Upload
rpo-america
View
283
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Alpesh Patel, of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and Bjorn Hansen, of the Centralina Council of Governments, at the 2012 National Rural Transportation Conference.
Citation preview
Our Prioritization StoryNorth Carolina`s Perspective
Alpesh Patel, North Carolina Department of TransportationBjorn Hansen, Lake Norman Rural Planning Organization
April 26, 2012 - NADO Conference, Burlington, VT
Today’s Outline
Best way to communicate complex information is through a STORY
• Focus on a single theme -
• Well developed plot -
• Word pictures/visual aids -
• Faithful to source -
transformation
smoke filled room vs. sunshine
or as engineers/planners say…a graph!
Same data, informed results; “eyewitness” account
Public wanted politics removed from transportation decision-making
Governor Purdue issued Executive Order #2“The Secretary of the Department of Transportation shall implement throughout the Department a professional approval process for all highway construction programs, highway construction contracts, highway construction projects, and plans for the construction of projects.”
Strategic Planning Office created (3 founding members)
Implemented NCDOT’s first strategic prioritization process in 2009
Completed Prioritization 2.0 (P2.0); started P3.0
Transportation Reform
Responsible for 6 modes of transportation:• Aviation (74 publicly-owned airports)• Bicycle and Pedestrian• Ferries – 2nd largest system in US (behind Washington)• Highways – Maintains 80,000 miles of highways (2nd only to Texas)• Public Transportation• Rail
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Map shows MPOs, RPOs, and Divisions
Key Partners• 17 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)• 20 Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs)• 14 Field Offices (Divisions)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Map illustrates MPOS, RPOs, and NCDOT Divisions (black outline)
How it All Fits Together: NCDOT Policy to Projects
Strategic Prioritization
Strategic Prioritization and Programming Process
1. Score
Prioritize Projects using
• Data
• Local Input
• Multimodal Characteristics
• Classify ranked Projects into Buckets (Mode, Goal, Tier)
2. Strategize
Set Investment Strategy
• Conduct Scenario/Trade-off Analysis with DOT & Partners
• Constrained only by Total Available Revenue
3. Schedule
Program Projects
• Develop STIP using Project Rankings & Investment Strategy
• Apply Constraints
• Compare Selected Strategy vs. Applied Constraints
Project Classification – P2.0Projects classified/scored by NCDOT Goal• Mobility – make our transportation network move people and goods more efficiently• Safety – make our transportation network safer• Infrastructure Health – make our transportation infrastructure last longer
Projects classified/scored by NCDOT Tier• Statewide – Interstates, Major US Routes, Commercial Service Airports, CSX, NS • Regional – commuter routes, regional transit systems• Subregional – low volume secondary roads (80% of NC system), fixed bus route
systems
QUANTITATIVE LOCAL INPUT
Tier Data Division Rank MPO/RPO Rank
Statewide 70% 20% 10%
Regional 50% 25% 25%
Subregional 30% 30% 40%
P2.0 - Scoring Highway Projects
Each MPO/RPO & Division receives equal # of points 1,300
Can choose between Top 25 project ranking or Control Total
Local Input
Top 25 Control Total
#1 = 100#2 = 96#3 = 92…#25 = 4
Can rank projects as desiredMax 100 pts per projectMin 4 pts per project
Can transfer points to other areas*
OR
* Must be agreement between giving and receiving organizations
Multimodal Bonus Points for Highway Projects
Multimodal Options 8 points:HOV / HOT, light rail, bus rapid transit, or bus-on-shoulder within highway ROW
Multimodal Connections 5 points:Direct connection (property line) to a transportation terminal (airport, seaport, rail depot, ferry terminal, transit terminal, freight intermodal terminal, or park and ride lot)
Military Base Connections 5 points:Direct connection (property line) to a major military base.
