Economic and Development Implications of Transportation Disinvestment (2015) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 25-34
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 25... ...
25 prompted by constrained funding. In 2010, the target for nonprincipal arterials was less than or equal to 3% poor quality (Minnesota DOT 2010)
|
From page 26... ...
26 another, with information and images presented about what kind of pavement a user would traverse in the course of that travel. User costs were not explicitly presented; however, some advocacy groups within the state did try to offer this type of analysis.
|
From page 27... ...
27 project considers to be a disinvestment situation: the closing of bridges with very low volumes. From a priority perspective, these bridges will never be ranked high enough to receive funding.
|
From page 28... ...
28 closures to the expense of physically removing an asset and restoring the condition of the area afterwards; and these costs need to be weighed against both the savings on maintenance and the performance effects of removing part of the transportation system. Second, a prioritization scheme that focuses on top priority assets can only result in a form of unintended blindness to the role played by lower priority assets.
|
From page 29... ...
29 and more frequent maintenance and rehabilitation work. In addition, the viaduct is characterized by transportation performance deficiencies, including operational problems at interchanges that handle volumes as much as three times their original design capacity.
|
From page 30... ...
30 SIMULTANEOUS INVESTMENT AND DISINVESTMENT: MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Mississippi DOT defines its case of disinvestment as three rounds of funding cuts that were made in the last three years, affecting the entire system and all programs. This phased disinvestment was triggered by a funding shortfall; the agency had been projecting revenue growth of a few percent per year; however, current estimates are now adjusted downward to project flat funding, at best, because of reductions in VMT and revenue from the fuel tax.
|
From page 31... ...
31 2,000 average annual daily traffic (AADT) limit for the chip seal treatment.
|
From page 32... ...
disinvestment; • Case example material and outreach to industry would be valuable; and • Agencies are grappling with the economic tradeoff between investing in mobility and investing in preservation; and • The cost to dispose (enforcement, physical removal) and the performance effects of removing part of the transportation system should be weighed against savings on maintenance; and • Defining performance is more straightforward in an example like the South Dakota railroad situation than it might be in more complex or urban systems; and • Investment and disinvestment strategies are influenced by national policy.
|
From page 33... ...
• Even at the corridor or single-asset level, designs can be changed to shift emphasis between different categories of performance. • Policy mandates for a given investment strategy will have ripple effects within an agency; and • Continuing a non-optimal investment strategy can result in passive disinvestment elsewhere within a system; and • Agencies want to quantify the economic tradeoff between investing in mobility and investing in preservation.
|
From page 34... ...
34 important precondition to making strategic disinvestment and investment decisions. Case examples of previous projects and input from industry stakeholders were generally viewed as a useful approach to understanding the economic implications of disinvestment.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.