Transportation Commission webinar reviews SB 1 performance metrics, CalVC model and benefit‑cost practices

The Transportation Commission hosted a webinar on measuring transportation impacts that focused on performance metrics required for competitive SB 1 (Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017) programs and how agencies can use the CalVC (California benefit‑cost) model and other methods to quantify project benefits. Matthew Ascott, deputy director for SB 1 programming at the Transportation Commission, framed the session by saying “a performance metric is a quantifiable or qualitative outcome or benefit of a transportation project.”

Why it matters: SB 1 funds are competitive and the commission uses reported metrics to evaluate how projects meet statutory program objectives such as improved air quality, travel time savings and goods‑movement benefits. The commission also integrates reported metrics into baseline agreements that are publicly available and used to hold projects accountable for expected outcomes.

Commission staff described the SB 1 suite and the role of metrics. Ascott summarized the three competitive SB 1 programs — the Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (freight focused), the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (multimodal congestion relief) and the Local Partnership Program (for agencies with voter‑approved, transportation‑dedicated local revenues) — and said the performance‑metrics guidebook was created to help applicants with tools and methodologies. He told attendees the guidebook was developed with Caltrans and partner agencies, finalized in January 2022, and embedded in SB 1 program guidelines as a reference for both quantitative and qualitative metrics.

Caltrans overview and the CalVC/CalBC model. Hannah Walter, deputy division chief in Caltrans’ Division of Transportation Planning, explained which quantitative metrics SB 1 requires for all three programs (examples: travel time savings, safety, air‑quality emissions, jobs created, benefit‑cost ratio) and which metrics apply only to some programs (for example, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is required for Solutions for Congested Corridors and the Local Partnership competitive program; truck volume and velocity metrics are specific to the trade corridor program). Walter said the CalVC tool can generate several SB 1 metrics — including travel time savings, safety monetization, VMT (when a user supplies induced‑demand inputs), emissions and a benefit‑cost ratio — and described the model as “the California benefit cost model.”

Walter described the CalVC model as an Excel‑based economic tool with multiple versions (sketch and freight‑specific variants) that is free and widely used by districts, regional agencies and consultants. She noted outputs are reported over an operational period (year 1 and a 20‑year horizon), the model converts travel‑time and emissions changes into monetary benefits, and that Caltrans is working to make the tool more user friendly (adding an SB 1 output tab, expanding emissions and jobs detail, and improving instructions). Walter also emphasized that projects on the state highway system or with direct impacts to it must follow Caltrans requirements.

Practitioners’ perspective on benefit‑cost and context. Mike Wallace, forecasting practice leader at Ferris & Peters, urged applicants and reviewers to look beyond a single benefit‑cost ratio and to account for secondary and place‑based benefits that standard tools may not capture. “Benefit cost analysis helps us make informed decisions about how to invest our limited transportation funds,” Wallace said, adding that monetizing impacts (time savings, crashes avoided, emissions reductions, operating cost changes and health effects) is valuable but that models are only part of a larger analysis that requires careful project‑level context, scenario testing and community engagement.

Wallace recommended that analysts document the full chain of effects — primary, secondary and tertiary benefits — avoid double counting, and conduct sensitivity or scenario analysis so projects are robust to uncertain futures (changes in travel behavior, demographics, funding or regulations). He also emphasized that qualitative factors such as public engagement and equitable access should accompany monetized metrics when informing funding decisions.

Questions from commissioners and public engagement. Commissioners asked whether the suite of tools is practical for smaller agencies and whether training and clearer guidance exist. Wallace and Walter acknowledged a learning curve: CalVC is free and widely used, but documentation is long and some users need training; the commission’s performance metrics guidebook and Caltrans’ public engagement portal and equity tools are intended to help smaller agencies meet metric reporting and engagement expectations.

Program and accountability notes. Commission staff reminded attendees that SB 1 accountability and transparency guidelines require baseline agreements that memorialize the performance metrics reported at application and are available to the public after funding decisions. Ascott said the guidebook does not mandate a single model or methodology; applicants may use different methods but should justify why chosen tools fit their project context.

Looking ahead. Presenters described ongoing updates to tools (CalVC improvements, expanded outputs for SB 1 reporting) and encouraged jurisdictions to pair quantitative analysis with clear public‑facing explanations of who benefits, potential trade‑offs and how results were derived. Practitioners urged scenario testing and early community engagement so projects remain relevant as conditions change.

The webinar closed with staff noting the measuring transportation impacts series covered travel demand models, VMT tools for CEQA, and the current session on project‑level performance metrics. No formal votes or policy changes were taken during the webinar.