Multimodal Design Features 3 points:Sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, striped bicycle lanes, wide outside shoulders (greater than or equal to two feet), bus pullouts, transit bypass lanes, transit signal prioritization, bus shelters
Note: Multimodal Projects must be ranked and must be included in an adopted Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Long Range Transportation Plan, or a mode-specific plan to receive pts.
Same scoring for Bicycle or Pedestrian Projects
Bicycle and Pedestrian - Scoring
Right-of-Way
Acquired
Connectivity
Inclusion in Adopted
PlanDemand / Density
Crashes
MPO/RPO Ranking
18 pts max.
15 pts max. Direct access to transit / school / CBD / high-density residential or linkage to a large system of interconnected bicycle / multiuse facilities
15 pts max. Recognition of a project in an adopted bicycle / pedestrian plan
12 pts max. Greater densities = higher points
5 pts max. Three of more bicycle/vehicle or pedestrian/vehicle crashes within last 5 years
35 pts max. Rank Top 5 Projects:
#1 = 35 pts#2 = 28 pts#3 = 21 pts#4 = 14 pts#5 = 7 pts
Expansion – 25 points max. # of new services hours provided due to capital investment
Connections – 12 points max. # of new synchronized connections (to other modes or other transit services)
Technology/Safety – 16 points max. Surveillance cameras, security measures, real time info on bus arrival time
Age of Fleet – 27 points max. Ability of the project to reduce the age of the fleet
Improved Facilities – 20 point max. Ability of project to extend life and service space
Local Input (MPO only Ranking) – 550 points/area; max 100 points per project.
Public Transportation - Scoring
Generated scores and ranked almost 2000 projects• 1200 Highway projects• 600 Bicycle & Pedestrian projects• 100 Public Transportation projects
Incorporated new performance-based criteria for highway projects
Increased flexibility of local input with use of 1300 control points
Launched new web portal devoted to continuous conversation with planning partners (Partner Connect)
Results at
Prioritization 2.0 Accomplishments
http://www.ncdot.org/performance/reform/prioritization/
Highways• Approx. $9.0B in available revenue• Data-driven• MPO and RPO ranked projects
• $51.5B in needs 1,200 projects = $44.5B Other needs = $7B
Non-Hwy Transportation • Approx. $1.0B in avail. revenue• Data Driven • MPO and RPO ranked public
transit and bike/ped. projects
• $11.5B in needs 700 Projects = $4.4B Other needs = $7.1B
$63 Billion in Total Transportation Needs$10 Billion in Revenue (Years 2018-2022)
Prioritization 2.0 Summary
Strategic Prioritization and Programming Process
1. Score
Prioritize Projects using
• Data
• Local Input
• Multimodal Characteristics
• Classify ranked Projects into Buckets (Mode, Goal, Tier)
2. Strategize
Set Investment Strategy
• Conduct Scenario/Trade-off Analysis with DOT & Partners
• Constrained only by Total Available Revenue
3. Schedule
Program Projects
• Develop STIP using Project Rankings & Investment Strategy
• Apply Constraints
• Compare Selected Strategy vs. Applied Constraints
How to Divide the Pie? - Determining the Investment StrategyHow to Divide the Pie? - Determining the Investment Strategy
? %? %
? %? %
Summits held throughout NC every 2 years• Partner and public input opportunity
Purpose: provide input on where to apply expected revenue• What are the high-level priorities?• What is the investment needed to achieve those priorities?• Revenue is based on expected 10 Year total, unconstrained
Use Level of Service (LOS) analysis to determine return on investment(i.e., if $X are allocated to Bucket “Y”, expected 10 Year LOS is “Z”)
Outcome is a “picture of where transportation $ should be spent”
Investment Strategy Summits
Quality of service provided to the user
Different than Highway Capacity Manual
Criteria for determining LOS• Measures are reliable, repeatable, and affordable• Current measure and targets are realistic (graded on A-F scale)• Data is readily available, easy to collect and update
Determine existing LOS and baseline LOS for 10 years in future
Translate LOS into $$ needed to maintain and improve performanceLOS
Performance Level of Service (LOS)
Performance Level of Service (LOS) – Example
50
60
70
80
90
100
Leve
l of S
ervi
ce
LOS based on Do-Nothing Maintain Current LOS Achieve Target LOS
A
B
C
D
ECurrent
YearYear 10 Future
Year
10 YR TargetLOS
OptimalTargetLOS
You are Here Additional Revenue/Funding needed to achieve 10 Yr. Target$$Additional Revenue/Funding needed to maintain current LOS$
LOS – Current Grades (Highways)GOAL Performance Measure Current
Level of ServiceDesired Level
of Service
Mobility % of miles with uncongested roadways B ?
