• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Cost Analysis of Multimodal Corridors for Statewide Long-Range Transportation Planning James H. Lambert1; Shadi M. Wadie2; Alexander S. Linthicum3

ABSTRACT This paper demonstrates cost analysis of long-range plans for statewide multimodal planning. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), and most recently, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) have prompted many state transportation departments to consider cost-effective spending across all modes to reduce future shortages in transportation funding. Virginia’s twenty-year transportation plan identifies a $108 billion transportation funding shortage by the year 2025. Recent efforts have therefore aimed to identify and promote cost-effective projects within key transportation corridors. To assist in long-range statewide transportation planning, this paper 1) develops a method of cost analysis to compare multimodal implementations with highway-only implementations and 2) compares project estimates for statewide multimodal plans with those of regional multimodal plans. The analysis developed in this paper provides transportation decision makers an initial basis on which to compare alternative multimodal transportation investments, however the results suggest a need for increased accuracy and inclusion of life-cycle costs into project estimates. In addition, further research into the quantification of benefits is necessary to employ more advanced cost methodologies, such as cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit.analyses. Finally, this study suggests a need for greater coordination among modal agencies and transportation planning organizations in developing cost estimates specifically, and long-range transportation plans in general.

CE Database Keywords: Multimodal, Cost estimates, Planning, Coordination, Evaluation

1Senior Member, ASCE; Associate Director, Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems; Research Associate Professor of Systems and Information Engineering, University of Virginia; PO Box 400747, 112C Olsson Hall, 151 Engineers Way, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904, (434) 982-2072 fax (434) 924-0865; E-mail: [email protected] 2Graduate Student, University of Virginia; 5804 Westchester St., Alexandria, VA 22310, (703) 989-1961; E-mail: [email protected] 3Graduate Student, University of Virginia; 151 Engineers Way, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904, (703) 209- 3473; E-mail: [email protected] TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 2

INTRODUCTION A history of uncoordinated efforts by disparate transportation agencies has created a need for analytical methods that improve accuracy and coordination of cost estimates in long-range transportation planning. Often, individual modal agencies, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and planning district commissions (PDCs) develop individual, uncoordinated long-range transportation plans that result in significant cost estimate inconsistencies for the same projects. Standardizing cost estimates is essential as critical infrastructure budget shortfalls increase and continued legislation urges states to examine diverse collections of transportation improvement projects that fit together into a large, cross-regional multimodal framework. Uncoordinated and separate long-range transportation plans do not allow for easy comparison of projects across modes as required by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The example of Virginia, a state with the third largest transportation agency in the U.S., is useful to illuminate the above challenges. To directly address congressional legislation, Section 33.1-23.03 of the Code of Virginia directs Virginia’s Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) to develop a multimodal long-range transportation plan with a statewide focus. In cooperation with Virginia’s Departments of Aviation, Rail and Public Transportation, Transportation, and the Virginia Port Authority, the VTrans2025 Multimodal Technical Committee developed a twenty-year transportation plan. By establishing common visions, goals, and objectives across all modes, this plan identifies the need for additional resources to achieve a cohesive and interconnected transportation system (VTrans2025 2004). The VTrans2025 plan also predicts, however, that the twenty-year span from 2005-2025 could accumulate $108 billion in unmet transportation needs ($74.2 billion for highways, $30.7 billion for rail and public transportation, $3.1 billion for aviation, and $0.4 billion for ports). Thus, a critical element for implementation of a successful long-range transportation plan will be project selection based on coordinated planning among all state agencies and regional planning authorities. Figure 1 shows an excerpt of the VTrans2025 plan that describes the life-cycle of transportation projects that will receive priority for federal and state funding. Mode-by-mode project comparisons are depicted in the lower left; multimodal corridor comparisons are depicted in the center portion of the figure. To assist state and regional authorities in long-range statewide transportation planning, this paper investigates project capital cost estimations from two perspectives. Life-cycle cost estimations were not available. TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 3

First, it develops a method of cost analysis to compare multimodal implementations with highway-only implementations. Because specific benefits are unknown, this method differs from cost-effectiveness analysis, which compares life-cycle costs with quantifiable, non-dollar benefits, and benefit cost analysis, which compares life-cycle costs with monetized benefits. We demonstrate that when life-cycle costs are included and benefits of multimodal and highway-only alternatives are plausibly the same, this method can quantify the financial advantages of one approach over the other. Second, the study compares project estimates for statewide multimodal plans with those of regional multimodal plans and highlights opportunities for increased coordination between transportation and planning agencies. Organization of the paper is as follows: the following section reviews relevant literature foundations, subsequent sections compare eleven investment corridors in Virginia to demonstrate the methodology and results, and the final section provides a summary and conclusion.

REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE AND PRACTICES This section summarizes a review of studies and best practices that are relevant to development of a cost-analysis methodology supporting long-range multimodal transportation planning. Several critical factors influence transportation planning and coordination of multimodal investments. Coordination entails a technique or method for enhanced resource management, often resulting from teamwork of different agencies and backgrounds (Burkhardt 2004). Numerous sources identify the need for a long-range transportation plan to coordinate among stakeholders a common transportation financial system. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), for example, unambiguously prompted the federal government, states, and MPOs/PDCs to develop robust transportation systems using a wide range of multimodal and intermodal solutions (Pedersen 2000). Reinke and Malarkey (1996) echo this sentiment, citing integrated transportation planning as a long-range strategic planning process having cost-benefit analysis as its analytical core. Reinke and Marlarky continue by developing a systems planning methodology to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a broad range of transportation alternatives. In order to create any long-range plan, feasibility analysis of potential investment options and alternative investment strategies must be considered thoroughly. In past years, statewide efforts often fell short of expectations largely because responses to transportation needs took the form of short-term fixes designed to deal with immediate crises (Brown 2002). Brown describes a necessary change in approach, moving away from immediate single-mode transportation solutions and investing in a multimodal foundation for future transportation planning efforts, both TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 4 statewide and regional. Similarly, Zavattero et al. (1999) insist that transportation planning should be a coordinated effort between both the public and private sectors. Private firms are often more efficient and innovative than the public sector during selection/design and operations/maintenance phases of public infrastructure projects (Liddle 1997). A 2002 survey reported that 50% of transit agencies gave high priority to projects serving jurisdictions that would provide financial support to transit. Further, while 75% of agencies surveyed said they welcomed public or private sector cost-sharing when opportunities arose, 60% of those agencies did not specifically seek such cost-sharing partnerships (Deakin et al. 2002). SAFETEA-LU (2005) seeks to increase public-private partnerships by promoting innovative financing tools such as increased eligibility for private activity bonds, additional flexibility in using tolling to finance infrastructure improvements, and broader Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) and State Infrastructure Banks (SIB) loan policies. Underlining the importance of efficient transportation investment, the state of Florida’s long-range multimodal transportation plan emphasizes causality between program investment and performance measures and notes this becomes a critically important technical and political issue for future transportation investment (Cambridge Systematics 1999). For example, Virginia, having $108 billion in unfunded transportation needs over the next twenty years, is one of many states facing the issue of a large transportation-spending deficit. Pedersen (2000) describes how ISTEA and TEA-21, combined with the long periods for developing transportation projects, gave rise to a massive accumulation of unfunded state transportation needs. This resulted in short-term planning processes to catch up with previously identified needs and projects. Compounding the issues surrounding these short-term fixes are the struggles among state, regional, and local transportation authorities over needs and budgets. Citing wide variation among MPOs in their approaches to fiscally-constrained planning, Bishop et al. (1997) explain that since their inception, MPOs have contended with local jurisdictions over ownership of transportation planning. MPOs claim that transportation plans should set regional rather than local goals (as ISTEA advocates), despite the opposing view that they lack the political and economic authority to implement large-scale regional initiatives. One proposition aimed at avoiding competition between regional and local transportation authorities is the Regional Concept for Transportation Operations (Berman et al. 2004). This idea represents a foundational, outcome-oriented collaboration of regional transportation operations. It is a holistic approach, guiding planning and operations to ensure that projects and day-to-day operations of local and regional authorities support one another. TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 5

Zemotel and Halvorson (1999) suggest that US states emulate Minnesota’s organizational structure, which houses statewide long-range planning and programming under one leadership. The governing authority may require fiscally constrained, unconstrained, and performance-based investment programs from each MPO/PDC. SAFETEA-LU echoes the sentiment, strengthening the role of the MPO and insisting on increased cooperation between metropolitan and statewide planning efforts. Aiming to avoid authority difficulties in the long-range planning process, Virginia has created the VTrans2025 Multimodal Technical Committee to oversee large-scale coordination between state and regional transportation authorities. Future funding shortages have forced statewide transportation planning efforts to focus on spending cost-effectively and identifying additional sources of funding. With regard to the latter, strategic use of the federal aid program can be used to broaden the horizons and perspectives of potential funding sources (Younger and O’Neill 1998). The state of Iowa has been thinking in terms of cost savings for over ten years. Forkenbrock et al. (1993) suggest that transportation cost savings are equivalent to income increases: they benefit society by making resources available for other purposes. Synthesis #243 completed by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP 1997) points out that aligning capital programming for transportation projects with policy needs is only half the battle; ensuring funded projects represent the most cost-effective transportation solutions is equally important. For example, technological developments such as advanced public transportation systems (APTS) achieve cost savings not only through reduced capital costs, but also through improved schedule adherence and efficient, automated data-collection methods (Ohene and Kaseko 1998). A variety of technical approaches have been investigated to ensure efficient spending of transportation funds. Kulkarni et al. (2004) investigate need-based project prioritization, Korve and Niemeier (2002) and Khasnabis (1999) employ benefit-cost analysis to examine special phasing at signalized intersections, and Latoski et al. (1999) use cost-effectiveness analysis to support the continuation of a highway assistance patrol. The NCHRP’s Synthesis #243 (1997) suggests that successful cost-effective spending is a direct result of the extent to which DOTs explicitly consider program tradeoffs and the specific methods DOTs use to evaluate program- level tradeoffs. Analyses are therefore required to clearly demonstrate modal tradeoffs amongst varying program options. To help visualize trade-offs, Ba-Ali et al. (2003) developed a novel interface for comparing transportation projects across a single mode. Requiring transportation project costs and performance data as inputs for analysis, this interface tool is primarily aimed at uncovering dominance between various projects. Frohwein et al. (1999) also provide a comparative technical analysis between alternative investment options. Synthesis #290 (NCHRP TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 6

2000) suggests comparison of a no-build (base case) scenario to one or more transportation investment scenarios when considering alternative investment strategies. Additionally, Synthesis #238 (NHCRP 1997) directs statewide transportation agencies to conduct cross-modal analyses on an objective basis, using modally blind performance measures and comparable data across all modes (NCHRP 2000). Because consideration of alternative modal investments is critical, this research builds on many propositions provided by the Transportation Research Board (TRB 1998). For example, the TRB (1998) suggests that communities and states compare the economic impact of alternative transit investments, of non-transit public works projects and of non-investment alternatives with one another. It also suggests a single methodology be applied to two or more investment scenarios and that the results are compared to identify which investment will result in the greatest positive economic impact (TRB 1998). By combining modal comparison of transportation investment options with performance-based criteria evaluation, a cost comparison can be sought for evaluating alternative highway transportation investments. Giorgi and Pearman (2002) propose a method to analyze transportation investment alternatives based on cost-effectiveness. Due to the complexity associated with analyzing the benefits of alternative transportation projects, they suggest setting a constant level of benefits across projects and then finding the most effective (least-cost) option that meets those benefits. This least-cost method has an advantage in that its benefits need not always be explicitly valued (Giorgi and Pearman 2002). The literature thus points to the need for practical cost analysis in long-range transportation planning, ultimately leading toward more advanced techniques such as cost- effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis.

METHODOLOGY Overview This section describes 1) development of a cost analysis methodology for comparing multimodal with highway-only alternatives and 2) cost-based comparison of state DOT and MPO/PDC long- range transportation project cost estimations. Eleven critical statewide multimodal transportation corridors within Virginia, shown in Figure 2, are referenced to demonstrate the methodology. Each corridor has associated transportation projects that span multiple modes. Identifying a performance metric common to all modes is critical. Due to an estimated deficit in twenty-year transportation spending and a need for a common performance metric across modes, the most appropriate measure for comparing multimodal investments is project life-cycle expenditure. Some of the proposed projects under study, however, do not yet have estimated TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 7 costs and none of the projected project costs include maintenance and operations figures. As a result, cost estimates in this study reflect capital costs; they do not account for continued maintenance and operations over the life-cycle of the corridor.

