3 Transportation Programming and Evaluation

The programming and evaluation of a transportation project are two more steps in the development of transportation projects. It is important to emphasize that transportation planning, programming, and evaluation form a connected and iterative process that guides a transportation project or program from its initial concept and vision to the implementation of the actual transportation service or infrastructure. The planning phase, discussed in Chapter Two, sets the overall planning direction addressing the “Where do we want to go?“ strategic questions. It is itself an iterative process comprising numerous steps and feedback loops.

Figure 3.1 is the same figure presented and discussed in Chapter Two. It illustrates the connections between planning, programming, and evaluation, emphasizing the performance-based planning and programming (PBPP) approach. This chapter focuses on the two steps depicted by the lower two boxes – Programming and Evaluation. “PBPP is how State DOTs, MPOs, and transit providers implement Transportation Performance Management (TPM) within their transportation planning and programming processes to make investment and policy decisions to achieve national performance goals” (TPCB, n.d.). This approach is part of the Transportation Performance Management (TPM) framework elaborated by the FHWA in response to the 2012 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21).

Watch the video “What is  TPM and why does it matter “

Media 3.1 Federal Highway Administration USDOTFHWA. (2019, December 30). What is  TPM and why does it matter? [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyjW1Ua89Ug 

Note: Notice that the TPM framework is a general planning, programming, and evaluation perspective and that the seven federal goals do not preclude MPOs and local public agencies (LPAs) from developing and including additional goals in their transportation plans.

Media 3.2 Federal Highway Administration USDOTFHWA. (2019, December 6). TPM Essentials: Performance Based Planning and Programming [Video]. https://youtu.be/nIyVE0MADZg

Note: This video provides a succinct explanation of the link between planning, programming, and evaluation discussed in Chapters Two and Three.

PROGRAMMING ELEMENTS

Project Identification

Part A of this chapter briefly presents transportation programming and includes three steps – prioritization, funding, and input – introduced below. When programming transportation projects (lower left block in Figure 3.1), the first step is to identify specific projects that address the specific transportation needs or system gaps and align with the established goals and objectives specified in the plan documents created during the planning phase (top block of Figure 3.1). Programming involves project prioritization, a very important process based on established agency criteria such as safety, congestion reduction, environmental impact, and alignment with community goals. It also guides the resource allocation intrinsic to project funding guided by the question, “What will it take?”

Project Funding

Financial planning begins in the transportation planning phase of project development. Without considering how projects may be funded, “the MTP could be viewed as nothing more than a ‘wishlist’ of good ideas” (FHWA & FTA, 2018, p. 3). Considering costs of transportation projects continues into the programming phase. Financial programming includes preparing for project implementation and construction by estimating costs and identifying funding sources that must be enumerated in the program document. Typically, funding comes from various sources, including federal, state, and local governments, private sector investments, grants, and other funding mechanisms.  The result is a “program of projects” (NCTCOG 2025-28 TIP, 2024, p.I-1) detailed in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) document. Recall Figure 1.1, which depicts the typical flow of funds and monetary contributions to project development from federal, state, and local sources. The width and color of the arrows represent the transfer of funds or direct investment in support of the transportation project.

Stakeholder Input

All phases of project development require input from local officials, professionals, users, and residents. Recall Figure 1.1 During the programming phase, public participation assists and supports project selection and prioritization. Transportation demand management (TDM) was introduced in Chapter One which is focused on understanding how a traveler decides to get from the origin of the trip to the destination. Figure 2.6 in Chapter Two presents the typical inputs in the planning process.  Traveler input in coordination with TDM informs project programming using stakeholder input discussed in a later section of this chapter.

Project Implementation

The next step is project implementation and evaluation, which are introduced here and discussed further in Part B of this chapter. This step involves developing technical documents – detailed project designs, construction documents, and specifications – and, again, incorporating public input. Community outreach and information programs are essential to secure federal funding and build community trust. Experts such as engineers, architects, urban planners, and other professionals coordinate and collaborate to design transportation infrastructure and systems that meet the project objectives.

Evaluation and Impact Assessment

Chapter Two introduced the role of evaluation in transportation project development. Performance goals outlined in long-range plans are aligned with specified performance measures and targets, which are then used to gauge the progress and performance of transportation projects. As discussed in the two videos in the previous section of this chapter, agencies involved in transportation project development are required to track, monitor, and report on project performance. These measures also facilitate transparent communication with the public, stakeholders, and funding sources. Tracking these measures ensures compliance and assesses the extent to which goals and objectives are met, addressing the question: “How did we do?” In turn, this information provides essential feedback applicable for future transportation project development.

While the effectiveness of implemented projects and programs is often evaluated in monetary terms, alternative evaluation methods are also used. This overview of planning, programming, and evaluation allows us to delve more deeply into programming in the next section, while continually keeping in mind the interrelatedness of planning, programming, and evaluation.

PART A: TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMMING- “What will it take?” 

Introduction to Transportation Programming –     “What will it take?”

