Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Setting Priorities at DOT

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

This piece, written by Charles L. Marohn, president of Strong Towns, addresses many of the issues we discuss on Bacon’s Rebellion — how to prioritize transportation spending. Appearing originally in the Strong Towns blog, it is republished here with permission. — JAB

First step: Learn the difference between a street and a road, between mobility and access.
First step: Learn the difference between a street and a road, between mobility and access.

Last week I was asked to privately comment on a priority ranking system being developed by a state DOT. After providing a (not flattering) critique of the proposed ranking system, I then offered my thoughts on how I would develop one.

Since I’m quite confident my suggestions will generate little more than amusement for anyone beyond the individuals/organization that requested my thoughts, I’ve decided to share them here. I’m not trying to embarrass any specific DOT or endanger any relationship (I was asked to comment in private) and so I’ve replaced the name with XDOT. Go ahead and substitute whatever your local DOT is because my advice would be the same.

* * * * *

First, XDOT should not be prioritizing projects, it should be prioritizing corridors. Where are the most important and productive places and then what are the transportation corridors that connect them? Rank the corridors first and that will give a good sense of where the real priorities need to be.

Once that is done, then prioritize projects within each corridor. I would suggest the following ranking for projects within a priority corridor.

  1. Critical Safety. Address a safety issue that has become critical, where there have been repeated accidents and a likelihood of future problems.
  2. System Preservation. We need to prioritize maintaining what we have, especially in the most critical corridors.
  3. Removal of Access. Access points along a corridor are the leading source of accidents and primary source of congestion. Removal of accesses between destinations (aka: productive places) is the lowest cost and most effective way to improve the operation of a transportation corridor.
  4. Increase Capacity. Once access management has been attained, managing capacity is a relatively straightforward task. When travel demand between two productive places increases to within design, there are any number of alternatives that can be explored. Construction of additional lanes.
    1. Congestion pricing to spread peak flows into non-peak times.
    2. Deployment of bus rapid transit.
    3. Construction of a rail line.
    4. Other
  5. Provide Alternatives. Priority should be given for improvements that provide alternatives for travelers between productive places.

Note that none of these criteria are applicable within a productive place. Within a productive place, highway standards are counter-productive to creating and sustaining value in a network of local streets. If XDOT is going to maintain local streets as part of its overall transportation network, it needs to do the following.

  1. Turn Back. Provide local governments with the option to take over the maintenance of local streets. This should be done in places where the priorities of the local government (value creation) and those of the DOT (automobile transportation) conflict.

Read more

.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

9 responses to “Setting Priorities at DOT”

  1. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    I guess I was expecting ROI! 😉

    I note that several MPOs around the state – that maintain regional transportation plans have gotten into the business of “ranking” projects – not that different than Jims list…

    here’s one I know about:

    METHODOLOGY
    This methodology uses readily accessible information in evaluating projects based on the
    following major factors and project classifications:
     Congestion relief: 30 points
     Safety and security: 30 points
     Environmental impacts: 16 points
     Public and community support: 8 points
     Funding and implementation considerations: 8 points
     Smart growth/mobility: 8 points

    and I like Jim’s better …to be honest…and an XDOT scheme would be for statewide roads of significance…. not regional or local roads unless they played some key role in state priorities.

    but.. I WOULD ADD – economic development IF they can demonstrate a legitimate ROI – which in my mind means an investor grade study.

    Generally what XDOTs do with major new roads these days, is they take the same approach the Army Corps used to take in their heyday of building dams in that rather than trying to justify it for one purpose – they’d use the kitchen sink – “multi-purpose” approach and then assign percentages to each sub-category.

    but these are baby steps to be encouraged… I do not expect politics to go away but this has the potential to make some inroads …

    so I’ll throw a challenge at Jim B. Using YOUR prioritization scheme – how would the Cville bypass rate?

  2. reed fawell III Avatar
    reed fawell III

    Like the Peter Katz article recently published here, this Charles L. Marohn article deserves much study. Both articles reward multiply visits.

    These guys know what they are talking about. And, what they are talking about are highly practical, and best practice, ways to think about and deal with otherwise intractable problems have have grown out of our past failed transportation and land use policies to date throughout our nation.

    Our biggest problem right now is not only the vast damage these policies have left in their wake, but also its critical reality that these policies that have failed us so miserably in the past are ongoing today in full force, doing ever more damage every day that passes, doing damage that typically lasts for lifetimes, a plague on our children long after we’ve left the scene.

    About the damage there can be no doubt. The resultant dysfunction and blight of these policies are now everywhere to see. Plagues are rampant, infest our landscapes and neighborhoods, places we live, work, and play. Plagues have metastasized in Northern Virginia with a special virulence, all by reason of deeply flawed land use and transportation policies.

    In Northern Virginia, the damages that lasts generations grows annually. So does the cost to fix it. Dysfunctions rise. This erodes revenues and skyrockets costs, throttling residents benefits while wasting their wealth. Those who can afford it move out. The rest remain, holding on, hammered by ever rising cost, and ever lower quality of life. Iterations on these stories, and the damages done, grow daily.