Cost Estimation and Comparison of Multimodal with Highway-Only Alternatives This sub-section develops cost analysis for comparing multimodal with highway-only alternatives in the following three stages: 1) determining a projected capital investment cost for each corridor, 2) determining a projected capital investment cost for a highway-only solution within the boundaries of each corridor, and 3) comparing the capital cost of each multimodal corridor with that of the highway-only implementation. We first determined all projects within each corridor. Due to uncoordinated planning processes among modal agencies, project costs within the corridors are found by analyzing individual agency reports and participating in teleconferences with officials from each transportation agency office. We collected information such as mode of transportation, projected capital cost, route number of the improvement (if roadway), district/jurisdiction(s) spanned, estimated mileage for project, and source/reference. Cases for which projects span multiple planning districts and jurisdictions required the analysis of maps to spatially determine which projects are associated with which corridors. Most roadway projects are documented in VDOT’s twenty-year roadway improvement recommendation given to the VTrans2025 committee, but because project information had not necessarily been provided by the remaining three modal agencies, project capital costs for these modes were obtained using state transportation agency websites, online documentation, and official phone conversations with agency officials. Table 1 displays example project descriptions for the Interstate-95 corridor (MC03), their respective modes, and their associated capital costs. As previously mentioned, cost estimates in practice should contain all life-cycle costs, however only capital costs were available at the time of the study. Assuming all projects within a corridor are non-overlapping, the projected multimodal cost of corridor implementation, MMC, is represented by MMC    pij , where n and q are the number of projects and modal i1...n j1...q improvements, respectively, and pij is the cost of the jth modal improvement for the ith project. The corridor total cost is the sum of cost estimates across all projects, representing the capital cost estimation for the entire corridor; the Interstate-95 corridor (MC03) totals approximately $3.5 B (2005 USD). Note that some cells of the table contain dashes because all projects do not include modal improvements for all modes. In addition, cells are labeled “TBD” to indicate that cost TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 8 estimates are not yet available for that modal component of a particular project. The final column on the right contains a note number linking each corridor objective to information such as type of transportation project, location, and data source for that project, found in Table 2. Next we obtained cost estimates for highway-only alternatives using VDOT’s twenty- year highway needs assessment. Given future demand predictions, the needs assessment applies the Highway Capacity Manual (2000) to suggest roadway and interstate improvements for over 30,000 two-mile segments. Each improvement within the assessment includes details such as the district/jurisdiction(s), estimated mileage, projected capital cost, and originating and terminating street addresses. For corridors that span only a portion of one or more districts, spatial analysis is performed to determine all the highway improvements from the needs assessment that are within the geographic boundaries of each corridor. The costs of all highway improvement projects are then summed using HOC   rj , where HOC is the highway-only corridor implementation j1...m cost and rj is the cost of the jth project and m is the number of projects in the corridor, to provide a highway-only capital costs estimate for each corridor. Finally, the cost-difference between the multimodal and the highway-only estimates are calculated using Cost Difference = MMC - HOC; a comparison of the multimodal and highway- only estimates for the Interstate 95 corridor (MC03) is shown in Table 3. Note that to perform this calculation, it must be plausible that benefits of the multimodal and highway only implementations are the same. The resulting cost-difference figure can be used to determine whether the multimodal integration of transportation projects does in fact reduce initial costs as compared with a strategy focusing on highway renovation and expansion. These cost-difference figures provide decision-makers insight into which corridors would benefit from multimodal implementations and which may be better suited for highway-focused investment. If it is plausible that benefits of the highway-only and multimodal strategies are equivalent, then approximately $8.36 B in capital costs are saved by implementing a multimodal solution instead of a highway-only solution in the Interstate-95 corridor (MC03). Note that life-cycle should be included before meaningful results are inferred from this figure.

Corridor Cost Comparison of DOT (Statewide) vs Regional Long-Range Plans This sub-section compares state agency with MPO/PDC long-range transportation project cost estimations in the following three stages: 1) determining what regional plans are available, 2) mapping projects from the regional plans to each of the eleven statewide corridors, and 3) comparing the projects projected in the statewide plan for each corridor with those projected by TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 9 the MPO/PDC plans. The purpose of this effort is to uncover discrepancies between state DOT and regional cost estimates and highlight opportunities for which coordination may be improved. First, we identified all of the MPO/PDC long-range transportation plans. Virginia has fifteen MPOs and twenty-one PDCs; while each is considered to be a separate entity, many regional long-range transportation plans result from multiple MPOs and PDCs working together. At the time of this study, twelve of the fifteen MPOs had long-range transportation plans (eight online, four hardcopy) and eight of the twenty-one PDCs had plans available (seven online and one hardcopy). Discrepancies among the plans provided significant challenges to such an effort. Because the state transportation agency and each of the MPOs and PDCs create individual long- range transportation plans, differences in content, financial basis, and format are numerous. Contents of each plan are variable and non-uniform; some contain a wide variety of transportation initiatives covering multiple modes, while others focus primarily on roadway projects and improvements. Some plans were developed as far back as 1997, while others were more recently published. Cost projections within some plans include a variety of year-of- expenditure (YOE) dollar projections, while others make no mention of a base-year. One of the few metrics common to all MPO/PDC transportation project plans was that of capital-cost estimation. Though Virginia requires that each regional transportation authority include both a ‘programmed’ list of projects (those that are fiscally-constrained), and a ‘vision’ list of projects (those that are fiscally-unconstrained), seven of the eight PDCs showing online long-range plans included a list of vision projects, and five of the twelve MPOs included vision plans. Next, we identified all projects within the MPO and PDC plans that overlapped geographically with the eleven statewide corridors. These improvements were then entered into a database of MPO/PDC projects. For example, all Route 460 improvements found within the MPO/PDC plans were entered into the database and associated with a single ‘corridor objective’ (a logical element used to provide granularity in the reporting and analysis) within the Richmond to Hampton Roads corridor (MC02). Information such as route number, project name, start and end point, length, projected average daily traffic (for road improvements), estimated cost (YOE $), previous funding, remaining balance, corridor, jurisdiction(s), MPO/PDC, and regional plan name were recorded. In addition, transportation projects were categorized as either ‘programmed’ or ‘vision’ to allow for sensitivity cost analysis when comparing differences between state agency and MPOs and PDC corridor cost projections; examples of programmed and vision projects are shown in Table 4 and 5, respectively. MPO/PDC capital-cost estimations TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 10 for each of the corridors were then calculated by summing the costs of all corridor objectives within each corridor. Finally, the projected costs of each corridor as determined by the MPO/PDCs were compared with the corridor costs as determined by the statewide plan; the MPO/PDC programmed list of projects were kept separate from the vision lists to determine whether deviations are due to fiscally-constrained or unconstrained projects. The results identify specific areas where long-range planning estimates differ significantly and reveal those corridors with similar cost projections between state and regional transportation authorities’ long-range plans.

