Multimodal Tradeoffs Workshop

Appendix A - Workshop Participants

David H. Clawson
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Mick Crandall
Utah Transit Authority

Muffet F. Cuddy
New Mexico Department of Transportation

David R. Geiger
Federal Highway Administration

Patricia G. Hendren (Organizer)
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Timothy A. Henkel
Minnesota Department of Transportation, Metropolitan District

Charlie Howard
Puget Sound Regional Council

Ashby Johnson
Houston-Galveston Area Council

Terry Kraft
Florida Department of Transportation

Kenneth Leonard (Facilitator)
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Reena Mathews (Recorder)
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Robert Ritter
Federal Highway Administration, Office of Planning

Joan M. Roeseler
Federal Transit Administration, Regional Office in Kansas City, Missouri

George J. Scheuernstuhl
Denver Regional Council of Governments

Phil Selinger
Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon

Kirk T. Steudle
Michigan Department of Transportation

Mary Lynn Tischer
Virginia Department of Transportation

Brian C. Weiler
Missouri Department of Transportation

Appendix B - Workshop Responses

B.1 Workshop Questions on Multimodal Tradeoffs

Participants were asked to answer the following questions prior to attending 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?

B.2 Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG)

1. How would you or your agency define a multimodal tradeoff?

The allocation of funding to each of the modes of transportation. Selection of mode or modes in a corridor improvement plan.

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:

Multimodal tradeoff analysis is conducted differently at each of the levels. Freight has not yet been considered separately.

2a. Planning.

We do not conduct a quantifiable multimodal tradeoff analysis during the system planning process. We have tried to consider tradeoffs using alternative scenarios. This has not been as successful as we would have liked. Thus far, traffic congestion has been the only freight issue identified. As this issue is the same for autos, freight is not separately considered.

2b. Programming.

Multimodal tradeoff analysis is conducted qualitatively as part of the resource allocation.

2c. Corridor.

Multimodal tradeoff analysis is conducted as part of the environmental process.

2d. Project.

We do not implement construction projects.

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)?

The regional model is used to help make tradeoff decisions within modes during system planning. A systematic, quantifiable methodology is used to select projects within modes during programming.

4. Does your agency employ specific tools to conduct multimodal tradeoff analyses (between modes)?

No.

5. How are results from multimodal tradeoff analyses utilized and presented in your agency (e.g., Long-Range Plans, Strategic Corridor Plans)?

During the system planning process, scenarios involving various degrees of improvement emphasis were developed and presented to the advisory committee and to the policy-makers.

6. What is your agency's most pressing motivation for having or wanting a formalized multimodal tradeoff process?

Getting the most travel improvement value out of extremely limited funding. Could strengthen the consideration of other factors such as land use in the analysis of investment tradeoffs.

7. What are the barriers to developing a process for multimodal tradeoffs? How can these barriers be best overcome?

Finding a good common denominator that is not data intensive, costly, or requires a significant amount of time to acquire. Process needs to be easily understood by decision-makers. Agency turf issues and political issues often get in the way of allowing projects to be objectively selected.

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?

Yes to first question. Usefulness would vary depending on how many decisions need to be made and the complexity of the issues. In our region, the scarcity of funds would be the primary driver.

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?

There does not appear to be a demand for a rigorous tradeoff analysis. The current practice of professional judgment and policy decisions based on values seems to be satisfactory at this time. An easy to use methodology would be of help to practitioners.

B.3 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Office of Asset Management

1. How would you or your agency define a multimodal tradeoff?

FHWA does not have a formal definition for multimodal tradeoff. However, a multimodal tradeoff pertains to choices between transit and highway, rail and marine, rail and highway, etc. Such tradeoffs may be quantitative (e.g., economic analysis) or qualitative (e.g., based on public comments and expert opinion).

States, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and local governments confront a wide range of tradeoffs within and among modes, within and among policy objectives or performance goals, and within and among various geographic regions and market segments. These tradeoff issues face similar questions and involve similar elements. A generalized tradeoff in transportation planning asks, How many resources do I allocate to A versus B? The actual tradeoff issue itself is What are the consequences of a particular allocation of resources to A and B? and the choice becomes the allocation and set of consequences that the decision-maker prefers.

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.

The FHWA does not itself conduct multimodal tradeoff analysis. Responsibility for planning and funding decisions resides with states, MPOs, and local governments. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has recently prepared reports focusing on Many Factors Affect Investment Decisions (GAO-04-744) and Options for Improving Information on Projects' Benefits and Costs and Increasing Accountability for Results (GAO-05-172) that support multimodal tradeoff analysis. As noted by GAO, Federal planning guidance emphasizes the goal of establishing a systemwide, intermodal approach to addressing transportation needs. Various factors such as funding sources, public and private interests (e.g., freight railroads), and physical environment (e.g., limited room at port facilities), complicate the ability of states and MPOs to do tradeoff analysis. In addition, travel demand models and other tools necessary for tradeoff analysis are often not well suited to intermodal tradeoff analysis.

Accordingly, GAO found that there are relatively few instances in which decisions involve tradeoffs among the various transportation modes to meet passenger and freight mobility needs, according to local planning officials. Decision-makers also are required to seek public input and involve a wide range of public and private stakeholders in reaching a consensus on investments. Ensuring that investment choices will maintain the existing infrastructure or improve its operation, rather than expand the transportation system's capacity, also appears to be an important priority for decision-makers. Finally, decision-makers are recognizing the importance of longer, multistate transportation corridors and the special challenges that they pose for investment decisions (GAO-04-744, page 29).

The FHWA has supported efforts to develop tools that can accommodate multimodal tradeoff analysis including support for improved travel demand models and some economic analysis tradeoff tools such as the Surface Transportation Economic Analysis Model (STEAM). As noted by GAO, several major transportation organizations - TRB, FHWA, FTA, AASHTO, AMPO, and APTA - conduct research to help MPOs address some of the practical challenges of implementing benefit-cost analysis, as well as other analytic tools (GAO-04-744, page 29). FHWA has also supported activities such as this peer exchange to share examples and best practices for multimodal tradeoffs among states and MPOs.

2b. Programming.

Similar comments to 2a.

2c. Corridor.

Similar comments to 2a.

2d. Project.

