Proceedings of the 2003 Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium

Matthew H. Jones, Barbara E. Tawney, and K. Preston White, Jr., eds.

ANALYTICAL SUPPORT FOR THE STATEWIDE MULTIMODAL LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Mohammed A. Ba-Ali
Brister B. Barrett
David A. Cowden
Jared T. Zane
C. Ariel Pinto
Kenneth D. Peterson
James H. Lambert

Kimberly P. Spence
Kenneth E. Lantz
John S. Miller
Wayne S. Ferguson
Virginia Statewide Multimodal Long-Range
Transportation Plan Steering Committee (VTrans2025),
Virginia Transportation Research Council, and Virginia
Department of Transportation
statewideplan@VirginiaDOT.org

Department of Systems and Information Engineering

University of Virginia
lambert@virginia.edu

ABSTRACT
The goal of this effort is to develop methodology to aid the
VTrans2025 Steering Committee in selecting and prioritizing multimodal transportation systems. The comparison
tool allows decision makers to compare proposed multimodal projects using both quantitative and qualitative
measures. Through case studies of each mode of transportation, aviation, port, public transit, and rail, the capabilities of the comparison tool are demonstrated. The comparison tool displays the motivations of the projects along with
the cost and performance metrics specific to each mode.
Officials in the multimodal steering committee and the
various transportation agencies can use the information
from the comparison tool when aggregating projects into
multimodal systems.
1

Figure 1 shows an excerpt from the VTrans2025 plan

that describes the life cycle of transportation projects that
will receive priority for federal and state funding. The Capstone teams primary activities were the development of
individual priority models and the integration of these results into a multimodal system scoring method. The lowerleft portion of the figure depicts transportation project
comparisons that were examined on a mode-by-mode basis. The center portion of the figure depicts transportation
system comparisons that were examined on a multimodal
basis. By improving prioritization methodology in these
two steps of the VTrans2025 flow chart, the Capstone team
can help ensure that funds of multimodal transportation
agencies can be allocated in a more efficient manner.
Each State Project
Receives Bonus Points in
its Respective Modal Priority
Process

RankSystems
-Quantitative
-Qualitative
-Political

Each Mode Implements

Individual Priority Model
-Federal & State Requirements
-Governing Board
-Funding Source(s)
-Industry Measurements

Score each System using

Priority Model

INTRODUCTION

In accord with the vision of VTrans2025 to build a worldclass multimodal transportation system, there is the need
for analytical methods to improve the communication and
cooperation among the various modal transportation agencies of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
establish the need for states to consider alternate transportation modes when planning and prioritizing projects. This
legislation urges states to examine diverse collections of
transportation improvement projects that fit together into a
larger multimodal framework.

Devlop Implementation Plan

-Schedule
-Lead Agency
-Source of Funding

Develop Transportation
Systems that have
Regional & State Interests

VPA
VDOT

Legend
Review 6-Year Plans for
Eligible System Projects

DOAV
VDRPT

Agency Actions
IMAT Actions

Figure 1: Multimodal statewide transportation planning

process (VTrans2025 2002)

183

Ba-Ali, Barrett, Cowden, Zane, Pinto, Peterson, Lambert, Spence, Lantz, Miller, and Ferguson
The organization of the paper is as follows: First, a
project comparison tool and the project motivations are introduced. Next, the data collection process and metrics for
assessing projects are discussed. Finally, the case studies
involving each mode of transportation are analyzed.
2

therefore deserve requisite attention. The comparison tool

has several features that will aid decision makers in the
complicated process of comparing diverse projects. Certain
projects can be highlighted to distinguish one set of projects from another. Also, statistical results can be selected
instead of the graphical project comparisons.