Summary of Methodology This section has described 1) the development of cost analysis for comparing multimodal against highway-only alternatives and 2) the cost-based comparison of state agency and MPO/PDC long- range transportation project cost estimates. The following section shares the results of our comparisons of the eleven multimodal corridors in Virginia.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Overview This section provides results and discussion of 1) cost analysis for comparing multimodal with highway-only alternatives and 2) cost-based comparison of state agency and MPO/PDC long- range transportation project cost estimations.

Cost Comparison of Multimodal with Highway-Only Alternatives This sub-section provides results and discussion of cost analysis for comparing multimodal against highway-only alternatives. Projected capital costs have been obtained for multimodal improvements for five of Virginia’s eleven corridors. Costs for the remaining corridors were unavailable at the time the study was conducted. A summary of results is shown in Table 6. With the exception of the Franklin Airport corridor, significant capital cost savings appear to be made by investing in the multimodal alternatives if benefits levels of the multimodal and highway-only alternatives are plausibly the same. During the course of this study several issues became apparent. First, though the multimodal and highway-only alternatives span equivalent regions defined by the corridors, comparisons are more appropriate for some corridors than others. Specifically, projects defined in the statewide plan and roadway improvements found in the needs assessment plan often fulfill different underlying purposes and have potentially different benefits; completing a multimodal TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 11 project does not necessarily eliminate the need for select highway improvements. Consider the Port Accessibility and Mobility corridor (MC09); most of the multimodal projects deal with facilitating regional, national, and international movement of goods and passengers. It is difficult to justify that these projects will affect local traffic and eliminate the need for highway improvements. In addition, implementing a multimodal solution within the Interstate-95 corridor (MC03) might eliminate the need for a large number of primary and interstate projects but would do little to alleviate local and arterial congestion. Verifying that competing multimodal and highway-only strategies indeed have similar benefits, however, was out of the scope of this study and should be investigated in future efforts Second, limited data at the state level demonstrates differences in performance of multimodal solutions compared with that of highway-only solutions. In some instances, a highway-only option may result in increased mobility, decreased congestion, and decreased travel times. On the other hand, a multimodal solution may serve to increase redundancy of the overall network, alleviate environmental stresses caused by air and noise pollution, balance transportation equity, and increase opportunities for implementing travel demand management strategies. Without further studies in areas other than cost analysis, it will be impossible to adequately weigh the trade-offs between the two strategies. Third, modal agencies and MPO/PDCs did not have operations and maintenance costs for many of the projects. Without this information reliable cost-analysis cannot be undertaken. Finally, while a highway-only implementation seems unlikely, the twenty-year highway needs assessment was a particularly unrealistic basis for this strategy. The purpose of the highway needs assessment was to provide an estimate of the highway lane-miles needed to accommodate traffic volume projections. It does not provide recommendations as such, nor does it consider the feasibility of constructing projects to meet the identified highway needs. As a result, it projects situations unlikely ever to be built, such as a twelve-lane cross-section of Interstate-95 through Virginia’s capital, Richmond. A more realistic highway-only implementation will need to be characterized before our analysis can provide meaningful results.

Comparison of State and Regional Cost Estimations This sub-section provides results and discussion of comparison and integration of state agency transportation project cost estimations with those of individual MPOs and PDCs. At the time of this study, seven of the eleven corridors had sufficient data for cost analysis comparing the MPO/PDC corridor implementations with those of the state DOT. Results of these comparisons TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 12 are shown in Table 7, all costs having been adjusted to 2005 dollars. A cost of $0 means that a projected cost was not available for a specific initiative. Beginning with the Franklin Airport corridor (MC05), the State DOT’s long-range plan estimate for I-73 costs grossly exceeds those from the MPO/PDC long-range plans. Although this may be because not all MPO/PDCs plans available for analysis, such results indicate that focused attention on this corridor is required to develop parallel cost-estimates among the state- and regional-level transportation planners. Further information is needed for the Richmond to Hampton Roads corridor (MC02) as well. The MPO/PDC long-range plans evaluated do not contain cost projections for the third and fourth corridor objectives. The expected cost of the Interstate-64 objective is greater from the state’s perspective than from the region’s perspective, demonstrating a statewide reliance on an Interstate highway. Conversely, the Route 460 objective has much higher cost estimates at the regional level, indicating that state transportation planners may need to recognize the importance of this route to the region and localities. The cost comparison for the Interstate-95 corridor (MC03) reveals that many of the corridor objective cost estimates are higher from the state DOT’s perspectives, thus confirming Interstate-95’s vital role in the entire state’s development, from both transportation and economic viewpoints. Intuitively, it makes sense that localities and regional transportation authorities may prefer to include alternate initiatives for other projects in their long-range plans, as the state would likely pursue improvements to Interstate-95. When compared with large differences in cost estimates from other corridors, the less than $200M difference in state and regional estimates for Route 29 is encouraging. Results for this corridor suggest that large deviations in cost estimation are more likely when considering statewide, interstate highway objectives. In addition, results for this corridor do not suggest that regional MPO/PDC cost estimations are always greater for non-interstate roadway initiatives. There were no roadway initiatives for the Route 29 corridor (MC07) in any of the MPO/PDC plan fiscally-unconstrained lists. This may be an indicator of its regional importance, as most of the suggested improvements have been included in the fiscally-constrained list of projects. The cost projection for the Route 58 corridor (MC04) is greater from the regional MPO/PDC transportation authority perspective than from that of the state. Considering the Intermodal Connector objective, however, reveals similar corridor costs (less than $50 M deviation) from state and regional perspectives. Unlike many of the other corridors, the Hampton Roads corridor (MC01) contains a large volume of fiscally-unconstrained projects. The Interstate-664 initiative contains a higher, yet not TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 13 overly ambitious, cost projection from the MPO/PDC regional perspective as compared with that of the state. Moreover, its inclusion in the fiscally-constrained list of projects symbolizes its importance to the Hampton Roads region. The Third Crossing, on the other hand, is placed on the fiscally-unconstrained list. Its cost estimation is once again much higher than that from the state’s perspective. Similarly, the state does not include the Mid-Town Tunnel objective in its long-range plans, while the MPO/PDC transportation authority includes it as a fiscally- constrained initiative. The state is still studying the Interstate-81 corridor (MC04), and it is difficult to perform a cost comparison of the projections for this corridor. Interstate-81 will likely be a large initiative, as it is a state interstate and a primary freight corridor in Virginia. The fiscally- constrained cost projection from the MPO/PDC regional perspective is quite high, and we might expect the state projection to be even higher. Because many aviation initiatives are not included in the MPO/PDC long-range plans, the second corridor objective here (Lexington/Rockbridge County Airport) contains only a cost estimation from the state perspective. In general, the state’s cost estimation of interstates consistently exceeds those estimates of the regional MPOs/PDCs. Because Interstates 95, 64, 73, and 81 are responsible for maintaining efficient movement of people and goods across large, vital portions of Virginia, it appears the state expects significant investment in these initiatives. On the other hand, smaller roadway initiatives that connect adjacent regions seem to be of greater interest to the MPO/PDCs, highlighting a desire for investments that benefit regions within the state. Recognizing and confronting these deviations and increasing communication and coordination will bring state and regional transportation planning organizations nearer to planing and implementing a truly integrated statewide multimodal transportation system.

