The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 41-58

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 41... ... 41 Demonstration of Cross-Modal Prioritization is section of the guide includes a pilot demonstration illustrating dierent approaches to prioritizing capital projects across multiple modes. e pilot demonstrates how measures, representing multiple objectives with various units of analysis, can be combined in a quantitative prioritization framework to identify funding priorities. Read the entire page →
From page 42... ... 42 Prioritization of Public Transportation Investments: A Guide for Decision-Makers Section 6.5 Pilot Demonstration Conclusions summarizes the results from the pilot, which include the nding that project ranking can be very sensitive to the absence of an important objective and that one can approximate the results of a data-intensive prioritization approach using a streamlined, less sophisticated set of measures. 6.1 Objectives and Measures e objectives included in the pilot prioritization process were identied based on the research team's review of practice, and the measures were selected to be similar to actual measures used in practice. Read the entire page →
From page 43... ... Demonstration of Cross-Modal Prioritization 43 Mobility Travel-Time Savings (hours/day) Total travel-time savings in hours per day • Virginia OIPI: Person-Hours of Delay Increased Transit Ridership (passengers/day) Read the entire page →
From page 44... ... 44 Prioritization of Public Transportation Investments: A Guide for Decision-Makers Note that all of the measures except one -- the Highway Mobility Improvement Score -- also appear in Table 9. Further, note that relative to the data-intensive case, in the streamlined case, the Stewardship objective is omitted. Read the entire page →
From page 45... ... Demonstration of Cross-Modal Prioritization 45 Measure Description Examples Mobility Highway Mobility Improvement Score Score reflecting improvement to mobility for the highway mode • BMC: Highway Level of Service (LOS) Multimodal Mobility Improvement Score Score reflecting mobility for non-highway modes • Oregon DOT: Integration of Transit Services • Virginia OIPI: Access to Multimodal Choices • MTC: Accessibility • Broward County MPO: Impact on Multimodal Connectivity Safety and Security Safety and Security Score Score reflecting the count and extent of improvements to safety and/or security • BMC: Complete Streets Features & Evacuation Route or Parallels • Maryland DOT: Reduction in Fatalities and Injuries & Complete Streets Environmental Performance Environmental Performance Score Score reflecting environmental improvements incorporated in the project • CMAP: Environmental Quality Score • Virginia OIPI: Air Quality and Energy Environmental Effect Economic Development Economic Development Score Score reflecting the extent to which the project supports the local economic • BMC: Connection to Priority Funding Area • ATL: Re/Development Potential development and serves as a catalyst for future development • Virginia OIPI: Project Support for Economic Development Equity Increased Modal Accessibility Score Score reflecting the increase in travel modes accessible to disadvantaged households (may apply to new service or enhancement of existing service) Read the entire page →
From page 46... ... 46 Prioritization of Public Transportation Investments: A Guide for Decision-Makers were also supplemented with synthetic information appropriate to the nature of the projects being analyzed. Additionally, since the approach for scaling and normalizing measures varies by agency, much of the data from the original projects have been transformed to provide a unied demonstration data set. Read the entire page →
From page 47... ... Demonstration of Cross-Modal Prioritization 47 For the pilot, projects are prioritized based on an overall score divided by the project's cost. e project score is a weighted sum of scores calculated for each of the seven objectives. Read the entire page →
From page 48... ... 48 Prioritization of Public Transportation Investments: A Guide for Decision-Makers ere are dierent approaches for prioritizing projects once objective scores are calculated. A typical approach is to calculate an overall score for the project that combines scores for dierent objectives using weights on each objective that overall sum to 100%. Read the entire page →