The FHWA continues to provide guidance and tools to practitioners to facilitate the application of economic tradeoff analysis to individual projects. However, most of these tools remain specific to highway projects.

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. MPOs also may adopt best practices developed by other MPOs or use consultants to assist with analysis and modeling. Initiatives such as the Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program - sponsored by FHWA and FTA - offer peer exchanges, roundtables, and workshops to facilitate such information sharing. In addition, the FHWA is currently developing a web-based benefit-cost analysis tool for the analysis of discrete highway projects, and has issued guidance (e.g., the Economic Analysis Primer).

4. Does your agency employ specific tools to conduct multimodal tradeoff analyses (between modes)?

In selecting projects for a long-range plan, states and MPOs must consider a wide range of planning factors specified by the Federal government, such as:

Safety;
Security;
Accessibility and Mobility;
Environmental Enhancement;
Integration and Connectivity;
Preservation.

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. Instead, decisions on specific projects/activities to include in the planning process and programs are left to states and MPOs.

Benefit-cost analysis is a useful tool for integrating the social, environmental, economic, and other effects of investment alternatives and for helping decision-makers identify projects with the greatest net benefits. In addition, the systematic process of benefit-cost analysis helps decision-makers organize and evaluate information about, and determine tradeoffs between, alternatives. Research and best practices indicate key steps are to ensure that the analyst defines the project objectives, identifies all reasonable alternatives, and systematically evaluates and compares the projected effects of each alternative.

5. How are results from multimodal tradeoff analyses utilized and presented in your agency (e.g., Long-Range Plans, Strategic Corridor Plans)?

As summarized by GAO, MPOs are required to identify the criteria and process for prioritizing proposed transportation projects, including the extent to which comparisons among modes were considered. In addition, all surface transportation projects that are to receive Federal funding must be included in the metropolitan and state programs to receive Federal funds (GAO-04-744, page 24). These are presented in the metropolitan long-range transportation plan, which is subject to an extensive public involvement process. 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. The STIP incorporates TIPs developed by the MPOs within the state, and a project in a metropolitan region must be included in the TIP before it may be included in the state program. As part of the plan and program development process, states and MPOs evaluate various multimodal options and select individual projects/programs for funding or additional study. In addition, the NEPA process requires a thorough examination of all reasonable alternatives to meet a specific purpose and need.

6. What is your agency's most pressing motivation for having or wanting a formalized multimodal tradeoff process?

The FHWA is concerned that the public's resources be invested in the most beneficial means possible. By having a thorough comprehensive and open tradeoff process, the public can review and be assured that its tax dollars are being used efficiently and wisely.

7. What are the barriers to developing a process for multimodal tradeoffs? How can these barriers be best overcome?

As noted above, the GAO recently completed a review of multimodal tradeoff analysis (GAO-04-744 and GAO-05-172). Among the barriers identified are: inflexibility in the use of some Federal and local funding; constraints on fiscal and human resource 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; and lack of data and analytical tools that can capture the full range of regional impacts of multimodal decisions.

All state and local agencies would benefit from some degree of multimodal tradeoff analysis. The degree to which they would benefit, however, will vary depending on the complexity of their existing transportation system, the modal options realistically available to them, and the status of the other potential barriers described in the answer to Question 7.

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?

The FHWA will continue to provide more and improved tradeoff tools and guidance for use by states and MPOs. The actual application of these tools will continue to reside at the state and local level.

B.4 Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Regional Office

1. How would you or your agency define a multimodal tradeoff?

There is a broad range of activities that could be considered a multimodal tradeoff. Even seemingly single-mode decisions can result in a multimodal tradeoff.

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.

The FTA provides funding and technical support to facilitate planning, including multimodal tradeoff analysis for states, transit operators, and metropolitan planning organizations.

FTA funding supports the use of many sketch planning and modeling tools.

4. Does your agency employ specific tools to conduct multimodal tradeoff analyses (between modes)?

FTA funding supports a very broad range of tools.

5. How are results from multimodal tradeoff analyses utilized and presented in your agency (e.g., Long-Range Plans, Strategic Corridor Plans)?

The whole concept of multimodal analysis appears to be very 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.

6. What is your agency's most pressing motivation for having or wanting a formalized multimodal tradeoff process?

DOT strategic plan recognizes the value of a multimodal national transportation network.

7. What are the barriers to developing a process for multimodal tradeoffs? How can these barriers be best overcome?

Awareness of the possibilities is among the barriers that we have observed.

Similar to the concept of Human Services Coordination, multimodal tradeoff analysis can come in many flavors. It does not need to be an all or nothing approach. Generally, we have observed that successful scenarios are built along win-win situations.

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?

Peer exchanges such as this one and the continuous sharing of successful practices. It is so important to remember that one size does not fit all. However, it is also true that good ideas should be shared and bits and pieces of techniques melded together with a little site-specific creativity can result in a local recipe for success.

B.5 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)

1. How would you or your agency define a multimodal tradeoff?

The process of choosing the combination of modal solutions that will best meet the policies, goals, objectives, and strategies established to guide the future development of a transportation system for moving both people and freight, which in Florida includes the following areas:

Quality of Life and Environmental Stewardship;
Maintenance and Preservation;
Sustainable Investments.

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:

Florida uses a dynamic, systematic multimodal tradeoff process that continuously evaluates and reports on progress in meeting established policies, goals, objectives, and strategies. The results of various analyses are used to adjust policies, goals, objectives, and strategies as needed and as desired. The various quantitative and qualitative components of this multimodal tradeoff process are also adjusted as needed or desired. Both quantitative and qualitative tools are being refined over time (i.e., we use the best tools available to support needed decisions when those decisions are needed).

2a. Planning.

Florida is dramatically changing how it plans for, provides, and manages its transportation system. FDOT and its partners are working together to:

Redefine the State's primary role in transportation as focusing on international, interstate, and interregional travel of passengers and goods, with emphasis on a Strategic Intermodal System (SIS). At the same time, stronger regional partnerships will identify and invest in regionally significant transportation facilities, while local governments will have more flexibility to address purely local transportation needs.
Advance a multimodal approach to planning to increase mobility for people and freight on complete end-to-end trips. Rather than focusing on individual modes and facilities, state funding will be used to improve connectivity among individual modes, eliminate bottlenecks and unnecessary delay, improve travel time reliability, and expand the options available for interregional travel.
Link the State's transportation planning and investment decisions to statewide economic policies, with emphasis on Florida's Strategic Plan for Economic Development. The SIS will support interregional, interstate, and international transportation services that support the diversification of Florida's economy by reducing transportation and logistics costs, improving access to markets from urban and rural areas and supporting growth in trade and tourist flows.
Shift from reactive to proactive planning of future transportation investments. In the past, transportation investments too often have responded to development instead of proactively advancing statewide goals related to economic growth, rural development, urban revitalization, and environmental preservation. The SIS will provide a foundation for managing growth in the future by focusing the State's transportation investments.