    (I suggest that right now Northern Virginia is in decline. And its been going on for some time. That is my opinion. However, at the very least, I suggest it becomes ever more difficult to suggest that Northern Virginia is not missing its full potential for development by a country mile, in substantial part by reason of its failed land use and transportation policies.)

    Hence the need to look at what Marohn’s ideas have to offer. A book can be written on the subject. That cann0t happen here. By consider two Marohn priorities, and one observation:

    The two Marohn Priorities:
    “2. System Preservation. We need to prioritize maintaining what we have, especially in the most critical corridors. ….

    5. Provide Alternatives. Priority should be given for improvements that provide alternatives for travelers between productive places.”

    The Observation:
    “If XDOT chooses to be actively involved in economic development (instead of focused on transportation), the only thing it can do is to bestow advantage upon those businesses set up to exploit highway access and automobile mobility. … XDOT is not in a position to address the deep complexity and nuance that comes with local economic development.”

    Marohn has not applied his principles to Northern Virginia. He has written them down on the basis of his experience in anonymous places. In a subsequent post, I will suggest why and how his general principles might be applied to Northern Virginia.

    1. reed fawell III Avatar
      reed fawell III

      Correction – “However, at the very least, I suggest it becomes ever more difficult to suggest that Northern Virginia is () missing its full potential for development by a country mile, in substantial part by reason of its failed land use and transportation policies.” DELETE “NOT” THAT was before missing?

      1. raweber Avatar
        raweber

        Reed, while I’m not disagreeing with anything you mention in your response, please don’t forget that throughout Virginia, Land Use Planning and Transportation Planning are separate entities. Generally land use comes first and is very politically driven, then transportation planning comes afterwards trying to clean up the mess. What we need to advocate for is better integration of the two and less political intervention disrupting good decisions.

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          True. De-evolve most transportation taxation and planning to the localities. Right now, the only county that manages its own transportation is Henrico (Note: Arlington is a city no matter what the overlords in Richmond care to call it).

          In other words – spay the General Assembly. The less power that is vested in the General Assembly, the better.

      2. reed fawell III Avatar
        reed fawell III

        raweber and Don and I seem to agree that transportation and land use decisions need to be made in tandem and to mutually reinforce one another. Below is earlier comment on Transportation Tumult article:

        “As time passes and events unfold, evidence mounts that points to the idea that we should pause and reconsider transportation issues and land use issues together and across the board, before launching into massive new initiatives that might be built on faulty assumptions or that can modified for great advantage given changing circumstances.

        For example, Mr. Allen’s 2005 Dulles traffic study vividly highlights how transportation and land use can impact one another negatively. And why, if we are to reverse problems all acknowledge we’ve created for ourselves in the past, and if we are succeed in the future instead, our decisions on each (land use and transportation) must be deeply informed by the facts and realities that are inherent the other.

        Indeed, transportation and land use decisions, their results and consequences must fit and work together, in synergistic ways that spin benefits and wealth off one another, like Yin and Yang. And we now know from painful experience that that if they are not built to fit and be in synchronicity with one another, harm and waste will be the result instead.

        This is obvious. Imagine the consequences that flow today from the decisions past. Imagine what they can be tomorrow. Imagine what can happen if these vast future infrastructures work poorly together with those built already, and so magnify existing problems like traffic and destroy existing opportunities to reduce it. Imagine however that they work well together to reduce current problems and create new opportunities. Imagine the good and benefit that can be created for us, or the harm and waste that can be forced on us, whether we like it or not. These new decisions and consequences will have profound impact on everyone for generations.

        So, in light of this, who accepted Mr. Allen’s wake up call 8 years ago? Did anyone before billions of public monies were spend or proposed. Why not?

        The task has grown more important. Development patterns and transportation habits may well be undergoing profound change in the region, altering past realities that we’ve built decisions on for decades. We need now a full reconsideration of transportation and land use altogether.”

  3. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    I guess I’m not convinced that NoVa is that different from many other urban areas….

    I mean heckfire – look at Houston or LA or Phoenix or Seattle!

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      The biggest difference is that our corrupt and intellectually bankrupt General Assembly put Virginia as the second to last state to raise its gas tax. The last state, Alaska, is an exception in almost every way. Effectively, The Imperial Clown Show in Richmond turned a blind eye to inflation in transportation for 26 years. Finally, after many failed attempts by others, Governor McRolex put together a Rube Goldberg scheme that will probably solve the funding problem. It was a bizarre combination of things that was the second worst idea on the table. The only worse idea was doing nothing. However, I am confident that only a bizarre combination would have gotten through The Imperial Clown Show in Richmond. For that, we all owe Gov. McRolex a debt of gratitude.

  4. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    I don’t think it’s going to make much difference myself.

    they actually have made it even harder to figure out how the regions get funded or not.

    funding allocations are now a deep in the bowels VDOT activity unless we start to see actual reports of what each jurisdiction generated in gas taxes.

    we WILL know what they generate in sales taxes and I think that money is going to become fair game for the transit advocates.

    You gotta give Gov Roylex credit here. How many years went by with a steady succession of Govs who utterly failed to increase the gas tax?

Leave a Reply

Read More