The road improvement prioritizing system currently utilized by the Virginia Department of Transportation is similar to the method utilized by many states: it is a sufficiency rating system that evaluates proposed projects on the basis of points assigned for a number of variables. Although this type of system is commonly used, it has several limitations, including its lack of sensitivity to individual variables, the difficulty in assigning and interpreting a point total based on multiple heterogeneous variables, and the rigidity of the system after the point structure is established. In this report, an alternative method is introduced that consists of sorting projects in sequential ranking steps based on ranges of individual variables. The proposed method is simpler, more flexible, and requires less data manipulation than the present rating system. Individual variables have greater impact on the prioritizing process, and the resulting prioritizing ratings correlate well with results obtained from the previous rating method.

The transportation programming process is undergoing a fundamental change akin to that which transpired with the advent of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991. Some stakeholders have expressed a desire that the programming process be transparent, and some have expressed an interest in using data-driven performance measures. Although there is widespread agreement concerning broad criteria, stakeholders may disagree over specific performance measures. Thus, transportation agencies have become interested in methods for selecting projects based on their merits rather than the more traditional approach of "first in first out." Accordingly, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requested that the Virginia Transportation Research Council develop a template that VDOT could use to prioritize capital improvement projects. The role of the template is to help VDOT decide which project should be undertaken first. The scope of the template is limited to projects that are already being programmed. A template based on 14 of 75 performance measures examined was developed and applied to two projects. The template is oriented toward projects relating to the interstate and primary systems, but it is flexible enough that key policy choices can be made in its framework. These include controversial issues, such as access management and land use configurations, and more tedious but critical considerations, such as the relative importance of crash risk, infrastructure maintenance, economic development, and congestion relief. A promising benefit of the template is that it provides an opportunity to manage the debate as to the approach for deciding the order in which projects are programmed. The template will not eliminate disagreement, but it can foster discussion when parties have legitimate and differing opinions as to how projects should be prioritized. To that end, the template may be used as a discussion instrument between VDOT and some of its key stakeholders, including metropolitan planning organizations, planning district commissions, the Commonwealth Transportation Board, and advocacy groups who influence transportation infrastructure decisions

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 424: Engineering Economic Analysis Practices for Highway Investment explores how U.S. transportation agencies have applied engineering economics--benefit–cost analyses and similar procedures--to decisions on highway investments.

Through the statewide transportation planning process, states decide how to spend fed. transportation funds -- almost $46 billion in FY 2009. Draft legislation to reauthorize federal surface transportation legislation would, among other things, revise planning requirements to recognize states' use of rural planning org. (RPO) and require performance measurement. This report examined: (1) states' planning activities and RPOs' satisfaction that rural needs are considered; (2) states' planning challenges; (3) the U.S. Dept. of Transportation's approach to overseeing statewide planning; and (4) states' use of performance measurement and opportunities to make statewide planning more performance based. Tables. This is a print on demand report.