Quantitative Approaches for Project Prioritization: Case Study in Puget Sound, Washington

Abstract

Transportation projects in major metropolitan regions can vary widely in the types of benefits that they provide and in the scales of those benefits. Travel forecasting models and related procedures can provide reasonable estimates of those benefits, and many benefits can be distilled into equivalent monetary benefits by the use of consumer surplus or other valuation approaches. In theory, those methods could also be used to prioritize projects for funding consideration. However, an approach that simply chooses projects that provide the greatest net economic benefits may not result in a mix of projects that most effectively accomplishes broad regional goals. This paper describes an approach to project prioritization that was developed to support stakeholder-based weighting of multiple goals and, for each goal, multiple measures. The approach uses the analytic hierarchy approach to develop weights for each goal and a conjoint-based method to estimate stakeholder weights for each measure. The approach was applied as part of Washington State's Puget Sound Regional Council's Transportation 2040 process and achieved the goals in VISION 2040, the long-range land use plan. Weighting exercises were conducted with two stakeholder groups, and the results were applied to a set of proposed ferry, rail, highway, and local road projects. This paper describes the details of this case study and provides observations and conclusions from the work. The principal findings of the experiments were that statistically robust modeling conducted in real time during planning committee meetings can improve the transparency, equity, and collaboration of the project prioritization process.

Prioritization Model for IT Project Portfolio Management in Private University: A Literature Review

“…A multi-criteria assessment approach using this methodology may be particularly relevant in helping senior private sector executives prioritize IT investments based on a range of business objectives and key performance indicators that focus on achieving specific goals. This method is often easier to use than other approaches, making it more suitable for communicating with strategic IT decision-makers and providing clear criteria for decision-making within their areas of responsibility [26]- [30].…”

Evaluating ecosystem-based management alternatives for the Puget Sound, U.S.A. social-ecological system using qualitative watershed models

“…For example, the definition of Economic Vitality is tied explicitly to the condition of natural resources (Appendix Table S1), so the response of that node is aligned with biophysical objectives (e.g., Chinook spawners and Orcas). However, if defined more broadly, economic vitality encompassing more than natural resource sectors would likely to have a more complex relationship with biophysical objectives (Outwater et al, 2012;Rodrıǵuez-Pose and Storper, 2020). Similarly, ecosystem stressor responses were sensitive to the specific characteristics of management interventions represented in our models.…”

Current State of Estimation of Multimodal Freight Project Impacts

“…Outwater et al (30) examined the Puget Sound Regional Council's project prioritization method by using the analytical hierarchy process and conjoint analysis to weight various measures in the process via stakeholder input (31). This system allowed for a more quantitative approach to the development of weights but still incorporated stakeholder input.…”

“…As mentioned above, developing weights in an objective manner to assign to the measurement categories is a particular challenge, especially when an attempt is being made to develop consistent weights across modes. Outwater et al (30) examined the Puget Sound Regional Council's project prioritization method by using the analytical hierarchy process and conjoint analysis to weight various measures in the process via stakeholder input (31). This system allowed for a more quantitative approach to the development of weights but still incorporated stakeholder input.…”