The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C.D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board's varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation dep...

Widespread application of traditional performance metrics such as vehicle level of service has resulted in transportation networks that are often suited for only one mode of transportation to the detriment of others. Moreover, the continued investment in capacity expansion intended to meet level of service expectations increases financial burdens on transportation agencies for the capital, operating, and maintenance costs of these facilities, without regard to whether those resources are being used efficiently. Shifting focus to alternative and more comprehensive performance metrics can result in a more economical approach to transportation infrastructure, allowing communities to understand what investment combinations provide the best bang for the buck. Innovative performance metrics also allow communities to consider priorities beyond level of service, and design infrastructure accordingly. The Wasatch Front Central Corridor Study, undertaken in the Salt Lake City metropolitan area, is one example of a regional application of efficiency-focused performance metrics such as person throughput, seat utilization, benefit–cost ratio, access to employment, and economic impacts. Further research opportunities could include development of best practices to standardize benefit–cost analysis for transportation projects, other methods of evaluating overall system efficiency, and the role of parking policy and land use change in maximizing use of transportation resources.

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) assesses more than 100 transportation projects annually for its State Transportation Improvement Program, one of the largest such programs in the country. Caltrans relies on benefit–cost analysis as one of several performance factors, and evaluations must be completed in a few weeks. Caltrans developed a spreadsheet model, Cal-B/C, to provide a common benefit–cost framework and facilitate rapid project evaluation. The model is based on extensive theoretical reviews but is intended to keep the analysis simple. Cal-B/C incorporates rules of thumb to accommodate projects with little upfront evaluation. It can also use summary data from microsimulation and travel demand models. Although this design supports analysis with minimal data, Caltrans has found that the need for accurate and consistent data complicates project evaluation. This paper presents an example of how California applies benefit–cost analysis for objective project appraisals. The paper describes the motivation for Cal-B/C, its structure, applications, and continued evolution. Particular attention is paid to a recent evaluation of projects proposed for a $4.5 billion infrastructure bond measure. The paper also offers lessons for applied transportation performance analysis and proposes areas for further research.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)’s Pavement Policy as codified in 23 CFR 626 states, “Pavement shall be designed to accommodate current and predicted traffic needs in a safe, durable, and cost effective manner” to be eligible for federal highway funding. To meet this requirement, state highway agencies have developed pavement type determination (PTD) policies, also known as pavement type selection, and implemented pavement management. Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT)’s PTD has been in place for many years; but in 2018, Iowa DOT looked at enhancing their PTD process to address gaps between past practice and best practice. Among the enhancements, user benefit as defined by pavement smoothness was utilized when net present value (NPV) alone could not definitively distinguish a preferred alternative. The smoothness benefit would become the divisor in a cost–benefit (C/B) ratio that would be used to determine the preferred alternate for the PTD. The cost portion of the ratio would remain the NPV of agency costs for the construction and projected rehabilitations during the analysis period. After a literature review and interviews of comparable state DOTs, several modifications to Iowa DOT’s PTD and the C/B ratio were analyzed and adopted. The modifications range from accepted practice changes, such as the use of a longer analysis period (50 years), to unconventional techniques, such as the consideration of smoothness. Iowa DOT believes these changes provide a more robust PTD. They are also considering additional improvements based upon additional research and policy making.

No abstract