The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 8-48

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 8... ... 8 This chapter describes a set of four case studies performed to test the implementation of cross-asset resource allocation approaches and document lessons learned for cases in which an agency has implemented such an approach. The case studies were performed for the following agencies: • Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Read the entire page →
From page 9... ... Case Studies Illustrating Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Approaches 9 Transportation Board approved ADOT's most recent plan update entitled "What Moves You Arizona" ("WMYA") 2040, which covers a 25-year planning horizon from 2016–2040. Read the entire page →
From page 10... ... 10 Case Studies in Implementing Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation how to spend limited transportation dollars. The results from the survey were then translated into a "Public AIC." • Developing the Final RIC: The final overall statewide and Greater Arizona RICs were developed through an iterative process. Read the entire page →
From page 11... ... Case Studies Illustrating Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Approaches 11 Strategic Framework The WMYA 2040 goals and objectives were established early in the planning effort and served as the strategic framework for AIC and RIC development. As illustrated in Figure 3-1, the framework was based on three system-related goal areas: (1) Read the entire page →
From page 12... ... 12 Case Studies in Implementing Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation and to enable scenario planning participants to see how changes in resource allocation strategies potentially affect system performance. This aided the participants to make more informed decisions regarding tradeoffs between spending on different investment types. Read the entire page →
From page 13... ... Case Studies Illustrating Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Approaches 13 The results of this survey led to an average priority weighting for each investment type, as illustrated in Figure 3-2. Priorities are reflected by how respondents weighed the importance of different improvement types when asked to allocate funding among them. Read the entire page →
From page 14... ... 14 Case Studies in Implementing Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Scenario Workshop The results from the pairwise comparison were presented at a scenario planning workshop held in August 2016, which was attended by more than 60 transportation stakeholders from across the state. Attendees were assigned breakout groups and discussed their reactions to the pairwise results and associated Baseline Allocation of Resources. Read the entire page →
From page 15... ... Case Studies Illustrating Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Approaches 15 Figure 3-4. Example of survey page. Read the entire page →
From page 16... ... 16 Case Studies in Implementing Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation The survey results were then translated into another potential resource allocation strategy (using the same $1 billion per year in available annual funding that was used with the Agency AIC) Read the entire page →
From page 17... ... Case Studies Illustrating Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Approaches 17 The ADOT Priority Planning Advisory Committee (PPAC) took the lead role in building from the AICs to develop the final WMYA 2040 RIC that was recommended to the Arizona Transportation Board. Read the entire page →
From page 18... ... 18 Case Studies in Implementing Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation created two tiers of RICs. The first tier provides guidance on how ADOT's overall capital funding should be allocated to preservation, modernization, and expansion. Read the entire page →
From page 19... ... Case Studies Illustrating Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Approaches 19 • There was confusion about what some of the investment categories referred to and this may have led to inaccuracies in results. In particular, many did not know the difference between "preservation" and "O&M," which may have led to preservation being underweighted. Read the entire page →
From page 20... ... 20 Case Studies in Implementing Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation across five different goals. The following paragraphs describe Caltrans's efforts to implement the new approach, which was still in testing as of the completion of this report. Read the entire page →
From page 21... ... Case Studies Illustrating Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Approaches 21 Approach Overview Using MODA, potential projects are evaluated quantitatively in terms of how well they support each of Caltrans' goals. The goals, adapted from the Caltrans 2015–2020 Strategic Plan, as seen in Exhibit 3-1. Read the entire page →
From page 22... ... 22 Case Studies in Implementing Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Figure 3-10. Calculating project benefits. Read the entire page →
From page 23... ... Case Studies Illustrating Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Approaches 23 Vehicle user safety benefits are measured in terms of the estimated annual crash cost savings resulting from a project. Crash cost savings are calculated by estimating the reduction in the crash rate for the project. Read the entire page →
From page 24... ... 24 Case Studies in Implementing Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation specific quantities of the following facilities, constructed as part of the project, and that are associated with increased use of active transportation: • Bike lanes, • Multi-use paths, and • Sidewalks. Goal 3: Stewardship and Efficiency Many of the projects in the SHOPP are motivated by a desire to maintain the SHS efficiently and responsibly by restoring assets to a state of good repair, improving resiliency of the system, and reducing risk. Read the entire page →
From page 25... ... Case Studies Illustrating Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Approaches 25 • Vessel collisions, • Sabotage, • Advanced deterioration, and • Steel fatigue. Note that Caltrans does not have specific algorithms for addressing each type of risk. Read the entire page →
From page 26... ... 26 Case Studies in Implementing Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation highway may include improvements to drainage systems and restoration of wetlands that reduce pollution from runoff. Other projects may include fish passages or wildlife crossings that reduce impacts of roads to wildlife (and in the case of wildlife crossings, improve safety) Read the entire page →
From page 27... ... Case Studies Illustrating Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Approaches 27 For this case study, the five goal areas were entered as the performance measures in the tool, shown in Figure 3-12. A sampling of the project data entered in the "Project Impacts" worksheet of the tool is shown in Figure 3-13. Read the entire page →
From page 28... ... 28 Case Studies in Implementing Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Figure 3-16. Sample of optimization results. Read the entire page →
From page 29... ... Case Studies Illustrating Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Approaches 29 Lessons Learned The lessons learned from the case study include the following: • It is feasible to develop a quantitative approach for prioritizing asset preservation projects, though more testing and refinement is required to put the approach into production for Caltrans. • Data, models, and techniques developed for benefit–cost analysis are extremely applicable for developing a benefit or utility function. Read the entire page →
