State Transportation Gov Report - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

11 1 1 1 ~ ~ 11 1 ~ I ~ 1 planning in terms of economic efficiency hide technologies; current and desired while integrating environmental consid- future land uses; environmental goals erations into the planning process with and limitations; and the network as- greatertransparency, to better support pect of the system (recognizing that the informed decision-making and account- value of any one segment of a transpor- ability. However, application of least tation mode is dependent on the avail- cost planning needs to be structured ability and quality of other segments; a by the defining characteristics of the related issue is that there must be some transportation sector. In transportation, understanding of the inter-relationships this approach would allow, for example, among modes: aviation, transit, rail, evaluation of alternatives that increase highway, bike, etc). Finally, the scenari- capacity while also evaluating alterna- os must take into account the availabil- tives that reduce congestion. In addition ity of funding and the cost of achieving to evaluating no-build alternatives, least certain outcomes. Environmental costs cost planning also allows for objective that cannot be monetized or quantified consideration of other important policy are still explicitly weighed in developing goals such as reducing carbon output, scenarios. For example, the scenarios addressing climate change, supporting could encompass the full range and economic viability, and enhancing sys- needs of the MPO or local government, tem reliability. rather than focusing on any specific project; but specific projects would need There are fundamental differences be- to be consistent with the proposed sce- tween transportation planning and elec- narios. If the scenario operates under tric utility planning. With transportation, a greenhouse gas reduction constraint, the focus is primarily on movement, that constraint would function as a limit- but interaction with vehicles, fuels, and ing factor in scenario design (as mini- facility use is essential. Both applications mum safety requirements might, for rely on comparing scenarios that seek example). to optimize for achieving multiple val- ues rather than any single value, while There are aspects of least cost planning minimizing risks. An important lesson that exist in the current planning pro- from the utilities is that there does not cesses at both the state and local levels. appear to be one best way to do least The application of this concept to the cost planning. Rather, it is important to provision of transportation services is broaden the range of options considered now strongly supported by the Oregon to achieve transportation objectives Transportation Plan and the Oregon and to generate information on the cost Highway Plan. The Oregon Transporta- and effectiveness of various alternative tion Plan also endorses the cost-minimi- investmentand operations scenarios in zation and cost-effectiveness principles. transportation. However, additional work is needed in developing a least cost planning model In least cost planning, different resource and using it as a decision making tool in ~I and delivery system scenarios (not indi- the selection and development of plans victual projects) are developed, assessed and projects, as well as making it acces- forcosts, and compared. The develop- sible and available for MPO-level plan- ~ ment of options or scenarios would need Wing. to encompass modal choices, geograph- icareas and the relevant planning ho- Create a Transportation rizon. Additional considerations include Utility Commission. the quality of transportation service; the The current governance structure for costs and availabilities of fuels and ve- transportation often presents challenges 3