Christopher Koliba Asim Zia Matthew Tucker David Novak University of Vermont

C H R I S T O P H E R K O L I B AA S I M Z I A

M A T T H E W T U C K E RD A V I D N O V A K

U N I V E R S I T Y O F V E R M O N T

P R E S E N T E D D U R I N G T H E A M E R I C A N P O L I T I C A L S C I E N C E A S S O C I A T I O N A N N U A L C O N F E R E N C E

S E P T E M B E R 1 , 2 0 1 1S E A T T L E , W A

FOSTERING INNOVATION IN AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING NETWORK: RESULTS FROM A MIXED-

METHODS CASE STUDY

• This study focuses on how one state uses a MCA process to prioritize projects, aligning more closely with those studies that examine real time scoring data. Employing a comprehensive case study approach combining qualitative analysis, regression analysis and gini-coefficient analysis we pose the following research question:

How and to what extent has the utilization of a new multi- criteria analysis process lead to the derivation of innovative project prioritization patterns?

Innovative inputs: Multi-Criteria

Analysis (MCA)

Innovative processes: Multi stakeholder use of

the MCA tool.

Innovative outputs: Project prioritization and implementation

patterns

Innovative outcomes:

1.) added transparency to the process; 2.): Reinforcement of system preservation; 3.) More equitable project distribution;

4.) More sensitivity to additional factors

Evaluation of tool and modification

using multiple data sources and simulations

INNOVATION WITHIN A SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONTEXT

MPORPORPO RPO

RPO

State DOTEngineering

Planning

US DOTFormula funding programs Grant

funding programs

New Roadways, Bridges, Bike/Ped, Traffic Ops.,

Pavement Projects

Cities and Towns (in MPO region)

Figure 1. Intergovernmental Transportation Prioritization Network (b)

(a)

(c)

(b)

(d)

Each town in the metropolitan area is represented on the MPO governing board and technical advisory committee (TAC), and votes on the prioritization of regional projects (a). Regional prioritization accounts for 20% of the statewide prioritization. Federal formula or competitive funding programs provide approximately 80% of funding for most projects (b). The State DOT planning department assimilates the regional prioritization ranking into its own assessments of projects, which accounts for 80% of the statewide ranking (c). The State DOT engineering operations department implements (builds/contracts to build) prioritized roadway, bridge, bike/pedestrian, traffic operations and pavement projects (d).

Congress

State

Leg.

DESIRED OUTCOMES OF MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS TOOL BY STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS:

• All: To bring about greater transparency to the prioritization process; Limit the role of “politics” in the process.

• USDOT & SDOT: To preserve the existing system.

• MPO and Congressional Staff: To allow for additional criteria (eco. dev., environment, climate change).

• Local Governments & State Representatives: To bring about greater equity in the system.

Bolto

n

Westfor

d

Essex

Jct

Charl

otteJer

icho

Underh

ill

Huntin

gton

Hinesbu

rg

Willisto

nMilto

nEss

ex

Richm

ond

Colch

ester

Winoosk

i

Shelbu

rne

Burlin

gton

South

Burlin

gton

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

Cumulative Share of Funds

Gini coefficient area is between blue and red line

WERE DESIRED OUTCOMES OF STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS MET?:

• All: To bring about greater transparency to the prioritization process; Limit the role of “politics” in the process.

• USDOT & SDOT: To preserve the existing system.

• MPO and Congressional Staff: To allow for additional criteria (eco. dev., environment, climate change)

• Local Governments & State Representatives: To bring about greater equity in the system

WERE DESIRED OUTCOMES OF STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS MET?:

• All: To bring about greater transparency to the prioritization process; Limit the role of “politics” in the process. Yes, but…

• USDOT & SDOT: To preserve the existing system.

• MPO and Congressional Staff: To allow for additional criteria (eco. dev., environment, climate change)

• Local Governments & State Representatives: To bring about greater equity in the system

WERE DESIRED OUTCOMES OF STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS MET?:

• All: To bring about greater transparency to the prioritization process; Limit the role of “politics” in the process. Yes, but…

• USDOT & SDOT: To preserve the existing system. Yes…• MPO and Congressional Staff: To allow for

additional criteria (eco. dev., environment, climate change).

• Local Governments & State Representatives: To bring about greater equity in the system

WERE DESIRED OUTCOMES OF STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS MET?:

• All: To bring about greater transparency to the prioritization process; Limit the role of “politics” in the process. Yes, but…

• USDOT & SDOT: To preserve the existing system. Yes…• MPO and Congressional Staff: To allow for

additional criteria (eco. dev., environment, climate change). No… not yet???

• Local Governments & State Representatives: To bring about greater equity in the system.

WERE DESIRED OUTCOMES OF STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS MET?:

• All: To bring about greater transparency to the prioritization process; Limit the role of “politics” in the process. Yes, but…

• USDOT & SDOT: To preserve the existing system. Yes…• MPO and Congressional Staff: To allow for additional

criteria (eco. dev., environment, climate change). No… not yet???

• Local Governments & State Representatives: To bring about greater equity in the system. No… although the threshold of “inequity” is unclear.

Innovative inputs: Multi-Criteria

Analysis (MCA)

Innovative processes: Multi stakeholder use of

the MCA tool.

Innovative outputs: Project prioritization and implementation

patterns

Innovative outcomes:

1.) added transparency to the process; 2.): Reinforcement of system preservation; 3.) More equitable project distribution;

4.) More sensitivity to additional factors

Evaluation of tool and modification

using multiple data sources and simulations

INNOVATION WITHIN A SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONTEXT

Innovative inputs: Multi-Criteria

Analysis (MCA)

Innovative processes: Multi stakeholder use of

the MCA tool.

Innovative outputs: Project prioritization and implementation

patterns

Innovative outcomes:

1.) added transparency to the process; 2.): Reinforcement of system preservation; 3.) More equitable project distribution;

4.) More sensitivity to additional factors

Evaluation of tool and modification

using multiple data sources and simulations

INNOVATION WITHIN A SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONTEXT

USING COMPUTATIONAL MODELS FOR DECISION SUPPORT

SDOT MPO Staff

MPO TAC

MPO Board

Legislative Committees

a b c d

efg h

a

Congress

Local communities

FHWA & USDOT

i

a

a

j

STATE CHART FOR PROJECT PRIORITIZATION IN MPO REGION

(Zia et al., under review)

THANK YOU

• Contact information:

Christopher Koliba, Ph.D.Associate Professor, Community Development &

Applied EconomicsUniversity of Vermont103 Morrill HallBurlington, Vermont 05405802-656-3772; [email protected]

FIGURE 1. A HIERARCHICAL NETWORK WITH STRUCTURE ON MANY SCALES, AND THE CORRESPONDING HIERARCHICAL RANDOM GRAPH.

FROM THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE:HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE AND THE PREDICTION OF MISSING LINKS IN NETWORKS

AARON CLAUSET, CRISTOPHER MOORE & M. E. J. NEWMANNATURE 453, 98-101(1 MAY 2008)

DOI:10.1038/NATURE06830