Multimodal Tradeoffs Workshop
Final Report
prepared for:
Federal
Highway Administration
prepared by:
Cambridge
Systematics, Inc.
4445
Willard Avenue, Suite 300
Chevy
Chase, Maryland 20815
February 2006
Table of Contents
1.0. Introduction
1.1. Multimodal Tradeoffs Background
2.0. Workshop Material
2.1. Workshop Questions on Multimodal Tradeoffs
2.2. Summary of Workshop Material
3.0. Summary
3.1. Discussion Topics
3.2. Informal Presentation Key Points
3.3. Challenges and Solution Strategies
3.4. Next Steps
3.5. Existing Resources
Appendix A - Workshop Participants
Appendix B - Workshop Responses
1.0 Introduction
On October 31, 2005, the Multimodal Tradeoffs Workshop was held in Kansas City, Missouri, and was attended by Federal, state department of transportation (DOT), transit agency, and metropolitan planning organization (MPO) representatives. The goal of the peer exchange was to identify how various agencies address the challenges of managing investment tradeoffs among multimodal systems to achieve policy objectives and balance the needs of a diverse customer base.
Peer exchanges offer a unique opportunity to not only engage in discussion and share experiences and lessons learned but also identify potential solutions and prioritize areas for additional advancement through research, technical assistance, and other activities. This report serves to document and further distribute the insights raised during the meeting with the larger transportation community.
The remainder of this section contains background information on multimodal tradeoffs processes taken from an overview memorandum distributed to participants prior to the peer exchange. Section 2.0 contains a synopsis of the multimodal tradeoff questions participants completed before the meeting (full responses are located in Appendix B). Section 3.0 summarizes the case studies presented at the meeting, additional insights, research needs, and existing resources.
1.1 Multimodal Tradeoffs Background
Transportation agencies confront a wide range of tradeoff decisions within and between modes, policy objectives, performance goals, geographic regions, and market segments. All of these tradeoff issues face the same basic question: How much resource do I allocate to A versus B? To answer this question and identify the actual tradeoff issue itself, one must ask What are the consequences of a particular allocation of resources to A and B? In other words, the allocation decision is based on the set of consequences that the decision-maker prefers.
1.1.1 Key Elements and Framework
The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 8-36 A(07) Phase I - Development of a Multimodal Tradeoffs Methodology for Use in Statewide Transportation Planning - defines the elements of and requirements for a tradeoff analysis to include:
Clearly defined resource or program areas (defining what the tradeoff is between);
Objectives and criteria to measure the consequences of investing in each resource area;
A method for relating investment levels in each area to the resulting consequences in that area; and
A method for comparing consequences generated by each program area as a result of a specific allocation of resources between the areas. [1]
Figure 1.1 depicts a conceptual framework for undertaking multimodal tradeoff analysis. The figure suggests that any number of program areas or resource areas might be defined to structure an agency's investment program. Objectives and criteria need to be defined for each program area to measure the consequences of investments in that area. These objectives and criteria create the basis for the vertical alignment required within each area to perform tradeoff analysis of the consequences of different funding levels within that area. Overall, agency goals and objectives provide the horizontal alignment that is required to perform tradeoff analysis between program areas. This connection of issues, goals, objectives, and measures in both horizontal and vertical dimensions is a necessary feature of a framework for multimodal tradeoff analysis, because it will generally not be possible to apply identical performance objectives to each program area. The integration or alignment of concerns within and across resource areas helps the analyst and the decision-maker compare results of investment in dissimilar programs in terms of common desired outcomes. [2]
1.1.2 Current State-of-the-Practice
Most state DOTs and MPOs have management systems in place that provide useful capabilities for assessing needs and recommending work for specific asset types (e.g., pavements, bridges, and public transit or aviation facilities) and specific functions (e.g., highway, airfield, or rail maintenance). In addition, specialized tools for benefit/cost analysis, life-cycle cost analysis, and investment performance analysis for selected types of strategies are in use. [3] However, these tools have not yet been integrated in a manner that would support program-level modal tradeoffs that reflect a broad range of policy objectives. [4]
Figure 1.1 Generalized Framework for a Tradeoff Analysis
Source: NCHRP Project 8-36.