COMPARISON TOOL
3

VDOT must take into consideration a variety of factors

when deciding which projects to fund. These factors include the six motivations mentioned in the Statewide Multimodal Long-Range Transportation Plan (VTrans2025).
The definitions of these motivations according to the plan
are as follows:
Safe and Secure Transportation (SS): Apply efficient
and effective transportation security measures. Improve
the safety of locations where modes intersect.
System Management (SM): Maintain an efficient and reliable transportation system balancing safety and effective operation. Promote the use of appropriate technology to maximize system effectiveness.
Intermodalism and Mobility (IM): Encourage intermodalism to maximize the accessibility, use, and efficient
connectivity of the overall transportation system. Provide effective and economical transportation choices
and alternatives for people and goods across the state.
Economic Competitiveness (EC): Develop a transportation system that supports statewide economic development, commerce, and tourism.
Fiscal Responsibility (FR): Ensure balanced and effective transportation investments. Develop realistic transportation programs based on accurate cost estimates.
Quality of Life (QL): Enhance and protect the natural
environmental quality and cultural and historic resources. Ensure the compatibility of transportation services with the stakeholders and the communities they
serve.
The comparison tool lists the six motivations along the
diagonal, allowing projects to be motivated by two factors
(Lambert et al. 2003). The applicable projects are then
placed in the intersection of the two motivating factors.
The circles in the comparison tool represent projects. The
area of the circle is relative to the cost of the project. The
axes of each of the blocks can represent different types of
data that interest decision makers. In the following case
studies, the coordinate axes represent the performance metrics most suited to each mode. Projects located in the upper-right portion of the graphs have greater impacts and
184

DATA COLLECTION AND METRICS

SELECTION

For each project in each of four modal case studies, data

was obtained for entry into the comparison tool. This included project cost, leveraging (percentage of funding provided by non-state sources), and data for the two comparison metrics used for the mode of that project.
To utilize the comparison tool, motivations for each
project were also determined. While a primary motivation
is often easily identified, sometimes the secondary motivation is less prominent and somewhat subjective. Assigning
appropriate motivations to the project is an important step
since the motivations aid in the comparison of funded projects.
Metrics for each of the four transportation modes were
identified. These metrics were intended to encompass the
six main goals of the steering committee. With data for two
relevant metrics of a project, graphical comparisons for
projects can be made. These graphical comparisons are
made on a coordinate graph with each axis representing a
metric. Such metrics are termed orthogonal metrics.
In order to make comparisons between transportation
projects from different modes, a relevant common set of
metrics had to be determined. A common set would include two metrics that are applicable to all transportation
modes and that represent variables that are significant in
making a comparison. Only with these common metrics
could an explicit comparison be made across modes using
the comparison tool. Projects in all modes require data for
the two common metrics. Although several of the modes
had metrics that were common to other modes, there was
no set of metrics common across all modes. The initial
goal of being able to compare transportation projects from
different modes on a single coordinate graph could not be
achieved.
4

CASE STUDIES

Four case studies were completed to represent four modes

of transportation. The comparison tool was developed in
previous effort for use with highway projects (Lambert et
al. 2003). These case studies served to extend the comparison tool to other modes of transportation and demonstrate
its usefulness in a multimodal setting.

Ba-Ali, Barrett, Cowden, Zane, Pinto, Peterson, Lambert, Spence, Lantz, Miller, and Ferguson

FR

EC

> 300
250
200
150
100
50
0
10

100

1000

10000
>

Population Served within 20 Miles Radius (in thousands)

SS

SM

Q
L

IM

The Virginia Department of Aviation (DOAV) provided

data for this case study on its aviation projects. This data
included performance and cost statistics on 85 aviation
projects throughout Virginia. In addition, the case study
used the Geographic Information System (GIS) to gather
population data for the areas surrounding Virginias airports.
The two performance measures used in this case study
were population served within 20 miles and annual operations. The population served is an indicator of how to handle congested conditions in locations surrounding the airport, such as expanding highways and roadways leading to
the airport. The population served advocates the need for
creating extra safety and precautionary measures around
the populated area of the congested airport, such as designing convenient exits to hospitals, building fire stations,
and/or constructing emergency pathways. Annual operations include capacity and peak operating conditions of the
airport. As the number of annual operations of an airport
increases, the priority of its planned construction and design improvements increases as well. The annual operations metric is similar to the population served within 20
miles, in terms of planning, designing, implementing, and
managing the airport system to assure performance, safety,
reliability, and maintainability. Overall, the population
served and the annual operations metrics have helped the
DOAV assess the efficiency of the airports in Virginia.
Figure 2 shows a variety of projects scattered around
different motivations. Each square is represented by the
horizontal axis, which is population served within 20 miles
in thousands based on a logarithmic scale, and by the vertical axis, which is annual operations in thousands based on
a linear scale. The intersection of the intermodalism and
mobility field and the quality of life field consists of projects that serve intermodalism and mobility and quality of
life only. A larger radius implies a more costly project.
Blue circles indicate approved projects selected in this intersection, based on the metrics shown in the adjacent
graph (population served within a 20 mile radius in thousands vs. annual operations in thousands). For example, the
smallest blue circle in the middle right of the intersection
of the quality of life and intermodalism and mobility fields
represents a less costly project that has the greatest impact
in terms of population served.