With the adoption of the 2025 Florida Transportation Plan by the end of the year, FDOT and its partners are redefining success as the measure of how well Florida:

Makes coordinated investments to ensure an integrated system. Florida's transportation assets must be planned and managed as a single, integrated transportation system, with each facility optimized to serve specific types of travel and transport, whether between regions, within regions, or within communities.
Safeguards its existing transportation assets. The maintenance and preservation of Florida's transportation assets should remain a high priority. Florida should also preserve capacity on its transportation system to ensure that each component of the system can function as intended. Capacity can be preserved through efficient operation and management of transportation facilities, effective use of technology and information, and closer coordination of transportation and land use decisions.
Enhances mobility options. Investment in additional transportation capacity should be focused on critical needs including: expanding travel options and modal choices to provide greater use of public transportation; relieving physical and operational bottlenecks; providing more efficient transfers between facilities and modes; and developing new interregional corridors that address major gaps in connectivity and service, particularly in economically distressed areas of the State. These expansions of travel options and modal choices are needed for trips between regions, within regions, and within communities.
Ensures a safer and more secure transportation system for residents, businesses, and visitors. Safety and security considerations should be integrated into all aspects of transportation planning and implementation, while ensuring passenger and freight mobility. Transportation providers must continue to help identify and deter threats, effectively manage the system during events requiring evacuation, and help minimize incident response times.
Ensures that the transportation system supports community livability and is implemented in an environmentally responsible manner. The transportation system should encourage conservation of natural resources and sustainable development patterns. Transportation investments at the local level primarily should enhance the livability of Florida's communities. Transportation investments at the statewide or interregional level typically will be oriented towards mobility and economic competitiveness needs and should rest lightly on the built and natural environments.
Embraces new technology. Florida's transportation partners should proactively develop, evaluate, and apply new technologies to improve the safety, security, and mobility of drivers, passengers, cargo, vehicles, and facilities. These may include new types of infrastructure, such as commercial spaceports and inland ports; new types of vehicles, such as high-speed rail systems or next-generation aircraft and space launch vehicles; new sources of transportation fuel; new ways of assisting drivers, such as in-vehicle navigational, informational, and diagnostic devices; and new ways of identifying and tracking vehicles, cargo, and other transportation assets.
Coordinates among all partners. Coordination among the many partners involved in planning and implementing transportation investments must be strengthened. Particular attention should be given to more closely integrating transportation, land use, environmental, and economic development decisions and strengthening regional planning structures and processes.
Invests to meet its future needs. Florida's transportation partners should develop a variety of revenue sources that can be tailored to the specific needs of local and regional areas, collaborate to maximize available funding, jointly fund projects when feasible, and reduce capital and operating costs where possible. The long-term investment of these resources will be identified in state, metropolitan, and local government plans that will be adopted over the next few years. Revenues available to the FDOT will be invested to achieve FTP goals, meet state and metropolitan priorities, and support rural development strategies.

In redefining what needs to be accomplished Florida must, once again, adjust how it accomplishes multimodal tradeoffs (pursuant to Florida's definition of multimodal tradeoffs).

2b. Programming.

In Florida, FDOT accomplishes multimodal tradeoffs in programming by first adopting an overall investment policy, and then reaching consensus among its program managers and decision-makers on the allocation of resources by program - both to accomplish the investment policy and to address incremental changes in funding levels based on analyses of what prior funding levels have accomplished. Currently FDOT's investment policy is:

Allocate 75 percent of discretionary capacity funds to the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS). Discretionary means that FDOT has some legal discretion on how and where funds can be expended. This policy affects state highway, aviation, rail, seaports, and intermodal access programs, but does not apply to the State's transit programs because transit generally serves local and metropolitan travel. The policy also does not apply to the funds reserved by Federal law for urbanized areas with a population greater than 200,000. The application of 75 percent is after funds are reserved to meet safety and preservation objectives. To minimize disruption to projects already in the work program, FDOT plans a transition to this allocation by 2015. The investment policy has no impact on the requirement in Florida law that at least 15 percent of state revenues deposited in the State Transportation Trust Fund must be allocated to public transportation.
Ensure a reasonable distribution of funds between the SIS and Emerging SIS and among economic regions. Although individual SIS and Emerging SIS projects will be selected based on need, project readiness and other prioritization factors, FDOT will ensure that there is a reasonable distribution of discretionary capacity funds between SIS and Emerging SIS facilities, and among economic regions.
Increase the State's emphasis on regional travel and transport. For those facilities not on the SIS, FDOT will emphasize funding assistance for regionally significant facilities, including non-SIS facilities parallel to SIS facilities, with the remaining 25 percent of discretionary capacity funds. These regionally significant facilities may include other commercial service and major reliever airports, other deepwater and major special-generator seaports, other major freight terminals and distribution centers, regional passenger terminals, and highway, rail and waterway corridors serving major regional economic centers. FDOT also will continue to encourage metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and Rural Areas of Critical Economic Concern to work with their neighbors on issues of mutual concern and to identify regional transportation systems. Identification of these systems will help the state, MPOs and local governments make better decisions for those facilities that affect several MPOs and counties. Those transportation facilities not on the SIS and not regionally significant continue to be eligible for state funding, and may be funded if it is a good business decision for the state and affected local government.
Continue the State's commitment to the safety and preservation of Florida's transportation system. The Florida Transportation Plan establishes that the State's highest transportation priorities are safe transportation for residents, visitors and commerce, and preservation and management of the existing system. Even as the programs for new capacity increasingly emphasize the SIS and regionally significant facilities, FDOT will continue to operate, maintain, and preserve a safe State Highway System. FDOT will continue to work with partners to emphasize the safety and preservation of the entire state transportation system.
Address the State's support for non-highway modes. Non-highway programs often have specific restrictions on the collection and use of both public and private funding. In the past, FDOT has provided matching funds for many non-highway projects, including for general aviation and local transit. As the State increases its emphasis on the SIS and regionally significant facilities, it will need to develop appropriate new strategies to help ensure these programs are not adversely affected.

