HB2 Briefing for Tennessee MPOs & TDOT

June 11, 2015Meadowview Conference Center

2

Agenda

1. VTrans, HB2 and HB1887 – How they relate

2. HB2 Overview

3. HB2 Scoring

4. Implementation Schedule

5. Next Steps

3

VTrans, HB2 and HB1887How they relate

Life Cycle of a Candidate Project

How it’s planned.

4

How it’s scored. How it’s funded.

5

• VTrans is the long-range, statewide multimodal policy plan that lays out overarching Vision and Goals for transportation in the Commonwealth

• It identifies transportation investment priorities and provides direction to transportation agencies on strategies and programs to be incorporated into their plans and programs

How it’s plannedVTrans2040

How it’s plannedVTrans2040• VTrans 2040 serves two functions and produces two

independent, but connected documents:• VTrans 2040 Vision document will outline the policy

vision for Virginia’s transportation system over the next 25 years

• VTrans 2040 Multimodal Transportation Plan (VMTP) includes Multimodal Needs Assessment and will serve as the guiding document for Virginia’s transportation agency business plans and statewide transportation funding programs until the next update in five years

6

How it’s plannedVTrans2040

7

• Needs Assessment:

• VMTP will identify future needs for all modes travel across the Commonwealth – not project specific

• Policy and recommendations of the plan will focus on:

• Corridors of Statewide Significance

• Identified regional networks

• Local designated growth areas

VMTP Needs Assessment – UNDER DEVELOPMENT

8Note: Map includes all locally designated growth areas that appear consistent with the intent of 15.2-2223.1. OIPI is asking that localities who want their growth areas to qualify for HB2 funding to add a code reference (15.2-2223.1) by October 1, 2015 to ensure that projects submitted to promote these areas meet the HB2 screening requirement. Projects promoting UDA-like designated growth areas with the proper code reference submitted after October 1 will not be considered in the first round of HB2 project screening.

9

Corridors of Statewide SignificanceCoSS

• Approved by the CTB• Demonstrate the following characteristics:

• Multiple modes and/or an extended freight corridor• Connection among regions, states and/or major

activity centers• High volume of travel• Unique statewide function and/or fulfillment of

statewide goal

10

Virginia CoSS

11

Regional Networks – Under DevelopmentDefined as: • Jurisdictions that are included either in whole or in part

within MPO Planning Area Boundaries• Any additional element of the transportation system that

is connected to the MPO area and deemed critical to the MPO

12

Urban Development AreasUDAs

• Areas voluntarily designated by local governments as prime areas for future economic growth pursuant to 15.2-2223.1

• Must reflect transportation- efficient land use principles including• Mixed-use land use• Interconnected streets• Moderately compact growth

13

Urban Development AreasUDAsStatistics: • Number of UDAs currently designated in Virginia: 77• Number of UDAs within MPO boundaries: 35

Designated UDAs: • Cities – 7• Counties – 54• Towns – 16• Average size of designated UDAs: 3.41 square miles• Average population (2010) of designated UDAs: 3,921

HB2 Screening Process

14

• Only projects that meet a need identified in VTrans 2040 will be prioritized• Corridors of Statewide Significance• Regional Networks• Improvements to promote urban development

areas• Projects that do not meet the screening criteria will not

be scored or prioritized under HB2

How HB2 is funded

• HB1887 removes the 40-30-30 formula put in place in by the 1986 Special Session legislation

• New construction formula established, effective FY 2021: State of Good Repair – 45% High-Priority Projects Program (Statewide) * – 27.5% District Grant Programs* – 27.5%

15

*To be programmed according to HB 2 in FY17

How HB2 is funded

• In the interim (FY17-20):• Funds not programmed to projects are to be

distributed 50/50 to:• High-Priority Projects Program (Statewide)• District Grant Programs

16

Funds Available for HB 2(in millions) – Based on Draft SYIP (Subject to Revision)

17

HB 1887 Grant Programs Percentage 6-Year TotalDistrict Grant Program

Bristol 7.0% $27.7 Culpeper 6.2% 24.4 Fredericksburg 6.9% 26.9 Hampton Roads 20.2% 79.2 Lynchburg 7.1% 28.0 Northern Virginia 20.7% 81.4 Richmond 14.4% 56.7 Salem 9.6% 37.7 Staunton 7.8% 30.6

High Priority Projects Program (Statewide) 392.6 Total 100.0% $785.2

Funds Available for State of Good Repair(in millions) - Based on Draft SYIP (Subject to Revision)

18

District Percentage 6-Year TotalBristol 11.7% $40.1 Culpeper 6.0% 20.5 Fredericksburg 12.1% 41.4 Hampton Roads 14.8% 50.6 Lynchburg 7.6% 26.0 Northern Virginia 10.6% 36.1 Richmond 17.4% 59.7 Salem 12.1% 41.4 Staunton 7.9% 26.9 Total 100.0% $342.7

19

HB2 Overview

20

Schedule: May to October 2015

Upcoming Events:June 16th – CTB Meeting: HB2 final process to be adoptedJuly 2015 – VTRANS2040 VMTP identification of transportation draft needsJune/July – Training for VDOT staffJuly/Aug. – Training Entities (e.g. Localities, MPOs, PDCs)

• Process overview• Online application system

July 1st – VDOT to begin working with EntitiesAug 1st – Entities begin inputting applicationsSept 30th – On-line applications deadline

21

What funds are subject to HB2?• Funds that are subject to HB2 include state and

federal highway funds (small proportion of total funding over 6 years)

• Legislation excluded the following projects and types of funding from the prioritization process:• Asset management• Revenue sharing• Regional revenues• CMAQ federal funds• Highway Safety federal funds• Transportation Alternatives funding

Funding Subject to HB2

HB2 Project Types

22

• Eligible project types include:

• Highway improvements

Widening projects

Operational improvements

Access management

• Transit and rail capacity expansion projects

• Transportation demand management

Van Pools

Park & Ride facilities

Telecommuting

• Passenger Rail

HB2 Project Types

23

• Project types excluded:

• Asset Management

• Structurally deficient bridges

• Reconstructive paving

• Routine maintenance

• Transit and Rail State of Good Repair projects

24

Applicant Eligibility

Project System

Regional Entity (MPOs, PDCs)

Locality (Counties, Cities, Towns)

Public Transit Agencies

Corridor of Statewide Significance

YesYes, with a resolution of support from relevant

regional entity

Yes, with resolution of support from

relevant regional entity

Regional Network

Yes Yes

Yes, with resolution of support from

relevant entity

Urban Development Area

No Yes No

25

HB2 Overview - Scoring

• The prioritization process must be objective, quantifiable and consider at least the following factors relative to cost:

• Congestion mitigation • Economic development • Accessibility • Safety • Environmental Quality

• In areas over 200,000 an additional composite transportation and land use factor will be used

26

HB2 Overview - Scoring

• House Bill 2 requires that the CTB weight the factors differently in different parts of the Commonwealth

FactorCongestion Mitigation

Economic Development Accessibility Safety

Environmental Quality

Land Use

Category A 35% 10% 25% 10% 10% 10%

Category B 15% 20% 25% 20% 10% 10%

Category C 15% 25% 25% 25% 10%

Category D 10% 35% 15% 30% 10%

27

HB2 Overview – ScoringEvaluating Benefits Relative to Cost

• House Bill 2 requires that benefits produced by a project be analyzed on a basis of relative costs

• Results to be provided to CTB based on:

• Benefits relative to total costs

• Benefits relative to HB2 costs

28

HB2 Scoring

HB2 Factors

29

For more details see:http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2015/May/pres2/Presentation_Agenda_Item_1.pdf

30

Factor AreasGoals that guided measure development

• Safety – reduce the number and rate of fatalities and severe injuries

• Congestion – reduce person hours of delay and increase person throughput

• Accessibility – increase access to jobs and travel options• Economic Development – support economic development

and improve goods movement• Environmental Quality – improve air quality and avoid

impacts to the natural environment• Land Use – support transportation efficient land development

patterns

Measuring SAFETY

31

– 50% of score – Expected reduction in total fatalities and severe injuries (100% of score for transit projects)

– 50% of score – Expected reduction in the rate of fatalities and severe injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled

Measuring CONGESTION MITIGATION

32

– 50% of score – Change in peak period (multimodal) person throughput in the project corridor

– 50% of score - Change in the amount of peak period person hours of delay in the project corridor

Measuring ACCESSIBILITY

33

– 60% of score – