Cost Analysis of Multimodal Corridors for Statewide Long-Range Transportation
Planning
James H. Lambert1; Shadi M. Wadie2; Alexander S. Linthicum3
ABSTRACT
This paper demonstrates cost analysis of long-range plans for statewide multimodal planning.
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21), and most recently, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) have prompted many state
transportation departments to consider cost-effective spending across all modes to reduce future
shortages in transportation funding. Virginia’s twenty-year transportation plan identifies a $108
billion transportation funding shortage by the year 2025. Recent efforts have therefore aimed to
identify and promote cost-effective projects within key transportation corridors. To assist in
long-range statewide transportation planning, this paper 1) develops a method of cost analysis to
compare multimodal implementations with highway-only implementations and 2) compares
project estimates for statewide multimodal plans with those of regional multimodal plans. The
analysis developed in this paper provides transportation decision makers an initial basis on which
to compare alternative multimodal transportation investments, however the results suggest a need
for increased accuracy and inclusion of life-cycle costs into project estimates. In addition, further
research into the quantification of benefits is necessary to employ more advanced cost
methodologies, such as cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit.analyses. Finally, this study suggests
a need for greater coordination among modal agencies and transportation planning organizations
in developing cost estimates specifically, and long-range transportation plans in general.
CE Database Keywords: Multimodal, Cost estimates, Planning, Coordination, Evaluation
1
Senior Member, ASCE; Associate Director, Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems;
Research Associate Professor of Systems and Information Engineering, University of Virginia; PO Box
400747, 112C Olsson Hall, 151 Engineers Way, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904, (434) 982-2072 fax (434)
924-0865; E-mail: lambert@virginia.edu
2
Graduate Student, University of Virginia; 5804 Westchester St., Alexandria, VA 22310, (703) 989-1961;
E-mail: smw8x@virginia.edu
3
Graduate Student, University of Virginia; 151 Engineers Way, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904, (703) 2093473; E-mail: asl2r@virginia.edu
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
2
INTRODUCTION
A history of uncoordinated efforts by disparate transportation agencies has created a need for
analytical methods that improve accuracy and coordination of cost estimates in long-range
transportation planning. Often, individual modal agencies, metropolitan planning organizations
(MPOs), and planning district commissions (PDCs) develop individual, uncoordinated long-range
transportation plans that result in significant cost estimate inconsistencies for the same projects.
Standardizing cost estimates is essential as critical infrastructure budget shortfalls increase and
continued legislation urges states to examine diverse collections of transportation improvement
projects that fit together into a large, cross-regional multimodal framework. Uncoordinated and
separate long-range transportation plans do not allow for easy comparison of projects across
modes as required by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
The example of Virginia, a state with the third largest transportation agency in the U.S.,
is useful to illuminate the above challenges. To directly address congressional legislation,
Section 33.1-23.03 of the Code of Virginia directs Virginia’s Commonwealth Transportation
Board (CTB) to develop a multimodal long-range transportation plan with a statewide focus. In
cooperation with Virginia’s Departments of Aviation, Rail and Public Transportation,
Transportation, and the Virginia Port Authority, the VTrans2025 Multimodal Technical
Committee developed a twenty-year transportation plan. By establishing common visions, goals,
and objectives across all modes, this plan identifies the need for additional resources to achieve a
cohesive and interconnected transportation system (VTrans2025 2004). The VTrans2025 plan
also predicts, however, that the twenty-year span from 2005-2025 could accumulate $108 billion
in unmet transportation needs ($74.2 billion for highways, $30.7 billion for rail and public
transportation, $3.1 billion for aviation, and $0.4 billion for ports). Thus, a critical element for
implementation of a successful long-range transportation plan will be project selection based on
coordinated planning among all state agencies and regional planning authorities. Figure 1 shows
an excerpt of the VTrans2025 plan that describes the life-cycle of transportation projects that will
receive priority for federal and state funding. Mode-by-mode project comparisons are depicted in
the lower left; multimodal corridor comparisons are depicted in the center portion of the figure.
To assist state and regional authorities in long-range statewide transportation planning,
this paper investigates project capital cost estimations from two perspectives. Life-cycle cost
estimations were not available.
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
3
First, it develops a method of cost analysis to compare multimodal implementations with
highway-only implementations. Because specific benefits are unknown, this method differs from
cost-effectiveness analysis, which compares life-cycle costs with quantifiable, non-dollar
benefits, and benefit cost analysis, which compares life-cycle costs with monetized benefits. We
demonstrate that when life-cycle costs are included and benefits of multimodal and highway-only
alternatives are plausibly the same, this method can quantify the financial advantages of one
approach over the other.
Second, the study compares project estimates for statewide multimodal plans with those
of regional multimodal plans and highlights opportunities for increased coordination between
transportation and planning agencies.
Organization of the paper is as follows: the following section reviews relevant literature
foundations, subsequent sections compare eleven investment corridors in Virginia to demonstrate
the methodology and results, and the final section provides a summary and conclusion.
REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE AND PRACTICES
This section summarizes a review of studies and best practices that are relevant to development of
a cost-analysis methodology supporting long-range multimodal transportation planning.
Several critical factors influence transportation planning and coordination of multimodal
investments. Coordination entails a technique or method for enhanced resource management,
often resulting from teamwork of different agencies and backgrounds (Burkhardt 2004).
Numerous sources identify the need for a long-range transportation plan to coordinate among
stakeholders a common transportation financial system. The Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA), for example, unambiguously prompted the federal government, states,
and MPOs/PDCs to develop robust transportation systems using a wide range of multimodal and
intermodal solutions (Pedersen 2000). Reinke and Malarkey (1996) echo this sentiment, citing
integrated transportation planning as a long-range strategic planning process having cost-benefit
analysis as its analytical core. Reinke and Marlarky continue by developing a systems planning
methodology to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a broad range of transportation alternatives.
In order to create any long-range plan, feasibility analysis of potential investment options
and alternative investment strategies must be considered thoroughly. In past years, statewide
efforts often fell short of expectations largely because responses to transportation needs took the
form of short-term fixes designed to deal with immediate crises (Brown 2002). Brown describes
a necessary change in approach, moving away from immediate single-mode transportation
solutions and investing in a multimodal foundation for future transportation planning efforts, both
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
4
statewide and regional. Similarly, Zavattero et al. (1999) insist that transportation planning
should be a coordinated effort between both the public and private sectors. Private firms are
often more efficient and innovative than the public sector during selection/design and
operations/maintenance phases of public infrastructure projects (Liddle 1997). A 2002 survey
reported that 50% of transit agencies gave high priority to projects serving jurisdictions that
would provide financial support to transit. Further, while 75% of agencies surveyed said they
welcomed public or private sector cost-sharing when opportunities arose, 60% of those agencies
did not specifically seek such cost-sharing partnerships (Deakin et al. 2002). SAFETEA-LU
(2005) seeks to increase public-private partnerships by promoting innovative financing tools such
as increased eligibility for private activity bonds, additional flexibility in using tolling to finance
infrastructure improvements, and broader Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
Act (TIFIA) and State Infrastructure Banks (SIB) loan policies.
Underlining the importance of efficient transportation investment, the state of Florida’s
long-range multimodal transportation plan emphasizes causality between program investment and
performance measures and notes this becomes a critically important technical and political issue
for future transportation investment (Cambridge Systematics 1999). For example, Virginia,
having $108 billion in unfunded transportation needs over the next twenty years, is one of many
states facing the issue of a large transportation-spending deficit. Pedersen (2000) describes how
ISTEA and TEA-21, combined with the long periods for developing transportation projects, gave
rise to a massive accumulation of unfunded state transportation needs. This resulted in short-term
planning processes to catch up with previously identified needs and projects. Compounding the
issues surrounding these short-term fixes are the struggles among state, regional, and local
transportation authorities over needs and budgets.
Citing wide variation among MPOs in their approaches to fiscally-constrained planning,
Bishop et al. (1997) explain that since their inception, MPOs have contended with local
jurisdictions over ownership of transportation planning. MPOs claim that transportation plans
should set regional rather than local goals (as ISTEA advocates), despite the opposing view that
they lack the political and economic authority to implement large-scale regional initiatives. One
proposition aimed at avoiding competition between regional and local transportation authorities is
the Regional Concept for Transportation Operations (Berman et al. 2004). This idea represents a
foundational, outcome-oriented collaboration of regional transportation operations. It is a holistic
approach, guiding planning and operations to ensure that projects and day-to-day operations of
local and regional authorities support one another.
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
5
Zemotel and Halvorson (1999) suggest that US states emulate Minnesota’s organizational
structure, which houses statewide long-range planning and programming under one leadership.
The governing authority may require fiscally constrained, unconstrained, and performance-based
investment programs from each MPO/PDC. SAFETEA-LU echoes the sentiment, strengthening
the role of the MPO and insisting on increased cooperation between metropolitan and statewide
planning efforts. Aiming to avoid authority difficulties in the long-range planning process,
Virginia has created the VTrans2025 Multimodal Technical Committee to oversee large-scale
coordination between state and regional transportation authorities.
Future funding shortages have forced statewide transportation planning efforts to focus
on spending cost-effectively and identifying additional sources of funding. With regard to the
latter, strategic use of the federal aid program can be used to broaden the horizons and
perspectives of potential funding sources (Younger and O’Neill 1998). The state of Iowa has
been thinking in terms of cost savings for over ten years. Forkenbrock et al. (1993) suggest that
transportation cost savings are equivalent to income increases: they benefit society by making
resources available for other purposes. Synthesis #243 completed by the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP 1997) points out that aligning capital programming for
transportation projects with policy needs is only half the battle; ensuring funded projects
represent the most cost-effective transportation solutions is equally important. For example,
technological developments such as advanced public transportation systems (APTS) achieve cost
savings not only through reduced capital costs, but also through improved schedule adherence
and efficient, automated data-collection methods (Ohene and Kaseko 1998).
A variety of technical approaches have been investigated to ensure efficient spending of
transportation funds. Kulkarni et al. (2004) investigate need-based project prioritization, Korve
and Niemeier (2002) and Khasnabis (1999) employ benefit-cost analysis to examine special
phasing at signalized intersections, and Latoski et al. (1999) use cost-effectiveness analysis to
support the continuation of a highway assistance patrol. The NCHRP’s Synthesis #243 (1997)
suggests that successful cost-effective spending is a direct result of the extent to which DOTs
explicitly consider program tradeoffs and the specific methods DOTs use to evaluate programlevel tradeoffs. Analyses are therefore required to clearly demonstrate modal tradeoffs amongst
varying program options. To help visualize trade-offs, Ba-Ali et al. (2003) developed a novel
interface for comparing transportation projects across a single mode. Requiring transportation
project costs and performance data as inputs for analysis, this interface tool is primarily aimed at
uncovering dominance between various projects. Frohwein et al. (1999) also provide a
comparative technical analysis between alternative investment options. Synthesis #290 (NCHRP
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
6
2000) suggests comparison of a no-build (base case) scenario to one or more transportation
investment scenarios when considering alternative investment strategies. Additionally, Synthesis
#238 (NHCRP 1997) directs statewide transportation agencies to conduct cross-modal analyses
on an objective basis, using modally blind performance measures and comparable data across all
modes (NCHRP 2000).
Because consideration of alternative modal investments is critical, this research builds on
many propositions provided by the Transportation Research Board (TRB 1998). For example,
the TRB (1998) suggests that communities and states compare the economic impact of alternative
transit investments, of non-transit public works projects and of non-investment alternatives with
one another. It also suggests a single methodology be applied to two or more investment
scenarios and that the results are compared to identify which investment will result in the greatest
positive economic impact (TRB 1998). By combining modal comparison of transportation
investment options with performance-based criteria evaluation, a cost comparison can be sought
for evaluating alternative highway transportation investments. Giorgi and Pearman (2002)
propose a method to analyze transportation investment alternatives based on cost-effectiveness.
Due to the complexity associated with analyzing the benefits of alternative transportation
projects, they suggest setting a constant level of benefits across projects and then finding the most
effective (least-cost) option that meets those benefits. This least-cost method has an advantage in
that its benefits need not always be explicitly valued (Giorgi and Pearman 2002).
The literature thus points to the need for practical cost analysis in long-range
transportation planning, ultimately leading toward more advanced techniques such as costeffectiveness and cost-benefit analysis.