CONCLUSIONS Using eleven multimodal statewide transportation corridors in Virginia, this study has demonstrated 1) a cost analysis methodology for comparing multimodal against highway-only alternatives and 2) cost-based comparison of state agency and MPO/PDC long-range transportation projects. Several conclusions can be drawn from this study:  An unbiased, modally blind performance metric of cost can be used to compare investments across transportation modes, however benefits must plausibly be the same when comparing transportation alternatives using only this metric. It was outside the scope of this study to make this determination. TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 14

 If benefits are not judged to be equivalent, they must be quantified. In this case, cost- effectiveness analysis, which compares life-cycle costs with quantifiable, non-dollar benefits, or benefit cost analysis, which compares life-cycle costs with dollar-quantifiable benefits should be used. Transportation planning agencies should work toward the goal of accurately quantifying benefits, thus enabling the use of cost-effectiveness and cost- benefit methods of analyses.  When considering cost estimates as performance metrics, all costs incurred during the system life-cycle should be included. Although life-cycle costs were not available at the time of this study, this in itself is an important outcome. Modal agencies and MPO/PDCs did not have operations and maintenance costs for many projects, and without this information reliable cost-analysis cannot be undertaken.  Greater cooperation is needed from MPOs/PDCs who do not have a long-range transportation plans. Those with plans should strive to conform to a single standard in terms of content, basis, and format. All plans should contain lists of both ‘programmed’ (fiscally-constrained) and ‘vision’ (fiscally-unconstrained) projects.  State cost estimations for interstates tend to be higher than those from the regional plans. This discrepancy should be investigated further to determine the cause.  Increased coordination between not only state and modal transportation authorities, but also between the state and regional planning organizations is required to achieve a truly integrated, multimodal statewide transportation system

The analysis developed in this paper provides transportation decision makers an initial basis on which to compare alternative multimodal transportation investments. The results suggest a need for research into practical methods of increasing the accuracy and inclusion of life-cycle costs into project estimates for transportation and planning agencies. Further research into the quantification of benefits is necessary to employ more advanced cost methodologies, such as cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit.analyses. The results suggest a need for research into increasing cooperation among modal agencies and transportation planning organizations in developing cost estimates specifically, and long-range transportation plans in general.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research described in this paper was supported in part by the Federal Highway Administration, the Commonwealth of Virginia Secretary of Transportation, and the Virginia Transportation Research Council. We appreciate the contributions of the VTrans2025 Technical TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 15

Committee members, including Katherine Graham, Melissa Barlow, Cliff Burnette, Dan Lysy, Ralph Davis, Dwight Farmer, Marsha Fiol, Robin Grier, Harrison Rue, Jeff Florin, Jim Bradford, Bill LaBaugh, Ben Mannell, Kenneth Myers, Valerie Pardo, Gus Robey, Rusty Harrington, Scott Denny, Kim Spence, Mary Lynn Tischer, Alan Tobias, Tom Biesiadny, Camelia Ravanbakht, Erik Johnson, Kevin Page, Irene Rico, and Ivan Rucker, and in particular, the insights of Mr. Wayne Ferguson, Mr. Matt Grimes, and Dr. Mike Fontaine of the Virginia Transportation Research Council. We also thank the anonymous peer reviewers of this study for their valuable insight and comments.

REFERENCES Ba-Ali, M. A., Barrett, B. B., Cowden, D. A., Zane, J. T., Pinto, C. A., Peterson, K. D., Lambert, J. H., Spence, K. P., Lantz, K. E., Miller, J. S., and Ferguson, W. S. (2003). “Analytical Support for the Statewide Multimodal Long-Range Transportation Plan.” Proc., 2003 IEEE Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium, IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Society, Charlottesville, VA, 183–188.

Berman, W., Smith, M., and Bauer, J. (2004). “Regional concept for transportation operations: a tool for strengthening and guiding regional transportation operations collaboration and coordination.” Transportation Research Record, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

Bishop, E. R., Wornum, C., and Weiss, M. (1997). “Experience of metropolitan planning organizations with intermodal surface transportation efficiency act financial planning requirements: interviews and analysis.” Transportation Research Record, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Paper No. 97-0078.

Brown, J. (2002). “Statewide transportation planning: lessons from California.” Transportation Quarterly, Spring, p.52.

Burkhardt, J. (2004). “Economic benefits of coordinating human service transportation and transit services.” Transportation Research Record No. 1887. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp. 55-61.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (1999). “Final Report—Multimodal Transportation: Development of a Performance-Based Planning Process.” Cambridge, MA. TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 16

Deakin, E., Ferrell, C., Mason, J., and Thomas, J. (2002). “Policies and practices for cost- effective transit investments: recent experiences in the United States.” Transportation Research Record, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Paper No. 02-3248.

Forkenbrock, D., Foster, N., and Crum, M. (1993). “Transportation and Iowa’s Economic Future.” Public Policy Center, Iowa City, IA.