2c. Corridor.

Florida is also refining its approach to multimodal tradeoffs in corridor planning. Multimodal corridor plans can provide a way to group together multiple types of facilities and help identify transportation needs and proposed solutions from an interregional or statewide perspective. Multimodal corridor plans, including corridor plans in Rural Areas of Critical Economic Concern, are to be developed as required by changing transportation and economic needs of the State. These needs will be derived from analyses of regional and statewide priorities, and will be developed in the future within the framework of adopted goals and objectives.

FDOT and its partners will utilize the results of segment, project, or corridor analysis as one tool to support the identification and validation of interregional and regional transportation needs. Multimodal corridor plans in rural areas will focus on the three Rural Areas of Critical Economic Concern identified by the Governor, as well as other rural corridor needs as they arise. For multimodal corridor plans in rural areas, FDOT will work with its rural partners to identify transportation needs on the rural components of the SIS network. These multimodal corridor plans will facilitate coordination with economic development initiatives in the rural areas.

The contents of multimodal corridor plans will vary by corridor and may change over time. A multimodal corridor plan could simply include broad assessments of needs in the corridor and propose a wide range of potential multimodal solutions to address the needs. Or, the plan could be more detailed, and serve as an initial effort to determine how investments could be funded and which investments or combinations of investments in the corridor should be the highest priority for FDOT and its partners. FDOT will work with partners in each transportation corridor to determine how each plan should be developed.

Multimodal tradeoffs in corridors will encompass the same philosophy as noted above: it's not about choosing between modes - it's about choosing the right mix of modes to move people and freight.

2d. Project.

Florida is also refining how projects are selected. Once again, a description of how projects are prioritized and selected demonstrates the broader nature of multimodal tradeoffs in Florida.

Each partner in the planning process will have its own ideas for which projects should be the highest priorities for investments. FDOT's goal is to build consensus among its partners regarding how the State's portion of funding should be spent. As part of this process, FDOT will provide feedback to its partners regarding how their own funding strategies and projects will affect state facilities and strive to achieve consensus regarding FDOT and partner investments.

The process for recommending investment priorities will be driven by policy and supported by data. Although individual modal plans may recommend individual priorities, and some sources of projects such as multimodal corridor plans may contain plan-specific recommended project priority lists, FDOT will determine its priorities among projects from a statewide, multimodal perspective, with an emphasis on interregional, interstate, and international travel and transport. Priorities also will be determined from a systemwide perspective, with emphasis on the most effective solution for the entire system rather than any individual mode or facility. Priorities will be determined for facilities in a unified manner rather than through separate processes.

The process for determining priorities is transparent, so that all stakeholders can understand how and why these priorities are recommended. Partners and stakeholders will have an opportunity to participate in this process by providing additional information regarding investment needs and impacts, adopting policies and resolutions demonstrating local support for a project or contributing funding to a project. Assessment tools will be developed over time to help partners gauge how their proposed projects address specific goals and objectives, and to help FDOT select projects.

The prioritization process incorporates flexibility to expedite projects that primarily provide benefits to Florida's economic competitiveness. To enable Florida to take advantage of an unanticipated economic opportunity, these types of projects often must be implemented on a shorter timeframe than mobility improvements, which can take up to 10 years to complete after a need is identified. FDOT and its partners are developing approaches for identifying transportation investments that are primarily intended for economic development early in the planning process so that they can be given special consideration in the project prioritization and project selection processes.

When determining how high of a priority each project should have, FDOT uses information from three sources to support its decision-making process:

A technical analysis helps determine how well the project meets goals and objectives;
Partner input indicates whether or not FDOT and its partners have reached consensus that the project should move forward; and
A financial analysis helps determine how much of the State's funding would be required to implement the project and how much of the project could be funded by partners.

Technical Analysis

FDOT and its partners already have developed goals. During implementation, FDOT and its partners determine what characteristics of a project should make it a higher priority for funding. For example, if one objective is to better integrate and connect different modes of transportation, a project that eliminates turning restrictions and reduces travel time between a hub and a corridor might have a high priority for funding, depending on how well it meets other goals and objectives. If another objective is to eliminate bottlenecks and reduce unnecessary delay, a project that provides a separated entrance and dedicated lane for safe and secure trucks serving a seaport might be a high priority for funding.

The primary factors for influencing prioritization and project selection stem from mobility and operational goals and economic competitiveness and diversification goals. Extra weight is given to projects that provide secondary benefits by improving safety and security and by preserving existing infrastructure and services. Priority also is given to those projects that enrich the quality of life in Florida and reflect responsible environmental stewardship.

Providing seamless connections between modes of travel, eliminating bottlenecks, and reducing delay for passengers and freight allow more people and goods to travel more quickly between economic regions of the State and between Florida and other states and nations. Improving the reliability of travel time benefits manufacturers and retailers that use just-in-time deliveries to reduce warehousing costs and other logistics costs. Improved travel time reliability also can benefit Florida residents and visitors, making longer-distance trips to, from, and within Florida more convenient and appealing. Investments must anticipate growing demand for passenger and freight transportation in Florida. One way to accommodate this demand is to offer shippers and passengers a more reliable and reasonable choice of modes for interregional, interstate and international shipments and travel.

Strategic investments can benefit existing key industries as well as new and emerging industries, but these investments should benefit the entire State, not just one region. Investments that benefit only one region of the State could come at the expense of another region, rather than improving Florida's overall competitiveness with other states and other countries. A reduction in transportation and logistics costs and improved access to worker, supplier, and customer markets can make Florida a cheaper and more attractive place to do business. Investments in facilities that serve Rural Areas of Critical Economic Concern can support economic development in rural areas and improve connectivity between rural areas and passenger and freight gateways in developed areas. Finally, investments should anticipate and support growth in trade between Florida and other states and nations, and investments should accommodate ever-growing numbers of tourists and businesspeople traveling to, from, and within Florida.

As FDOT reaches out to its partners for input on needs and works with them to establish funding priorities, there will be opportunities for investments in or funding partnerships for non-traditional projects. FDOT will explore the potential for a program to prioritize and provide funding for proof of concept projects that satisfy transportation needs in innovative ways, such as through use of new technologies or operational strategies - for example, variable pricing or dedicated lanes for preferred customers at cargo facilities. These projects often will enable FDOT to enter into joint participation agreements that spread the risks of projects over more than one entity.

Because the quality and availability of data varies across modes, in the near term FDOT is establishing a two-tiered prioritization process, where projects are first prioritized within each mode using the best information available. The modal priorities can then be compared to each other on the basis of qualitative prioritization factors. Each modal prioritization process will be structured in such a way that in the future FDOT can migrate to a cross-modal prioritization process as additional data and analysis tools are developed over time to help partners gauge how proposed projects address the specific goals and prioritization factors.

Over time, FDOT will develop tools to provide the capability to make quantitative comparisons of the positive and negative impacts of projects across modes. Early emphasis will be given to economic measures, which may be more readily applicable for cross-modal project comparisons. The Florida Macroeconomic Analysis Model was an initial effort to estimate the full economic impacts of transportation investments in Florida. The methodology used in that study could be expanded to include non-highway modes and incorporated into a multimodal decision support tool.

Partner Input

All stakeholders have an opportunity to provide input to FDOT through its public and partner involvement process. FDOT also uses Florida's Efficient Transportation Decision-making (ETDM) process to build consensus around projects, obtain necessary environmental permits, and determine if the project's impacts will outweigh its benefits before including a project in the Cost Feasible Plan. For projects that are not required to pass through the ETDM process, FDOT uses the principles of the ETDM process to evaluate the positive and negative impacts of projects in collaboration with its partners. In cases where partners have raised major objections, FDOT attempts to resolve those issues through techniques such as a dispute resolution process involving all stakeholders.

Jurisdictions in which a project is located may indicate their support by adopting resolutions in favor of a project. FDOT's local and regional partners also may indicate their support by making proactive changes to local comprehensive plans to ensure that land use and development patterns near state facilities will support the State's transportation and economic development goals. Finally, partners may indicate their support by committing funding toward a portion of the project.

For highway and transit projects subject to Federal guidelines for use of Federal funds in areas under MPO jurisdiction, FDOT works with MPOs to build consensus that a project should be included in the Cost Feasible Plan. For projects not subject to these guidelines, including projects from non-highway and non-transit modes, FDOT seeks input from MPOs and other partners to gauge whether there is consensus on the viability and financial feasibility of the project.

Financial Analysis

Both the project's total cost and the amount of funding being contributed to the project by FDOT and its partners is used to determine whether the project is financially feasible. The financial analysis helps FDOT and its partners determine which projects are cost feasible using reasonable expectations of state funding from all sources. The revenue estimate builds on the standard practice FDOT has used to project future levels of Federal and state funding for transportation capacity enhancements, but also considers the future availability of funding from partners such as other Federal and state agencies, regional and local entities, and private owner and operators. The levels of funding available from these sources typically vary from year to year.

State projects may be entirely funded by FDOT, entirely funded by partners, or funded in partnerships such as those established in joint participation agreements. Participatory funding from partners is encouraged to help leverage available funding sources. In many cases, if projects included in the Cost Feasible Plan are funded wholly or in part by one of FDOT's partners, the funds come from a revenue-generating entity such as an airport, seaport, or private sector owner of a facility.

FDOT selects projects from the prioritized Cost Feasible Plan for state funding based on various factors, including:

The readiness of the project, as measured by whether partners have agreed for the project to advance to the next phase of the project planning and delivery process (planning, design, right-of-way purchase, construction or operation) and how far along the project is in that process;
The project's cost and availability of partner financial contributions;
A balance of quick fix, operational improvements and longer-term capacity investments;
Whether the public benefits exceed public investment where the facility is owned by the private sector.

FDOT is taking an incremental approach to expanding the eligibility for future state funding. Capacity and operational improvements to corridors and connectors will be eligible for FDOT's share of funding, with emphasis directed toward reducing bottlenecks and improving access to hubs. Projects may include such things as traditional capacity expansion such as new general-purpose highway lanes or double-tracking a rail corridor; special-use lanes; spot improvements to intersections and access points; reconfiguration of existing facilities to provide for grade separation between modes or separation of freight and passenger traffic; Intelligent Transportation Systems deployments; and other operational strategies such as incident management.

The only tool that is used is transit alternative analysis for the transit mode - and it is used primarily to capture Federal funding rather than for true tradeoff analysis. Similar analysis is performed in the highway mode when there is a desire to assess the viability of transit as an alternative to additional highway lanes for the automobile. 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.

4. Does your agency employ specific tools to conduct multimodal tradeoff analyses (between modes)?

Not yet. We are first developing a set of common performance measures for all modes, which could then be used to provide additional comparative data to decision-makers. These measures include the four dimensions of mobility (quantity, quality, accessibility, and utilization), and two dimensions of economic measurement (economic efficiency, which deals with benefit-cost and cost effectiveness; and economic impact, which deals with business activity and employment-related items). However, the use of these measures for multimodal tradeoffs will still be within the dynamic, systematic multimodal tradeoff process that Florida uses to continuously evaluate and report on progress in meeting established policies, goals, objectives, and strategies.

5. How are results from multimodal tradeoff analyses utilized and presented in your agency (e.g., Long-Range Plans, Strategic Corridor Plans)?

Through documentation of performance measures, the Department and its partners can see how well we are achieving established policies, goals, objectives, and strategies. Performance is published in a variety of documents, including the Florida Transportation Commission's annual Performance and Production Review of the Department; the Department's Annual Performance Report. Short-Range Component, Program and Resource Plan, Long-Range Program Plan, and Business Model; the Office of Policy Planning's macroeconomic analysis initiative, the Mobility Performance Measures Program, the ITS Performance Measures initiative, and modal performance measures initiatives such as the highway, transit and multimodal level of service programs.

6. What is your agency's most pressing motivation for having or wanting a formalized multimodal tradeoff process?

To better determine the outcomes and impacts of implementing projects so better decisions can be made.