Infrastructure Health (Pavement)
% of miles with “Good” rating or better C ?
Infrastructure Health (Modernization)
% of miles meeting DOT paved shoulder width standards D ?
Safety Fatal Crash Rates C ?
Infrastructure Health (Bridges) % of bridges with “Good” rating
or better C ?
Overall Average for Highways C ?
*Note: letter grades reflect an average across Tiers
LOS – Current Grades (Non-Highways)MODE GOAL Performance
MeasureCurrentLevel of Service
Desired Level of Service
Aviation All 3 Goals # of unfunded Projects D ?
Bicycle - Pedestrian Mobility Bike-Pedestrian Index D ?
FerryMobility # of vehicles left behind
/ yearC ?
Health# of terminals / vessels meeting Coast Guard
standards
Public Transportation All 3 GoalsPassenger trips, age of fleet, dollars invested in
safety/securityC ?
Rail Mobility Mobility Index D ?
Overall Average for Non-Highways D ?*Note: letter grades reflect an average across Tiers
Strategic Prioritization and Programming Process
1. Score
Prioritize Projects using
• Data
• Local Input
• Multimodal Characteristics
2. Strategize
Set Investment Strategy
• Classify ranked Projects into Buckets (Mode, Goal, Tier)
• Conduct Scenario/Trade-off Analysis with DOT & Partners
• Constrained only by Total Available Revenue
3. Schedule
Program Projects
• Develop STIP using Project Rankings & Investment Strategy
• Apply Constraints
• Compare Selected Strategy vs. Applied Constraints
TIP
Project Development
Time
PriorityRanking
Equity Formula Funding Constraints
Investment Strategy
Construction Sequence
Factors Influencing TIP
Prioritization Results ≠ Programming
Questions?
Local Perspective on Input into the North Carolina DOT Transportation Improvement Program Project Ranking Process
2012 National Rural Transportation Conference
April 2012
Page 27
Background of Transportation Planning in North Carolina
Page 28
Lake Norman RPO Facts
360,000 people
Northern and western edges of Charlotte region
Report to NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch
Made up of four counties and eight municipalities
Intermediary between local governments and the NCDOT for plan development, project identification, prioritization, design review, and grant submittal
Staffed by “about” two people within the Charlotte region’s COG
Page 29
North Carolina STIP Development Process and MPO/RPO Input
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
Updated on a two-year cycle
Five year funding document, with a second five-year planning document (for a total 10-year document)
Subject to many limitations on the use of funds
RPO Input
Previously NCDOT accepted project rankings, but also accepted projects from local communities outside of the MPO/RPO system
Since 2009 NCDOT only accepts project rankings from within the MPO/RPO system
Page 30
Lake Norman Project Ranking History
2003: First time RPO develops priority list
Projects solicited from RPO members (five per member)
All 100+ projects submitted to NCDOT
2005: Refinement of 2003 priority list
Projects are broken into phases
List is broken into “high-priority” and “other” projects
Top 50 projects submitted
2007: First time cost-effectiveness is quantified by RPO
Submitted project list further limited to reflect available funds
Top 25 projects submitted
2009: NCDOT moves to formal quantitative statewide project ranking process (SPOT 1.0), similar to the RPO’s process Top 25 projects submitted
2011: RPO revises ranking process to include infrastructure health and submits prioritized project list under SPOT 2.0 process