In 1999, the Washington State Transportation Center surveyed 50 states in order to assess the state-of-the-practice in multimodal transportation planning. The survey results showed that although some states are interested in multimodal analysis, none had discovered tools they could use to perform such analysis. A few states reported that they were in the early stages of developing an analysis tool. Other states responded that they were uninterested in a multimodal analysis tool for three primary reasons:
The state DOT deals primarily with highway projects and very few modal tradeoff opportunities exist;
A state governing body (such as a Transportation Commission) makes subjective decisions based on available data; and
Multimodal planning responsibilities belong to an MPO rather than the state DOT. [5]
2.0 Workshop Material
2.1 Workshop Questions on Multimodal Tradeoffs
To facilitate discussion, each participant was asked to answer the following set of questions prior to coming to the workshop:
-
How would you or your agency define a multimodal tradeoff?
-
Does your agency conduct a multimodal tradeoff analysis (to address both passenger and freight movement)? If so, please describe the process at each of these levels:
-
Planning.
-
Programming.
-
Corridor.
-
Project.
-
-
What tools are used to conduct or make tradeoff decision within modes (e.g., Highway Economic Requirements System for State Use - HERS-ST, National Bridge Investment Analysis System -NBIAS, Pavement Management Systems, travel demand forecasting models)?
-
Does your agency employ specific tools to conduct multimodal tradeoff analyses (between modes)?
-
How are results from multimodal tradeoff analyses utilized and presented in your agency (e.g., Long-Range Plans, Strategic Corridor Plans)?
-
What is your agency's most pressing motivation for having or wanting a formalized multimodal tradeoff process?
-
What are the barriers to developing a process for multimodal tradeoffs? How can these barriers be best overcome?
-
Do you feel all state transportation agencies and MPOs would benefit from a multimodal tradeoff process? Do you feel that this may vary depending on individual transportation agency (e.g., population, percentage of urbanized areas)? If so, what characteristics create the need for multimodal analyses?
-
What do you see as the future for multimodal tradeoff analyses in your agency? What is needed to further the multimodal tradeoff state-of-the-practice?
2.2 Summary of Workshop Material
The participant responses are summarized in the following tables with full responses included in Appendix B.
Responding Agency | 1. How would you or your agency define a multimodal tradeoff? |
---|---|
Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) | Allocation of funding to each of the modes of transportation and selection of modes in a corridor improvement plan |
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Asset Management | Pertains to choices between transit and highway, rail and marine, and rail and highway |
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Region 7 | A broad range of activities could be considered a multimodal tradeoff |
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) | Process of choosing the combination of modal solutions that will best meet established policies, goals, objectives, and strategies |
Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) | Tradeoffs are amongst highway, transit, and bicycle/pedestrian alternatives |
Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) | The costs or consequences of one set of investment choices over another - preferred wording would be integrated investment strategy |
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) | Mn/DOT does not formally define the concept of multimodal tradeoffs ; the agency's vision is to establish a coordinated transportation network |
Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) | Maximizing transportation resources to have the greatest transportation benefit |
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) | Involves either a choice between various transportation modes to solve a particular transportation problem (project-level tradeoff) or a programmatic investment decision that chooses a funding level for various modal transportation programs (programmatic-level tradeoff) |
Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) | TriMet does not deal with the concept directly |
Utah Transit Authority (UTA) | A situation where different modal investments could achieve specific objectives; the tradeoff would address how effective and cost effective each would be at meeting objectives |
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) | Comparing investments in two modes and determining the better overall investment |
Responding Agency | 2. Does your agency conduct a multimodal tradeoff analysis (to address both passenger and freight movement)? If so, please describe the process at each of these levels: | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
2a. Planning | 2b. Programming | 2c. Corridor | 2d. Project | |
