Stephen Fitzroy
Glen Weisbrod
Naomi Stein
Economic Development Research Group, Inc. USA
www.edrgroup.com
International Transportation Forum Round Table
Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions
Paris, September 2014

1

Rural Interstate Highways – 1979 Developed concept of comparison areas

US GAO and US FHWA– 1991/1996
 Based on prior GAO guidance (1991)
 US FHWA Delta Region Report - 1995
 US GAO Impact of Economic Development Agencies – 1996

US Appalachian Regional Commission – 2000/2007
 Using GAO Guidance for transportation and non-transportation
investments (200 cases)

US Federal Highway Administration – 2002/2005
 Conducted studies of twelve 4-lane highway projects
 Using FHWA guidance on ex post highway assessment (2001)

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 20142

Do Forecasts of Economic Development MatchPerformance?

Do Investments Support Policy Initiatives?

Can Project Design Be Improved?
US experience is grounded in demonstrating how pastoutcomes support current decision-making. They have focusedon the economic development impacts of some of the more
controversial types of highway investments (bypasses andinterchanges).

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 20143

Pre-Implementation
Post-Implementation
Improve Decision Process
Expectation
Documentation
Formal Progressionof Decisions & Plans:• Public Policy Development• Vision & Strategic Plans• Project Prioritization• Alternatives Analysis & EIS• Implementation• Asset Management

www.edrgroup.com/pdf/Planning-Oct2013-EconomicImpactTools-pp39-42.pdf
Graphic © Economic Development Research Group, 2012

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 20144

Authorized by US Congress in 2005
 Recognized need for applied Ex Post methods and analysis ofmajor highway investment projects



Key Objectives of TPICS Development Program Determine the changes in the economic systems impacted bytransportation capacity investment
 Provide data and results from case-based analysis to demonstrate
impacts of a proposed project Demonstrate how this fits into collaborative decision making forcapacity expansion

Part of a Broader Program on Collaborative Decisionmaking Under SHRP2 Capacity Program

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 20145

Database of 100 Case Studies
 Designed for “early-stage” planning and developing grounded
concepts for highway investment strategies
 Provides Internet-based interactive case study selection and review
 Identifies both transportation and non-transportation factors
influencing economic development associated with project impacts

Links to Background Studies and Information
 Technical papers provide background on TPICS development andmethodologies

User Guides and Handbooks on Using Case-BasedEx Post Analysis
 Guidance provided for users to show how use TPICS and interpretcases provided in database

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 2014

6Information Provided for Each of Current 100 Cases
 Case Characteristics – A review of the selection parameterschosen for the case, including its location and cost
 Setting – A summary of the demographic and economic conditions
at the time the project was developed Pre/Post Conditions – Measures of economic activity prior toproject inception and subsequent to construction
 Narrative – Description of the case, findings, conditions andcharacteristics that comprise the body of the case study Economic Impacts – Estimates, based on development of eachcase, describing the observed effects of the project on jobs, incomeand output
 Images – Google Maps® of project location with street-view
perspectives on the location, milieu, and current street-level views

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 20147Local Data from Interviews
 Land use regulations, use of business incentives; presence and useof support programs for economic development, other local factors
enhancing or reducing observed economic changes.

Project Motivation
 Congestion reduction or access enhancement;

Establish Baseline for Counterfactural Scenario
 Pre-construction conditions based on documentation
 Available documentation available for each caseStandardization of Case Development Process Initial design based on literature reviews and experience Pre-tested methods using pilot cases Refined and adapted methods based on pilots
 Instituted oversight of team-based case development process

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 20148

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 2014

9

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 201410

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 201411

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 201412

Economic Development
 Employment
 Income OutputPhysical Development
 Land use Buildings and other non-transportation structures
 Non-transportation infrastructureCommunity Development Mix of activities
 Quality of life Wider economic benefits

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 201413

Recognizes Key “Purpose and Need” Elements Driving
Project Design and Development
 Establishes a set of conditions by which outcomes can be “tested”

Defines Non-Traditional Evaluation Measures Compiling a series of motivational data for multiple projects
provides an underlying pattern for guiding analysis

Provides Linkages for Usability of Case by Practitioners
 Planning and prioritization often depend on more than“project type” for establishing mix of projects
 Multiple cases selected based on motivation can provide
important insights into potential range of outcomes Illustrative abilities of project selected based on motivation canprovide useful examples for policy-makers and general public

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 201414

Clear social impact but less demonstrable productivityeffect Projects Addressing Social, Environment, Safety Factors,
and Personal Travel



Gains from traditional user (traveler) benefit
 Projects that reduce Time Cost for Business-Related Travel: speed, vehicle capacity, frequency, dwell timeProductivity gain from wider economic benefits Enhance Reliability for Business-Related Travel:
 congested bottlenecks, product inventory & delivery processes Enhance Accessibility for Business-Related Travel: labor market, material supplier market, customer market
 routes between clusters or communities in a region

 Enhance Intermodal Connectivity for Business-Related Travel: ground access to, or service at, intermodal terminals
ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 201415

Project Type
Industrial Access Road
Beltway
BridgeBypassConnector
InterchangeIntermodal Freight TerminalIntermodal Passenger Terminal
Major Highway (Limited Access Road)WideningTotal

