Abstract
The concept of goal-oriented analysis of transportation system performance presented in this paper captures multiple stakeholder and sociopolitical views of system performance, while simultaneously augmenting or maximizing value in multiple contexts (e.g., different regions) and at multiple scales (e.g., state and regional). This study applies the concept of goal-oriented analysis of transportation system performance to evaluate the state of selected highway corridors of significance in the state of Georgia. A corridor’s performance is assessed as it traverses different regions first for varying contextual priorities. A similar analysis is conducted for the selected corridors as they traverse different regions, using statewide goals. The results are compared to assess similarities and differences, and the findings analyzed to demonstrate the significance of considering regional priorities within analyses to achieve statewide goals. In particular, the results indicate that there are potential cobenefits to be gained in setting context-sensitive targets and allocating resources effectively, and potential value in additional data collection to enhance such analyses.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the Federal Highway Administration through the National Center for Transportation System Productivity and Management and by the Georgia Department of Transportation, under the project “Managing Transportation System Health: Setting Performance Targets and Policies in Non-Uniform Regions and Jurisdictions to Achieve Uniform Statewide and National Objectives.” The authors remain exclusively responsible for the ideas presented in this paper. The authors would like to thank Dr. Frank Southworth, Dr. Michael Rodgers, Dr. Tim Welch, and Dr. Thomas A. Wall for their review of the Transportation Systems Health framework, and Dr. Southworth and Dr. James Tsai for their assistance with obtaining data for the study.
References
Amekudzi-Kennedy, A., et al. (2016). “Transportation system health: Meeting deficiency needs and growth aspirations systemically—Concepts, applications, significance.” J. Transp. Res. Board, 2568, 31–40.
Brans, J. P., Vincke, P., and Mareschal, B. (1986). “How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method.” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 24(2), 228–238.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (2013). “GDOT strategic plan FY 2013.” Georgia Dept. of Transportation, Atlanta.
COPACES [Computer Software]. Georgia Dept. of Transportation, Atlanta.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). (2016). “Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act or ‘FAST Act’.” ⟨http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/⟩ (Aug. 30, 2016).
Fishburn, P. (1967). “Conjoint measurement in utility theory with incomplete product sets.” J. Math. Psychol., 4(1), 104–119.
GDOT (Georgia Department of Transportation). (2011). “Strategic plan update FY 2012.” Georgia Dept. of Transportation, Atlanta.
GDOT (Georgia Department of Transportation). (2013). “Statewide strategic transportation plan update.” ⟨http://www.dot.ga.gov/InvestSmart/Documents/SSTP/Plan/Statewide%20Strategic%20Transportation%20Plan%20Update.pdf⟩ (Jul. 29, 2014).
GDOT (Georgia Department of Transportation). (2015). “FY 2013-2017 strategic plan.” ⟨http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/Public/Documents/publications/StrategicPlan/StrategicPlan-FY2016.pdf⟩ (Jul. 29, 2014).
Macharis, C., and Bernardini, A. (2015). “Reviewing the use of multi-criteria decision analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach.” Transp. Policy, 37, 177–186.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). “A theory of human motivation.” Psychol. Rev., 50(4), 370–396.
Meyer, M., and Miller, E. J. (2001). Urban transportation planning, 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
OPB (Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget). (2014). State strategic planning guidelines for fiscal year 2015, Atlanta.
Reiss, R., Gordon, R., Neudorff, L., and Harding, J. (2006). “Integrated corridor management phase i concept development and foundational research: Task 3.1 develop alternative definitions.”, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Washington, DC.
Saaty, T. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Tsamboulas, D., Yiotis, G., and Panou, K. (1999). “Use of multicriteria methods for assessment of transport projects.” J. Transp. Eng., 407–414.
Velasquez, M., and Hester, P. T. (2013). “An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods.” Int. J. Oper. Res., 10(2), 56–66.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Transportation Engineering, Part A: Systems
Volume 143 • Issue 5 • May 2017
Copyright
©2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Apr 19, 2016
Accepted: Oct 26, 2016
Published ahead of print: Feb 1, 2017
Published online: Feb 2, 2017
Published in print: May 1, 2017
Discussion open until: Jul 2, 2017
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.