SB 5749-S.3E - DIGEST

(AS OF SENATE 2ND READING 1/16/02)

     Adopts cost-benefit analysis for transportation planning.

     Declares that the preservation program consists of those investments necessary to preserve the existing state highway system and to restore existing safety features, giving consideration to lowest life cycle costing.  The preservation program must require use of the most cost-effective pavement surfaces, considering:

     (1) Life-cycle cost analysis;

     (2) Traffic volume;

     (3) Subgrade soil conditions;

     (4) Environmental and weather conditions;

     (5) Materials available; and

     (6) Construction factors.

     Requires the commission to develop and use transportation demand modeling tools to evaluate investments based on the best mode or improvement, or mix of modes and improvements, to meet current and future long-term demand within a corridor or system for the lowest cost.  The end result of these demand modeling tools is to provide a cost-benefit analysis by which the commission can determine the relative mobility improvement and congestion relief each mode or improvement under consideration will provide and the relative investment each mode or improvement under consideration will need to achieve that relief.

     Requires the department to conduct multimodal corridor analyses on major congested corridors where needed improvements are likely to cost in excess of one hundred million dollars.  Analysis will include the cost-effectiveness of all feasible strategies in addressing congestion or improving mobility within the corridor, and must recommend the most effective strategy or mix of strategies to address identified deficiencies.

     Requires a long-term view of corridors to be employed to determine whether an existing corridor should be expanded, a city or county road should become a state route, and whether a new corridor is needed to alleviate congestion and enhance mobility based on travel demand.  To the extent practicable, full costs of all strategies must be reflected in the analysis.  At a minimum, this analysis must include:  (1) The current and projected future demand for total person trips on that corridor;

     (2) The impact of making no improvements to that corridor;

     (3) The daily cost per added person served for each mode or improvement proposed to meet demand;

     (4) The cost per hour of travel time saved per day for each mode or improvement proposed to meet demand; and

     (5) How much of the current and anticipated future demand will be met and left unmet for each mode or improvement proposed to meet demand.

     Declares that the end result of this analysis will be to provide a cost-benefit analysis by which policymakers can determine the most cost-effective improvement or mode, or mix of improvements and modes, for increasing mobility and reducing congestion.