Developing a transportation program, such as a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) or a Capital Improvement Program (CIP), includes several steps that involve translating the facilities envisioned in the long-range plan into concrete projects. The fundamental purpose is two-fold: to advance the 3C process, including accountability to stakeholders, and to conform with federal law, including fiscal constraint. The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) 2023-2026 TIP explains, “Within metropolitan areas across the country, regional transportation projects are tracked through Transportation Improvement Programs. The Transportation Improvement Program, or TIP, is a staged, multi-year program of projects approved for funding by federal, state, and local sources within the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area” (NCTCOG Transportation website, 2023). While projects are funded from a variety of sources, federal funding requirements tied to performance-based planning and programming set the overall scope and pace of transportation programming, as illustrated with the following examples.

Examples of Transportation Programming

The programming process at various agency levels typically uses tools like ranking, prioritization, and optimization to choose project types and locations that make the most of the available budget and schedule, maximizing system-level benefits. Below are examples of local-level Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) approaches from two U.S. municipalities: Bryan, Texas and Fairbanks, Alaska. At the regional level, transportation programming in the TIP process is presented by the Richmond Regional Planning Organization (RRTPO). At the state level, the Virginia Department of Transportation showcases the process in the state STIP.

Table 3.1 Programming examples.

(Click on the icon or the links to view the example of the programming document, noting the description of the methods used during the selection and prioritization process.)

For more information on project programming and Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs) view the video below.

Media 3.3 Federal Highway Administration USDOTFHWA. (2016, August 26). Projects and Statewide Planning. [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNsdyhTlPqE

The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

Historically, in the US, transportation programming is an outcome of federal law. The textbox activity below highlights the expanding prioritization criteria of each Act. Click on each Act to read about the priorities specified in the purpose statement. Since the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962, programming has been based on the 3C (Continuing, Comprehensive, and Cooperative) approach, fiscal constraint, and performance management. Transportation programming aims to enhance mobility, multimodal facilities, operation improvements, accessibility, safety, efficiency, economic development, and sustainability in the movement of people and goods.  Transportation programming is an ongoing, continuous process that requires collaboration, careful planning, and vigilant management to create a sustainable and efficient transportation system that meets the evolving needs of a community or region.

As previously noted, for the past several decades, transportation agencies have been transitioning toward performance-based approaches, specifically data-driven performance-based planning and programming (PBPP), to support decision-making (TPCBP, 2018, p. 2).  Aligned with the Federal Acts’ national performance goals, PBPP allows state and regional transportation agencies to deploy a strategic and systematic process to organize and coordinate various transportation and transit improvement projects within a specific region or area. Additionally, the PBPP principles embedded in the FHWA TPM approach link “investment priorities to performance targets and make progress toward target achievement” (FHWA, 2020).

Key Activities of Transportation Programming

Key activities involved in the process of programming transportation projects at the state and MPO level, entail data collection, iterative analysis and evaluation, and public input until a final list of projects is determined and formally adopted by authoritative bodies like the Regional Transportation Council (RTC) of the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the State Transportation Board.

Figure 3.7 highlights three key activities that culminate in the listing of transportation and transit projects in the improvement program (TIP) – prioritization, financial planning, and public input – which “is the pinnacle of the transportation planning process and represents a consensus among state, regional, and local officials regarding selected projects for implementation.” (PlanRVA, 2022). This consensus is pivotal as it assures federal and state governments that all parties adhering to the 3Cs and establishing eligibility for federal funding have collaboratively developed priorities before committing funds to a project.

Prioritization

Project prioritization, the initial stage of programming, is critical as it deals with sensitive aspects of the process. State and regional transportation agencies must comply with federal laws and regulations related to various factors such as ecology, natural resources, air pollution, historic preservation, civil rights, and property acquisition. These requirements, including those aforementioned and established by the MAP-21 ACT under the transportation performance management (TPM) framework, are aligned with national goals and include performance targets and performance measures. These criteria guide the prioritization and selection of projects at the state and MPO levels, a process heavily reliant on data-driven project performance measures. Therefore, collecting and analyzing data objectively and comprehensively is essential in this process.

Figure 3.8 presents a flowchart from Sinha and Labi (2007), illustrating the complexity and multi-stepped project prioritization process.  The decision to prioritize a project begins with gathering relevant data about existing conditions.  These inputs are used to create and test several alternative scenarios for the form and function of the project until a selected project meets the agency-defined criteria and performance goals, such as travel time and safety, using statistical and mathematical models. For a more detailed discussion of land use and transportation modeling, refer to the OERtransport book, “Transportation Land Use Modelling and Policy .”  Figure 3.8 also provides an overview of the major steps in the prioritization process, from data input to decision-making.

To further illustrate this prioritization process, Figure 3.9 is an example from the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) showing the relationship between statewide system priorities and predicted project performance.  The project under review is scored and ranked based on how it will meet local and regional performance goals and targets. At this point, the project may be included in the program of projects.

