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.

26 C H A P T E R 4 4.1 Roadmap to Strengthening Transit Prioritization Successful transit investment prioritization relies on a fair and accu- rate accounting of the benets of transit projects within resource allocation processes—particularly the cross-asset and multimodal processes implemented by MPOs and state DOTs. Figure 8 outlines the steps involved in the MODA approach for investment prioritiza- tion as dened in NCHRP Research Report 921 (Spy Pond Partners, High Street Consulting Group, and Burns & McDonnell 2019). ese steps capture a typical process of developing a structured prioritiza- tion approach. is section uses the MODA framework to identify a roadmap to strengthening transit prioritization. As shown in Figure 8, implementation of a MODA approach starts with establishing the scope of the approach, including determination of what investments should be prioritized and how the results of the prioritization process will be used to inform decision-making. Next, one must dene invest- ment goals and specic objectives for achieving these goals. Step 3 is to dene a set of perfor- mance measures for quantifying progress toward the investment objectives and determine how to scale these measures to facilitate the determination of the utility of a given investment for each objective. Once measures have been dened, it is necessary to determine how to collect and process the data to support the prioritization process and then prototype the process. is may result in changes to the approach to address issues found, such as limitations in available data. e weights applied to goals and objectives must then be set, to the extent that the analyt- ical approach adopted requires this. Finally, the prioritization approach can be applied and the results communicated. At each step of this process, there are approaches available to strengthen the prioritization of transit projects or investments. To this end, Table 7 outlines key questions developed by the research team that can be asked at every step of investment prioritization method development to support eective treatment of transit. Note that only some questions will likely apply to each situation, and not all questions need to be applied in all situations. 4.2 Criteria and Strategies for Your Situation Operators of public transportation make investment decisions in an attempt to meet the needs of the residents, businesses, and institutions that they are charged to serve. In doing so, the transit services that are provided by these agencies are, by their nature, unique to their respective communities. ere are, however, overarching traits that allow for the classication of transit Guidelines for Application NCHRP Research Report 921: Case Studies in Implementing Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation is a resource for those wishing to learn more about development of investment prioritization processes, in general (Spy Pond Partners, High Street Consulting Group, and Burns & McDonnell 2019).

Guidelines for Application 27   Source: Spy Pond Partners. Figure 8. Multiple-objective decision analysis (MODA) approach. Approach Step Key Questions Establish the scope • Who is responsible for defining the prioritization method? Who must be consulted? Are there key transit stakeholders that should be involved? • Will transit investments be competing directly with non- transit investments? • What types of transit and non-transit investments are within scope? • Are there specific legislative, funding, or policy requirements in place that influence what must or should be included in the process? • Does this prioritization process interact with those at other agencies (e.g., a transit agency or state DOT if your organization is an MPO) that it should build on or anticipate? • How will the results be used? Define goals and objectives • What do the considered transportation investments seek to achieve? • Do goals differ across different types of projects, such as transit versus non-transit or SGR versus capacity expansion? • Do identified goals and objectives consider not only aggregate mobility and efficiency outcomes but also broader social, economic, and environmental outcomes that may be the primary focus of transit investments? Select performance measures and evaluation criteria • Are all the primary objectives of transit investments addressed by the selected criteria? • In cases where models or data are lacking, have qualitative measures been incorporated and clearly defined? • Can selected measures successfully differentiate between projects, and do they capture a sufficient range of outcomes? • Are any of the selected measures not applicable to transit? If so, are they balanced by those measures that are? • Across different investment types, is there a need to develop measures that address the same conceptual outcomes but with different technical definitions (i.e., a planning time index on the roadway network compared to an on-time-performance measure for transit)? • Is distributional equity reflected in the selected measures/criteria to capture relative impacts of investments for specific disadvantaged populations, compared to the overall population or non-disadvantaged populations? Table 7. Strengthening transit prioritization – key questions to consider. (continued on next page)