From page 49... ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Description Base TransitFocused HighwayFocused SafetyFocused E onomyFocused EquityFocused Envi onmentFocused Consistency with Plans Perspective Focus on Quantitative Measures Focus on Measures of Time & Money Objective Weights Mobility 20% 30% 25% 10% 10% 5% 10% 10% 30% 30% Safety & Security 25% 10% 25% 40% 10% 15% 5% 10% 10% 5% Stewardship 10% 5% 25% 15% 10% 5% 15% 10% 10% 15% Environmental Performance 10% 20% 5% 15% 5% 15% 40% 10% 5% 5% Economic Development 15% 10% 5% 5% 40% 10% 5% 10% 10% 30% Equity 10% 20% 5% 5% 20% 40% 15% 10% 30% 10% Consistency with Agency Plans & Priorities 10% 5% 10% 10% 5% 10% 10% 40% 5% 5% Measure Weights Mobility Trave Time Savings (hours/day) 40% 5% 80% 20% 70% 10% 5% 40% 50% 80% Increased Transit Ridership (pass/day) Read the entire page →
From page 50... ... 50 Prioritization of Public Transportation Investments: A Guide for Decision-Makers e logic behind the scenario denition is as follows: • Scenario 1 is the Base case, with objective weights set at typical values based on the review of practice. • Scenarios 2 to 8 are similar to Scenario 1, except that the objective weights are revised to emphasize a single mode or objective. Read the entire page →
From page 51... ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Description Base TransitFocused HighwayFocused SafetyFocused E onomyFocused EquityFocused Envi onmentFocused Consistency with Plans Perspective Focus on Quantitative Measures Focus on Measures of Time & Money Objective Weights Mobility 22% 32% 33% 12% 11% 5% 12% 11% 33% 35% Safety & Security 28% 11% 33% 47% 11% 16% 6% 11% 11% 6% Stewardship 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Environmental Performance 11% 21% 7% 18% 6% 16% 47% 11% 6% 6% Economic Development 17% 11% 7% 6% 44% 11% 6% 11% 11% 35% Equity 11% 21% 7% 6% 22% 42% 18% 11% 33% 12% Consistency with Agency Plans & Priorities 11% 5% 13% 12% 6% 11% 12% 44% 6% 6% Measure Weights Mobility Highway Mobility Imp. Score (scaled) Read the entire page →
From page 52... ... 52 Prioritization of Public Transportation Investments: A Guide for Decision-Makers Project Rankings in the Streamlined and Data-Intensive Scenarios Table 12 summarizes the rank order results for the data-intensive and streamlined scenarios. Projects are listed in order of increasing rank using the ranks for the data-intensive scenario. Read the entire page →
From page 53... ... Demonstration of Cross-Modal Prioritization 53 correlation between a pair of variables. A value of −1 indicates they are negatively correlated, and a value of 0 indicates the variables are uncorrelated. Read the entire page →
From page 54... ... 54 Prioritization of Public Transportation Investments: A Guide for Decision-Makers e projects are ordered by average rank (which is slightly dierent from the order in Table 12) Read the entire page →
From page 55... ... Demonstration of Cross-Modal Prioritization 55 (ID 2) ranges from 3 to 16. Read the entire page →
From page 56... ... 56 Prioritization of Public Transportation Investments: A Guide for Decision-Makers data-intensive case show that the additional measures in the data-intensive case do add information to the ranking process, allowing for greater variation in ranks. Practitioners should understand that altering the method of calculation for a measure or removing the measure entirely would impact the project scores and ranks. Read the entire page →
From page 57... ... Demonstration of Cross-Modal Prioritization 57 Figure 15. Flow diagram in MODAT. Read the entire page →
From page 58... ... 58 Prioritization of Public Transportation Investments: A Guide for Decision-Makers single project. Raising and lowering an objective's weight will increase or decrease the size of specic links, adjusting the bias between projects and objectives. Read the entire page →

From page 41...

... 41 Demonstration of Cross-Modal Prioritization is section of the guide includes a pilot demonstration illustrating dierent approaches to prioritizing capital projects across multiple modes. e pilot demonstrates how measures, representing multiple objectives with various units of analysis, can be combined in a quantitative prioritization framework to identify funding priorities.