles on roads. For intercity air and rail travelers: enhance local ground access and intermodal connectivity for airports and high-speed intercity trains. Transit as access to opportunities Access to basic needs: provide mobility for those who cannot drive, should not drive, cannot afford to drive, or live in neighborhoods where there is currently limited access to outside areas for medical care, education, recreation, shopping, and work opportunities. Affordability: provide more affordable mobility options that require less household spending on transportation, thus enabling more expenditures on housing, health care, etc. Transit as a strategic planning and development tool Regional economic development: access broader labor markets with more specialized worker skills, support technology cluster development, and provide faster and more reliable goods movement by reducing road congestion on truck routes—all expanding economic growth to reduce long-term unemployment and increase income and wealth for residents. Poverty and community development: encourage investment in urban neighborhoods, local communities, and rural areas that are economically depressed and suffer from insufficient private investment as a result of poor accessibility, thus reducing crime, blight, and poverty. Environment and livable communities: support public policy goals for quality of life, livable neighborhoods, and land development patterns that can reduce air, noise, and water pollution, energy resource use, carbon emissions, and needs for further highway investment. Source: TCRP Synthesis 128: Practices for Evaluating the Economic Impacts and Benefits of Transit. https://doi.org/10.17226/24768 (Weisbrod et al. 2017). Table 1. Roles and goals of transit investment. Access and Affordability Measure FTA discre- tionary grant programs, like New Starts and Small Starts, score projects based on their proximity to Legally-Binding, Affordability- Restricted (LBAR) housing. Data on the share of LBAR housing in a transit corridor is available from local housing authorities and the National Housing Preser- vation Database. Transit prioritization cannot be one-size- fits all. Transit prioritization methods should be tailored to individual community and transit market characteristics.

Introduction 7   Traditional Traveler Benefits • Travel Time & Reliability for Transit Users • Travel Cost (Affordability) • Congestion Reduction for Road Users • Safety and Security Wider Benefits for Society • Accessibility • Economic Impacts • Social Equity/Environmental Justice • Environmental Quality • Public Health and Quality of Life System Stewardship • Cost-Effectiveness/System Preservation • Regional Integration and Coordination • Project Viability/Feasibility • Land-Use Compatibility Source: EBP, based on a review of literature and practice. Figure 3. Categories of transit investment benets. Figure 4. Illustration of community variation along the urban-to-rural spectrum. to work using transit in metropolitan areas over 5 million. Transit captures 4% of trips to work in areas between 2.5 and 5 million and 2.2% in areas between 1 and 2 million (Bureau of Trans- portation Statistics 2017). Figure 5 shows transit commute mode share by county across the United States. Because of this variety, transit prioritization methods should be tailored to individual communities and transit market characteristics. 1.4 Building Blocks of Success: How to Use This Guide e remainder of this guidebook is organized as follows. Readers are encouraged to navigate to whichever sections are most appropriate to their needs and interests. • Chapter 2, Understanding Your Situation, discusses how funding, policies, and regulations inuence transit investment decision-making. e chapter addresses how program deni- tion structures prioritization by dening which projects are grouped and compared to one another. It also addresses contextual factors such as geography, historical investment patterns, and the involvement of multiple levels of governance in transit investment decision-making.

8 Prioritization of Public Transportation Investments: A Guide for Decision-Makers is chapter will help you identify and understand attributes of your agency’s situation that need to be considered when setting up an investment prioritization process. • Chapter 3, Building Successful Practice, outlines best practices for establishing transit investment prioritization processes, including how to align measurement with objectives, select criteria that eectively capture the benets of transit, avoid the pitfalls of potential modal bias, and nd a workable mix of quantitative and qualitative metrics to match avail- able resources, data, and tools. By sharing insights from research and practice, this chapter will support you in identifying realistic approaches to assessing and prioritizing transit investments. • Chapter 4, Guidelines for Application, oers a roadmap to strengthen transit prioritiza- tion with key questions to consider at each stage of establishing a multiple-objective decision analysis (MODA) framework. It further outlines ve illustrative “archetypes” that together cover a range of situations from rural transit agencies that are focused on basic access to large legacy systems with a focus on SGR. For each archetype, the guide oers suggested key criteria and a discussion of decision-making capacity and resources. is chapter will help you further rene the practices introduced in Chapter 3 and tailor them to your agency’s needs. • Chapter 5, Spotlight on Equity Assessments, provides guidance on incorporating equity analysis into a transit prioritization framework. is chapter presents you with practical methods and examples of how to analyze the distributive impacts of transportation investments. • Chapter 6, Demonstration of Cross-Modal Prioritization, includes a pilot demonstration illustrating dierent approaches to prioritizing capital projects across multiple modes. e pilot shows how measures, representing multiple objectives with various units of analysis, can be combined in a quantitative prioritization framework to identify funding priorities. is chapter provides a hands-on example for setting up a prioritization methodology and helps you understand the implications of dierent criteria and weighting choices. • Chapter 7, Conclusions, summarizes the key ndings of the research and discusses emerging topics and remaining research needs. Source: U.S. Census Bureau n.d.-b. Figure 5. Percent of workers who commute by public transit, by county: 2015–2019. The share of transit commuters varies widely across the United States. While the share of workers who commute by transit is as high as 61.2% in Brooklyn, New York, transit accounts for less than 2% of commuters in most of the country.

Introduction 9   This report also includes the following appendices that capture additional details from the research process: • Appendix A provides a summary of the questionnaire feedback collected from practitioners on transit prioritization needs. • Appendix B contains the interview guide and a list of agency interviews. • Appendix C summarizes specific noteworthy criteria practices identified based on the inter- views and reviews of associated documentation. While the guide draws from the interviews to provide examples and summarize findings, this appendix provides additional details not covered in the main body of the report. • Appendix D provides additional detail on the cross-modal prioritization demonstration.