From page 30... ... 30 Case Studies in Implementing Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation the maximum return on investment for all communities, the DVRPC moved to a data-driven MODA approach for project evaluation and selection beginning with development of the FY 2016 New Jersey TIP and FY 2017 Pennsylvania TIP and has continued to expand and improve upon this process. Project Selection Approach Overview The current DVRPC project selection approach, developed in 2014, aims to leverage improved agency data resources and analytical capabilities to objectively evaluate projects based on alignment with LRTP goals. Read the entire page →
From page 31... ... Case Studies Illustrating Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Approaches 31 Development of the new project selection process included an innovative application of MODA principles and strived to use criteria that are multimodal in nature to align with the LRTP's vision for a more multimodal transportation network and to better reflect the increasingly complex and multimodal nature of projects that are coming into the TIP. This approach consisted of the establishment of project selection criteria, determination of criteria weighting reflective of agency priorities, creation of criteria rating scales for evaluating projects on a level playing field, and ranking of candidate projects based on a combination of their overall value and cost effectiveness. Read the entire page →
From page 32... ... 32 Case Studies in Implementing Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation level, normalized playing field for comparative analysis. Using such scales, each criterion rating is converted to a raw (i.e., unweighted) Read the entire page →
From page 33... ... Case Studies Illustrating Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Approaches 33 Quantitative scores, however, are only one piece of information used when making project decisions. Benefit-cost ratios may not always be accurate due to incomplete/poor data, so other factors such as geographic equity, alignment with the goal of fostering a multimodal program, and level of political support are considered during the final selection alongside the project priority scores and any carried over projects from previous TIPs. Read the entire page →
From page 34... ... 34 Case Studies in Implementing Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation enable the DVRPC to achieve a thorough understanding of context and specific challenges for each project in addition to gathering data to support application of the evaluation criteria and MODA ranking process. A spreadsheet tool is used to translate accepted applications into the established prioritization process, with projects assigned points primarily based on categorical (discrete) Read the entire page →
From page 35... ... Figure 3-19. Screenshot of DVRPC interactive TIP mapping. Read the entire page →
From page 36... ... 36 Case Studies in Implementing Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation to revise ROI predictions -- made at various phases of the project development and delivery process -- and validate decision processes. The RTC identified two areas it wanted to more directly analyze in the project evaluation criteria: risk and health. Read the entire page →
From page 37... ... Case Studies Illustrating Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Approaches 37 Building flexibility into the decision framework was additionally found to be essential. As priorities shift, having the ability to update both weights and the criteria themselves has enabled the DVRPC to dynamically react to shifting goals and stakeholder values while making continued progress in evaluating programs and corresponding tradeoffs. Read the entire page →
From page 38... ... 38 Case Studies in Implementing Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Goal 3: Reducing Congestion and Improving Commute Times, Goal 4: Environmental Stewardship, Goal 5: Community Vitality, Goal 6: Economic Prosperity, Goal 7: Equitable Access to Transportation, Goal 8: Cost Effectiveness and Return on Investment, and Goal 9: Local Priorities. A cross-functional team of state transportation staff and local partners at the Maryland Municipal League (MML) Read the entire page →
From page 39... ... Case Studies Illustrating Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Approaches 39 G4 M1 Emissions Reduction The potential of the project to limit or reduce harmful emissions. The measure quantifies the gallons of fuel projected to be saved by the project. Read the entire page →
From page 40... ... 40 Case Studies in Implementing Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation G7 M2 Low-Income Community Economic Development The projected economic development impact on low-income communities. G8 M1 Travel Time Savings The estimated travel time savings divided by the project cost. Read the entire page →
From page 41... ... Case Studies Illustrating Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Approaches 41 multiplied by the goal weights shown in Figure 3-20, and the weighted goal scores are summed to obtain the project raw score. For instance, Goal 1: Safety and Security has a weight of 19%, thus the score for this goal is multiplied by 0.19 and added together with the values for other goals to obtain the project raw score. Read the entire page →
From page 42... ... 42 Case Studies in Implementing Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Secretary of Transportation for consideration in the Final CTP. The Final CTP is published in early January. Read the entire page →
From page 43... ... Case Studies Illustrating Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Approaches 43 • Safety: 35%, • System Preservation: 35%, • Mobility: 15%, and • Environment and Community: 15%. For illustrative purposes, these weights were applied to the overall score for each of the 11 sample projects to obtain a final score. Read the entire page →
From page 44... ... 44 Case Studies in Implementing Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Rank ID Project Description Score Cost ($000) Score/Cost (x1M) Read the entire page →
From page 45... ... Case Studies Illustrating Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Approaches 45 The projects and scores from the evaluation spreadsheet were then entered in the "Project Impacts" worksheet of the tool. The tool includes columns for both the "No Build" and "Build" scenario, indicating the impact of the project if it is completed or not. Read the entire page →
From page 46... ... 46 Case Studies in Implementing Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Figure 3-24. Project ranking by overall score/cost. Read the entire page →
From page 47... ... Case Studies Illustrating Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation Approaches 47 Lastly, the tool shows the performance of the projects selected for funding. The "Build" column in Figure 3-27 indicates the score possible if all the projects were selected for funding. Read the entire page →
From page 48... ... 48 Case Studies in Implementing Cross-Asset, Multi-Objective Resource Allocation 2. California Department of Transportation. Read the entire page →

From page 8...

... 8 This chapter describes a set of four case studies performed to test the implementation of cross-asset resource allocation approaches and document lessons learned for cases in which an agency has implemented such an approach. The case studies were performed for the following agencies: • Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)