This example also underscores how state and regional transportation agencies develop specific procedures to identify and select transportation projects that align their long-range plan’s goals and performance measures with federal law. For instance, the 2012 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act first established federal requirements for performance measures and associated targets, which were continued under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The main aim of these requirements is to ensure that states and MPOs invest their resources in projects that contribute to achieving the seven categorical national performance goals:

1. 1. Safety.
   2. Infrastructure condition.
   3. Congestion reduction.
   4. System reliability.
   5. Freight movement and economic vitality.
   6. Environmental sustainability; and
   7. Reduced project delivery delays. (FHWA, 2013, n.p.).

For more information on FHWA’s programming under TPM, consult the TPM Guidebook; specifically, the programming approach.

Project Funding

Development of each transportation project includes specifying funding from several sources. Like 1.1, Figure 3.10 depicts the major sources– federal, state, local, and other – which play a role in funding projects.  It also reveals the relationship of funding sources to the transportation system.  The Federal government both directly funds the transportation system as well as distributes funds to state and local governments through the Federal Aid Transportation Funding Acts presented in the previous chapters. State governments and Departments of Transportation also make direct investments into the system as well as financially coordinate and support local and regional agencies, such as the MPOs. Again, local fund sources are also used to develop transportation projects.  Finally, beginning with the MAP-21 Act, the Federal government permits innovative finance and flexible funding, including fund transfers between FHWA and FTA. (USDOT, FHWA and FTA, TPCBP, 2018, n.p.)

Project Listings in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

Since the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), funding responsibility has been integral to the planning and programming of public surface transportation projects as federal law requires fiscal constraint. Title 23, Section 450 of the Code of Federal Regulations requires only “projects for which construction or operating funds can reasonably be expected to be available may be included” in the improvement program ( 23 CFR 450.326.j, 2017).

The transportation programming document, the STIP or the TIP, includes a listing for each transportation and transit project. To be included in the TIP, each project must first be a part of the adopted long-range transportation plan, the STP or the MTP. The TIP is a detailed document with technical information required by federal law.  Figure 3.11 is an example from an Arizona MPO, the Pima Association of Governments (PAG). Title 23CFR 450.326(g) specifies what information must be included for each project in the improvement program document, including the project name, the funding year, the projected project cost, the project location and description, project phase, the applicable federal program, and funding sources (23CFR 450.326(g)). The figure below illustrates the different components of the TIP project sheet and demonstrates PAG MPO compliance with federal TIP requirements.  Additionally, Title 23 CFR 450.326(i) stipulates that the TIP must be “consistent with the approved metropolitan transportation plan” (Title 23 CFR 450.326) discussed in Chapter Two.

Media 3.4 Federal Highway Administration USDOTFHWA. (2016, August 22). Funding Basics and Eligibility. [Video]. https://youtu.be/r0NBR4r3M7M

Federal transportation monies are distributed through various methods to the various federal highway and transit programs. First, the current Transportation Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), specifies dollar amounts to be distributed in each fiscal year (FY) covered by the Act. The IIJA authorizing legislation includes FY 2022 to FY 2026. Then, in its annual budget process, Congress specifies appropriations yearly to distribute funds to the US DOT.  The USDOT then administers the authorized funding through two general funding methods –apportionment by formula and allocation, including discretionary grants. Additionally, when a transportation project receives federal funds, the local or state government is required to provide local funds as a match. The matching amount depends on the type of federal funding being received. Approximately 80% of project funds are federal, and 20% are matching funds.  The “Project funding amount” in Figure 3.11  lists a local match of $51,000 for the “Replacement Midsize Cutaway” project. State DOTs are responsible for project oversight to ensure projects meet USDOT criteria and federal law. Local planning agencies (LPAs), like MPOs and other transportation agencies, are sub-recipients of the federal monies distributed to the state DOTs, who are the direct federal grantees.

The discretionary grant funding program is competitive and administered by the FHWA and FTA. Discretionary grants are made available first by a “Notice of Funding Opportunity” (NOFO). Figure 3.12 illustrates that through the IIJA, approximately $200 billion in discretionary funds will be awarded the five-year period for programs focused on infrastructure and rural areas (nonmetropolitan areas), climate change and resilience, and equity for all roads.

At the regional and local level, MPO staff, in response to the NOFO, collaborate with local governing bodies and transportation agencies to select and submit project applications to the state DOT, where they are screened for eligibility. Each project application is evaluated based on criteria like cost-effectiveness, air quality benefits, local commitment, congestion reduction, and multimodal and social mobility benefits. Figure 3.13 illustrates programs, with calls for applications by announcing a notice of funding opportunity (NOFA) specifying eligibility, evaluation criteria, and program priorities.

Stakeholder Input

Since the 1962 Federal-Aid Highway Act and later in 1991 with ISTEA, public participation has been an essential and required activity in the transportation planning and programming process throughout its many stages of project development. As presented in Chapter Two, MPOs are obligated by Federal Law to create and regularly update a “Public Participation Plan” (PPP). This plan outlines specific activities undertaken by MPOs to collect, document and include public input in transportation plans and programs. Figure 3.14 displays the opportunities available to stakeholders for providing input during all stages of the process. Stakeholder input is at the center of transportation decisions.