7. What are the barriers to developing a process for multimodal tradeoffs? How can these barriers be best overcome?

There are two primary barriers: 1) normalization across the modes to allow an apples-to-apples comparison; and 2) data availability, which is especially problematic in the non-highway modes where data is not under the control of the Department and is often proprietary. The best way to overcome these barriers is to select a limited set of variables that can be used in each mode, and devote enough resources to gather and analyze the data.

All transportation agencies could benefit from a standardized process. But that process needs to be flexible enough to allow for major differences in the type/size of the entity doing the evaluation and making decisions.

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?

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.

B.6 Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC)

1. How would you or your agency define a multimodal tradeoff?

The tradeoff would be among highway, transit, and bicycle/pedestrian alternatives.

No.

Not applicable.

4. Does your agency employ specific tools to conduct multimodal tradeoff analyses (between modes)?

If we mean among freight and passenger then this is not applicable. Among passenger modes, we employ a travel demand forecasting methodology along with the experience(s) of local governments' staff members and local elected official decision-makers.

5. How are results from multimodal tradeoff analyses utilized and presented in your agency (e.g., Long-Range Plans, Strategic Corridor Plans)?

Not applicable.

6. What is your agency's most pressing motivation for having or wanting a formalized multimodal tradeoff process?

To provide better information to regional transportation decision-makers.

7. What are the barriers to developing a process for multimodal tradeoffs? How can these barriers be best overcome?

Data and modeling software capability.

It varies by MPO and state DOT. It also varies with relative size and complexity, the presence of major freight facilities (e.g., ports, railyards).

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?

We need a basic understanding of the state-of-the-practice and the benefits and shortfalls of the current approaches.

B.7 Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)

1. How would you or your agency define a multimodal tradeoff?

We would define a multimodal tradeoff as the costs or consequences of one set of investment choices over another, which implies winners and losers. Our preferred wording would be integrated investment strategy - an approach that finds the best investment strategy to achieve the identified transportation vision.

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.

Our focus is on completing systems, not competing systems. For example, non-motorized plans and context sensitive solutions indicate that we design the highway system for all its users: autos, trucks, buses (local and intercity), pedestrians, bicyclists, and vanpools/carpools. We are providing designers with the context information and training they need to incorporate multiple modes.

2b. Programming.

Funding at state and Federal levels is protected or compartmentalized, and programming necessarily follows the Federal and state programs defined in law.

2c. Corridor.

This will be one of the products of our State Long-Range Plan.

2d. Project.

Yes, it is required in the NEPA process.

We have prioritization models for pavement - our Road Quality Forecasting model (RQFS) and mapscore, for capacity projects we utilize a benefit/cost prioritization model. We use statewide passenger and truck model, MPO models, small city models. We do economic benefit analysis on the highway element of our five-year program, and have used HERS-ST to assess needs. With the SLRP, we will be looking at the economic impacts of alternative investment scenarios.

4. Does your agency employ specific tools to conduct multimodal tradeoff analyses (between modes)?

No, we hope to develop an integrated transportation investment strategy as part of the State Long-Range Plan.

5. How are results from multimodal tradeoff analyses utilized and presented in your agency (e.g., Long-Range Plans, Strategic Corridor Plans)?

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.

6. What is your agency's most pressing motivation for having or wanting a formalized multimodal tradeoff process?

To provide Michigan with an integrated multimodal transportation system makes sense in a time of limited financial resources and increasing and diverse customer expectations.

7. What are the barriers to developing a process for multimodal tradeoffs? How can these barriers be best overcome?

The most significant barrier is the legislatively mandated funding availability issue.

The best approach would bring parity, based upon an overall needs assessment to the funding distribution process.

Yes.

Limited financial resources to address: 1) a more diverse customer base; and 2) expanding customer expectations.

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?

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.

B.8 Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)

1. How would you or your agency define a multimodal tradeoff?

Mn/DOT does not formally define the concept of multimodal tradeoffs in any of its policies, programs, or procedures. However, one could argue the multimodal tradeoff concept is implied in the vision that drives Mn/DOT. That vision is to establish a coordinated transportation network that meets the needs of Minnesota's citizens and businesses for safe, timely, and predictable travel. Fundamental to that vision is the need to preserve and maintain the State's physical transportation assets - including highways, bridges, airports, water ports, freight, bus, rail, intermodal facilities, and bikeways.

Mn/DOT does not have a formal multimodal or modal choice/tradeoff methodology or a set of developed multimodal tradeoff tools. To the extent Mn/DOT has addressed or considered the implications of modal (multimodal) tradeoffs, the agency has relied on Mn/DOT policies and programs. 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.

It is important to note that while Mn/DOT is the principal agency in the State for development, implementation, administration, consolidation, and coordination of state transportation policies, plans, and programs - those policies, plans, and programs are developed in cooperation with a variety of transportation partners. These include the public, the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council, the six Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) established in areas with populations exceeding 50,000, the nine Regional Development Commissions (RDCs), and county, city, and Indian tribal governments throughout the State. So any (informal) multimodal tradeoff analysis that is being done involves these partners as well as Mn/DOT.

(No response provided.)

4. Does your agency employ specific tools to conduct multimodal tradeoff analyses (between modes)?

Because Mn/DOT has not conducted formal multimodal tradeoff analysis, it has not applied any specific tools or developed new ones to make tradeoff decisions. Rather, Minnesota's transportation process for investment decisions is driven by a declaration of state goals and objectives and those transportation strategies/directions described in state and national legislation. System and corridor improvements required to achieve and maintain established mobility performance targets are identified in Mn/DOT's transportation system and improvement plans. Those plans reflect Federal, state, and regional policy and performance direction; projected funding availability; and priorities identified in consultation with Mn/DOT, the Metropolitan Council, and other Mn/Dot transportation stakeholders. Tools used to frame those plans include:

Pavement Management System;
Metropolitan Council's Regional Model.

It is within this context that multimodal tradeoffs informally manifest themselves - as evidenced in documents like the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for 2004-2006 (see Table 1).

Table 1. State Transportation Improvement Program Funding by Source and Year

Source	2004	2005	2006	Total*
*Transit Programs*
Federal Transit Administration Funds	191	105	59	355
State and Local Match	79	50	48	178
Subtotal*	271	155	107	533
*Highway Program*
Federal-aid Highway Funds	356	283	291	931
Federal AC Conversion	183	166	112	462
State Trunk Highway Funds	295	292	278	866
Other Funds	93	84	63	241
Subtotal*	928	826	745	2,499
Total*	1,199	981	852	3,032

Notes: * May not total correctly due to rounding.