Metro Mixed Rural Total
25788433104181342281021261310995914432956
2123100

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 201416

Number of Cases in TPICS Database
Full
Number ofSome
Quantitative Cases in
Quantitative
Data in
TPICS
Impact Data
DatasetDatabase
Employment
100
100
Income***Business Value Added or GDP***
Building Development (Sq. Ft.)
383674
Direct Private Investment ($)
273057
Property Values
30
636
Property Tax Revenue
36
1450
Measure of Impact* Measures that were calculated (in the database) from employment change ratios

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 201417

Motivation for Projects

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 201418

Policy Factors

FactorEffective Synergies

Infrastructure (sewer, water,broadband, transit, etc.) – positive

33

Land Use Management – positive

45

Financial Incentives/ BusinessClimate – positive

47

Financial Incentives/ BusinessClimate – negative

5

Infrastructure (sewer, water, broad
band, transit, etc.) – negative

10

Land Use Management – negative

6

Lack of EffectiveSynergies

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 2014

NumberReported19

15 Projects Resulted in Zero or Negative Impacts onEmployment
 Primarily traffic management projects
 Project types included:
 Bridges
 Bypasses
 Connectors
 Interchanges
 Intermodal TerminalsSame 15 Projects Produced Other Economic Effects
 Increased business sales
 Growth in per capita income Increased property values

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 201420



Physical Scale of Transportation Project National programs/project of national significance Inter-metropolitan connections
 Metropolitan capacity and reliability improvements
 Local land access

Behavioral Effects Tied to Economic Activity
 Efficiency of routing/tours
 Response to congestion reduction/reliability improvements
 Market access Intermodal connectivity

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 201421

Measure of ImpactMinMax*MedianMean

Employment (Jobs)-48

50,505

1,290

5,782

Income ($ millions)$0$2,332

$53

$267

Business Output ($ millions)$0$8,830

$142

$840

Building Development (thousand sq.ft.)

4.2

50,000

1,003-

Direct Private Investment (in $ millions)$3.0$6,300$300-

Property Values (in $ millions)

$0.15

$85

$16.0

-

Property Tax Revenue (in $millions)

$0.12

$55

$2.1

-

http://edrgroup.com/attachments/article/372/Local-Economic-Impacts-of-Highway-Projects.pdf
ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 201422

Non-Transportation Factors

Incidence

PositiveLocal
Factors

Available Infrastructure (sewer, water, telecom)

33%

Land Use Management

45%

Financial Incentives/ Business Climate

46%

Negative
Local
Factors

Lack of Infrastructure (sewer, water, telecom)

10%Lack of Land Use Management

6%

Lack of Financial Incentives/ Neg. Business Climate

5%

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 201423



Evaluating projects built several years ago

Isolating project impacts from impacts resulting fromother factors

Estimating project impacts in long corridors, freightprojects and transit projectsIsolating project impacts in large metropolitan areasEstablishing a time frame for impact analysis

Finding knowledgeable people to interview

Reconciling conflicting information

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 201424

Methodological Approach Designed to address known issues with ex post evaluation
 Accounted for computational and comparative adjustments inobserved and computed information
 Accessed ex ante information and analysis

Consistency
 For a comparative database and multi-case profile development,
methods must support comparative requirements

Counterfactual Scenario
 Designed to address motivation (e.g., connectivity, performance, orcongestion)
 Requires tools, models and methods to address post-project
conditions without project implementation

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 201425

Properly Identifying Pre- and Post- Conditions
 Establishing baseline conditions
 Sorting out project versus non-project effects
 Establishing time-frame for when project effects occur
 Designing counterfactual (base case) evaluation

Structuring and Conducting Interviews
 Perspectives of interviewees Identify type and timing of changes
 Establish other potential causal factors



Field Investigations and Field Data
 Land development and property assessments
 Travel patterns and other infrastructure development
 Observe use of faculties and interactions with other development

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 201426



Distinguish project impacts from impacts due to othercauses Included identifying supporting public policies, other investments
and market shiftsMeasure impacts over a long time period Full impact timing varied by project type and local conditions



Identify impacts associated with expansion or retention ofexisting businesses Identify “net” new jobs and their effects on economy at multiplelevels

Reconcile conflicting results from interviews and data
sources

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 201427



Provides well-grounded reference examples for planners
and decision-makers

Shows importance of interactions with non-transportation
investments

Balances predictive modeling results with empiricallyderived impact evaluation

Provides Resource for Initial Planning Processes Not
Otherwise Available

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 201428



Systematic expansion of cases Need more robust coverage of project types and underlyingconditions

Development of Pre-Construction Data Traffic data and conditions
 Control for external business cycles
 Establishing appropriate reference areas and data filtering Integrating and sorting out contradictions in interview results andhistorical data

Identification of Scale Effects and Impact Timing
 Establish the full spatial range of project influence Identify the temporal progression of economic impacts

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 201429



TPICS – Implementation
 Pilot Studies
 Courses in case study development
 Implementation process



TIGER
 Monitoring grant agreements
 Currently over 270 awards
 Another 45 announced during week of 8 September 2014

 Planning for long-term performance

Other Initiatives
 APTA transit case studies (pilot)
 FHWA exploration of wider economic benefits

ITF – Ex-post assessments of transport investments and policy interventions, September 201430