Annual Operations (in thousands)

4.1 Aviation Case Study

Figure 2: Comparison of 85 aviation projects

4.2 Port Case Study
The Virginia Port Authority provided data for this case
study on its port projects (Moffatt and Nichol Engineers,
2002 & Yochum, 1995). There was only project data available for three main ports within Virginia: Norfolk International Terminals, Newport News Marine Terminal, and
Portsmouth Marine Terminal. Many ports do not handle
passenger travel, and therefore statistics for measures on
safety were unavailable. Additionally, data on percentages
of funding required by the state was not available.
There were no relevant statistics for individual port
projects, so metrics for the port related to that project were
used. The two metrics chosen for this case study were
amount of freight carried per year (vertical axis) and the
number of acres at an individual port (horizontal axis). The
amount of freight is the total tonnage of freight that passes
through a port each year and thus represents the amount of
activity for a port. The number of acres at an individual
port allows for the physical size of the port to be considered in the comparison.
All of the port projects were motivated by economic
competitiveness, system management, or intermodalism
and mobility. Because there was data available for only
three ports, the projects appeared in three specific areas in
the comparison tool. In Figure 3 in the box at the intersection for intermodalism and mobility and system management, the smallest circle in the top right region represents
one of the most desirable projects.

185

EC

Total Tonnage per Year

Ba-Ali, Barrett, Cowden, Zane, Pinto, Peterson, Lambert, Spence, Lantz, Miller, and Ferguson
> 50000000
40000000
30000000
20000000
10000000

FR

0
0

500

>

1000

Rev. Hrs. plus Rev. Mi. (in thousands)

SS

SM

Q
L

IM

Total Acres

fective performance measure in quantifying the impact of a

project. Figure 4 shows the results of the case study. The
study concluded that intermodalism and mobility, system
management, and safe and secure transportation motivated
the most projects, particularly intermodalism and mobility.
Projects motivated by fiscal responsibility and system
management had the greatest total cost, while projects motivated by intermodalism and mobility and system management impacted the greatest number of people. In addition, any set of projects could be directly compared
through an elementary cost/benefit analysis. Conclusions
from these analyses depend on what sets of projects the
user is interested in analyzing.

EC

Figure 3: Comparison of 34 port projects

FR

4.3 Public Transit Case Study

A study entitled Distribution of State and Federal Aid

to Mass Transit Programs was completed in 2000 by the
Public Transportation Division of the VDRPT and suggested various metrics for prioritizing transit projects and
allocating funding. Data on these metrics were collected
for over 40 of the transit systems in Virginia. These metrics were included because they were recommended by the
VDRPT and data was readily available for use. Because
the data was collected by transit system and not by project,
this case study does not use project-specific data. It would
be preferable in the future to analyze projects using project-specific data if it became available. After experimenting with the data, population served and revenue hours plus
revenue miles were found to be the most useful metrics in
the comparison tool. Population served, calculated by
counting the number of people in the service area, is a useful performance metric because it provides a measure of
the overall impact a project will have on society in terms of
people affected. Revenue hours plus revenue miles is calculated by adding the hours of revenue service a transit
system provides and the miles of revenue service it provides. In this manner, both systems with fewer long, highspeed routes (more revenue miles) and systems with more
short, low-speed routes (more revenue hours) will be represented. Therefore, this metric fairly describes the size of
a transit agency in terms of service provided and is an ef186

10000000
8000000
6000000
4000000
2000000
0
10

100

1000

> 10000

Population Served (in thousands)

SS

SM

Q
L

IM

The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation

(VDRPT) provided data for this case study on its transit
projects (Virginia Department of Transportations SixYear Program). The 2003 Public Transportation Improvement Program section of the Six-Year Program listed over
100 projects. The listing, broken down by transit district
and transit agency, included a project description along
with federal, state, and local costs.

