No abstract

The application of cost allocation techniques to an increasingly multi-modal or intermodal federal transportation program is discussed. Numerous statutory changes and policy developments in the 1990s have moved federal policy strongly toward an intermodal approach. As a result, highway cost allocation studies must address topics related to expenditures for multimodal improvements. The issues involved and the implications of a multimodal program for seeking cost-based pricing of transportation facilities are explored. Also examined are the feasibility of approaching cost allocation from a multimodal perspective, the challenges posed to past technical approaches and fundamental objectives, and several policy benefits that might be derived from taking a broader multimodal approach. An assessment of pros and cons is presented, followed by a wide-ranging set of conclusions and recommendations for federal cost allocation research. The central conclusion supports continued modal cost allocation studies emphasizing a comparable approach for each mode and developing information on spillover effects across modes.

Public agencies pursue many goals when employing alternative procurement approaches like public–private partnerships (P3s) to develop and renew transportation infrastructure. Evaluators often focus on economic efficiency. However, that rarely represents an agency’s sole or even primary objective. This paper identifies government sponsors’ objectives in selecting P3s as a delivery approach and the extent to which projects have met those objectives. The paper extends previous work examining six case studies of U.S. P3 projects by adding three additional projects out of a total population of 21 U.S. P3 projects launched since 2003. The new case studies introduce important elements of P3 projects, namely, a multistate project and a project that encountered financial challenges and bankruptcy. The new case studies generally confirm that public agencies pursue six objectives when employing P3s: (i) accessing private-sector financing; (ii) accessing private-sector expertise and innovation; (iii) accelerating project delivery; (iv) increasing certainty about project cost, schedule, and quality; (v) transferring and managing risk; and (vi) improving transit and development opportunities. Government sponsors generally achieved their goals. They might benefit further by: (a) pursuing private-sector expertise and innovation earlier; (b) elevating risk transfer objectives; (c) incorporating broader transit, local development, and value capture opportunities; and (d) improving outcome measurement, analysis, and transparency practices. The U.S. government may also benefit from reconsidering the statutory authority granted to the U.S. Department of Transportation when it holds debt in bankrupt projects.

The Transportation Research Forum, founded in 1958, is an independent, nonprofit organization of transportation professionals who conduct, use, and benefit from research. Its purpose is to provide an impartial meeting ground for carriers, shippers, government officials, consultants, university researchers, suppliers, and others seeking exchange of information and ideas related to both passenger and freight transportation. More information on the Transportation Research Forum can be found on the Web at www.trforum.org.

No abstract