METHODOLOGY
Overview
This section describes 1) development of a cost analysis methodology for comparing multimodal
with highway-only alternatives and 2) cost-based comparison of state DOT and MPO/PDC longrange transportation project cost estimations. Eleven critical statewide multimodal transportation
corridors within Virginia, shown in Figure 2, are referenced to demonstrate the methodology.
Each corridor has associated transportation projects that span multiple modes.
Identifying a performance metric common to all modes is critical. Due to an estimated deficit in
twenty-year transportation spending and a need for a common performance metric across modes,
the most appropriate measure for comparing multimodal investments is project life-cycle
expenditure. Some of the proposed projects under study, however, do not yet have estimated
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
7
costs and none of the projected project costs include maintenance and operations figures. As a
result, cost estimates in this study reflect capital costs; they do not account for continued
maintenance and operations over the life-cycle of the corridor.
Cost Estimation and Comparison of Multimodal with Highway-Only Alternatives
This sub-section develops cost analysis for comparing multimodal with highway-only alternatives
in the following three stages: 1) determining a projected capital investment cost for each
corridor, 2) determining a projected capital investment cost for a highway-only solution within
the boundaries of each corridor, and 3) comparing the capital cost of each multimodal corridor
with that of the highway-only implementation.
We first determined all projects within each corridor. Due to uncoordinated planning
processes among modal agencies, project costs within the corridors are found by analyzing
individual agency reports and participating in teleconferences with officials from each
transportation agency office. We collected information such as mode of transportation, projected
capital cost, route number of the improvement (if roadway), district/jurisdiction(s) spanned,
estimated mileage for project, and source/reference. Cases for which projects span multiple
planning districts and jurisdictions required the analysis of maps to spatially determine which
projects are associated with which corridors.
Most roadway projects are documented in VDOT’s twenty-year roadway improvement
recommendation given to the VTrans2025 committee, but because project information had not
necessarily been provided by the remaining three modal agencies, project capital costs for these
modes were obtained using state transportation agency websites, online documentation, and
official phone conversations with agency officials. Table 1 displays example project descriptions
for the Interstate-95 corridor (MC03), their respective modes, and their associated capital costs.
As previously mentioned, cost estimates in practice should contain all life-cycle costs, however
only capital costs were available at the time of the study. Assuming all projects within a corridor
are non-overlapping, the projected multimodal cost of corridor implementation, MMC, is
represented by MMC 
 p
i 1... n j 1... q
ij
, where n and q are the number of projects and modal
improvements, respectively, and pij is the cost of the jth modal improvement for the ith project.
The corridor total cost is the sum of cost estimates across all projects, representing the capital cost
estimation for the entire corridor; the Interstate-95 corridor (MC03) totals approximately $3.5 B
(2005 USD). Note that some cells of the table contain dashes because all projects do not include
modal improvements for all modes. In addition, cells are labeled “TBD” to indicate that cost
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
8
estimates are not yet available for that modal component of a particular project. The final column
on the right contains a note number linking each corridor objective to information such as type of
transportation project, location, and data source for that project, found in Table 2.
Next we obtained cost estimates for highway-only alternatives using VDOT’s twentyyear highway needs assessment. Given future demand predictions, the needs assessment applies
the Highway Capacity Manual (2000) to suggest roadway and interstate improvements for over
30,000 two-mile segments. Each improvement within the assessment includes details such as the
district/jurisdiction(s), estimated mileage, projected capital cost, and originating and terminating
street addresses. For corridors that span only a portion of one or more districts, spatial analysis is
performed to determine all the highway improvements from the needs assessment that are within
the geographic boundaries of each corridor. The costs of all highway improvement projects are
then summed using HOC 
r
j 1... m
j
, where HOC is the highway-only corridor implementation
cost and rj is the cost of the jth project and m is the number of projects in the corridor, to provide a
highway-only capital costs estimate for each corridor.
Finally, the cost-difference between the multimodal and the highway-only estimates are
calculated using Cost Difference = MMC - HOC; a comparison of the multimodal and highwayonly estimates for the Interstate 95 corridor (MC03) is shown in Table 3. Note that to perform
this calculation, it must be plausible that benefits of the multimodal and highway only
implementations are the same. The resulting cost-difference figure can be used to determine
whether the multimodal integration of transportation projects does in fact reduce initial costs as
compared with a strategy focusing on highway renovation and expansion. These cost-difference
figures provide decision-makers insight into which corridors would benefit from multimodal
implementations and which may be better suited for highway-focused investment. If it is
plausible that benefits of the highway-only and multimodal strategies are equivalent, then
approximately $8.36 B in capital costs are saved by implementing a multimodal solution instead
of a highway-only solution in the Interstate-95 corridor (MC03). Note that life-cycle should be
included before meaningful results are inferred from this figure.
Corridor Cost Comparison of DOT (Statewide) vs Regional Long-Range Plans
This sub-section compares state agency with MPO/PDC long-range transportation project cost
estimations in the following three stages: 1) determining what regional plans are available, 2)
mapping projects from the regional plans to each of the eleven statewide corridors, and 3)
comparing the projects projected in the statewide plan for each corridor with those projected by
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
9
the MPO/PDC plans. The purpose of this effort is to uncover discrepancies between state DOT
and regional cost estimates and highlight opportunities for which coordination may be improved.
First, we identified all of the MPO/PDC long-range transportation plans. Virginia has
fifteen MPOs and twenty-one PDCs; while each is considered to be a separate entity, many
regional long-range transportation plans result from multiple MPOs and PDCs working together.
At the time of this study, twelve of the fifteen MPOs had long-range transportation plans (eight
online, four hardcopy) and eight of the twenty-one PDCs had plans available (seven online and
one hardcopy).
Discrepancies among the plans provided significant challenges to such an effort.
Because the state transportation agency and each of the MPOs and PDCs create individual longrange transportation plans, differences in content, financial basis, and format are numerous.
Contents of each plan are variable and non-uniform; some contain a wide variety of transportation
initiatives covering multiple modes, while others focus primarily on roadway projects and
improvements. Some plans were developed as far back as 1997, while others were more recently
published. Cost projections within some plans include a variety of year-of-expenditure (YOE)
dollar projections, while others make no mention of a base-year. One of the few metrics common
to all MPO/PDC transportation project plans was that of capital-cost estimation. Though Virginia
requires that each regional transportation authority include both a ‘programmed’ list of projects
(those that are fiscally-constrained), and a ‘vision’ list of projects (those that are fiscallyunconstrained), seven of the eight PDCs showing online long-range plans included a list of vision
projects, and five of the twelve MPOs included vision plans.