The Federal Transit Administration in accordance with 23 CFR 450.316 indicates that an MPO’s PPP must include:

• “Adequate public notice of public participation activities;
• review and comment at key decision points in the development of the MTP and TIP; and
• multiple, accessible participation formats, including electronic and in-person” (FTA, 2023).

In compliance, MPOs summarize outreach activities and outcomes in their MTPs and TIPs and specify how they will conduct outreach and communication to ensure public participation. The MPO for the Dallas-Fort Worth area, NCTCOG, explains within its 2023-2026 TIP that:

“The Public Participation Plan provides measures for evaluating the effectiveness of NCTCOG Transportation Department’s public involvement activities regarding the transportation and air quality planning process. Evaluation helps staff understand how to better engage the public and allocate time and resources. Since 2019, NCTCOG has published a report summarizing the efforts for each fiscal year.” (NCTCOG, 2023, n.p.).

For an FHWA video on how transportation agencies are using virtual public involvement (VPI) tools, watch the video Virtual Public Involvement Outcomes:

Media 3.5 Federal Highway Administration USDOTFHWA. (2024, March 18). Virtual Public Involvement Outcomes.  [Video]. https://youtu.be/7E_a7FkB-2o?feature=shared

PART B: TRANSPORTATION PROJECT EVALUATION  – “How did we do?”

In this last phase, the transportation agency evaluates and reports on progress in attaining targets and gauges the effectiveness of planning and investment decisions. Guided by Performance-Based Planning and Programming (PBPP), project outcomes are evaluated to determine the degree to which the transportation project meets policy goals and objectives and contributes to progress toward the successful implementation of performance targets. This information serves as feedback to the planning phase and helps to further refine goals, targets, measures, and future investment priorities as shown in Figure 3.15  Performance-based measures encompass five major functions:

1. 1. Defining goals: Performance measures aid in translating broad goals into measurable objectives.
   2. Monitoring performance: Metrics are utilized to track performance regularly, such as on a yearly or monthly basis.
   3. Setting targets: Metrics serve as a reference for establishing achievable targets.
   4. Informing decision-making: Metrics provide a basis for comparing various investment or policy options to support decision-making.
   5. Evaluating effectiveness: Metrics enable the assessment of whether projects and strategies have effectively contributed to achieving goals. (FHWA PBPP guidebook, 2018, p. 40).

Performance Management

In project selection, “performance could be defined as the execution of a required function” (Sinha & Labi, 2007, p. 21) and can be measured both qualitatively and quantitatively, indicating the extent to which a specific function is executed. For transportation projects, performance measures are influenced by two factors:

1. The satisfaction of the transportation service user.
2. The concerns of the system owner or operator and other stakeholders.

These performance measures must be identified at all stages of transportation project development. They are derived from a hierarchy of desired system outcomes, with effectiveness and equity (two of the “3 Es”) at the top of the hierarchy. At the next level, transportation network-level or system goals are identified in planning documents and integrated into all phases of project development. Each goal is supported by a set of objectives, and for each objective, specific performance measures are established (Sinha & Labi, 2007).

Table 3.2 shows examples of highway and transit performance measures, including a few of the national performance goals, while Figure 3.7 in Part A depicts how TXDOT measures and reports a specific measure for pavement condition to comply with both federal and state-level performance.

THREE-Es of Transportation Evaluation

The 3E triangle (efficiency, effectiveness, and equity) of transportation project and program evaluation are applied throughout development of the transportation project. Project prioritization is a form of evaluation that incorporates the criteria represented by the 3E triangle – efficiency, effectiveness, and equity (Figure 3.16).

• Efficiency refers to the monetary value gained from a project relative to the investment required. Economic analysis is typically used to assess efficiency. However, it’s important to consider user costs and non-monetary or non-quantifiable performance measures when evaluating efficiency (Sinha & Labi, 2007). It is worth repeating that to assess the effectiveness of a transportation project, understanding the goals and objectives of the transportation project is essential. Goals and objectives are stated in the transportation planning documents such as the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). In deciding to select and invest in a project, programming first evaluates how well each project alternative will meet the program objective.
• The evaluation of effectiveness includes tangible and intangible measures, such as cost-benefit analysis and social well-being and aesthetic appeal (Sinha & Labi, 2007).
• Transportation equity is central to transportation planning as detailed in Chapter 4 of this book. This section highlights key equity considerations from the US DOT-FHWA perspective and provides examples of equity tools used by transportation agencies to analyze and evaluate projects’ potential disproportionate impacts on underserved populations.

Equity Tools

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Planning provides an online Planning and Equity tool with recent data that helps decision-makers evaluate transportation program alternatives.  Transportation agencies can upload their Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) or individual projects for evaluation using this tool which includes layer and data options from several sources, such as the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), to support their Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST). The screenshot below is from the FHWA Office of Planning Online GIS Planning and Equity tool.