DRCOG | No | Conducted qualitatively as part of the resource allocation | Conducted as part of the environmental process | No |
FHWA Office of Asset Management | The FHWA does not itself conduct multimodal tradeoff analysis | |||
FTA Region 7 | The FTA provides funding and technical support to facilitate planning, including multimodal tradeoff analysis for states, transit operators, and MPOs | |||
FDOT | Florida uses a dynamic multimodal tradeoff process that evaluates progress in meeting established policies, goals, objectives, and strategies; the results of various analyses are used to adjust policies, goals, objectives, and strategies - as well as the evaluation tools themselves - as needed and as desired | FDOT first adopts an overall investment policy, and then reaches consensus among its program managers and decision-makers on the allocation of resources across programs; funding allocation formulas also guide investment decisions | Decisions focus on choosing the right mix of modes to move people and freight | Decisions are driven by policy and supported by data (i.e., from technical analyses, partner input, and financial analyses); priorities determined from a systemwide perspective |
H-GAC | No | |||
MDOT | Our focus is on completing systems, not competing systems; MDOT provides designers with the context information and training needed to incorporate multiple modes | Funding at state and Federal levels is protected or compartmentalized, and programming follows the Federal and state programs defined in law | This will be one of the products of our State Long-Range Plan | Yes, as required in the NEPA process |
Mn/DOT | Mn/DOT policies and programs guide investment decisions; factors that shape the development of Mn/DOT policies and programs include safety, the integration of transportation modes, service and investment preservation, customer focus, economic development, technology, environment partnerships, and Federal actions | |||
MoDOT | To date, multimodal tradeoffs have only occurred in highway corridor expansions in urban areas; public transportation alternatives and needs are considered and incorporated where possible | |||
PSRC | Developing a framework to better prioritize transportation investments to meet state requirements for least-cost planning.; the intent is not a ranked list, but investments divided into high, medium, and low priorities | Projects using STP, CMAQ, and FTA dollars are selected based on policy goals in the transportation plan and input from policy boards; projects are ranked qualitatively based on how well they achieve the policy goal(s) | Corridor planning studies make basic project-level multimodal tradeoff decisions based on criteria established at the beginning of the process; the aim is to select the right mode, or mix of modes, to meet the needs in a corridor | Same as corridor-level decisions |
TriMet | As a transit agency, TriMet rarely deals with freight issues except to the extent we move people efficiently; thus, freeing road capacity for truck movements | o, however this does happen at a regional level with Metro, the Port of Portland, Oregon DOT, and road jurisdictions being key players | Same as 2a and 2b | |
UTA | A tradeoff analysis would use planning-level costs to assess the range of modal investments that should be examined more thoroughly to meet a defined need | (No response provided) | At a corridor level, an alternatives analysis would be performed that describes specific alternatives and evaluates each against objectives and criteria | During the environmental phase, specific tradeoffs against detail cost, effectiveness, and impacts should be made; in most cases, the project is pretty well defined at this point |
VDOT | In the process of developing a multimodal tradeoff method | See 2a | Diversion analyses and mode choice modeling | Same as 2c |
Responding Agency | 3. What tools are used to conduct or make tradeoff decision within modes (e.g., Highway Economic Requirements System for State Use - HERS?ST, National Bridge Investment Analysis System - NBIAS, Pavement Management Systems, travel demand forecasting models)? |
---|---|
DRCOG |
|
FHWA Office of Asset Management |
|
FTA Region 7 |
FTA funding supports the use of many sketch-planning and modeling tools |
FDOT |
|
H-GAC |
N/A |
MDOT |
|
Mn/DOT |
|
MoDOT |
|
PSRC |
|
TriMet |
N/A |
UTA |
|
VDOT |
|
Responding Agency | 4. Does your agency employ specific tools to conduct multimodal tradeoff analyses (between modes)? |
---|---|
DRCOG |
No |
FHWA Office of Asset Management |
While Federal requirements specify a wide range of factors, they generally do not specify what analytical tools - such as benefit-cost analysis - planners should use to evaluate alternatives |
FTA Region 7 |
FTA funding supports a very broad range of tools |
FDOT |
No |
H-GAC |
ot between passenger and freight but among passenger modes H-GAC employs a travel demand forecasting methodology along with the experiences of local governments' decision-makers |
MDOT |
No, MDOT hopes to develop an integrated transportation investment strategy as part of the State Long-Range Plan |