28 Prioritization of Public Transportation Investments: A Guide for Decision-Makers systems into representative categories, or illustrative archetypes, for the purpose of considering the likely applicability of transit investment decision-making criteria. For this guide, illustrative transit investment prioritization arche- types were formulated based on common factors that directly inuence the prioritization of public transportation projects, namely, the type of service currently provided, the desired level of future service, and the agencies involved in the decision-making process. Figure 9 presents an overview of the ve illustrative archetypes. Readers are encouraged to consider how their situation aligns with these archetypes, using them as a starting point for identifying criteria and prioritization strategies that are relevant to their specic context. While it is unlikely that any arche- type will exactly match a given situation, they are intended to provide insight into issues of relevance based on commonalities that do exist. Table 8 presents the types of decision criteria that were identied earlier in Section 3.2, Table 4, as being eective at capturing the bene- ts of public transportation along with an assessment of their likely relevance to transit investment prioritization for each of the illustrative archetypes. For each archetype, the solid circle (●) represents criteria that are likely to be relevant and emphasized in public transportation project prioritization; the half-lled circle ( ) represents criteria types that Illustrative archetypes. Readers of this guide are encouraged to consider how their situation aligns with the identified transit investment prioritization archetypes, using them as a starting point for identifying criteria and prioritization strategies that are relevant to their specific context. Prototype the approach • Has the approach been tested on a sample set that includes a range of transit projects? • Are measures of different types and units appropriately normalized (e.g., on a scale of 0–100) prior to aggregation? • With provisional weighting, are project rankings for the sample set reasonable? Is there any systematic bias against any particular type of project (e.g., transit)? • Are certain measures dominating or skewing the results? Set weights on goals and objectives • Do the weights set on goals and objectives reflect an understanding of the benefits of transit investments? • Are certain weights dominating or skewing the results? Apply the model • Is the methodology documented sufficiently to enable transparency, future iteration, and improvement? Communicate the results • Do the results empower decision-makers to select and advance beneficial transit investments? Source: Developed by EBP, building upon NCHRP Research Report 921 (Spy Pond Partners, High Street Consulting Group, and Burns & McDonell 2019) and a review of research and practice. Assess data and analytical capabilities • Do available tools and data capture the benefits of transit? • Can additional data or qualitative information be incorporated to address any gaps? • Within any given performance category, who is best equipped to provide information on a project? (This may differ by objective and could include local governments, transit agencies, MPOs, and state DOTs). Approach Step Key Questions Table 7. (Continued). Some criteria types are relevant across archetypes: • Accessibility • Social equity/environmental justice • Viability/feasibility

Guidelines for Application 29   •Focused on basic access •Demand response/rural transit •May be under jurisdiction of state DOT or MPO that includes a rural area Basic Access •Small xed-route system •Limited resources •Multi-actor collaborative decision-making (MPO, locality, transit agency) Small Fixed- Route •Gradual expansion of transit network via new investment to address regional growth •MPO planning support on transit relationship to regional growth strategy Growing Transit •Large transit system •Signi t institutional capacity within transit agency •Aging system •Struggle to keep up with state of good repair Large Legacy System •State DOT with leadership/ oversight responsibiliti for a diversity of transit systems and regions •Decision-making must accommodate diversity of needs Statewide Figure 9. Illustrative transit investment prioritization archetypes. Criteria Type Basic Access Small Fixed- Route Growing Transit Large Legacy System Statewide Accessibility ● ● ● ● ● Congestion/ Mobility ○ ◐ ● ● ◐ Cost- effectiveness/ Preservation ◐ ◐ ◐ ● ◐ Economic impacts ◐ ◐ ● ● ◐ Environmental quality ○ ◐ ● ● ◐ Land-use compatibility ◐ ◐ ● ◐ ◐ Public health and quality of life ◐ ◐ ◐ ● ◐ Regional integration and coordination ○ ◐ ● ● ○ Social equity/ Environmental justice ● ● ● ● ● Viability/ Feasibility ● ● ● ● ● Key: (●) - criteria likely to be relevant and emphasized in public transportation project prioritization. (◐) - criteria that may merit less emphasis. (○) - criteria that are of minor emphasis or would likely not be relevant. Table 8. Guidelines on criteria emphasis by illustrative archetype.