Impacts of Transportation Projects

A critical aspect of project evaluation is the assessment of the impacts of existing or proposed transportation projects. Such impacts will vary depending on the scope, type, and size of the project. Project impacts are categorized into six main groups: technical, environmental, economic efficiency, economic development, legal, and community impacts (Sihna and Labi 2007).

1. Technical Impacts include both primary motivations for transportation system improvements and the resulting effects. Considerations include facility condition improvements, vehicle operating costs, travel-time impacts, network mobility and accessibility, safety enhancements, inter-modalism, land-use patterns, and risk assessment.
2. Environmental Impacts include ecological impacts of transportation systems, such as impacts on wetlands and ecology (biodiversity,  fauna, and flora), air quality, water resources, noise pollution, and aesthetic impacts. Their assessment is typically a National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requirement.

Media 3.6 Federal Highway Administration USDOTFHWA. (2012, September 5). Overview of NEPA as applied to transportation projects. [Video].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTanW6keaAc

Media 3.7 Federal Highway Administration USDOTFHWA. (2016, October 24). Environmental assessment. [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1x8rX7U3Hg

3. Economic Efficiency Impacts focus on the financial implications of transportation projects. Factors such as initial costs, life-cycle costs, and benefits are analyzed to assess economic efficiency.

4. Economic Development Impacts go beyond efficiency as these impacts involve evaluating the role of transportation projects in regional economic processes at different stages of production, such as employment growth.

5. Legal Impacts is a category that deals with the legal risks associated with transportation projects, including liability costs stemming from design, construction, or maintenance issues. With changing technologies like connected and automated vehicles, new legal considerations arise.

6. Community Impacts refer to the broader societal implications of transportation projects such as displacement of residents and businesses, barriers to walking and cycling, visual impacts, changes in accessibility and land use, impacts on community cohesion, and effects on property values. Impacts on archeological, historical, and cultural heritage community assets are also included in this group.

Media 3.8 Federal Highway Administration USDOTFHWA. (2016, October 24). The social environment.  [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3uEzq6Cccs

In addition to project characteristics, methodologies for assessing transportation project impacts also depend on the disciplines involved, such as economics, urban planning, engineering, operations research, environmental science, archeology, and historic preservation.  The next section provides a snapshot of project evaluation in transportation with links to resources for further consultation.

Evaluation Methods

Evaluation methods of project impacts have ranged from traditional economics-based Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) to recent life-cycle-sustainability-based decision-making (Arshad et al., 2021), depending on policy, project performance objectives and agency practices. Other evaluation methods include:

• Contingent Valuation: Used in accessibility studies.
• Agent Modeling: Applied for safety in active transport and for assessing network capacity projects.
• Delphi Expert Evaluation Methods: Used for assessing environmental factors in public transportation projects.
• Multicriteria Analysis: Used in evaluation of quality-of-life impacts of active transportation.
• Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP): Applied for assessing racial equity in public transportation projects.
• Surveys and Focus Groups: Used for traffic management projects.

These methods were compiled in a comprehensive review of evaluation methods for “smart” transportation projects by (Džupka & Horvath, 2021). However, most non-traditional evaluation methods are still more commonly used by academic researchers in transportation than by practitioners.

Benefit/Cost Analysis (BCA)

Traditionally, the evaluation of transportation project impacts has relied on Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA), also known as Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA). The USDOT defines BCA as a “a systematic process for identifying, quantifying, and comparing expected benefits and costs of an investment, action, or policy. Common uses of BCA at DOT include regulatory impact analysis and policy analysis, as well as infrastructure project evaluation” (USDOT, 2024, n.p.). To assist applicants in preparing requests for discretionary funds, the USDOT provides a BCA spreadsheet template. https://www.transportation.gov/mission/office-secretary/office-policy/transportation-policy/benefit-cost-analysis-spreadsheet-template However, several state DOTs use alternative analytical tools to prioritize and evaluate transportation projects.

BCA Alternatives

In addition to BCA, other methods for project evaluation, such as contingent valuation and willingness to pay (WTP), focus on estimating monetary costs and benefits to recommend the alternative that maximizes return on investment or specific monetized benefits or burdens. However, for outcomes and impacts involving non-monetary costs and benefits and requiring stakeholder input, other evaluation methods like Participatory and Non-Participatory Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) are used as substitutes or complements to BCA.

MCA is the umbrella term for a number of related methods including multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM), multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), multi-objective decision analysis (MODA), multiple-attribute decision-making (MADM) or multi-dimensional decision-making (MDDM). Basically, MCA evaluates a plan or project by considering various project options or courses of action and the interplay between multiple, often contrasting, objectives, and different decision criteria and metrics (quantitative and qualitative) (Dean, 2022). In MCA, policy or project options are evaluated against multiple objectives for which a set of criteria has been identified. Each option’s performance is scored based on criteria that are weighted differently to reflect their importance. At the core of a multi-criteria method is the set of rules that define the options, objectives, criteria, scores, and weights and determine how these elements are used to assess, compare, screen, or rank options (Dean, 2022, p. 11).