Mn/DOT |
No |
MoDOT |
No |
PSRC |
A least-cost planning methodology is being further developed to help prioritize system expansion projects within the metropolitan transportation plan; this process will use a cost-benefit analysis framework |
TriMet |
Only within transit modes - generally through corridor studies and associated Alternatives Analysis and demand forecasting |
UTA |
No |
VDOT |
Only for passenger versus rail freight; currently all transit funding is by formula |
Responding Agency | 5. How are results from multimodal tradeoff analyses utilized and presented in your agency (e.g., Long-Range Plans, Strategic Corridor Plans)? |
---|---|
DRCOG | Scenarios involving various degrees of improvement are presented to the advisory committee and to the policy-makers |
FHWA Office of Asset Management | MPOs are required to develop a long-range transportation plan; at the state level, each state DOT is expected to work cooperatively with its MPOs to develop a State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which is an intermodal program of projects encompassing all the areas of the state |
FTA Region 7 | The whole concept of multimodal analysis is important in regional short-range and long-range planning; everything from congestion management planning to corridor planning, to maintenance planning benefits from a total look at the transportation network and needs |
FDOT | Through documentation of performance measures, the Department and its partners can see how well we are achieving established policies, goals, objectives, and strategies; FDOT produces a multiple performance documents; in addition, FDOT has several viable modal and multimodal performance measures initiatives |
H-GAC | N/A |
MDOT | The MDOT Five-Year Transportation Program is an integrated multimodal transportation investment document, but does not contain tradeoff analyses; new State Long-Range Plan will contain integrated transportation investment strategy |
Mn/DOT | Mn/DOT does not formally define the concept of multimodal tradeoffs; it is implied in Mn/DOT's Planning and Programming Process (i.e., Mn/DOT's Strategic Plan and Long-Range Transportation Plan) |
MoDOT | MoDOT administers single-mode dedicated funding programs that do not allow mixing of funding from one mode to another |
PSRC | Congestion management process, least-cost planning approach, and corridor plan analysis used within the metropolitan transportation plan; PSRC's project selection process is aimed at picking the highest priority investment to move forward for implementation |
TriMet | The 20-year Regional Transportation Plan and the TriMet's five-year Transit Investment Plan (TIP) are coordinated by the MPO and related committees |
UTA | Corridor studies use tables with performance and impact information |
VDOT | This is still on the horizon for VDOT |
Responding Agency | 6. What is your agency's most pressing motivation for having or wanting a formalized multimodal tradeoff process? |
---|---|
DRCOG |
|
FHWA Office of Asset Management |
Concerned that the public's resources are being invested efficiently and wisely |
FTA Region 7 |
The value of a multimodal national transportation network |
FDOT |
Better determination of project outcomes and impacts so better decisions can be made |
H-GAC |
Provide better information to regional transportation decision-makers |
MDOT |
Provide Michigan with an integrated multimodal transportation system that makes sense in a time of limited financial resources and increasing and diverse customer expectations |
Mn/DOT |
Help contribute to the establishment of more refined scenario- and project-level analysis and investment decisions |
MoDOT |
Maximize transportation benefit with limited resources |
PSRC |
|
TriMet |
Support for the 2040 Framework Plan (long-range plan); in the long run, transportation problems are best addressed through land use planning; related is assurance of freight mobility, which in turn promotes regional economic development |
UTA |
Currently engaged in several multimodal studies |
VDOT |
Making investments across modes |
Responding Agency | 7. What are the barriers to developing a process for multimodal tradeoffs? How can these barriers be best overcome? |
---|---|
DRCOG |
|
FHWA Office of Asset Management |
|
FTA Region 7 |
Awareness of the possibilities |
FDOT |
|
H-GAC |
Data and modeling software capability |
MDOT |
|
Mn/DOT |
A multimodal tradeoff process would need to be vetted through Mn/DOT organization for accuracy, veracity, robustness |
MoDOT |
|
PSRC |
|
TriMet |
Resources at both the Federal and local levels |
UTA |
(No response provided) |
VDOT |
Transit funds are provided by formula - even nine percent of STP money that is flexed to transit - so there is little incentive to identify multimodal performance measures; but, politically (and professionally), there is an interest in doing so |
Responding Agency | 8. Do you feel all state transportation agencies and MPOs would benefit from a multimodal tradeoff process? Do you feel that this may vary depending on individual transportation agency (e.g., population, percentage of urbanized areas)? If so, what characteristics create the need for multimodal analyses? |