30 Prioritization of Public Transportation Investments: A Guide for Decision-Makers may merit less emphasis, and an empty circle (○) represents criteria that are of minor emphasis or would likely not be relevant. Some criteria types are likely to merit emphasis in the investment decisions of all the illustrative archetypes. ese criteria include: • Accessibility: Criteria that capture the degree to which transit provides access to needed and desired services, or that assess whether a minimum level of access has been provided. • Social equity/environmental justice: Criteria that assess the degree to which transit provides options to the mobility disadvantaged (whether due to income, location, race, ability, or the intersection of these characteristics). • Viability/feasibility: Criteria that help ensure that limited nancial resources are programmed to projects at a level that allows them to meet their intended purpose. e following subsections discuss each illustrative transit investment prioritization archetype in more detail, including: • Overview: an introduction to the archetype. • Investment prole: a discussion of the project types most likely to be considered. • Key types of decision criteria: a discussion of criteria that may merit the most emphasis for that particular archetype. • Decision-making capacity and resources: a discussion of how agency size, capacity, and resources inuence the complexity of prioritization processes or the types of criteria used (e.g., qualitative versus quantitative). Basic Access Overview of archetype. e Basic Access archetype represents public transportation agencies that provide transit service in areas where there is insucient demand to warrant a xed-route system. Basic Access transit agencies typically operate in rural or exurban areas and provide demand response services to ensure that individuals who do not have the ability to make trips regularly or predictably by private automobile have access to employment, medical care, education, and other key opportunities and services. Investment prole. Capital investments by Basic Access transit agencies primarily consist of vehicle purchases and maintenance, with the bulk being for existing rolling stock to maintain the current levels of geographic service coverage, safety, and reliability. Additional vehicles could be added to the eet if warranted by existing or projected increases in typical riders based on socioeconomic characteristics (e.g., income, ability to operate a private automobile, etc.) and changes in land development patterns. Key types of decision criteria. For Basic Access transit agencies, the criteria types of most relevance are accessibility, social equity/environmental justice, and viability/feasibility—the core criteria types identied across all ve illustrative archetypes. Cost-eectiveness/preservation decision criteria are also relevant to assess the degree to which the average age of the revenue vehicle eet is optimized to balance costs with service reliability. e degree to which transit ser- vices can support the economy by connecting job seekers and employers or support public health through access to medical services and food and the likely eect of changing land-use patterns also merit consideration in Basic Access transit agencies’ capital programs. Decision-making capacity and resources. Investment decisions for Basic Access public transportation agencies are likely to be coordinated with or made by a transportation agency with other investment decision-making responsibilities, such as city or county DOT or public works. ese impact the level of resources made available for technical analysis of potential Basic Access: • Focuses on basic access • Demand response/rural transit • May be under jurisdiction of state DOT or MPO that includes a rural area

Guidelines for Application 31   investments. Relatively simple indicators such as changes to the average age of the revenue eet, increases in the passenger trips that can be provided by the type of vehicle purchased, and similar metrics can be readily quantied by many Basic Access transit agencies to evaluate accessibility benets, cost-eectiveness, and viability/feasibility. Economic impact and land-use compatibil- ity criteria may be better served through qualitative inputs and when practical, ordinal scoring based on professional judgment. Small Fixed-Route Overview of archetype. Small Fixed-Route archetype transit agen- cies operate services utilized by both non-discretionary riders (i.e., those for whom transit is a required component for at least a portion of their trips) and choice riders (i.e., those who opt to use public transportation instead of other modes) in areas served by an MPO. ese services are typically comprised of local bus services with limited express routes. e presence of xed-route public transportation service (almost always with associated xed schedules) allows residents, businesses, and insti- tutions the option to locate where the service can meet their mobility needs, provide an expanded customer base and workforce, and better serve their constituencies, respectively. Investment prole. Capital investments by Small Fixed-Route transit agencies primarily consist of vehicle purchases and maintenance, with the bulk being for existing rolling stock to maintain the current levels of geographic service coverage, safety, and reliability. is includes vehicles for xed-route service (typically buses) and vehicles to provide ADA-complementary paratransit service to individuals with disabilities who cannot use the available xed-route service. Additional vehicles could be added to the eet if warranted by existing or projected increases in typical