Cost per User as Key Factor in Project Prioritization

Abstract

Efforts to accommodate increasing and dispersed demand for travel in the face of mounting traffic congestion, escalating construction costs, limited rights of way, and diminished air quality have caused planning agencies to adopt plans that would enhance transit choices. Faced with fiscal limitations, the need to prioritize the ever-growing list of improvement projects is paramount. To meet this need in the development of the Bay Area System Plan for Regional Express Bus Service in California, a survey of existing literature on capital investment prioritization in transportation was conducted. This review led to development of a simple prioritization methodology with which to analyze the projects. Unit costs per ride were calculated to facilitate comparisons between the various proposals. The cost estimation procedure involved a systematic sequence of analyses that included the development and quantification of conceptual design elements, application of unit capital as well as operation and maintenance costs, and matching of annualized costs with annual ridership to derive unit costs per affected ride. Results revealed that the greater majority of proposed improvements could be implemented at a relatively low total cost. The estimates also suggest that most proposed improvements will not add very significant additional costs per ride to existing operations. The case study demonstrates the utility of a prioritization method that emphasizes the user benefits of projects and illustrates an approach that could be used by other agencies.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Hatry

H. P.

Millar

and Evans

. Guide to Setting Priorities for Capital Investment. In Guides to Managing Urban Capital, Vol. 5. Urban Institute Press, Washington, D.C., 1985.

Deakin

Ferrell

Mason

and Thomas

. Policies and Practices for Cost-Effective Transit Investments: Recent Experiences in the United States. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1799, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 1–9.

Hemily

Canadian Transit in Transition; Redefining the Public Sector in Canada. Public Transport International, Vol. 2, 1999, pp. 8–13.

Bennett

J. C.

Strategic Planning as a Basis for Capital Investment Programming: Case Study of the Regional Transportation Authority in Chicago. In Transportation Research Record 1165, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1988, pp. 40–51.

Lavoritano

C. H.

Burnfield

R. G.

and Glisson

J. H.

. Capital Project Priority Setting at the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. In Transportation Research Record 1266, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990, pp. 98–103.

Mulqueen

B. P.

and Thomas

C. W.

. Capital Program Planning, Prioritization, and Financing. Presented at Rail Transit Conference Proceedings, St. Louis, Mo., American Public Transit Association, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 84–96.

Deakin

Payne

and Menotti

. Development of Bay Area Rapid Transit System Expansion Criteria and Process. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1887, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 18–25.

1998 California Transportation Plan: Transportation System Performance Measures. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, 1998.

Performance Measures Report for the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, Calif., 2001.

10.

Year 2003 Annual HOV Lane Report: Volumes, Occupancies and Violation Rates for Freeway High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes in the San Francisco Bay Area. Caltrans District 4, Oakland, Calif. www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/documents/hoveleport2003.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2005.