Next, we identified all projects within the MPO and PDC plans that overlapped
geographically with the eleven statewide corridors. These improvements were then entered into a
database of MPO/PDC projects. For example, all Route 460 improvements found within the
MPO/PDC plans were entered into the database and associated with a single ‘corridor objective’
(a logical element used to provide granularity in the reporting and analysis) within the Richmond
to Hampton Roads corridor (MC02). Information such as route number, project name, start and
end point, length, projected average daily traffic (for road improvements), estimated cost (YOE
$), previous funding, remaining balance, corridor, jurisdiction(s), MPO/PDC, and regional plan
name were recorded. In addition, transportation projects were categorized as either
‘programmed’ or ‘vision’ to allow for sensitivity cost analysis when comparing differences
between state agency and MPOs and PDC corridor cost projections; examples of programmed
and vision projects are shown in Table 4 and 5, respectively. MPO/PDC capital-cost estimations
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
10
for each of the corridors were then calculated by summing the costs of all corridor objectives
within each corridor.
Finally, the projected costs of each corridor as determined by the MPO/PDCs were
compared with the corridor costs as determined by the statewide plan; the MPO/PDC
programmed list of projects were kept separate from the vision lists to determine whether
deviations are due to fiscally-constrained or unconstrained projects. The results identify specific
areas where long-range planning estimates differ significantly and reveal those corridors with
similar cost projections between state and regional transportation authorities’ long-range plans.
Summary of Methodology
This section has described 1) the development of cost analysis for comparing multimodal against
highway-only alternatives and 2) the cost-based comparison of state agency and MPO/PDC longrange transportation project cost estimates. The following section shares the results of our
comparisons of the eleven multimodal corridors in Virginia.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Overview
This section provides results and discussion of 1) cost analysis for comparing multimodal with
highway-only alternatives and 2) cost-based comparison of state agency and MPO/PDC longrange transportation project cost estimations.
Cost Comparison of Multimodal with Highway-Only Alternatives
This sub-section provides results and discussion of cost analysis for comparing multimodal
against highway-only alternatives. Projected capital costs have been obtained for multimodal
improvements for five of Virginia’s eleven corridors. Costs for the remaining corridors were
unavailable at the time the study was conducted. A summary of results is shown in Table 6.
With the exception of the Franklin Airport corridor, significant capital cost savings appear to be
made by investing in the multimodal alternatives if benefits levels of the multimodal and
highway-only alternatives are plausibly the same.
During the course of this study several issues became apparent. First, though the
multimodal and highway-only alternatives span equivalent regions defined by the corridors,
comparisons are more appropriate for some corridors than others. Specifically, projects defined
in the statewide plan and roadway improvements found in the needs assessment plan often fulfill
different underlying purposes and have potentially different benefits; completing a multimodal
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
11
project does not necessarily eliminate the need for select highway improvements. Consider the
Port Accessibility and Mobility corridor (MC09); most of the multimodal projects deal with
facilitating regional, national, and international movement of goods and passengers. It is difficult
to justify that these projects will affect local traffic and eliminate the need for highway
improvements. In addition, implementing a multimodal solution within the Interstate-95 corridor
(MC03) might eliminate the need for a large number of primary and interstate projects but would
do little to alleviate local and arterial congestion. Verifying that competing multimodal and
highway-only strategies indeed have similar benefits, however, was out of the scope of this study
and should be investigated in future efforts
Second, limited data at the state level demonstrates differences in performance of
multimodal solutions compared with that of highway-only solutions. In some instances, a
highway-only option may result in increased mobility, decreased congestion, and decreased travel
times. On the other hand, a multimodal solution may serve to increase redundancy of the overall
network, alleviate environmental stresses caused by air and noise pollution, balance
transportation equity, and increase opportunities for implementing travel demand management
strategies. Without further studies in areas other than cost analysis, it will be impossible to
adequately weigh the trade-offs between the two strategies.
Third, modal agencies and MPO/PDCs did not have operations and maintenance costs for
many of the projects. Without this information reliable cost-analysis cannot be undertaken.
Finally, while a highway-only implementation seems unlikely, the twenty-year highway
needs assessment was a particularly unrealistic basis for this strategy. The purpose of the
highway needs assessment was to provide an estimate of the highway lane-miles needed to
accommodate traffic volume projections. It does not provide recommendations as such, nor does
it consider the feasibility of constructing projects to meet the identified highway needs. As a
result, it projects situations unlikely ever to be built, such as a twelve-lane cross-section of
Interstate-95 through Virginia’s capital, Richmond. A more realistic highway-only
implementation will need to be characterized before our analysis can provide meaningful results.
Comparison of State and Regional Cost Estimations
This sub-section provides results and discussion of comparison and integration of state agency
transportation project cost estimations with those of individual MPOs and PDCs. At the time of
this study, seven of the eleven corridors had sufficient data for cost analysis comparing the
MPO/PDC corridor implementations with those of the state DOT. Results of these comparisons
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
12
are shown in Table 7, all costs having been adjusted to 2005 dollars. A cost of $0 means that a
projected cost was not available for a specific initiative.
Beginning with the Franklin Airport corridor (MC05), the State DOT’s long-range plan
estimate for I-73 costs grossly exceeds those from the MPO/PDC long-range plans. Although
this may be because not all MPO/PDCs plans available for analysis, such results indicate that
focused attention on this corridor is required to develop parallel cost-estimates among the stateand regional-level transportation planners.
Further information is needed for the Richmond to Hampton Roads corridor (MC02) as
well. The MPO/PDC long-range plans evaluated do not contain cost projections for the third and
fourth corridor objectives. The expected cost of the Interstate-64 objective is greater from the
state’s perspective than from the region’s perspective, demonstrating a statewide reliance on an
Interstate highway. Conversely, the Route 460 objective has much higher cost estimates at the
regional level, indicating that state transportation planners may need to recognize the importance
of this route to the region and localities.
The cost comparison for the Interstate-95 corridor (MC03) reveals that many of the
corridor objective cost estimates are higher from the state DOT’s perspectives, thus confirming
Interstate-95’s vital role in the entire state’s development, from both transportation and economic
viewpoints. Intuitively, it makes sense that localities and regional transportation authorities may
prefer to include alternate initiatives for other projects in their long-range plans, as the state
would likely pursue improvements to Interstate-95.
When compared with large differences in cost estimates from other corridors, the less
than $200M difference in state and regional estimates for Route 29 is encouraging. Results for
this corridor suggest that large deviations in cost estimation are more likely when considering
statewide, interstate highway objectives. In addition, results for this corridor do not suggest that
regional MPO/PDC cost estimations are always greater for non-interstate roadway initiatives.
There were no roadway initiatives for the Route 29 corridor (MC07) in any of the MPO/PDC
plan fiscally-unconstrained lists. This may be an indicator of its regional importance, as most of
the suggested improvements have been included in the fiscally-constrained list of projects.
The cost projection for the Route 58 corridor (MC04) is greater from the regional
MPO/PDC transportation authority perspective than from that of the state. Considering the
Intermodal Connector objective, however, reveals similar corridor costs (less than $50 M
deviation) from state and regional perspectives.
Unlike many of the other corridors, the Hampton Roads corridor (MC01) contains a large
volume of fiscally-unconstrained projects. The Interstate-664 initiative contains a higher, yet not
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
13
overly ambitious, cost projection from the MPO/PDC regional perspective as compared with that
of the state. Moreover, its inclusion in the fiscally-constrained list of projects symbolizes its
importance to the Hampton Roads region. The Third Crossing, on the other hand, is placed on
the fiscally-unconstrained list. Its cost estimation is once again much higher than that from the
state’s perspective. Similarly, the state does not include the Mid-Town Tunnel objective in its
long-range plans, while the MPO/PDC transportation authority includes it as a fiscallyconstrained initiative.
The state is still studying the Interstate-81 corridor (MC04), and it is difficult to perform
a cost comparison of the projections for this corridor. Interstate-81 will likely be a large
initiative, as it is a state interstate and a primary freight corridor in Virginia. The fiscallyconstrained cost projection from the MPO/PDC regional perspective is quite high, and we might
expect the state projection to be even higher. Because many aviation initiatives are not included
in the MPO/PDC long-range plans, the second corridor objective here (Lexington/Rockbridge
County Airport) contains only a cost estimation from the state perspective.
In general, the state’s cost estimation of interstates consistently exceeds those estimates
of the regional MPOs/PDCs. Because Interstates 95, 64, 73, and 81 are responsible for
maintaining efficient movement of people and goods across large, vital portions of Virginia, it
appears the state expects significant investment in these initiatives. On the other hand, smaller
roadway initiatives that connect adjacent regions seem to be of greater interest to the MPO/PDCs,
highlighting a desire for investments that benefit regions within the state. Recognizing and
confronting these deviations and increasing communication and coordination will bring state and
regional transportation planning organizations nearer to planing and implementing a truly
integrated statewide multimodal transportation system.
CONCLUSIONS
Using eleven multimodal statewide transportation corridors in Virginia, this study has
demonstrated 1) a cost analysis methodology for comparing multimodal against highway-only
alternatives and 2) cost-based comparison of state agency and MPO/PDC long-range
transportation projects.
Several conclusions can be drawn from this study:

An unbiased, modally blind performance metric of cost can be used to compare
investments across transportation modes, however benefits must plausibly be the same
when comparing transportation alternatives using only this metric. It was outside the
scope of this study to make this determination.
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum

14
If benefits are not judged to be equivalent, they must be quantified. In this case, costeffectiveness analysis, which compares life-cycle costs with quantifiable, non-dollar
benefits, or benefit cost analysis, which compares life-cycle costs with dollar-quantifiable
benefits should be used. Transportation planning agencies should work toward the goal
of accurately quantifying benefits, thus enabling the use of cost-effectiveness and costbenefit methods of analyses.

When considering cost estimates as performance metrics, all costs incurred during the
system life-cycle should be included. Although life-cycle costs were not available at the
time of this study, this in itself is an important outcome. Modal agencies and MPO/PDCs
did not have operations and maintenance costs for many projects, and without this
information reliable cost-analysis cannot be undertaken.

Greater cooperation is needed from MPOs/PDCs who do not have a long-range
transportation plans. Those with plans should strive to conform to a single standard in
terms of content, basis, and format. All plans should contain lists of both ‘programmed’
(fiscally-constrained) and ‘vision’ (fiscally-unconstrained) projects.

State cost estimations for interstates tend to be higher than those from the regional plans.
This discrepancy should be investigated further to determine the cause.

Increased coordination between not only state and modal transportation authorities, but
also between the state and regional planning organizations is required to achieve a truly
integrated, multimodal statewide transportation system
The analysis developed in this paper provides transportation decision makers an initial basis on
which to compare alternative multimodal transportation investments. The results suggest a need
for research into practical methods of increasing the accuracy and inclusion of life-cycle costs
into project estimates for transportation and planning agencies. Further research into the
quantification of benefits is necessary to employ more advanced cost methodologies, such as
cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit.analyses. The results suggest a need for research into
increasing cooperation among modal agencies and transportation planning organizations in
developing cost estimates specifically, and long-range transportation plans in general.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research described in this paper was supported in part by the Federal Highway
Administration, the Commonwealth of Virginia Secretary of Transportation, and the Virginia
Transportation Research Council. We appreciate the contributions of the VTrans2025 Technical
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
15
Committee members, including Katherine Graham, Melissa Barlow, Cliff Burnette, Dan Lysy,
Ralph Davis, Dwight Farmer, Marsha Fiol, Robin Grier, Harrison Rue, Jeff Florin, Jim Bradford,
Bill LaBaugh, Ben Mannell, Kenneth Myers, Valerie Pardo, Gus Robey, Rusty Harrington, Scott
Denny, Kim Spence, Mary Lynn Tischer, Alan Tobias, Tom Biesiadny, Camelia Ravanbakht,
Erik Johnson, Kevin Page, Irene Rico, and Ivan Rucker, and in particular, the insights of Mr.
Wayne Ferguson, Mr. Matt Grimes, and Dr. Mike Fontaine of the Virginia Transportation
Research Council. We also thank the anonymous peer reviewers of this study for their valuable
insight and comments.
REFERENCES
Ba-Ali, M. A., Barrett, B. B., Cowden, D. A., Zane, J. T., Pinto, C. A., Peterson, K. D., Lambert,
J. H., Spence, K. P., Lantz, K. E., Miller, J. S., and Ferguson, W. S. (2003). “Analytical
Support for the Statewide Multimodal Long-Range Transportation Plan.” Proc., 2003 IEEE
Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium, IEEE Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics Society, Charlottesville, VA, 183–188.
Berman, W., Smith, M., and Bauer, J. (2004). “Regional concept for transportation operations: a
tool for strengthening and guiding regional transportation operations collaboration and
coordination.” Transportation Research Record, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, DC.
Bishop, E. R., Wornum, C., and Weiss, M. (1997). “Experience of metropolitan planning
organizations with intermodal surface transportation efficiency act financial planning
requirements: interviews and analysis.” Transportation Research Record, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, DC. Paper No. 97-0078.
Brown, J. (2002). “Statewide transportation planning: lessons from California.” Transportation
Quarterly, Spring, p.52.
Burkhardt, J. (2004). “Economic benefits of coordinating human service transportation and
transit services.” Transportation Research Record No. 1887. TRB, National Research
Council, Washington, DC, pp. 55-61.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (1999). “Final Report—Multimodal Transportation: Development of
a Performance-Based Planning Process.” Cambridge, MA.
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
16
Deakin, E., Ferrell, C., Mason, J., and Thomas, J. (2002). “Policies and practices for costeffective transit investments: recent experiences in the United States.” Transportation
Research Record, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Paper No. 02-3248.
Forkenbrock, D., Foster, N., and Crum, M. (1993). “Transportation and Iowa’s Economic
Future.” Public Policy Center, Iowa City, IA.
Frohwein, H. I., Lambert, J. H., Haimes, Y. Y., and Schiff, L. A. (1999). “A multicriteria
framework to aid the comparison of roadway improvement projects.” J. Trans. Eng., 125(3),
224-230.
Giorgi, L. and A. Pearman, 2002. Project and Policy Evaluation in Transport. Ashgate
Publishing, Burlington, VT.
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (2000). Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209,
Washington, DC.
Khasnabis, S., Rudraraju, R. K., and Baig, M. F.(1999). “Economic Evaluation Of Signal
Preemption Projects”. J. Trans. Eng., 125, p 160-167
Korve, M. J., and Niemeier, D. A. (2002). “Benefit-Cost Analysis of Added Bicycle Phase at
Existing Signalized Intersection.” J. Trans. Eng., 128, pp 40-48
Kulkarni, R. B., Miller, D., Ingram R. M., Wong, C., and Lorenz, J. (2004). “Need-Based Project
Prioritization: Alternative to Cost-Benefit Analysis.” J. Trans. Eng., 130, pp 150-158
Latoski, S. P., Pal, R., and Sinha, K. C. (1999). “Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Hoosier
Helper Freeway Service Patrol.” J. Trans. Eng., 125, 429-438
Liddle, B. T. (1997). “Privatization Decision and Civil Engineering Projects.” J. Mgmt. Eng.,
13, p 73
Multimodal Long-Range Transportation Plan, Phase 1. Available online at
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Final%20Phase%201%20Report%20for%20G
eneral%20Assembly%20with%20hb771.pdf [Accessed May 02, 2006].
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) (1997). Performance Measurement
in State Departments of Transportation: Synthesis 238. . National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.
NCHRP (1997). Methods for Capital Programming and Project Selection: Synthesis 243.
National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
17
NCHRP (2000). Multimodal Aspects of Statewide Transportation Planning: Synthesis 286.
National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 2, 6.
NCHRP (2000). Current Practices for Assessing Economic Development Impacts from
Transportation Investments: Synthesis 290. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Ohene, F., and Kaseko, M. (1998). “System selection, benefits, and financial feasibility of
implementing an advanced public transportation system.” In Transportation Research
Record, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Paper No. 98-1202.
Pedersen, N. (2000). “Multimodal transportation planning at the state level, state of the practice
and future issues.” Transportation in the New Millennium. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, pp. 3-4.
Reinke, D. and Malarkey, D. (1996). “Implementing integrated transportation planning in
metropolitan planning organizations: procedural and analytical issues.” Transportation
Research Record, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Paper No. 96-1552.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (1998). Economic Impact Analysis of Transit Investments:
Guidebook for Practitioners. Transportation Research Board, National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C., pp. 5-1, 5-2.
VTrans2025 (2004). Virginia’s Statewide Multimodal Long-Range Transportation Plan: Phase 3
and Final Report to the General Assembly. Office of the Governor of Virginia, Richmond,
Virginia.
Younger, K. and O’Neill, C. (1998). “Making the connection: the transportation improvement
program and the long-range plan.” Transportation Research Record, TRB, National Research
Council, Washington, DC. Paper No. 98-1129.
Zavaterro, D. A., Ward, J. A., and Rice, D. F. (1999). “Analysis of transportation management
strategies for 2020 regional transportation plan.” Transportation Research Record, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, DC. Paper No. 99-1349.
Zemotel, L. M. and Halvorson R. (1999). “Integrating statewide planning and programming: a
principle-based approach.” Transportation Research Record, TRB, National Research
Council, Washington, DC. Paper No. 99-1685.
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
18
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Multimodal Statewide Transportation Planning Process (Source: VTrans2025, 2004) . 19
Figure 2. Virginia multimodal statewide transportation corridors (Source: VTrans2025, 2004) . 20
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
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
19
Devlop Implementation Plan
-Schedule
-Lead Agency
-Source of Funding
Develop Transportation
Systems that have
Regional & State Interests
VPA
VDOT
DOAV
VDRPT
Legend
Review 6-Year Plans for
Eligible System Projects
Agency Actions
IMAT Actions
Figure 1. Multimodal Statewide Transportation Planning Process (Source: VTrans2025, 2004)
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
Hampton Roads Corridor (MC01)
Richmond to Hampton Roads Corridor (MC02)
Interstate 95 Corridor (MC03)
Interstate 81 Corridor (MC04)
Interstate 73 / Franklin Airport Corridor (MC05)
Coalfields Corridor (MC06)
Route 29 Corridor (MC07)
Northern Virginia Corridor (MC08)
Port Accessibility Corridor (MC09)
Virginia Bike and Pedestrian Corridor (MC10)
Emergency Transportation Corridor (MC11)
Figure 2. Virginia statewide multimodal transportation corridors (Source: VTrans2025, 2004)
20
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
21
Tables
Table 1. Capital costs for Interstate-95 corridor (MC03) objectives
Corridor Objectives
1 Implement safety and capacity improvements along I-95
corridor from NC to Washington D.C.
Aviation
Ports
Transit
Rail
Highway
Total
Notes
-
-
-
-
$2.77 B
$2.77 B
Note 5
2 Extend HOV Lanes along I-95 from Fredericksburg to
Dumfries
-
-
-
-
$0.22 B
$0.22 B
Note 6
3 Provide Park and Ride Lots to facilitate ridesharing and
transit throughout the corridor
-
-
TBD
-
-
$0.0 B
Note 1
4 Facilitate Southeast High Speed Passenger Rail service
from NC (Charlotte) to Washington D.C.
-
-
$0.49 B
-
-
$0.49 B
Note 2
5 Upgrade rail lines in corridor to three-track system to
improve freight rail movement where CSX, Amtrak, and VA
Railway Express all share same rails, and to permit
operation of higher speed (90 mph) passenger trains
-
-
TBD
-
-
$0.0 B
Note 3
6 Increase freight rail capacity and speed by improving tracks,
signals, sidings, bridges, clearances, curves, switches, and
grade crossings
-
-
-
TBD
-
$0.0 B
Note 4
7 Implement intelligent transportation systems (including
aviation navigational aid systems) throughout the corridor, as
appropriate
-
-
-
TBD
-
$0.0 B
8 Improve ground transportation access to general aviation
airports
-
-
-
-
TBD
$0.0 B
-
-
TBD
TBD
TBD
$0.0 B
9 Improve access to recreation and tourism resources
Captal Costs
Total Corridor Cost
$0.49 B
$2.99 B
$3.48 B
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
22
Table 2. Notes for Interstate-95 corridor (MC03) capital costs
Note
Mode
1 Transit
2 Transit
3
4
5
Rail
Rail
Highway
6
Highway
Route
I - 95
I - 95
HOV
a
Indicates new roadway
District/Jurisdiction
Charlotte, NC
to Washington, DC
NC to DC
Fredericksburg to
Dumfries
Justification
VA State Rail Plan
Page SR-25/26
Miles
366
2025 State Highway Plan - Interstate System
ID #s 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 90a
88.82
2025 State Highway Plan - Interstate System
ID #s 74, 76, 84
26.91
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
23
Table 3. Capital cost comparision of highway-only and multimodal implementations for the Interstate 95
corridor (MC03)
District
I-95
I-95
I-95 Total
Route No.
Highway Only
Length (Miles)
Cost ($M)
95
177.5
4,842
$4,842
395
1, 27, 50, 66, 110, 237,
309, 395, 9612
6.3
28.4
168
572
1, 7, 28, 29, 50, 66, 123,
193, 228, 235, 236, 241,
243, 309, 395, 495
1
141.0
2,420
1.4
18
$3,178
1, 3, 17, 218
1, 2, 3, 17, 208, 522
2, 17, 30, 207, 301
17.6
51.4
40.2
132
248
145
$525
30, 33, 54, 15, 271, 301,
360
49.1
215
Henrico
1, 5, 6, 33, 60, 64, 147,
150, 156, 157, 250, 271,
295, 301
87.3
1,395
Chesterfield
10, 36, 60, 76, 145, 147,
150, 288, 295, 360
68.7
1,095
1, 46, 58, 137
46.1
135
$2,840
31, 40, 139, 301
26.2
110
$110
NOVA
Alexandria
Arlington
Fairfax
Dumfries
NOVA Total
Fredericksburg
Stafford
Spotsylvania
Caroline
Fredericksburg Total
Richmond
Hanover
Brunswick
Richmond Total
Hampton
Sussex
Hampton Total
Grand Total
$11,495
Multimodal
Cost ($M)
Difference ($M)
$3,476
$8,019
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
24
Table 4. Fiscally-constrained objectives within the MPO/PDC long-range plans
Route
664
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
73
64
64
64
64
64
64
Name
Route 460 Business
Route 460
Route 460
Route 460
Route 460
Route 460 Business
Route 460
Route 460
Route 460
Roanoke County - 460
Route 460
Route 460
US 460
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95 HOV
Interstate 95 HOV
Interstate 95 HOV
Interstate 95 HOV
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 81
Interstate 81
Interstate 73
Interstate 64
Interstate 64
Interstate 64
Interstate 64
Interstate 64
Interstate 64
From
Route 660
Route 460
Odd Fellows Rd Ext. Interchange
Route 126
Route 501 (Campbell Ave)
Odd Fellows Rd Ext. Interchange
Memorial Avenue
Route 501 (Campbell Ave)
Route 311
Parkdale Dr
Roanoke CL
0.20 mi S I-295
4.59 mi S I-295
Bowers Hill
Rt 630 Interchange
Rt 627 Interchange
Rt 627 Interchange
Rt 627 Interchange
Spotsy Pkwy Interchange
N/A
1.1 mi S
James River and Broad St Bridge
Atlee-Elmont Interchange
Lewistown Rd Interchange
Belvedere St Interchange
Various bridges
Duval St Interchange
Maury St Interchange
Patrick Henry Rd Interchange
Kings Dominion Interchange
Lewistown Rd Interchange
Asland HOV
Rt 10 Southside HOV
Chippenham Southside HOV
NB ramp at Temple Ave
Woods Edge Rd Interchange
TN State Line
North River
Rt 17/50 Interchange
Rt 7 Interchange
Rt 37 N Interchange
Rt 37 S
0.5 mi S Rt 277
Rt 7
Rt 17/50
Rt 277 Interchange
Rt 37 S Interchange
Rt 11 N Interchange
Rt 11 N
West SAB
South SAB
VA 288, Bridges & Loops at 250
Oilville Rest Area
VA 288
VA 288
0.7 mi W Airport Dr
Bridge over Acca Yards
To
Route 761
Lynchburg Corporate Limit
Rt 752
Rt 29 Bypass N
12th St
Rt 29 Bypass N
Parkdale Dr
Rt 419
Botetourt CL
4.59 mi S I-295
Study Area Boundary
Southampton Co. CL
Rt 630 Interchange
3rd St
Cordon Line East
Rt 724 (N Cordon Line)
Rt 17/50
Rt 37 S
Rt 11 N
Rt 7
0.5 mi N Rt 37 N