---|---|
DRCOG |
Yes, all states would benefit; the benefits would vary by the number and complexity of decisions needing to be made; scarcity of funds will likely be the primary driver |
FHWA Office of Asset Management |
Yes, the benefits would depend on the complexity of existing transportation system |
FTA Region 7 |
A process would be beneficial and might be similar to the concept of Human Services Coordination; it does not need to be an all-or-nothing approach |
FDOT |
Yes, all states would benefit from a process that is flexible enough to allow for major differences in the type/size of the entity doing the evaluation and making decisions |
H-GAC |
All agencies would benefit from a process and the benefits would likely vary by MPO and state DOT, with relative size and complexity, and the presence of major freight facilities |
MDOT |
Yes, a process is beneficial; the need for a multimodal analyses/process is primarily driven by: 1) a more diverse customer base, and 2) expanding customer expectations |
Mn/DOT |
Larger urban areas might benefit to a greater degree than smaller urban/rural areas; population, employment, land use, and travel growth patterns, as well as existing and future transit service, defined linkages between highway and other intermodal facilities/modes |
MoDOT |
All would benefit from a formal process, but it will be difficult to develop a process that will work for all states |
PSRC |
All state transportation agencies and MPOs make investment decisions and would benefit from a multimodal tradeoff process; smaller urban areas and rural areas may need much simpler tools than larger urbanized areas, but a way of comparing across investments is needed in all areas |
TriMet |
Yes |
UTA |
UTA would benefit from a formalized process |
VDOT |
A multimodal tradeoff method can provide data to inform decision-makers |
Responding Agency | 9. What do you see as the future for multimodal tradeoff analyses in your agency? What is needed to further the multimodal tradeoff state-of-the-practice? |
---|---|
DRCOG |
|
FHWA Office of Asset Management |
The FHWA will continue to provide more and improved tradeoff tools and guidance for use by states and MPOs; the decision to apply these tools will continue to reside at the state and local levels |
FTA Region 7 |
Peer exchanges offer an opportunity to share successful practices; good ideas should be shared and bits and pieces of techniques melded together |
FDOT |
|
H-GAC |
Agencies need a basic understanding of the state-of-the-practice and the benefits and shortfalls of the current approaches |
MDOT |
MDOT will continue to lead the effort to develop and implement an integrated transportation investment strategy; in addition, we need an economic benefits model for all modes and continue to involve stakeholders/customers in development of performance measures |
Mn/DOT |
Mn/DOT is moving in that direction through the development of modal/intermodal measures as part of its long-range transportation system/improvement plans and programs |
MoDOT |
MoDOT will implement some type of process in the future, especially if high fuel prices continue and the resulting increase in demand for alternative transportation options |
PSRC |
eed improved tools and improved understanding of the core concepts on the part of decision-makers |
TriMet |
To the extent it is tied to the 2040 Framework Plan and the balanced development of modes, it is a cornerstone for transportation planning in the Portland region |
UTA |
We need test cases |
VDOT |
VDOT is in the process of developing one and what is needed is better methods |
3.0 Summary
3.1 Discussion Topics
The responses to the workshop questions indicated that multimodal tradeoffs are not widespread as of yet but that there is movement and desire to go in that direction. To further explore this topic, the peer exchange began with presentations from participants about their agencies' use of a multimodal tradeoff analyses. The second part of the day was spent discussing existing challenges, potential solution strategies, next steps, and existing resources.
3.2 Informal Presentation Key Points
During the informal presentations, participants described several multimodal tradeoff analyses processes used in their respective agencies and the current challenges.
3.2.1 Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG)
In the past, modal allocations were driven by: Interstate Transfer (1977-1978) (where highway funds were transferred to transit services), criteria and tradeoff methodology (1980s), and Federal funding categories (1990s). The 1980 tradeoff methodology used basic evaluation matrices with vehicle miles of travel (VMT) as the common denominator to compare across modes. This methodology proved to be too data intensive and was discarded. Currently tradeoffs are done qualitatively based on quantitative rankings of highway and transit projects by type. As is common in other agencies, DRCOG does not have generalized transportation funds but has specific highway and transit funds.
