christopher koliba asim zia matthew tucker david novak university of vermont
DESCRIPTION
Fostering Innovation in an Intergovernmental Transportation Planning Network: results from a mixed- methods case study . Christopher Koliba Asim Zia Matthew Tucker David Novak University of Vermont Presented during the American Political Science Association Annual Conference - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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