As one studies Table 1, it's important to remember that transit is substantially a local program. It's presumed that local MPOs also informally consider multimodal tradeoffs and funding constraints in their plans and deliberations.

5. How are results from multimodal tradeoff analyses utilized and presented in your agency (e.g., Long-Range Plans, Strategic Corridor Plans)?

As previously mentioned, Mn/DOT does not formally define the concept of multimodal tradeoffs in any of its policies, programs or procedures - therefore those tradeoffs aren't necessarily called out in any of the plans which inform (or are informed by) those same policies, programs, or procedures. However, as is also previously stated, one could argue the multimodal tradeoff concept is implied in the vision statement contained in what could arguably be called the foundation of Mn/DOT's Planning and Programming Process, i.e., Mn/DOT's Strategic Plan (see Figure 1). That plan lays out a vision that calls for a coordinated transportation network including highways, bridges, airports, water ports, freight, bus, rail, intermodal facilities, and bikeways.

Figure 1. Mn/DOT Transportation Planning and Programming Process

A snapshot of the earlier Minnesota Department of Transportation graphic focusing in on the first four steps of the process.
enlarge image

6. What is your agency's most pressing motivation for having or wanting a formalized multimodal tradeoff process?

Mn/DOT's Minnesota Statewide Transportation Plan includes performance measures and targets that are the basis for all districts' investment decisions. A formalized multimodal tradeoff process could certainly contribute to the establishment of more refined scenario- and project-level analysis and investment decisions.

7. What are the barriers to developing a process for multimodal tradeoffs? How can these barriers be best overcome?

Such a process would need to be vetted through Mn/DOT organization for accuracy, veracity, robustness, etc., before we could move to the level of even considering the adoption of such a multimodal tradeoff policy guideline/process/set of tools. That said, I believe we would be very interested in learning how other states are approaching this issue and especially be interested in any that claim to have an official policy/approach to the question in place.

Yes and yes. It's likely that larger urban areas might benefit to a greater degree than smaller urban/rural areas. Characteristics that might create the need for a formal multimodal analysis include 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.

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?

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.

B.9 Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT)

1. How would you or your agency define a multimodal tradeoff?

Maximizing transportation resources to have the greatest transportation benefit.

There has been some limited analysis in urban area when considering highway corridor expansions. Public transportation alternatives and needs are considered and incorporated if possible. MoDOT recently completed statewide passenger and freight reports, but the focus was needs based and not on tradeoffs.

MoDOT's Long-Range Direction, MoDOT TRACKER Performance Management System, and Missouri passenger and freight data.

4. Does your agency employ specific tools to conduct multimodal tradeoff analyses (between modes)?

No.

5. How are results from multimodal tradeoff analyses utilized and presented in your agency (e.g., Long-Range Plans, Strategic Corridor Plans)?

Most multimodal transportation programs administered by MoDOT are single mode dedicated funding programs that do not allow mixing of funding from one mode to another. Also, Missouri's Constitution prohibits use of road funds for anything other than road and bridge projects.

6. What is your agency's most pressing motivation for having or wanting a formalized multimodal tradeoff process?

To insure we are maximizing transportation benefit with limited resources.

7. What are the barriers to developing a process for multimodal tradeoffs? How can these barriers be best overcome?

General public and political movement have been to direct as much funding as possible toward maintenance/improvement of road and bridge system. Any redirection of traditional highway and bridge funding to other modes is seen as a take away. These barriers can best be overcome through education.

I think we would benefit from a formal process, but it will be difficult to develop a process that will work for all states.

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?

I see MoDOT implementing some type of process in the future, especially if high fuel prices continue and the resulting increase in demand for alternative transportation options.

B.10 Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)

1. How would you or your agency define a multimodal tradeoff?

A multimodal tradeoff 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).

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.

We are just now developing a framework to better prioritize transportation investments within our metropolitan transportation plan. We are developing this framework to meet state requirements for least-cost planning. The framework will define multimodal measurements and use a weighted cost-benefit analysis approach. Our policy boards will 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.

2b. Programming.

We carry out a project selection process for Federal funding using STP, CMAQ, and FTA dollars. This project selection process is driven by policy goals shaped by our transportation plan and weighted by our policy boards. Projects are ranked qualitatively based on how well they achieve the policy goal(s).

2c. Corridor.

We participate in corridor planning studies which are aimed at making a basic project-level multimodal tradeoff - selecting the right mode, or mix of modal investments, to meet the needs in a corridor. Evaluation criteria are created at the beginning of the corridor analysis process that guides the choice of investments to address the identified deficiencies.

2d. Project.

See corridor above.

In the past, the region has used STEAM to calculate benefits on a corridor project. Washington State DOT has sophisticated bridge and pavement management systems that they use to make investment decisions in these asset classes. PSRC has a travel demand forecasting model that is used by all agencies within the region to evaluate travel growth and patterns to analyze projects and programs of projects.

4. Does your agency employ specific tools to conduct multimodal tradeoff analyses (between modes)?

A least-cost planning methodology is being further developed to help prioritize system expansion projects within the metropolitan transportation plan. This will use a cost-benefit analysis framework, with weights for goal attainment. This methodology is intended to be embedded into our regional travel demand forecasting model as a post-processor to better automate the benefits calculation output.

5. How are results from multimodal tradeoff analyses utilized and presented in your agency (e.g., Long-Range Plans, Strategic Corridor Plans)?

The analysis from corridor plans is used to amend the metropolitan transportation plan with the conceptual solution to an identified deficiency. The congestion management process and least-cost planning approach with the metropolitan transportation plan is used to establish priorities for investment within identified plan conceptual solutions. Our project selection process is aimed at picking the highest priority investment to move forward for implementation.

6. What is your agency's most pressing motivation for having or wanting a formalized multimodal tradeoff process?

On the project or corridor level, to make sure the conceptual solution best meets the corridor travel need. 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.

7. What are the barriers to developing a process for multimodal tradeoffs? How can these barriers be best overcome?

One of the biggest barriers is finding performance measures/evaluation criteria that overcome differences among modes to that the analysis is conducted in an apples to apples way. Also, how to best incorporate varying and often conflicting goals and policies along with more quantitative benefit-cost information in the decision process. We are trying to overcome these barriers by using a benefit-cost analysis framework to try to make the analysis as consistent as possible, but also to use a methodology to weight goals so that non-quantitative factors can be included in the analysis. This is not an easy or trivial solution to the barriers.

All state transportation agencies and MPOs make investment decisions, and therefore 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.

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?

Furthering multimodal tradeoff analysis requires both improved tools and improved understanding of the core concepts on the part of decision-makers. Travel demand models require improvements to ensure their structures and choice models are consistent with economic theory, and that they are specified from quality data reflecting consumer choice. Benefit-cost calculating software must be developed that gets the math right. And most importantly, decision-makers must be comfortable with their understanding of the basic concepts so that they are less inclined to undermine the results of analysis through skepticism about the tools. Agreement on the basic decision criteria embedded in a benefit-cost analysis is also critical as well.

B.11 Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet)

1. How would you or your agency define a multimodal tradeoff?

As a transit agency, we do not deal with this concept directly. We work closely with the MPO, Metro in all corridor studies, which are always multimodal in scope and, in fact, the Region 2040 Framework Plan and the 20-Year RTP requires a multimodal (alternative mode) balance in the development of corridor projects. The emphasis shift dramatically to alternative modes (transit, bike, pedestrian) when project pass through Regional and Town Centers and Station Areas as defined in the 2040 Framework Plan. Managing vehicular traffic and expediting efficient freight movement is always a priority, it is always approached with balance and a view that some congestion may not be a bad thing and chasing congestion may not be the best long-term approach to smart regional growth.

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.

Again, as a transit agency, we rarely deal with freight issues except to the extent we move people efficiently, road capacity is freed up for truck movements.

2b. Programming.

No, not really, but this does happen at a regional level with Metro, the Port of Portland, Oregon DOT and road jurisdictions being key players. More focus is also now going to freight rail.

2c. Corridor.

As above.

2d. Project.

As above.

This is pretty foreign for me as a transit guy. The region tries to optimize the effectiveness and flexibility in how these funds are used.

4. Does your agency employ specific tools to conduct multimodal tradeoff analyses (between modes)?

TriMet does so only within transit modes - generally through corridor studies and associated Alternatives Analysis and demand forecasting. At the more macro level, the balance between transit and highway investments is grounded in the RTP - a process administered by the MPO with close TriMet participation. That process considers alternative levels of transportation system investments by mode and optimizes based on land use plan support (2040 Framework Plan), system efficiencies and level of investment.

5. How are results from multimodal tradeoff analyses utilized and presented in your agency (e.g., Long-Range Plans, Strategic Corridor Plans)?

In the 20-year RTP (produced by the MPO) and in TriMet's own five-year Transit Investment Plan (TIP). The TIP is essentially the five-year element of the RTP, just as jurisdictions produce their Transportation Systems Plans and the State produces its STIP. All of these are coordinated regionally by the MPO and related committees.

6. What is your agency's most pressing motivation for having or wanting a formalized multimodal tradeoff process?

Support for the 2040 Framework Plan - because in the long run, transportation problems are best addressed through land use planning. The challenge, of course, is preparing a financially feasible transportation plan that keeps pace with regional growth. Related is assurance of freight mobility, which in turn promotes regional economic development. Congestion relief is important, but not of paramount consideration.

7. What are the barriers to developing a process for multimodal tradeoffs? How can these barriers be best overcome?

Resources at both the Federal and local levels. Both magnitude of resources, stability of resources and flexibility in their use. This is quickly leading to more entrepreneurial approaches, including public/private partnerships (tolling) and closer coordination with private transportation providers (railroads).

I'm not sophisticated or hands on enough to answer this right now. Probably yes, through I think this has not been an issue for Portland and the state DOT.

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?

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. I'm not yet sure how to answer the second question, as I think this is being pretty well addressed at present.

B.12 Utah Transit Authority (UTA)

1. How would you or your agency define a multimodal tradeoff?

A multimodal tradeoff would be 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.

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.

At a planning level 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.

2b. Programming.

(No response provided.)

2c. Corridor.

At a corridor level an alternatives analysis would be performed that describes specific alternatives and evaluates each against objectives and criteria.

2d. Project.

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.

Cost models, travel demand models and comparison matrices.

4. Does your agency employ specific tools to conduct multimodal tradeoff analyses (between modes)?

Not really.

5. How are results from multimodal tradeoff analyses utilized and presented in your agency (e.g., Long-Range Plans, Strategic Corridor Plans)?

Most of our experience has been with corridor studies and has used tables with cist, performance, and impacts.

6. What is your agency's most pressing motivation for having or wanting a formalized multimodal tradeoff process?

We are engaged in several multimodal studies.

7. What are the barriers to developing a process for multimodal tradeoffs? How can these barriers be best overcome?

(No response provided.)

I don't know if all agencies would, but I know that ours would.

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?

What we need are some test cases.

B.13 Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)

1. How would you or your agency define a multimodal tradeoff?

Comparing investments in two modes and determining the better overall investment.

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.

We are in the process of developing a multimodal tradeoff method.

2b. Programming.

Ditto.

2c. Corridor.

We do diversion analyses and mode choice modeling.

2d. Project.

Ditto.

We have a model that uses performance measures to evaluate highway projects; we have bridge model and pavement management system; we also use travel demand models. We have developed performance measures to evaluate (and tradeoff) freight versus passenger rail projects for our new Rail Enhancement Fund.

4. Does your agency employ specific tools to conduct multimodal tradeoff analyses (between modes)?

Except for passenger versus rail freight, No. Currently all transit funding is by formula.

5. How are results from multimodal tradeoff analyses utilized and presented in your agency (e.g., Long-Range Plans, Strategic Corridor Plans)?

That is still on the horizon for us.

6. What is your agency's most pressing motivation for having or wanting a formalized multimodal tradeoff process?

Making investments across modes.

7. What are the barriers to developing a process for multimodal tradeoffs? How can these barriers be best overcome?

The major barrier is that 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.

I believe a multimodal tradeoff method can provide data to inform decision-makers and its time has come.

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?

We are in the process of developing it and what is needed is better methods.

< Previous

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