3.2.2 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Office of Asset Management and Office of Planning
The FHWA agreed with the other meeting participant statements that multimodal tradeoff analyses could help agencies allocate limited resources in an efficient and effective manner possible. The FHWA also acknowledged that funding flexibility is a large barrier to multimodal tradeoff analysis because agencies are locked into certain investment decisions. In addition, as more and more funds are devoted to the preservation of existing infrastructure, the ability to conduct multimodal tradeoffs may be reduced. The FHWA Office of Planning emphasized that conducting multimodal discussion at the planning level is of particular importance. Regarding data issues, it will be tough to integrate various databases, so the second-best option could be linking databases or simply making data more available.
3.2.3 Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Regional Office
Having a balanced tradeoff versus a tradeoff is something that can be done by getting the right people at the table - lots of little decisions can help balance the system.
3.2.4 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
In Florida, multimodal tradeoff is about collaboration and ensuring that all partners work together to make better decisions. For the Florida Transportation Plan update in 2000, Florida brought more than 80 leaders together to discuss the issues and decided collectively to establish a Strategic Intermodal System as a first step in refining roles and responsibilities throughout the State. Florida then created another steering committee of 40 people to develop a system that could be quantitatively identified. They proposed three systems and perspectives to cover all transportation facilities in Florida: State, Regional, and Local. They identified the Strategic Intermodal System as the State's primary focus, and recommended further discussions to refine roles and responsibilities for defining regional and local systems. Another steering committee was formed to accomplish this, resulting in adoption of the 2025 Florida Transportation Plan. One of the outcomes of this effort was the recognition that because the state transportation fund is flexible, FDOT is able to make true multimodal choices on the Strategic Intermodal System, and that this same flexibility is needed at the regional and local levels.
3.2.5 Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC)
The Houston area's long-range transportation plan is close to $65 billion. In the late 1980s, Houston focused on expanding capacity to address congestion. This approach was successful until about four or five years ago. With the doubling of population almost every 10 years, mobility and congestion is the biggest issue in the transportation improvement plan (TIP). Attitudes have changed in Houston - most people are in support of light rail and transit. In the past, the typical corridor approach has been to first pick a mode and then perform analysis to support the chosen mode. H-GAC is hoping to move towards identifying needs in a corridor first and then identifying what modes would best benefit those needs.
3.2.6 Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)
One of MDOT's goals is to balance highway investments. Transit is eligible for Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds and last year, $2.0 million in road funding was flexed to rural transit agencies. The factors affecting multimodal planning are due to traditional funding (formula from 1951), funding disparities, political realities, and inadequate evaluation tools. When making investment decisions, MDOT develops numerous alternatives to test the outcomes through the use of forecasting tools and derives strategies to further achieve its goals. The end result is a framework that helps guide program and project selection decisions.
3.2.7 Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
The agency is moving towards making choices between modes using performance-based planning. However, there are pre-set funding levels set for each mode, so many decisions are made in advance of any planning or analysis. Figure 3.1 shows Mn/DOT's project selection process. Even though there is not a formal multimodal tradeoff process, the Strategic Plan calls for the establishment of a coordinated transportation network, including highways, bridges, airports, water ports, freight, bus, rail, intermodal facilities, and bikeways.
Figure 3.1 Mn/DOT's Performance-Based Planning and Project Selection Process
3.2.8 Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT)
The MoDOT Multimodal Office is responsible for statewide planning and grant administration in the modal areas of aviation, railroads, transit, and waterways. The success of MoDOT's multimodal office is that it creates the opportunity for all the modes work together. However, there is a state provision that does not allow the use of dedicated highway funds for other uses. Dedicated highway funds are important to MoDOT due to the large number of river crossings in the State, but it would be useful if the funds were flexible especially given large reductions in Missouri's general fund. Typically, tradeoffs only occur at the project level.
3.2.9 New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT)
Multimodal tradeoff is conducted on corridor levels. Figure 3.2 depicts the generalized process in which NMDOT conducts tradeoffs on a corridor level. This same process could be applied on a project level. Corridor projects become challenging when travel demand models and data from two MPO areas are used.
Figure 3.2 New Mexico Generalized Multimodal Process for Corridor Analysis
3.2.10 Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)
PSRC is developing a framework to better prioritize transportation investments within its metropolitan transportation plan. The framework is designed to meet state requirements for least-cost planning. Least-cost planning is a process that looks at supply and demand-side solutions, with benefit-cost analysis at its core. The framework defines multimodal measurements and uses a weighted cost-benefit analysis approach. The focus of the analysis is on projects and programs that add capacity to the existing transportation system and their alternatives. PSRC's policy boards identify priority issues to be addressed and assign weights to various objectives and goals that the plan is trying to achieve. The intent is not a ranked list, but investments divided into high, medium, and low priorities. This methodology is intended to be embedded into the regional travel demand forecasting model as a post-processor to better automate the benefits calculation output.