Frohwein, H. I., Lambert, J. H., Haimes, Y. Y., and Schiff, L. A. (1999). “A multicriteria framework to aid the comparison of roadway improvement projects.” J. Trans. Eng., 125(3), 224-230.

Giorgi, L. and A. Pearman, 2002. Project and Policy Evaluation in Transport. Ashgate Publishing, Burlington, VT.

Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (2000). Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209, Washington, DC.

Khasnabis, S., Rudraraju, R. K., and Baig, M. F.(1999). “Economic Evaluation Of Signal Preemption Projects”. J. Trans. Eng., 125, p 160-167

Korve, M. J., and Niemeier, D. A. (2002). “Benefit-Cost Analysis of Added Bicycle Phase at Existing Signalized Intersection.” J. Trans. Eng., 128, pp 40-48

Kulkarni, R. B., Miller, D., Ingram R. M., Wong, C., and Lorenz, J. (2004). “Need-Based Project Prioritization: Alternative to Cost-Benefit Analysis.” J. Trans. Eng., 130, pp 150-158

Latoski, S. P., Pal, R., and Sinha, K. C. (1999). “Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Hoosier Helper Freeway Service Patrol.” J. Trans. Eng., 125, 429-438

Liddle, B. T. (1997). “Privatization Decision and Civil Engineering Projects.” J. Mgmt. Eng., 13, p 73

Multimodal Long-Range Transportation Plan, Phase 1. Available online at http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Final%20Phase%201%20Report%20for %20General%20Assembly%20with%20hb771.pdf [Accessed May 02, 2006].

National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) (1997). Performance Measurement in State Departments of Transportation: Synthesis 238. . National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

NCHRP (1997). Methods for Capital Programming and Project Selection: Synthesis 243. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 17

NCHRP (2000). Multimodal Aspects of Statewide Transportation Planning: Synthesis 286. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 2, 6.

NCHRP (2000). Current Practices for Assessing Economic Development Impacts from Transportation Investments: Synthesis 290. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Ohene, F., and Kaseko, M. (1998). “System selection, benefits, and financial feasibility of implementing an advanced public transportation system.” In Transportation Research Record, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Paper No. 98-1202.

Pedersen, N. (2000). “Multimodal transportation planning at the state level, state of the practice and future issues.” Transportation in the New Millennium. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, pp. 3-4.

Reinke, D. and Malarkey, D. (1996). “Implementing integrated transportation planning in metropolitan planning organizations: procedural and analytical issues.” Transportation Research Record, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Paper No. 96-1552.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (1998). Economic Impact Analysis of Transit Investments: Guidebook for Practitioners. Transportation Research Board, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 5-1, 5-2.

VTrans2025 (2004). Virginia’s Statewide Multimodal Long-Range Transportation Plan: Phase 3 and Final Report to the General Assembly. Office of the Governor of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.

Younger, K. and O’Neill, C. (1998). “Making the connection: the transportation improvement program and the long-range plan.” Transportation Research Record, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Paper No. 98-1129.

Zavaterro, D. A., Ward, J. A., and Rice, D. F. (1999). “Analysis of transportation management strategies for 2020 regional transportation plan.” Transportation Research Record, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Paper No. 99-1349.

Zemotel, L. M. and Halvorson R. (1999). “Integrating statewide planning and programming: a principle-based approach.” Transportation Research Record, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Paper No. 99-1685. TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 18

Table of Figures

Figure 1. Multimodal Statewide Transportation Planning Process (Source: VTrans2025, 2004)..19

Figure 2. Virginia multimodal statewide transportation corridors (Source: VTrans2025, 2004). 20 TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 19

Each State Project RankSystems Receives Bonus Points in -Quantitative its Respective Modal Priority -Qualitative Process -Political

Each Mode Implements Score each System using Devlop Implementation Plan Individual Priority Model Priority Model -Schedule -Federal & State Requirements -Lead Agency -Governing Board -Source of Funding -Funding Source(s) -Industry Measurements Develop Transportation Systems that have Regional & State Interests VPA

VDOT Legend

Review 6-Year Plans for Agency Actions DOAV Eligible System Projects

IMAT Actions VDRPT

Figure 1. Multimodal Statewide Transportation Planning Process (Source: VTrans2025, 2004) TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 20

Hampton Roads Corridor (MC01) Richmond to Hampton Roads Corridor (MC02) Interstate 95 Corridor (MC03) Interstate 81 Corridor (MC04) Interstate 73 / Franklin Airport Corridor (MC05) Coalfields Corridor (MC06) Route 29 Corridor (MC07) Northern Virginia Corridor (MC08) Port Accessibility Corridor (MC09) Virginia Bike and Pedestrian Corridor (MC10) Emergency Transportation Corridor (MC11)

Figure 2. Virginia statewide multimodal transportation corridors (Source: VTrans2025, 2004) TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 21

Tables

Table 1. Capital costs for Interstate-95 corridor (MC03) objectives Corridor Objectives Aviation Ports Transit Rail Highway Total Notes 1 Implement safety and capacity improvements along I-95 corridor from NC to Washington D.C. - - - - $2.77 B $2.77 B Note 5 2 Extend HOV Lanes along I-95 from Fredericksburg to Dumfries - - - - $0.22 B $0.22 B Note 6 3 Provide Park and Ride Lots to facilitate ridesharing and transit throughout the corridor - - TBD - - $0.0 B Note 1 4 Facilitate Southeast High Speed Passenger Rail service from NC (Charlotte) to Washington D.C. - - $0.49 B - - $0.49 B Note 2 5 Upgrade rail lines in corridor to three-track system to improve freight rail movement where CSX, Amtrak, and VA Railway Express all share same rails, and to permit - - TBD - - $0.0 B Note 3 operation of higher speed (90 mph) passenger trains 6 Increase freight rail capacity and speed by improving tracks, signals, sidings, bridges, clearances, curves, switches, and - - - TBD - $0.0 B Note 4 grade crossings 7 Implement intelligent transportation systems (including aviation navigational aid systems) throughout the corridor, as - - - TBD - $0.0 B appropriate 8 Improve ground transportation access to general aviation airports - - - - TBD $0.0 B 9 Improve access to recreation and tourism resources - - TBD TBD TBD $0.0 B Captal Costs $0.49 B $2.99 B Total Corridor Cost $3.48 B TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 22

