This paper introduces a new method for multicriteria performance-based transportation budget allocation. First, the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI) that has long been used in economics for measuring the level of monopolization in a marketplace is employed to derive the relative weights of multiple non-commensurable transportation performance criteria. Next, a compromise programming (CP) model is formulated to help transform the multicriteria optimization formulation for transportation budget allocation to a single-objective optimization model solvable by minimizing the Chebyshev distance to the ideal levels of performance targets associated with individual performance criteria. Finally, the ε-constraint trade-off analysis method is incorporated into the combined use of HHI and CP framework to iteratively derive the optimal decision outcome. Six-year data on candidate investment projects proposed for a U.S. state-maintained rural Interstate highway system along with data details of the available budget is used in a computational study for method application. Comparative analysis of decision outcomes is conducted with the STEP method for cross validation. It has revealed that the proposed HHI-CP ε-constraint method outperforms the existing method and can be adopted by state and local transportation agencies to carry out effective budget allocation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LiZ.Transportation Asset Management: Methodology and Applications, First Edition. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, 2018.
2.
USDOT. U.S. DOT Provides More Than $63 Billion to Major Transportation Infrastructure Investments Across America in 2018. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
3.
KirkR.MallettW.Funding and Financing Highways and Public Transportation. Congressional Research Service Report, No. 45350, 2019.
4.
LiZ.SinhaK. C., Methodology for Multicriteria Decision Making in Highway Asset Management System Goals in Asset Management. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2004. 1885: 79–87, 2004.
5.
SinhaK. C.LabiS.Transportation Decision Making: Principles of Project Evaluation and Programming. Wiley, New York, 2007.
6.
LADOTD. Louisana Federal NHS Transportation Asset Management Plan. Louisana Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, LA, 2018.
7.
MDOT. Maryland Transportation Asset Management Plan. Maryland Department of Transportation, Hanover, MD, 2019.
8.
KDOT. Kansaa Transportation Asset Management Plan. Kansaa Department of Transportation, Topeka, KS, 2019.
9.
GADOT. Georgia Transportation Asset Management Plan. Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta, GA, 2019.
10.
CODOT. Colorado Risk-Based Asset Management Plan. Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, CO, 2019.
11.
SCDOT. South Carolina Transportation Asset Management Plan. South Carolina Department of Transportation, Columbia, SC, 2019.
12.
VDOT. Virginia Transportation Asset Management Plan. Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, VA, 2019.
13.
ADOT. Arizona Transportation Asset Management Plan. Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, AZ, 2019.
14.
ODOT. Ohio Transportation Asset Management Plan. Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus, OH, 2019.
15.
MDOT. Michigan Transportation Asset Management Plan. Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI, 2019.
16.
WSDOT. Washington State Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA, 2019.
17.
UDOT. Utah Transportation Asset Management Plan. Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City, UT, 2019.
18.
Oregon Transportation Asset Management Plan. Oregon Department of Transportation and Development, Salem, 2019.
19.
EvansG. W.An Overview of Techniques for Solving Multiobjective Mathematical Programs. Management Science, Vol. 30, No. 11, 1984, pp. 1268–1282.
20.
TzengG. H.LinC. W.OpricovicS.Multi-criteria Analysis of Alternative-Fuel Buses For Public Transportation. Energy Policy, Vol. 33, No. 11, 2005, pp. 1373–1383.
21.
DabousS. A.AlkassS.A Multi-Attribute Ranking Method for Bridge Management. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 17, No. 3, 2010, pp. 282–291. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699981011038079.
22.
PirdavaniA.BrijsT.WetsG.A Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Prioritizing Accident Hotspots in the Absence of Crash Data. Transport Reviews, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2010, pp. 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640903279345.
23.
ZavadskasE. K.VilutienėT.TurskisZ.ŠaparauskasJ.Multi-criteria Analysis of Projects’ Performance in Construction. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2014, pp. 114–121.
24.
SuM.HassanR.Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Road Asset Management: User Manual. Sydney, Australia, 2007.
25.
TamošaitienėJ.ZavadskasE. K.TurskisZ.Multi-criteria Risk Assessment of a Construction Project. Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 17, 2013, pp. 129–133.
26.
KaoH. P.WangB.DongJ.KuK. C.An Event-Driven Approach with Makespan/Cost Tradeoff Analysis for Project Portfolio Scheduling. Computers in Industry, Vol. 57, No. 5, 2006, pp. 379–397.
27.
BaiQ.LabiS.Uncertainty-based Tradeoff Analysis Methodology for Integrated Transportation Investment Decision-Making, USDOT Region V Regional Univ. Transportation Center Final Rep. (NEXTRANS Project No. 020PY01), Nextrans, West Lafayette, IN, 2009.
28.
MoussourakisJ.HakseverC.Flexible Model for Time/Cost Tradeoff Problem. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management-ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 3, 2014, pp. 307–314.
29.
Pollack-JohnsonB.LiberatoreM. J.Incorporating Quality Considerations Into Project Time/Cost Tradeoff Analysis and Decision Making. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 53, No. 4, 2006, pp. 534–542.
30.
WeyW. M.WuK. Y., Using ANP Priorities with Goal Programming in Resource Allocation in Transportation. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol. 46, No. 7–8, 2007, pp. 985–1000.
31.
IniestraJ. G.GutiérrezJ. G.Multicriteria Decisions on Interdependent Infrastructure Transportation Projects Using an Evolutionary-Based Framework. Applied Soft Computing Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2009, pp. 512–526.
32.
HudsonS.GalenkoA.ScheinbergT.Trade-off Analysis for Transportation Agencies: Two Approaches to the Cross-Asset Problem. Proceedings of International Conference on Engineering and Applied Sciences Optimization, Kos Island, Greece, 2014.