Top 25 projects submitted
Page 31
Common Ranking Process Variables and LNRPO Weighting
Travel Demand (4.5)Safety (2.5)Consistency with existing local transportation plans (2.5)Consistency with local land use plans (2.5) On NC strategic corridor (2)Supports economic development initiatives (2)Multi-modal (2)
Cost-benefit (2)Natural environment impact (1)Human environment impact (1)Project already in STIP (1)Air quality impact (1)Environmental Justice considerations (1)Infrastructure health
Lake Norman RPO 2011 Ranking Results
Page 32
LAKE NORMAN RPO RANKING PROCESS RESULTS
SPOT Ranking within Division 12 (OUT OF 96 PROJECTS)
Points Assigned by Division 12 (Out of 1300)Ranking Project (and RPO Ranking Score)
Points Assigned by RPO
(Out of 1300)
1 1-40/1-77 Interchange (97.25 points) 100 5 100
2 I-77 from West Catawba to US 21 (91.5 points) 96 1 100
3 I-77 from NC 115/ US 21 to I-40 (87.25 points) 92 9 100
4 I-77 from US 21 to NC 115/US 21 (87 points) 88 7 100
5I-40 widening from Catawba County to Statesville
(81.75 points)84 48 0
6US 74 Bypass from Long Branch Road to west of
Stoney Point Road (80 points)80 14 100
7US 74 Bypass from west of NC 150 to Long Branch
Road (79.25 points)76 17 100
8 Williamson Road from I-77 to NC 150 (75.5 points) 72 3 0
9 NC 150 from Harvel Road to I-77 (74.25 points) 68 10 100
10Existing US 74 Bypass- widening to six lanes (73.25
points)64 53 0
Page 33
MPO/RPO Responses to NCDOT SPOT Program
Issue Pre-SPOT Post-SPOT
Submittal format No format (lists, memos, resolutions used) Web-based submittal portal
Number of ProjectsAllowed
No limit- some organizations submitted 50+ projects Up to 25 per RPO/ MPO
Project Type Bike/ped, transit, and road projects could be co-mingled
Project ranking and submittal separated by mode
Cost Limits Unlimited Unlimited
Who can submit candidate projects? Anyone- private, public, MPO/RPO MPO/RPO only
Prioritization Process Highly variable local processes Increased reliance on “SPOT” scores
Significance ofInclusion in STIP
Cause for confusion- Projects were occasionally added with little near-
term potential for funding
Two five-year categories. Inclusion has significance
Results of SPOT Process on MPO/RPO Rankings and Submittals
Page 34
Reduced MPO/RPO highway project submittals (over 1,000 reduced to ~600). Projects cost a total of $27 billionMPO/RPOs now focus on projects with “momentum”. Less focus on aspirational projectsIncrease in Bicycle and Pedestrian project submittals (before there was no formal process soliciting projects)- 229 projects submitted costing $177 million Apples to Apples Comparisons: MPOs and RPOs now know how their projects score relative to their peersNCDOT Division staff priorities known- scores are shown in project database
Page 35
Further Refinement and MPO/RPO Response
Recognition of limited resources: Increased focus on smaller projects for highest and best use of resources Increased coordination with NCDOT Divisions: Greater
awareness of state priorities and desire to “maximize influence” Reduced project submittals: Further intent on “maximizing
influence” Common data sources: Safety, congestion, cost figures
typically rely on NCDOT SPOT office numbers
NC Prioritization StoryAlpesh PatelNorth Carolina Department of Transportationhttp://www.ncdot.org/performance/reform/prioritization/email – [email protected]
Bjorn HansenLake Norman Rural Planning Organizationhttp://lakenormanrpo.org/email – [email protected]