MCA can be participatory involving multiple project stakeholders and experts unlike traditional methods where a single analyst might conduct the evaluation. This participatory approach is said to provide more comprehensive, transparent, and democratic evaluations.

For a detailed discussion consult Dean, M. 2022,  Practical Guide to Multi-Criteria Analysis, Bartlett School of Planning, University College London DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15007.02722

A comprehensive review of evaluation methodologies falls outside the scope of this book. For more in-depth and further exploration of this vast topic, the reader is encouraged to review some of the sources provided below:

• Rhouhani, O. M. (January 2019). Transportation Project Evaluation Methods/Approaches. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/91451/1/MPRA_paper_91451.pdf
• Chen, Williams, and Boyd. (2024). Evaluating system performance in multimodal transportation planning in multimodal planning. UTA PressBooks, OERtransport. Retrieved from https://uta.pressbooks.pub/oertransportmultimodalplanning/chapter/chapter-8-evaluating-system-performance/
• Cordero, F., LaMondia, J. J., & Bowers, B. F. (2024). Performance measure–based framework for evaluating transportation infrastructure resilience. Transportation Research Record, 2678(5), 601-616. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981231190396
• Ustaoglu, E., & Williams, B. (2020). Cost-Benefit evaluation tools on the impacts of transport infrastructure projects on urban form and development. IntechOpen. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.86447 https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/68046 Free Open Source
• Project Assessment Tools Evaluation and Selection Using the Hierarchical Decision Modeling: Case Study of State Departments of Transportation in the United States. Authors: Rafaa I. Khalifa https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8173-9891 rafaa.khalifa@gmail.com and Tugrul U. Daim tugrul.u.daim@pdx.eduAuthor Affiliations. Publication: Journal of Management in Engineering Volume 37, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000858.
• Zhang, L., Morallos, D., Jeannotte, K., & Strasser, J. (2012). Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume XII: Work Zone Traffic Analysis–Applications and Decision Framework(No. FHWA-HOP-12-009). United States. Federal Highway Administration. Office of Operations. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop12009/index.htm#toc
• Konduri, K., Lownes, N., & Angueira, J. (2013). Analyzing the economic impacts of transportation projects(No. CT-2279-F-13-13). Connecticut. Dept. of Transportation. https://ctcase.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CONNDOT_econ.pdf
• TRB Transportation Economics Committee. (2022). CBA: Transportation Benefit-Cost Analysis. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/benefitcostanalysis/benefit-cost-analysis
• International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). (2016). Environmental Impact Analysis (primer and manual) IISSD. Primer: retrieved from https://ctcase.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CONNDOT_econ.pdf  Manual: retrieved from https://www.iisd.org/learning/eia/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/EIA-Manual.pdf

CONCLUSION

Transportation programming is a crucial step in developing transportation networks.  It involves prioritizing real-world projects based on established goals and objectives to respond to the question “what would it take” the transportation agency to achieve the strategic vision and goals laid out in its long-range metropolitan transportation plan (MTP)? In the programming process, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) document transportation project priorities as the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to prioritize projects for implementation by vetting them against USDOT’s performance-based planning framework, which emphasizes data-driven evaluation and decision-making. The MPO’s four-year final transportation improvement plan contains the list of projects that will be submitted for funding to the state DOT.

Efficiency, effectiveness, and equity serve as overarching criteria guiding the evaluation process, which asks the question “how did we do?” at every step including the one assessing the larger impacts of metropolitan transportation plans (MTP) and of implemented and built transportation improvement projects.

Project evaluation considers various impacts, including technical, environmental, economic efficiency, economic development, legal, and community impacts. Additionally, evaluation considers the project timeframe and purpose as a guide for determining appropriate evaluation methods to assess transportation projects’ effectiveness and efficiency. Traditional economic analysis, such as benefit/cost evaluation methods are still used, but alternative methods, such as multicriteria-analysis, address non-monetary costs and benefits in delivering services with community performance targets. Ultimately, transportation programming and evaluation aims to create a sustainable, equitable, and efficient transportation system that meets the evolving needs of communities and regions.

QUIZ

GLOSSARY

Acronyms

3C process is the transportation process which stands for “continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative” and was first specified in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962. Its purpose is to be inclusive, focused on public input, and to prioritize regional planning of transportation projects.

3E triangle: Transportation project “alternatives are evaluated on the basis of the three E’s or 3E triangle: efficiency, effectiveness, and equity.  These may be considered the overall goals of evaluation” (Since & Labi, 2007, p. 13).

Authorizing legislation: “Congress enacts legislation that establishes or continues the existing operation of a federal program or agency, including the amount of money it anticipates will be available to spend or grant to States, MPOs, and transit operators. Congress generally reauthorizes Federal surface transportation programs over multiple years, in effect authorizing subsequent Congressional action to make annual awards. The amount authorized, however, is not always the amount that ends up actually available” (TPCBP, 2018, n.p.).

Allocation: “The distribution of Federal-aid highway funding on any basis other than a statutory formula” (FHWA, 2017, p.19 )

Appropriation: “Annually, as set forth in authorizing legislation, Congress decides on the Federal budget for the upcoming fiscal year. As a result of the appropriation process, the amount appropriated to a federal program is often less than the amount authorized for a given year. The appropriation is the actual amount available to Federal agencies to spend or grant” (FHWA, 2017, p.19; TPCBP, 2018, n.p.).

Apportionment “describes appropriated funds, which come from selected Federal-aid programs, that are distributed among States and metropolitan areas (for most transit funds) using a formula provided by law. An apportionment is usually made on the first day of the Federal fiscal year (October 1), when funds become available for a State to spend in accordance with an approved STIP. In many cases, the State is the designated recipient for Federal transportation funds; in some cases, transit operators are the recipient” (TPCBP, 2018, n.p.).

Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) lays out the financing, location, and timing for capital improvement projects over several years. It typically consists of one or more capital improvement projects, which are financed through a capital budget. CIPs are important tools for local governments, allowing them to plan strategically for community growth and transformation. (Open Government, 2024).

Discretionary grants: Federal transportation funding made available by transportation and transit agencies through a competitive process in which projects are selected “based on program eligibility, evaluation criteria, and Departmental or program priorities” (USDOT, 2022, n.p.).

Financial Planning: “ Agencies use financial planning to take a long-range look at how transportation investments are funded and the possible sources of funds” (TPCBP, 2018, n.p.).

Financial Programming “ involves identifying available or expected funds and scheduling specific projects listed in the STIP, TIP, and MTP” (TPCBP, 2018, n.p.).

Fiscal Constraint: Estimates of costs and revenue sources “that are reasonably expected to be available to adequately operate and maintain Federal-aid highways (as defined by Title 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(5)) and public transportation (as defined by Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53).” “Making sure that a given program or project can reasonably expect to receive funding within the time allotted for its implementation” (FHWA Planning Glossary, 2022).

Flexible Funding as permitted by federal transportation legislation allows for the transfer of funds between certain highway and transit fund programs.

Goals and Objectives are essential to the strategic direction planned and programmed for the development of transportation projects and specify measurable outcomes that align with priorities.

Innovative Finance is a combination of techniques and specially designed mechanisms to supplement traditional financing sources and methods (IFS, 2024, n.p.).

Match: “Most Federal transportation programs require a non-Federal match. State or local governments must contribute some portion of the project cost at a matching level established by legislation. For many programs, the amount that State or local governments must contribute is 20 percent of the capital cost of most highway and transit projects” (TPCBP, 2018, n.p.).

Performance-Based Planning and Programming (PBPP) “is a strategic, data-driven approach to transportation decision-making that enables transportation planning agencies to efficiently allocate resources, maximize return on investments, and achieve desired performance outcomes while increasing accountability and transparency to the public) (TPCBP, n.d.).

Prioritization is the cooperative process by which transportation and transit agencies identify projects from the MTP to be included in the TIP.

Program of Projects, as defined by North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), is a detailed list of upcoming transportation projects covering a period of at least four years.

Programming is the process of specifying and documenting transportation projects and matching those projects with available funds to accomplish agreed upon and stated needs (FHWA Planning Glossary, 2022).

Transportation Improvment Program (TIP) is a document prepared by regional transportation planning agencies cataloging prioritized transportation projects and available funding sources.

Transportation Performance Management is “a strategic approach that uses system information to make investment and policy decisions to achieve national performance goals” (FHWA, 2021, n.p.).

Performance target is a  “quantifiable level of performance or condition, expressed as a value for the measure, to be achieved within a time period” (TPCBP, 2018, n.p.).

Performance measures “support objectives and are the basis for comparing alternative improvement, investment, and policy strategies, and tracking results” (TPCBP, 2018, n.p.). An expression based on a metric that is used to establish targets and to assess progress toward meeting the established targets.

REFERENCES

Arshad, H., Thaheem, M., Bakhtawar, B., & Shrestha, A. (2021). Evaluation of Road Infrastructure Projects: A Life Cycle Sustainability-Based Decision-Making Approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3743.

Johnston, R.A. (2004). The Urban Transportation Planning Process in S. Hanson and G Giuliano (Eds.), The geography of urban transportation, Guilford Press.

Dean, M. (2022). A practical guide to multi-criteria analysis. UCL: London, UK.

Džupka, P., & Horvath, M. (2021). Urban smart-mobility projects evaluation: a literature review. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 16(4), 55-76.

