Evaluation, prioritization and selection of transportation investment projects in New York City

Abstract

Over the last decade, a large number of high capital cost transportation projects have been proposed for the New York City Region. Many have resulted from addressing evolving capacity needs, changes in regional demographics and economics, meeting the improvements necessitated by operating century old subway systems and recognizing the impact of moving freight in a dense region. But the catalyst for bringing all of these projects to the attention of the public and all regional agencies was the tragedy of September 11, 2001. While these projects entail massive investments ($50-$60 billion), little analytical work has been carried out to measure the transportation and economic costs and benefits they entail and to categorize them accordingly. Competition among agencies to secure adequate resources to implement any of the desired projects makes such analysis necessary; yet there still remain political, vested economic interests and agency rivalry barriers to achieving this important planning objective. This paper reports the methodological approach taken by these authors for consistent and transparent project evaluation and then presents results from the ranking and prioritizing methodology. The policy underpinnings and implications of the analysis are discussed in a subsequent paper and thus only briefly touched upon here in the concluding section.

Infrastructure Gap in South Asia: Infrastructure Needs, Prioritization, and Financing

“…Criteria used to prioritize infrastructure investment needs play a major role in mitigating the infrastructure gap. A few existing studies attempted to address this question (see e.g., Berechman and Paaswell, 2005;Karydas and Gifun, 2006), but the methodological framework they developed is narrow and can be applied only to rank infrastructure investment projects. This section aims to develop a methodology that would be helpful in prioritizing infrastructure needs in developing countries, particularly in South Asia.…”

Evaluating the outcomes associated with an innovative change in a state-level transportation project prioritization process: A case study of Vermont

“…The use of MCA in public sector transportation planning is not new (Gokey et al, 2009;CLGP, 2009;Berechman and Paaswell, 2005;Kulkarni et al, 2004;Piantanakulchai and Saengkhao, 2003); however, the application of MCA appears to be extremely limited in the context of state-level transportation planning within the U.S. In the case of Vermont, the VAOT had little to no experience with MCA techniques prior to the development of the new project prioritization process.…”

Prioritization as a way to select the most effective primary projects in the context of limited financial resources

“…Приоритизация (принцип приоритетности) -отказ от попыток использования универсальных решений и фронтального подхода в условиях ресурсных ограничений и принятия решений в пользу «точек роста» в конкретных секторах и регионах [1]. В зарубежной литературе наряду с термином «приоритизация» используются такие понятия как «селекция», «рейтингование», «отбор» проектов [2]. Прибегают к приоритизации тогда, когда имеется несколько проектов с достаточно близкими показателями эффективности, но осуществить все эти проекты в обозначенные сроки их реализации не удается из-за ресурсных ограничений.…”

“…В большинстве случаев такие показатели по сравниваемым проектам оказываются весьма близкими. В цитируемом ранее источнике [2] предлагается учитывать кроме показателей, охватывающих основную деятельность конкурирующих проектируемых предприятий, побочные возникающие эффекты, основными из которых являются агломерационный, мультипликативный и экологический эффекты, возникающие в регионе, где осуществляется реализация проекта.…”