33.
LiZ.MadanuS.ZhouB.WangY.AbbasM.A Heuristic Approach for Selecting Highway Investment Alternatives. Wiley Journal of Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 25, No. 6, 2010, pp. 427–439.
34.
MaggioreM.FordK. M.Guide to Cross-Asset Resource Allocation and the Impact on Transportation System Performance (No. Project 08-91). The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2015.
35.
Porras-AlvaradoJ. D.HanZ.ZhanminZ.A Fair Division Approach to Performance-Based Cross-Asset Resource Allocation. In 9th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets, 14. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2015.
36.
ZimmermanK. A.AllenB. W.RamP. V.DuncanG. M.SmadiO.SmithK. L.MandaK. R.BektaşB. A.Identification of Effective Next Generation Pavement Performance Measures And Asset Management Methodologies to Support MAP-21 Performance Management Requirements, DTFH6115C00045, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2016.
37.
RoshandehA. M.LiZ.NeishapouriM.PatelH.LiuY.Trade-off analysis approach for multiobjective transportation investment decision making. ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 141, No. 3, 2015.
38.
XiongH.ShiQ.TaoX.WangW.A Compromise Programming Model For Highway Maintenance Resources Allocation Problem. Mathematical Problems in Engineering,Vol. 2012, 2012.
39.
TruongT.LiZ.KepaptsoglouK.Entropy-STEP Multiobjective Trade-off Analysis Method for Optimal Transportation Investment Decisions. ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering, Part A: Systems, Vol. 144, No. 1, 2018. doi.org/10.1061/JTEPBS.0000100
40.
SinhaK. C.PatidarV.LiZ.LabiS.ThompsonP. D.Establishing the Weights of Performance Criteria: Case Studies in Transportation Facility Management. ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 9, 2009, pp. 619–631.
41.
LiZ.SinhaK. C.Methodology for the Determination of Relative Weights of Highway Asset Management System Goals and of Performance Measures. ASCE Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2009, pp. 95–105.
42.
KeeneyR. L.RaiffaH.Decision with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Wiley, New York, 1993.
43.
HerfindahlO. C.Copper Costs and Prices: 1870–1957. The John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1959.
44.
HirschmanA. O.The Paternity of an Index. American Economic Review, Vol. 54, 1964, pp. 761–762.
45.
RhoadesS. A.The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. Federal Reserve Bulletin, 1993, pp. 188–189.
46.
StiglerG.Economic Competition and Political Competition. Public Choice, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1972, pp. 91–106.
47.
BoydstunA. E.BevanS.ThomasH. F.The importance of attention diversity and how to measure it. Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 42, No. 2, 2014, pp. 173–196.
48.
SiskosY. N. MatsatsinisPsarrasJ.2nd International Symposium and 24th National Conference on Operational Research. Hellenic Operational Research Society, Athens, 2014.
49.
LuC. J. QiaoChangJ.Herfindahl–Hirschman Index Based Performance Analysis on The Convergence Development. Cluster Computing, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2017, pp. 121–129.
50.
McAuliffeR. E. Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. In Wiley Encyclopedia of Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Hoboken, NJ, 2015.
51.
ZelenyM.A Concept of Compromise Solutions and The Method of the Displaced Ideal. Computers and Operations Research, Vol. 1, No. 3/4, 1974, pp. 479–496.
52.
RomeroC.AmadorF.BarcoA.Multiple Objectives In Agricultural Planning: A Compromise Programming Application. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 69, 1987, No. 1, pp. 78–86.
53.
ChenW.WiecekM. M.ZhangJ.Quality Utility: A Compromise Programming Approach to Robust Design. Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 121, No. 2, 1999, pp. 179–187.
54.
Bilbao-TerolA.Pérez-GladishB.Arenas-ParraM.Rodríguez-UríaM. V.Fuzzy Compromise Programming for Portfolio Selection. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 173, No. 1, 2006, pp. 251–264.
55.
ManoliadisO.Development of Ecological Indicators–A Methodological Framework Using Compromise Programming. Ecological Indicators, Vol. 2, No. 1/2, 2002, pp. 169–176.
56.
AlloucheM. A.AouniB.MartelJ. M.LoukilT.RebaiA.Solving Multi-Criteria Scheduling Flow Shop Problem Through Compromise Programming and Satisfaction Functions. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 192, No. 2, 2009, pp. 460–467.
57.
HaimesY.LasdonL.WismerD.On a Bicriterion Formulation of the Problems of Integrated System Identification and System Optimization. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 1, 1971, pp. 296–297.
58.
RomeroC.TamizM.JonesD. F.Goal Programming, Compromise Programming and Reference Point Method Formulations: Linkages and Utility Interpretations. Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 49, No. 9, 1998, pp. 986–991.
59.
ChircopK.Zammit-MangionD.On Epsilon-Constraint Based Methods for the Generation of Pareto Frontiers. Journal of Mechanics Engineering and Automation, Vol. 3, 2013, pp. 279–289.
60.
MavrotasG.Effective Implementation of the E-Constraint Method in Multi-Objective Mathematical Programming Problems. Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 213, No. 2, 2009, pp. 455–465.
61.
EhrgottM.RuzikaS.Improved ε-constraint Method For Multiobjective Programming. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol. 138, 2008. doi.org/10.1007/s10957-008-9394-2
62.
SadjadiS. J.HeidariM.Alinezhad EsboeiA.Augmented ε-constraint Method in Multiobjective Staff Scheduling Problem: A Case Study. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 70, No. 5–8, 2014.
63.
BenayounR.de MontgolfierJ.TergnyJ.LaritchevO.Linear Programming with Multiple Objective Functions: Step Method (stem). Mathematical Programming, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1971, pp. 366–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01584098.