3.2.11 Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet)
TriMet serves 575 square miles of the urban portions of the tri-county area around Portland, Oregon. One of the goals of TriMet is to manage transportation through land use. In the region, there is an elected regional body that governs transportation and land use. Tradeoffs between preservation and expansion of the roads are usually decided at a local level. The agency uses regional flex funds to make tradeoff choices between transit modes, such as rail and bus. TriMet faces opposition from the public at times because it is still difficult to convincingly state that adding capacity will not solve congestion problems when historically this has been a rather successful approach. On the other hand, as the share of transit, bicycling, and walking increases, the public and decision-makers may be more convinced that these are options when it may make more sense to make roadway improvements.
3.2.12 Utah Transit Authority (UTA)
In the past, UTA has conducted analysis between modes through corridor studies. However, the agency has not conducted a formal tradeoff analysis.
If a tool is developed to perform tradeoffs, the tool must measure congestion relief with regard to cost effectiveness. Congestion relief is a major issue for UTA; however, some regions may be interested in the land use impacts while others are interested in the economic development aspect. To adequately develop a tool, everyone must first agree on a common set of objectives and buy into the process.
3.2.13 Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
A major element of VDOT's long-range transportation plan, VTrans2025, is the concept of the multimodal investment network or MIN. MINs are typically large-scale groups of projects that approach statewide significance, represent multiple modes, connect major activity centers, are a freight corridor, and/or meet the goals of the Commonwealth (e.g., tourism and economic development). The purpose of orienting statewide multimodal planning around MINs is to integrate transportation planning across all modes, coordinate transportation investments, and create a transportation system that is more responsive to users.
The plan legislatively mandates the development of objective and performance-based criteria for project selection in Virginia. This criterion is a straightforward project rating process similar to a process followed by the New Jersey DOT. Points are applied based on an all-or-nothing basis. The point scale is +1 for project connecting more than one modes, 0 for no change, and -1 if negative effect.
3.3 Challenges and Solution Strategies
The second part of the workshop focused on answering the questions on how we can meet the challenges identified during the presentations. Four major challenges were discussed.
Identifying a process for Multimodal Tradeoffs.
Limited flexibility of Federal and state funds.
3.3.1 Clear Definition for Multimodal Tradeoffs
Based on the responses in Section 2.2 as well as from the group discussion, a clear definition for multimodal tradeoffs does not currently exist. To assist in the development of a definition, the workshop participants suggested the following guidelines:
Refer to a choice amongst various modes;
Criterion used in tradeoff analyses should be weighted by some factor such as costs, benefits, or connection to agency goals.
3.3.2 Identifying a Process for Multimodal Tradeoffs
The group discussed ways on how transportation professionals can make better tradeoff decisions and what types of processes would be useful in making balanced investment decisions. A summary of the comments are listed below.
A multimodal tradeoff process may also depend upon agency characteristics or transportation system characteristics (e.g., state versus regional/local, or urbanized versus rural).
Strategies need to be identified that establish successful interagency relationships such as a collaborative process to support multimodal tradeoffs.
3.3.3 Identifying Tools for Multimodal Tradeoffs
Agencies lack the tools to help decision-makers understand options across modes. Along with processes within a multimodal framework, participants discussed the challenges of developing tools as well as the variety of tools that are necessary to perform multimodal tradeoff analyses.
Decision-makers may resist the recommendations identified through tools, given the desire to make policy-based decisions based on other criteria.
- A set of tools should only be developed after a multimodal tradeoffs decision process is defined. These tools may need to be tailored for both project- and program-level analyses.