riders based on socioeconomic characteristics (e.g., income, ability to operate a private automobile, etc.) and changes in land development patterns. Transit stations and vehicle and equipment service facilities along with non-revenue vehicles (e.g., heavy-duty tow trucks, passenger vehicles for supervisors, etc.) also require ongoing maintenance and upgrades. Amenities for riders are also standard capital investments. ese include bus stop shelters, fare collection systems (which also serve as ridership data collection points), and traveler information systems equip- ment and associated soware to communicate with riders. Key types of decision criteria. Accessibility, social equity/environmental justice, and viability/feasibility are the primary types of criteria that are most relevant to investment decision- making for Small Fixed-Route transit agencies. In addition, these agencies are integral compo- nents of the transportation system, particularly in cities and mature suburbs where service has oen been provided for decades. Small Fixed-Route transit agencies benet the communities they operate in by helping to manage congestion (particularly on key corridors), enhancing eco- nomic development and livability, decreasing emissions from private automobiles, and providing connections to other modes (including interregional bus, rail, and air service). To the extent possible, criteria that correspond to these benets should be part of the invest- ment decision-making process, even if they cannot be quantied. is is consistent with the principle previously discussed in Section 3.4 of accounting for important objectives in even a simplied manner rather than not at all. Decision-making capacity and resources. Small Fixed-Route transit agencies, whether operated by a separate transit agency such as an authority or by a distinct department within a local or regional government, generally have the technical capabilities to calculate and assess Small Fixed-Route • Small fixed-route system • Limited resources • Multi-actor collaborative decision- making (MPO, locality, transit agency)

32 Prioritization of Public Transportation Investments: A Guide for Decision-Makers various measures of eectiveness related to their operations. e technical capabilities of Small Fixed-Route transit agencies that are applied to the operational analyses to adjust routes and schedule maintenance to maximize service relative to available budget provide the foundation for quantitative investment decision-making, particularly when projecting accessibility ben- ets, cost-eectiveness, and viability/feasibility. e contribution of potential investments to congestion/mobility, economic impacts, envi- ronmental quality, and other factors may be best quantied by other agencies, including MPOs that have access to travel demand models and associated post-processors. Project evaluation metrics in the remaining criteria types can be operationalized in ordinal scoring systems. Growing Transit Overview of archetype. e Growing Transit archetype includes public transportation agencies in metropolitan areas experiencing moderate to large increases in population and employment. Expanded transit oerings in this context can be designed in coordination with the development of land required to accommodate this growth in resi- dents and jobs. Transit in these regions provides a means for mitigating increases in congestion and associated pollutant emissions that would otherwise occur without viable alternatives to private automobiles. In addition, Growing Transit agencies seek to invest in increasing their systems through a combination of expanded xed-route bus service and the introduction of xed guideway service (e.g., rail, trolleys, bus rapid transit) that is integrated to provide greater geographic coverage and increased frequency. Improving transit reliability as roadway congestion grows may also be a focus. Investment prole. Capital investments by Growing Transit agencies have the highest pro- portion of expenditures in new vehicles and infrastructure to increase the frequency of service in and between existing activity centers where the density of residences and businesses have increased and for the introduction of service to areas where new development is occurring and is planned to occur subject to market conditions. is can be done through xed-route bus service and xed guideway service that provide greater capacity, improved reliability, and faster service. As xed-route service is expanded, ADA-complementary paratransit is also provided consistent with current laws. Fixed guideway service (including rubber-tired modes such as bus rapid transit) requires the purchase of vehicles, signaling systems, enhanced passenger stations, and oen, construction of separate maintenance facilities/yards and the purchase of dedicated rights-of-way, all of which require ongoing maintenance to ensure safety and reliability. Service amenities play a role in the trip-making decisions of the choice riders that the Growing Transit archetype agencies are seeking to attract, and investments in these amenities should reect this for both the xed-route bus and xed guideway services that form an integrated public transportation system. Key types of decision criteria. As with all of the illustrative archetypes, accessibility, social equity/environmental justice, and viability/feasibility are the primary types of criteria that are most relevant to investment decision-making of Growing Transit agencies. On top of these, there are multiple demands for expanded infrastructure (e.g., roadways, sewer, water, power, etc.) to accommodate new development in fast-growing areas. As a result, Growing Transit agencies have a particular imperative to make the business case for their investments from the perspective of community and economic development and to target transit investments that will maintain, at minimum, the quality of life and employment Growing Transit • Gradual expansion of transit network via new investment to address regional growth • MPO planning support on transit relationship to regional growth strategy

Guidelines for Application 33   opportunities that served as the impetus for regional growth in the rst place. is requires that congestion/mobility, economic impacts, and environmental quality be emphasized in invest- ment decision-making. Additionally, public transportation’s ability to inuence growth patterns warrants emphasis on criteria that elevate planned transit services that are consistent with (a) broader planning priorities inclusive of and beyond transportation (regional integration and coordination) and (b) current and future physical development (land-use compatibility). Decision-making capacity and resources. Under the Growing Transit archetype, decision- makers responsible for transit investment prioritization typically have the capacity to conduct a quantitative evaluation of accessibility, cost-eectiveness/preservation, and viability/feasibility. is capacity and responsibility may be situated inside a transit agency, at an MPO, or some combination thereof. In a Growing Transit region, there are opportunities for decision-makers to transition to quantitative assessment of investment decisions on economic impacts, environ- mental quality, and land-use compatibility. MPOs oen play a signicant role in these types of analyses, particularly if they are also engaged in regional growth strategy development or if a region is a non-attainment or maintenance area for criteria pollutants with associated required federal conformity analyses. To the extent possible, prioritization processes in this context can be expected to continually seek opportunities for more formal scoring or quantitative analysis. Movement in this direc- tion can help make the strongest business case for the continued expansion of transit services to meet the trip-making needs of the increasing numbers of residents and businesses in their metropolitan areas. Prioritization processes can also address challenges with the consistency of analysis that is more salient in an environment where major transit expansion projects are under consideration. Under this archetype, there is likely to be more emphasis on cross-modal comparability, as a region seeks to dene the right balance of modal options to meet its growing transportation needs. Large Legacy System Overview of archetype. e Large Legacy System archetype consists of public transporta- tion agencies that have been providing service for several decades. Many such systems serve major metropolitan areas, including the largest cities in the United States. e transit systems within this archetype are typically comprised of xed guideways, xed-route bus systems, and demand response services. Other commuter-targeted services, such as commuter rail, express bus service, and vanpools, may also be provided. Large Legacy Systems are tasked with addressing aging systems with a backlog of unmet maintenance and replacement needs. eir services are major components of the overall transportation system in their region as demonstrated by their mode share, particularly during the peak work-commuting periods. Investment prole. Large Legacy Systems operate transit services that have become ingrained in the overall network of their respec- tive metropolitan area and are critical to their continued functioning. Accordingly, capital investments focus on those expenditures that pre- serve and replace vehicle eets, passenger and maintenance facilities, and rider amenities for existing services. e largest of these systems have portions of their xed guideway systems that are underground and/or elevated. Given their age, these components require signicant maintenance on an ongoing basis and may need costly rehabilitation or even replacement. Large Legacy System • Large transit system • Significant institutional capacity within transit agency • Aging system • Struggle to keep up with SGR

34 Prioritization of Public Transportation Investments: A Guide for Decision-Makers Large Legacy Systems are modernized through replacements of vehicles and equipment as resources allow, along with the introduction of technological enhancements, particularly those focused on enhancing service reliability. Service expansions (particularly of new xed guideway components) are less common than for the other illustrative archetypes due to the signicant nancial requirements needed to maintain current service oerings and the relative maturity of system networks. Key types of decision criteria. Asset management in pursuit of achieving a state of good repair of vehicles, equipment, and facilities is the primary objective of Large Legacy System investment priorities, and this is reected in the decision criteria types that tend to be selected and emphasized under this archetype. As discussed previously, Large Legacy System transit agencies are more signicant components of their respective regional transportation systems than the other illustrative archetypes. Given their direct impacts on key elements of economic development and quality of life, Large Legacy System transit agencies tend to emphasize most of the criteria types presented in Table 8 in their investment decision-making. However, land use does not change as much on a systemwide basis in the area served by Large Legacy Systems as in the Growing Transit arche- type, as residential and non-residential tenants may come and go, but the land uses themselves are relatively stable in older, built-out urban areas. Decision-making capacity and resources. Large Legacy System transit agencies would be expected to have signicant institutional and analytical capacity in-house generated over their existence to support operations and planning. is capacity supports relatively expansive and rened assessment methodologies that can be incorporated into capital investment prioritiza- tion systems both inside a transit agency and as an input to other investment decisions at a regional or even state level. Over their considerable history, Large Legacy Systems have had to justify investments to their sizable and organized ridership who represents the constituents of elected and appointed ocials who can exert external inuence on Large Legacy Systems. Investment prioritization under this archetype is likely to include many quantied metrics across various criteria types for investment decision-making. When not possible, sophisticated ordinal scoring or an equivalent would be employed. Statewide Overview. e statewide archetype primarily covers state DOTs and state-operated authori- ties that inuence the prioritization and selection of public transportation projects not as transit agencies but as funding agents, including for FTA Section 5311 Formula Grants for Rural Areas. Excluding the Basic Access archetype, the other illustrative archetypes—Small Fixed-Route, Growing Transit, and Large Legacy Systems—are, with limited exceptions, direct recipients of FTA funds for capital investments. Certain states also provide funds for capital investments to transit agencies by formula, through competitive solicitations, or both. Of all the illustrative archetypes, the statewide archetype has the most variation, as the provision of funding cannot be classied into representative categories like agencies that directly provide transit service. Note that this archetype does not necessarily capture specic cases where states own and operate their transit systems. Depending on the type of service provided and the specics of the community served, those cases of state-operated transit may be more like the other archetypes. Statewide • State DOT with leadership/oversight responsibilities for a diversity of transit systems and regions • Decision-making must accommodate diversity of needs

Guidelines for Application 35   Investment profile. The types of public transportation activities (including capital invest- ments) that are eligible to receive and expend state funds are often stipulated in the legislation that authorizes and appropriates these revenues. In this way, statewide agencies can influence the extent to which their funding complements that from federal and local sources by directing it to projects similar to those funding sources or incentivizing capital investments that would not otherwise be made with non-state funds. An example is California’s Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP), which provides capital funding for transformative public transportation improvements that reduce greenhouse gases, congestion, and vehicle miles traveled. Key types of decision criteria. As with investment profiles, the criteria types utilized by statewide agencies for distributing funding to transit agencies are largely dependent on the impe- tus for the legislation that authorizes the funding. Statewide agencies have some degree of flex- ibility in creating the criteria and metrics but are often guided by legislation. However, there may be more discretion in the application of criteria, particularly when criteria are qualitative rather than quantitative. As with all archetypes, accessibility, social equity/environmental justice, and viability/feasibility are criteria types that are expected to be relevant to transit investments. Beyond this, criteria may be intentionally defined in a quite broad manner to accommodate the diversity of needs, community types, and information availability typically found across a state. As with statewide investment prioritization processes in general across modes, criteria used to evaluate transit investments may in some cases be tailored to different area types (e.g., urban/rural) as a way of managing diversity. Decision-making capacity and resources. Statewide agencies are generally expected to respond to the criteria types as required directly or indirectly by the authorizing legislation for the public transportation funding. The sophistication of the models and tools that are developed for the distribution of public transportation funds would be expected to reflect the complexity of criteria required to meet the intent of the authorizing legislation. Additional Considerations The archetypes are a means for classifying the capital investment prioritization environment of approximately 3,000 transit agencies. In addition to the situational guidance provided above, two additional considerations are relevant across all of the illustrative archetypes: 1. Criteria and related metrics that address social equity/environmental justice are taking on increased importance, as discussed in the next chapter. 2. The discretion for developing a prioritization process, including selection of criteria and metrics, varies widely, irrespective of the presented illustrative archetypes. Some entities governing transit agencies and transit funding defer to technical staff, while others are highly involved in setting priorities. Political influences on the prioritization of capital transit invest- ments are independent of the size, complexity of service, and technical expertise of transit agency staff.