Table 2. Notes for Interstate-95 corridor (MC03) capital costs

Note Mode Route District/Jurisdiction Justification Miles 1 Transit - - 2 Transit - Charlotte, NC VA State Rail Plan 366 to Washington, DC Page SR-25/26 3 Rail - - 4 Rail - - 5 Highway I - 95 NC to DC 2025 State Highway Plan - Interstate System 88.82 ID #s 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 90a

6 Highway I - 95 Fredericksburg to 2025 State Highway Plan - Interstate System 26.91 HOV Dumfries ID #s 74, 76, 84 aIndicates new roadway TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 23

Table 3. Capital cost comparision of highway-only and multimodal implementations for the Interstate 95 corridor (MC03) Highway Only Multimodal District Route No. Length (Miles) Cost ($M) Cost ($M) Difference ($M) I-95 I-95 95 177.5 4,842 I-95 Total $4,842

NOVA Alexandria 395 6.3 168 Arlington 1, 27, 50, 66, 110, 237, 28.4 572 309, 395, 9612 Fairfax 1, 7, 28, 29, 50, 66, 123, 141.0 2,420 193, 228, 235, 236, 241, 243, 309, 395, 495 Dumfries 1 1.4 18 NOVA Total $3,178

Fredericksburg Stafford 1, 3, 17, 218 17.6 132 Spotsylvania 1, 2, 3, 17, 208, 522 51.4 248 Caroline 2, 17, 30, 207, 301 40.2 145 Fredericksburg Total $525

Richmond Hanover 30, 33, 54, 15, 271, 301, 49.1 215 360 Henrico 1, 5, 6, 33, 60, 64, 147, 87.3 1,395 150, 156, 157, 250, 271, 295, 301 Chesterfield 10, 36, 60, 76, 145, 147, 68.7 1,095 150, 288, 295, 360 Brunswick 1, 46, 58, 137 46.1 135 Richmond Total $2,840

Hampton Sussex 31, 40, 139, 301 26.2 110 Hampton Total $110

Grand Total $11,495 $3,476 $8,019 TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 24

Table 4. Fiscally-constrained objectives within the MPO/PDC long-range plans

Estimated Previous Route Name From To Length ADT Cost ($Ks) Funding 664 - Route 660 Route 761 1.25 1,000 $ 500 $ - 460 Route 460 Business Route 460 Lynchburg Corporate Limit 3.40 51,400 $ 21,521 $ - 460 Route 460 Odd Fellows Rd Ext. Interchange - n/a n/a $ 18,545 $ - 460 Route 460 Route 126 Rt 752 2.00 27,700 $ 12,660 $ - 460 Route 460 Route 501 (Campbell Ave) Rt 29 Bypass N 2.40 53,000 $ 11,079 $ - 460 Route 460 Odd Fellows Rd Ext. Interchange - n/a n/a $ 1,111 $ - 460 Route 460 Business Memorial Avenue 12th St 1.00 21,400 $ 611 $ - 460 Route 460 Route 501 (Campbell Ave) Rt 29 Bypass N n/a n/a $ 278 $ - 460 Route 460 Route 311 Parkdale Dr n/a n/a $ 9,505 $ 5,749 460 Route 460 Parkdale Dr Rt 419 n/a n/a $ 8,099 $ 7,342 460 Roanoke County - 460 Roanoke CL Botetourt CL n/a n/a $ 11,850 $ - 460 Route 460 0.20 mi S I-295 4.59 mi S I-295 4.39 n/a $ 17,138 $ - 460 Route 460 4.59 mi S I-295 Study Area Boundary 2.24 n/a $ 8,801 $ - 460 US 460 Bowers Hill Southampton Co. CL n/a n/a $ 642,000 $ 642,000 95 Interstate 95 Rt 630 Interchange - n/a n/a $ 92,000 $ - 95 Interstate 95 Rt 627 Interchange - n/a n/a $ 10,600 $ - 95 Interstate 95 Rt 627 Interchange - n/a n/a $ 19,000 $ - 95 Interstate 95 Rt 627 Interchange Rt 630 Interchange 3.20 n/a $ 36,000 $ - 95 Interstate 95 Spotsy Pkwy Interchange - n/a n/a $ 2,000 $ - 95 Interstate 95 N/A - n/a n/a $ 8,000 $ - 95 Interstate 95 1.1 mi S 3rd St n/a n/a $ 2,461 $ 962 95 Interstate 95 James River and Broad St Bridge - n/a n/a $ 59,235 $ 56,659 95 Interstate 95 Atlee-Elmont Interchange - n/a n/a $ 76,552 $ 51,700 95 Interstate 95 Lewistown Rd Interchange - n/a n/a $ 2,200 $ 1,400 95 Interstate 95 Belvedere St Interchange - n/a n/a $ 5,000 $ - 95 Interstate 95 Various bridges - n/a n/a $ 58,665 $ 1,305 95 Interstate 95 Duval St Interchange - n/a n/a $ 5,500 $ - 95 Interstate 95 Maury St Interchange - n/a n/a $ 10,000 $ - 95 Interstate 95 Patrick Henry Rd Interchange - n/a n/a $ 13,663 $ - 95 Interstate 95 Kings Dominion Interchange - n/a n/a $ 13,858 $ - 95 Interstate 95 Lewistown Rd Interchange - n/a n/a $ 14,383 $ - 95 Interstate 95 HOV - - n/a n/a $ 1,200 $ - 95 Interstate 95 HOV Asland HOV - n/a n/a $ 5,500 $ - 95 Interstate 95 HOV Rt 10 Southside HOV - n/a n/a $ 5,500 $ - 95 Interstate 95 HOV Chippenham Southside HOV - n/a n/a $ 5,500 $ - 95 Interstate 95 NB ramp at Temple Ave - n/a n/a $ 3,762 $ 3,199 95 Interstate 95 Woods Edge Rd Interchange - n/a n/a $ 35,520 $ 34,338 81 Interstate 81 TN State Line Cordon Line East - - $ 120,000 $ - 81 - North River Rt 724 (N Cordon Line) 13.09 - $ 55,420 $ - 81 - Rt 17/50 Interchange - - - $ 33,536 $ - 81 - Rt 7 Interchange - - - $ 33,536 $ - 81 - Rt 37 N Interchange - - - $ 27,945 $ - 81 - Rt 37 S Rt 17/50 3.43 64,800 $ 24,593 $ - 81 - 0.5 mi S Rt 277 Rt 37 S 3.50 91,200 $ 24,257 $ - 81 - Rt 7 Rt 11 N 2.31 93,600 $ 16,544 $ - 81 - Rt 17/50 Rt 7 1.94 98,900 $ 13,861 $ - 81 - Rt 277 Interchange - - - $ 11,179 $ - 81 - Rt 37 S Interchange - - - $ 11,179 $ - 81 - Rt 11 N Interchange - - - $ 11,179 $ - 81 - Rt 11 N 0.5 mi N Rt 37 N 1.50 63,700 $ 9,949 $ - 81 Interstate 81 West SAB East SAB n/a n/a $ 44,280 $ - 73 Interstate 73 South SAB Elm / Interstate 581 n/a n/a $ 12,146 $ - 64 Interstate 64 VA 288, Bridges & Loops at 250 - n/a n/a $ 46,433 $ 41,749 64 Interstate 64 Oilville Rest Area - n/a n/a $ 2,900 $ - 64 Interstate 64 VA 288 Henrico CL n/a n/a $ 4,500 $ - 64 Interstate 64 VA 288 1.6 mi W Ashland Rd n/a n/a $ 4,500 $ - 64 Interstate 64 0.7 mi W Airport Dr 0.6 mi E I-295 n/a n/a $ 60,497 $ 3,688 64 Interstate 64 Bridge over Acca Yards - n/a n/a $ 22,897 $ 19,844 TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 25

