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

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

enlarge image

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:
1. Planning.
2. Programming.
3. Corridor.
4. 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:
Responding Agency	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	The regional model is used during system planning A systematic, quantifiable methodology is used during programming
FHWA Office of Asset Management	The FHWA has developed a Toolbox for Regional Policy Analysis that offers guidance on a variety of techniques, including benefit-cost analysis that MPOs can use to evaluate investment alternatives The FHWA has issued benefit-cost analysis guidance (e.g., the Economic Analysis Primer) and is currently developing a web-based benefit-cost analysis tool for the analysis of discrete highway projects
FTA Region 7	FTA funding supports the use of many sketch-planning and modeling tools
FDOT	Transit alternative analysis used to capture Federal funding and in projects that evaluate a transit alternative to additional highway lanes Other tools, such as the ones listed in the question, are used to provide data to support decisions on prioritizing and selecting projects for funding within each modal program
H-GAC	N/A
MDOT	Prioritization models for pavement Road Quality Forecasting model (RQFS) and mapscore, for capacity projects Benefit/cost prioritization model Statewide passenger and truck model MPO models, small city models Economic benefit analysis on the highway element HERS-ST
Mn/DOT	Pavement Serviceability Rating Pavement Management System National Bridge Inventory Scale Metropolitan Council's Regional Model
MoDOT	Long-Range Direction TRACKER Performance Management System Missouri passenger and freight data
PSRC	STEAM Bridge and pavement management systems Travel demand forecasting model
TriMet	N/A
UTA	Cost models Travel demand models Comparison matrices
VDOT	Uses a model that uses performance measures to evaluate highway projects Bridge model and pavement management system Travel demand models Performance measures to evaluate (and tradeoff) freight versus passenger rail projects for new Rail Enhancement Fund

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	Getting the most value out of extremely limited funding Strengthening the consideration of other factors, such as land use, in the analysis of investment tradeoffs
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	On the planning level, to better set priorities among competing investments to meet overall system needs On the programming level, to better select the highest priority transportation projects for implementation with limited funding On the project or corridor level, to make sure the conceptual solution best meets the corridor travel need
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	Finding a good common denominator that is not data intensive, costly, or requires a significant amount of time to acquire Agency turf issues and political issues often get in the way of allowing projects to be objectively selected Potential Solution: Decision-makers understanding the process
FHWA Office of Asset Management	Inflexibility in the use of some Federal and local funding Constraints on fiscal and human resources needed to conduct more detailed tradeoff analysis Difficulty in coordinating between private sector (e.g., freight railroads) and public sector (e.g., highway and transit) planning objectives Physical constraints that restrict the use of some modal options (e.g., limited land for additional port facilities) Local political constraints Multijurisdictional coordination problems Lack of data and analytical tools that can capture the full range of regional impacts of multimodal decisions
FTA Region 7	Awareness of the possibilities
FDOT	Lack of normalization across the modes to allow an apples-to-apples comparison Data availability Potential Solution: Select a limited set of variables that can be used in each mode, and devote enough resources to gather and analyze the data
H-GAC	Data and modeling software capability
MDOT	Legislatively mandates restrict funding flexibility Potential Solution: Set priority, based upon an overall needs assessment, to the funding distribution process
Mn/DOT	A multimodal tradeoff process would need to be vetted through Mn/DOT organization for accuracy, veracity, robustness
MoDOT	Any redirection of traditional highway and bridge funding to other modes is seen as a take away Public wants more road and bridge improvements Potential Solution: Education
PSRC	Lack of performance measures/evaluation criteria that overcome differences among modes so that the analysis is conducted in an apples-to-apples way Inability to incorporate varying and often conflicting goals and policies along with more quantitative benefit-cost information in the decision process
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	Demand exists for a rigorous tradeoff analysis An easy-to-use methodology would be helpful to practitioners
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	FDOT and its partners will continue to improve their working relationships, their understanding of the contributions of each mode of transportation in various scenarios, and their ability to agree on the best package of multimodal solutions and choices for travel and transport This can best be accomplished by ensuring that all transportation, environment, land use, and economic partners work together to achieve their respective policies, goals, objectives, and strategies
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

A Minnesota Department of Transportation flow chart indicating the transportation system development process from "MN DOT Strategic Plan" to "Statewide Transportation Plan" to local and regional plans to" Programs of Capital and Service Improvements" or "Highway Project Development" to" Construction, Operation and Maintenance."
enlarge image

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

This graphic shows how various alternatives are developed and screened. Highway, transit and transportation management alternatives at the top of the graphic are narrowed down through "Idea Development", "General Screening", and "Conceptual Evaluation", "Detailed Evaluation". At each step the funnel narrows to fewer alternatives culminating in a Preferred Alternative.
enlarge image

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.

To provide Feedback, Suggestions or Comments for this page contact Robert Ritter at robert.ritter@fhwa.dot.gov.