Information System for Risks, Costs, and Benefits of Infrastructure Improvement Projects

Self Cite

Economic uncertainties have prompted transportation departments to consider cost-effective spending to reduce funding shortages. Although methods exist for identifying and prioritizing projects, there is need for analysis of long-range plans that consider stakeholder perspectives. This article compares two pairs of cost estimates: (a) modal agency cost estimates with (b) highway-only implementations and (c) regional Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) plans with (d) the state Department of Transportation (DOT) highway plan. This article develops methods to compare the perspectives of cost estimates for transportation improvements. The methods are adaptable to include both preliminary cost data and detailed life cycle cost data. The results aid in the prioritization of engineering and long-range planning efforts for projects that are expected to contribute to the goals of a variety of stakeholder investments. The methods support efforts for increasing accuracy and inclusion of life cycle costs into project estimates and employment of more sophisticated cost methodologies, such as cost-effectiveness and cost–benefit analysis.

Section: Review Of Relevant Literature and Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncertain Cost Estimates Influencing Priorities for Multimodal Transportation Corridors

Lambert

Soliman

Linthicum

et al. 2013

Self Cite

“…Underfunding maintenance and repair activities can, over the long term, reduce the efficiency of the fixed asset and hasten its demise. When that happens, the social compact between generations is broken (Baker & Lambert, 2001;Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, 2003;Neumann, Markow, & Lambert, 2003;Petersen, 2004;Transportation Research Board, 2004). Criterion 4-Internal coordination: The fourth criterion of effective infrastructure management requires cooperation and coordination across the various agencies of the state that have infrastructure responsibilities.…”

Section: Box 1 (Continued)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Grading Infrastructure Management In the Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Factors Affect Management Quality? State Infrastructure Management and the Government Performance Project

Jimenez¹,

Pagano

2011

Whether the US$131 billion set aside for infrastructure projects under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 can make a lasting contribution to improving the nation's public infrastructure will depend, in part, on the quality of infrastructure management systems and practices in the states. In this article, we examine the factors that influence how well state governments plan for and manage public infrastructure using results from the 2005 and 2008 Government Performance Project. The pooled Tobit regression analysis shows that capital management quality is affected by political variables such as divided legislatures and legislative term limits, fiscal institutions including tax and expenditure limits, and environmental demand factors, specifically the extent of urbanization.

“…NCHRP (2001) advocates multicriteria project analysis because it allows transportation practitioners to move away from rigid cost-benefit techniques toward incorporating goals and objectives used to specify predefined criteria in the investment process. Baker and Lambert (2001) describe multicriteria trade-off analysis, supporting databases, and automated assessment of evaluative factors to improve the selection of diverse infrastructure improvement projects by highway agencies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The literature thus suggests an opportunity in this article to develop an evidence-based method to coordinate and prioritize investments in multimodal corridors, which are the major transportation facilities that include highways, ports, rail, aviation, and transit. In particular, this article can be viewed as the multimodal extension of the previous efforts of Baker and Lambert (2001) and Lambert, Peterson, and Joshi (2006) to select infrastructure improvement projects. The article describes (a) an integration of performance metrics and (b) a two-tiered method for addressing multimodal corridors and modal projects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Coordination and Diversification of Investments in Multimodal Transportation

Lambert

Joshi

Peterson

et al. 2007

Self Cite

Across the nation, there are opportunities to improve multimodal coordination and prioritization of investments among transportation agencies. This article develops a method to coordinate and diversify transportation investments across travel modes and qualitative goals. The method helps decision makers to identify and prioritize investments for multimodal corridors, which involve large-scale coordination of transportation projects across modes. The article describes the developed method in two parts: prioritizing multimodal corridors at a macro level of analysis and coordinating modal projects at a micro level. The benefits of the method include (a) identification of efficient investment alternatives to meet travel demands when considering multiple modes relative to only single modes, (b) direction of funding to the multimodal corridors and modal projects where the needs are most urgent, and (c) increased transparency and accountability of multimodal agencies for funding that can be allocated across multiple modes. The article addresses multimodal transportation planning efforts with systematic, evidence-based approaches to coordinating long-range investments.