Table 5. Fiscally-unconstrained objectives within the MPO/PDC long-range plans

Estimated Previous Remaining Route Name From To Length ADT Cost ($Ks) Funding Balance 29 Emmet St Ivy Road Arlington Blvd - - - $ - - 64 Interstate 64 Interchanges Rt 250 Fontaine Ave - - - $ - - 64 Interstate 64 (Easter Segment) Bland Blvd Rt 199 - - $ 556 $ - $ 556 64 Interstate 64 (Western Segment) Rt 199 New Kent - - $ 557 $ - $ 557 64 Interstate 64 Norview Ave Intechange - - - $ 63 $ - $ 63 64 Interstate 64 Interstate 264 Interstate 464 8.22 - $ 1,080 $ - $ 1,080 64 Interstate 64 Peninsula Rt 199 New Kent 18.90 - $ 557 $ - $ 557 64 Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel Interstate 564 Interstate 664 12.40 - $ 2,700 $ - $ 2,700 64 Interstate 64 Interstate 564 Mallory St 3.68 - $ 480 $ - $ 480 64 Interstate 64 (Norfolk) Interstate 564 VB CL 8.39 - $ 2,700 $ - $ 2,700 64 Interstate 64 Norview Ave Intechange - - - $ 63 $ - $ 63 73 Interstate 73 Interstate 581 South SAB - - $ 55,000 $ - - 81 Interstate 81 - - - - - $ - - 95 Interstate 95 Stafford/PW CL Rt 610 5.00 - $ 10,505 $ - $ 10,505 95 Interstate 95 Rt 610 Rt 627 8.30 - $ 21,010 $ - $ 21,010 95 Interstate 95 Rt 627 Rt 3 6.00 - $ 10,505 $ - $ 10,505 95 Interstate 95 Caroline/Spotsy CL Rt 3 12.40 - $ 21,010 $ - $ 21,010 95 Interstate 95 Rt 3 Rt 630 10.90 - $ 10,505 $ - $ 10,505 95 Interstate 95 Rt 630 PW CL 8.00 - $ 21,010 $ - $ 21,010 95 Interstate 95 Rt 17 n/a - - $ 10,505 $ - $ 10,505 95 Interstate 95 n/a n/a - - $ 21,010 $ - $ 21,010 95 Interstate 95 Ramp at Temple Ave - - - $ 3,762 $ - $ 3,762 95 Interstate 95 Rives Rd Interchange - - - $ 30,000 $ - $ 30,000 460 Route 460 Isle of Wight Southampton CL - - $ 642 $ - $ 642 460 Route 460 Roanoke County CL East SAP - - $ 34,295 $ - $ 34,295 460 Country Drive Hickory Hill Rd Rt 106 2.16 - $ 21,604 $ - $ 21,604 460 Route 460 Alt Rt 226 Rt 460 - - - $ - - - Hampton Roads Third Crossing Southside Peninsula - - $ 4,484 $ - $ 4,484 - Midtown Tunnel Brambleton Ave Interstate 264 - - $ 686 $ - $ 686 - Hampton Roads Third Crossing Hampton Coliseum Interstate 64 30.00 - $ 4,484 $ - $ 4,484 - Midtown Tunnel Norfolk Portsmouth 1.02 - $ 466 $ - $ 466 TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 26

Table 6. Summary of corridor cost estimates and comparisons

Corridor Highway Onlya Multimodala Cost Savingsa Nova Connections $5,700 $1,890 $3,810 Route 29 $3,400 $630 $2,770 Franklin Airport $900 $1,160 ($260) Interstate 95 $11,840 $3,476 $8,360 Hampton Roads $4,370 $3,920 $450 a2005 USD, ($M) TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum 27

Table 7. Summary of State and MPO/PDC cost estimates

State MPO/PDC Corridor Objective Estimatea Programmeda Visiona Totala Franklin Airport Interstate 73 1,140 12 55 67 Franklin Airport 16 0 0 0 Franklin Airport Total 1,156 67

Richmond/Hampton Roads Interstate 64 1,700 977 9 986 US-460 317 763 57 820 Passenger Rail Tier 1 324 0 0 0 Jamestown 2007 8,130 0 0 0 Richmond/Hampton Roads Total 10,471 1,806

Interstate 95 Interstate 95 2,770 469 160 629 Interstate 95 HOV 215 18 0 18 SE High Speed Rail 486 0 0 0 Interstate 95 Total 3,471 647

Route 29 Route 29 628 427 0 427 Route 29 Total 628 427

Port Accessibility Route 58 51 204 0 204 Intermodal Connector 113 0 0 0 Port Accessibility Total 164 204

Hampton Roads Interstate 664 2 6 0 6 Third Crossing 2 0 9 9 Mid-Town Tunnel 0 0 1 1 Hampton Roads Total 4 16

Interstate 81 Interstate 81 Under Study 437,000 0 437,000 Lexington Airport 16 0 0 0 Interstate 81 Total 16 437,000

a2005 USD, $M

Load more

  27

Copy Link