East SAB
Elm / Interstate 581
Henrico CL
1.6 mi W Ashland Rd
0.6 mi E I-295
-
Length
1.25
3.40
n/a
2.00
2.40
n/a
1.00
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
4.39
2.24
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.20
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
13.09
3.43
3.50
2.31
1.94
1.50
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
ADT
1,000
51,400
n/a
27,700
53,000
n/a
21,400
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
64,800
91,200
93,600
98,900
63,700
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Estimated
Cost ($Ks)
$
500
$ 21,521
$ 18,545
$ 12,660
$ 11,079
$ 1,111
$
611
$
278
$ 9,505
$ 8,099
$ 11,850
$ 17,138
$ 8,801
$ 642,000
$ 92,000
$ 10,600
$ 19,000
$ 36,000
$ 2,000
$ 8,000
$ 2,461
$ 59,235
$ 76,552
$ 2,200
$ 5,000
$ 58,665
$ 5,500
$ 10,000
$ 13,663
$ 13,858
$ 14,383
$ 1,200
$ 5,500
$ 5,500
$ 5,500
$ 3,762
$ 35,520
$ 120,000
$ 55,420
$ 33,536
$ 33,536
$ 27,945
$ 24,593
$ 24,257
$ 16,544
$ 13,861
$ 11,179
$ 11,179
$ 11,179
$ 9,949
$ 44,280
$ 12,146
$ 46,433
$ 2,900
$ 4,500
$ 4,500
$ 60,497
$ 22,897
Previous
Funding
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 5,749
$ 7,342
$
$
$
$ 642,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
962
$ 56,659
$ 51,700
$ 1,400
$
$ 1,305
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3,199
$ 34,338
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 41,749
$
$
$
$ 3,688
$ 19,844
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
25
Table 5. Fiscally-unconstrained objectives within the MPO/PDC long-range plans
Route
29
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
73
81
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
460
460
460
460
-
Name
Emmet St
Interstate 64 Interchanges
Interstate 64 (Easter Segment)
Interstate 64 (Western Segment)
Interstate 64
Interstate 64
Interstate 64 Peninsula
Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel
Interstate 64
Interstate 64 (Norfolk)
Interstate 64
Interstate 73
Interstate 81
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Route 460
Route 460
Country Drive
Route 460 Alt
Hampton Roads Third Crossing
Midtown Tunnel
Hampton Roads Third Crossing
Midtown Tunnel
From
To
Length
ADT
Ivy Road
Rt 250
Bland Blvd
Rt 199
Norview Ave Intechange
Interstate 264
Rt 199
Interstate 564
Interstate 564
Interstate 564
Norview Ave Intechange
Interstate 581
Stafford/PW CL
Rt 610
Rt 627
Caroline/Spotsy CL
Rt 3
Rt 630
Rt 17
n/a
Ramp at Temple Ave
Rives Rd Interchange
Isle of Wight
Roanoke County CL
Hickory Hill Rd
Rt 226
Southside
Brambleton Ave
Hampton Coliseum
Norfolk
Arlington Blvd
Fontaine Ave
Rt 199
New Kent
Interstate 464
New Kent
Interstate 664
Mallory St
VB CL
South SAB
Rt 610
Rt 627
Rt 3
Rt 3
Rt 630
PW CL
n/a
n/a
Southampton CL
East SAP
Rt 106
Rt 460
Peninsula
Interstate 264
Interstate 64
Portsmouth
8.22
18.90
12.40
3.68
8.39
5.00
8.30
6.00
12.40
10.90
8.00
2.16
30.00
1.02
-
Estimated Previous Remaining
Cost ($Ks) Funding
Balance
$
$
$
556 $
$
556
$
557 $
$
557
$
63 $
$
63
$
1,080 $
$
1,080
$
557 $
$
557
$
2,700 $
$
2,700
$
480 $
$
480
$
2,700 $
$
2,700
$
63 $
$
63
$ 55,000 $
$
$ 10,505 $
$ 10,505
$ 21,010 $
$ 21,010
$ 10,505 $
$ 10,505
$ 21,010 $
$ 21,010
$ 10,505 $
$ 10,505
$ 21,010 $
$ 21,010
$ 10,505 $
$ 10,505
$ 21,010 $
$ 21,010
$
3,762 $
$
3,762
$ 30,000 $
$ 30,000
$
642 $
$
642
$ 34,295 $
$ 34,295
$ 21,604 $
$ 21,604
$
$
4,484 $
$
4,484
$
686 $
$
686
$
4,484 $
$
4,484
$
466 $
$
466
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
26
Table 6. Summary of corridor cost estimates and comparisons
Corridor
Nova Connections
Route 29
Franklin Airport
Interstate 95
Hampton Roads
a
2005 USD, ($M)
Highway Onlya
$5,700
$3,400
$900
$11,840
$4,370
Multimodala
$1,890
$630
$1,160
$3,476
$3,920
Cost Savingsa
$3,810
$2,770
($260)
$8,360
$450
TE/2006/023520 – Lambert, Wadie, Linthicum
27
Table 7. Summary of State and MPO/PDC cost estimates
Corridor
Objective
State
Estimatea
Programmeda
MPO/PDC
Visiona
Totala
Franklin Airport
Interstate 73
Franklin Airport
1,140
16
1,156
12
0
55
0
67
0
67
1,700
317
324
8,130
10,471
977
763
0
0
9
57
0
0
986
820
0
0
1,806
2,770
215
486
3,471
469
18
0
160
0
0
629
18
0
647
Route 29
628
628
427
0
427
427
Route 58
Intermodal Connector
51
113
164
204
0
0
0
204
0
204
2
2
0
4
6
0
0
0
9
1
6
9
1
16
437,000
0
0
0
437,000
0
437,000
Franklin Airport Total
Richmond/Hampton Roads
Interstate 64
US-460
Passenger Rail Tier 1
Jamestown 2007
Richmond/Hampton Roads Total
Interstate 95
Interstate 95
Interstate 95 HOV
SE High Speed Rail
Interstate 95 Total
Route 29
Route 29 Total
Port Accessibility
Port Accessibility Total
Hampton Roads
Interstate 664
Third Crossing
Mid-Town Tunnel
Hampton Roads Total
Interstate 81
Interstate 81
Lexington Airport
Interstate 81 Total
a
2005 USD, $M
Under Study
16
16