Lee, D. B. (2000). Methods for evaluating transportation projects in the USA. Transport Policy, 7(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(00)00011-1

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2012). Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) fact sheet. National goals and performance management measures, Title 1, 23 USC 150(b) [Fact Sheet]. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/pm.cfm#:~:text=A%20key%20feature%20of%20MAP,achievement%20of%20the%20national%20goals.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Office of Policy and Governmental Affairs. (2017). Funding Federal-aid highways: Publication no. FHWA-PL-17_011. U.S. Department of Transportation. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/olsp/fundingfederalaid/FFAH_2017.pdf

Federal Highway Administration USDOTFHWA. (2016, August 22). Funding Basics and Eligibility [Video]. https://youtu.be/r0NBR4r3M7M

Federal Highway Administration USDOTFHWA. (2012, September 5). Overview of NEPA as applied to transportation projects.  [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTanW6keaAc

Federal Highway Administration USDOTFHWA. (2016, August 26). Projects and Statewide Planning. [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNsdyhTlPqE

Federal Highway Administration USDOTFHWA. (2016, October 24). Environmental assessment.  [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1x8rX7U3Hg

Federal Highway Administration USDOTFHWA. (2016, October 24). The social environment.  [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3uEzq6Cccs

Federal Highway Administration USDOTFHWA. (2019, December 6). TPM Essentials: Performance Based Planning and Programming [Video]. https://youtu.be/nIyVE0MADZg

Federal Highway Administration USDOTFHWA. (2019, December 30). What is  TPM and why does it matter? [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyjW1Ua89Ug

Federal Highway Administration USDOTFHWA. (2024, March 18). Virtual Public Involvement Outcomes.  [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNsdyhTlPqE

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2020). Building links to improve safety: How safety and transportation planning practitioners work together. U.S. Department of Transportation. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tsp/fhwasa16116/saf_plan.pdf

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2021). Transportation performance management. U.S. Department of Transportation. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/about/tpm.cfm

Federal Highway Administration. (2022). Planning glossary. Retrieved from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Planning/glossary

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2022). The safe system approach.  U. S. Department of Transportation. Retrieved from https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022-06/FHWA_SafeSystem_Brochure_V9_508_200717.pdf.https://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/RTPO_factsheet_master.pdf

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Innovative Finance Support. (2024). What is innovative surface transportation finance? US Department of Transportation.  https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/

Federal Highway Administration & Federal Transit Administration (FHWA FTA). (2018). The transportation planning process: Key issues for transportation decision-makers, officials, and staff. U. S. Department of Transportation. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/publications/briefing_book/

Federal Highway Administration & Federal Transit Administration (FHWA FTA). (2021). What is a regional transportation planning organization? [Fact sheet]. U. S. Department of Transportation. Retrieved from https://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/RTPO_factsheet_What_is_an_RTPO.pdf

Federal Highway Administration & Federal Transit Administration (FHWA FTA). (2023, January 2023). Federal transportation planning process [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/T2BCt39Ub1k?feature=shared

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). (2021). Safety performance targets guide.  Retrieved from https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-programs/safety/public-transportation-agency-safety-program/safety-performance

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). (2023). Metropolitan, Statewide & Non-Metropolitan Planning.  Retrieved from https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/transportation-planning/metropolitan-statewide-non-metropolitan-planning

North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). (2024).  2025-28 Transportation Improvement Program. Retrieved from https://www.nctcog.org/trans/funds/tip/transportation-improvement-program-docs/2025-2028tip

North Central Texas Council of Governments NCTCOG. (2023). Public Participation Plan.  Retrieved from https://www.nctcog.org/trans/involve/public-participation-plan

Open Government. (2024). What is a capital improvement plan? Retrieved from https://opengov.com/article/capital-improvement-plans-101/

Pima Association of Governments (PAG). (2024). FY 2025-2029 Transportation Improvement Program. Retrieved from  https://pagregion.com/wp-content/docs/pag/2024/04/FY-2025-FY-2029-Draft-TIP-Document.pdf.

Richmond Regional Transportation Agency. (2022). Plan RVA 2017-2027 TIP. Retrieved from https://planrva.org/transportation/tip/.

Sinha, K. C., & Labi, S. (2007). Transportation decision making principles of project evaluation and programming. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/utarl/detail.action?docID=792589

Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program (TPCBP). (2018, webpage updated 2022). The transportation planning process: Briefing Book: Key issues for transportation decision-makers, officials, and staff (FHWA-HEP-23-001; DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-23-01). U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/publications/briefing_book/fhwahep18015.pdf

US Department of Transportation (USDOT). (2017). Funding transportation toolkit. Retrieved from https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/ToolkitFinal2017.pdf

US Department of Transportation (USDOT). (2022). Overview of funding and financing at USDOT. Retrieved from https://www.transportation.gov/grants/dot-navigator/overview-funding-and-financing-usdot

US Department of Transportation (USDOT). (2023). 2023 equity action plan. Retrieved from https://www.transportation.gov/priorities/equity/2023-equity-action-plan

US Department of Transportation (USDOT). (2024). What is benefit-cost analysis (BCA)? https://www.transportation.gov/grants/dot-navigator/what-is-a-benefit-cost-analysis

US Department of Transportation (USDOT). (2024). Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) launchpad. Retrieved from https://billaunchpad.com/nofo

US Department of Transportation (USDOT), FHWA Office of Planning. (2024). Online GIS planning and equity tool. Retrieved from  https://usdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=af1a590b45444e768402714efb148805

Wikibooks.org. (2017). Fundamentals of transportation/evaluation—Wikibooks, open books for an open world.    https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Fundamentals_of_Transportation/Evaluation