3.3.4 Limited Flexibility of Federal and State Funds
Limited flexibility in transportation funding significantly affects the ability for agencies to conduct tradeoffs amongst the modes. Many agencies confront pre-set funding levels set for each mode. As agencies face this constraint, a solution strategy would be to build consensus among agency partners regarding how the state's portion of funding should be spent. In addition to pre-set funding levels, most transportation departments face the issue of coordination amongst the various transportation organizations, such as transit or freight. While many states are moving toward creating multimodal offices to streamline the state's transportation goals and objectives, silos are a huge barrier. One way to address this problem is to create stronger partnerships within agency departments and amongst state and local agencies.
3.4 Next Steps
The challenges with finding a generalized framework for conducting multimodal tradeoffs are substantial and the issues they represent are only going to become stronger in future years. To further examine the role of multimodal tradeoffs, several activities were recommended:
Conduct additional research on how agencies and other countries conduct multimodal tradeoff decisions, document more successful examples of the use of multimodal tradeoff analysis, and pursue research and best practices that identifies a real-world, program-level tradeoff analysis.
Develop a framework approach where data are gathered from a variety of tools and sources as available and put into a standardized framework to facilitate tradeoffs analysis as best as possible given the limitations of the data. A potential framework could build upon the generalized approach outlined in the NCHRP Project 8-36 A(07) report. [6]
Conduct a comprehensive review of models and analytical procedures available or under development that might fulfill the need for a tool that estimates the benefits that would be generated by a given level of investment in a particular modal program (currently underway through Development of a Multimodal Statewide Corridor Planning Guidebook NCHRP Project 8-58).
Develop training for multimodal tradeoffs analyses on all aspects of multimodal tradeoffs (planning, program, corridor, and project) for state and regional agencies.
Apply the Washington State Transportation Center MULTIMODAL INVESTMENT CHOICE ANALYSIS (MICA) model to a real-world, planning- or program-level tradeoff analysis. Testing MICA will determine if this model is able to support program-level tradeoff evaluation.
Develop new tool(s) where necessary to address all levels of analysis - planning, programming, corridor, and project.
Refine the NCHRP Project 8-36 Phase I generalized approach for multimodal tradeoff analysis to incorporate findings from Phase II of the report. [7]
Involve both the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) and the Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) in further research and peer exchanges.
3.5 Existing Resources
The following resources were identified by workshop participants. Although limited research exists about the process and tools that agencies use to carry out multimodal tradeoff analyses and decision-making, the following tools, reports, and resources are useful to agencies.
-
Economic Analysis Primer issued by the FHWA is benefit-cost analysis guidance. The agency also is currently developing a web-based benefit-cost analysis tool for the analysis of discrete highway projects. Information is available on the FHWA's Asset Management web site.
IDAS is software developed by the FHWA that can be used in planning for intelligent transportation systems (ITS) deployments. IDAS can be used to estimate the benefits and costs of ITS investments, which are either alternatives to or enhancements of traditional highway and transit infrastructure. IDAS can currently predict relative costs and benefits for more than 60 types of ITS investments.
Development of a Multimodal Statewide Corridor Planning Guidebook (Pending Project 8-58) for the NCHRP (2006).
Development of a Multimodal Tradeoffs Methodology for Use in Statewide Transportation Planning for the NCHRP Project 8-36 A(07) Phase I and Phase II (2001 and 2004).
Analytical Tools for Asset Management for NCHRP Project 20-57 (2005).
MULTIMODAL INVESTMENT CHOICE ANALYSIS (MICA), Volume I, Phase I; Washington State Transportation Center (2002).
- Final Report - Multimodal Statewide Transportation Planning: A Survey of Statewide Practices, John S. Miller, Virginia Transportation Research Council (2005).
Next >
[1] Development of a Multimodal Tradeoffs Methodology for Use in Statewide Transportation Planning. CHRP Project 8-36 A(07) Phase I and Phase II (2001 and 2004).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Analytical Tools for Asset Management. CHRP Project 20-57 (2005).
[4] Development of a Multimodal Tradeoffs Methodology for Use in Statewide Transportation Planning. CHRP Project 8-36 A(07) Phase I and Phase II (2001 and 2004).
[5] MULTIMODAL INVESTMENT CHOICE ANALYSIS (MICA), Volume I, Phase I. Washington State Transportation Center (2002).
[6] Development of a Multimodal Tradeoffs Methodology for Use in Statewide Transportation Planning. CHRP Project 8-36 A(07) Phase I and Phase II (2001 and 2004).
[7] Ibid.