> 12000000

Figure 4: Comparison of 100 public transit projects

4.4 Rail Case Study
The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation
(VDRPT) provided data for this case study on its rail projects. Included was a list of fiscal year 2002 funding allocations and 20-year cost needs for eight rail lines in Virginia, Rail Industrial Access Funding from fiscal year 1999
to present, and a summary of Virginias passenger and
freight rail projects. In addition, the Virginia High Speed
Rail Six-Year Plan contained data for various improvement
project proposals (High Speed Six-Year Plan 2002). Further information came from on-line databases at CSX and
Norfolk Southern web sites. CSX and Norfolk Southern
are the two largest cargo rail companies in Virginia. From
each of these sources data was extracted from the following areas: description of each project, project cost ($), leveraging as defined by state funding vs. federal funding,
track miles of existing system (miles owned by rail company), and total freight cars on-line in existing system (per
year). The data for track miles and total freight cars on-line
was collected by railroad line and was not project-specific.

Ba-Ali, Barrett, Cowden, Zane, Pinto, Peterson, Lambert, Spence, Lantz, Miller, and Ferguson

FR

EC

Total Freight Cars On-Line(Per Year)

The two metrics chosen for this case study were track
miles and number of active cars on-line per year. Track
miles is defined as the total track distance that is owned by
a railroad line. This metric was chosen because it quantitatively specifies the size of the various railroad lines in Virginia. Cars on-line was chosen as the second performance
metric. Cars on-line is defined as the number of active or
moving cars that that complete one trip on any particular
railroad track. This metric was chosen because it indicates
the size and cargo capacity as well as track usage of Virginia railroads.
Figure 5 shows the results of the heavy rail case study.
As one can see, the majority of the projects are motivated
by system management and intermodalism and mobility.
This is because these metrics are frequently the two most
important factors in freight transportation. Other observations include project cost. Over half of the projects are very
expensive as indicated by the large size of the bubbles.
> 300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000

tions imposed by the multimodal committee. Solutions to

encourage cooperation must be found. Another area requiring continuing efforts is the manner in which projects are
assembled into multimodal systems. A formal structure
must be in place in which all multimodal systems are formulated. Our Capstone team has begun such work with the
idea of a Multimodal Impact Statement, but this concept
needs further development. While a great deal of work remains in the analytical support of multimodal transportation planning in Virginia, the efforts of our Capstone team
have advanced this process considerably, and hopefully future teams can build on our contributions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the following members of the
VTrans2025 steering committee and others for their support throughout this effort: Jim Bland, Cliff Burnette, Jeff
Florin, George Connor, Bill LaBaugh, Alan Tobias, Ranjeet Rathore, Ken Lantz, Diane Mitchell, Marsha Fiol,
Katherine Graham, Kimberly Spence, Frank Dunn, Gus
Robey, Mary Lynn Tischer, Mike Knott, Chip Badger,
Alan Tobias, Bill Ketron, Kevin Page, Wayne Ferguson,
Mike Fontaine, and John Miller.

0
10

100

>

1000

REFERENCES

SS

SM

IM

Track Miles

Figure 5: Comparison of 16 rail projects

5

CONCLUSIONS

The case studies were successful in their task of demonstrating the extension of the comparison tool to other
modes. However, improvements could be made in the future. The selection of the project categorical motivations
was a subjective procedure. A more scientific method or
the input of a transportation expert would make the comparison tool more accurate and representative of the actual
goals of the projects. Also, some of the performance metrics used in the case studies could be improved upon when
further data becomes available. Future work on multimodal
transportation planning should be focused on systems integration effort of projects into multimodal systems. Our
Capstone team has made a significant start on this task, but
much work remains. Communication problems and perpetual disagreements between agencies must be resolved.
Each agency seeks to remain autonomous from the restric-

CSX Intermodal. 2002. Available online via

<http://www.csxi.com/content/index.c
fm?fuseAction=whoWeAre> [accessed September 17, 2002].
Guide to Geographic Information System. 2003. What Is
GIS?.
Available
online
via
<http://www.gis.com> [accessed January 27,
2003].
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. 1991.
Available
online
via
<http://www.bts.gov/lawlib/docs/iste
a5.htm> [accessed October 10, 2002].
Lambert, J.H., K. D. Peterson, and C. A. Pinto. 2003. An
Aid to the Comparison of Major Infrastructure Investments, Submitted to Risk Analysis.
Lambert, J.H., K. D. Peterson, and C. A. Pinto. 2003. An
Aid to the Comparison of Major Infrastructure Investments. Virginia Transportation Research Council
report in press.
Moffatt and Nichol Engineers. 2002. Virginia Port Authority 2020 Master Plan. Richmond, VA.
Norfolk Southern. 2002 Conrail Transaction Council
Measure.
Available
online
via
<http://www.nscorp.com/stb/> [accessed
November 15, 2002].
Page, Kevin. Rail Access 1999. Virginia Department of
Rail and Public Transportation. Obtained via email
<kbpage@drpt.state.va.us> [November 5, 2002].
187

Ba-Ali, Barrett, Cowden, Zane, Pinto, Peterson, Lambert, Spence, Lantz, Miller, and Ferguson
Public Transportation Division of the Virginia Department
of Rail and Public Transportation. 2000. Distribution
of State and Federal Aid to Mass Transit Programs.
Available
online
via
<http://www.drpt.state.va.us/resourc
e/downloads/hjr720.pdf> [accessed November 2, 2002].
TEA-21. 1998. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
Plan.
Available
online
via
<http://www.TEA-21.org/guide/sm/htm>
[accessed October 10, 2002].
Tobias, Alan. Virginia Passenger Rail Projects. Rail Passenger Project Manager: Virginia Department of Rail
and Public Transportation. Obtained via email <atobias@drpt.state.va.us> [November 5, 2002].
Transportation Research Board and National Research
Council. 1994. Role of Performance-Based Measures
in Allocating Funding for Transit Operations. Washington, D. C.
Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board. 2002.
VTrans2025 Virginias Statewide Multimodal
Long-Range Transportation Plan Phase One. Available
online
via
<http://www.sotrans.state.va.us/VTra
ns/Vtransrpt-GA.pdf> [accessed February 13,
2003].
Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation.
2002. 2003 Public Transportation Improvement Program.
Available
online
via
<http://www.extranet.vdot.state.va.u
s/syp/Pdfs/DRPT%20Final%20Report.pdf
> [accessed October 20, 2002].
Virginia Department of Transportation. Virginia Airports.
Available
online
via
<http://www.doav.state.va.us/airport
s.htm> [accessed October 10, 2002].
Virginia High Speed Rail 6-Year Plan. 2002. Available online
via
<http://www.ctaonline.org/documents/
vhsrdc.pdf> [accessed September 17, 2002].
Virginia Multimodal Long-Range Transportation Plan brochure.
2002.
Available
online
via
<http://virginiadot.org/infoservice/
resources/trans-plan-multimodalflyer.pdf> [accessed October 7, 2002].
Yochum, Gilbert R. and Vinod B. Agarwal. 1995. The
Economic Impact and Rate of Return of Virginias
Ports on The Commonwealth. Norfolk, VA: Old
Dominion University.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
MOHAMMED BA-ALI, from Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, a
fourth-year Systems Engineering student with a concentra188

tion in management, performed the aviation case study. He

will be seeking employment in the transportation sector in
Saudi Arabia.
BRISTER BARRETT, from Indianola, Mississippi, a
fourth-year Systems Engineering student with a concentration and double major in Economics, performed the port
case study. He will be working in Memphis with Morgan
Keegan as a financial analyst.
DAVID COWDEN, from Hot Springs, Virginia, a fourthyear Systems Engineering student with a concentration and
double major in Economics, performed the rail case study.
After graduation, he will be touring the United States by
bicycle. He will attend graduate school for real estate development in the future.
JARED ZANE, from Hershey, Pennsylvania, a fourthyear Systems Engineering student with a concentration and
double major in Economics, performed the public transit
case study. He will spend a year traveling before attending
law school.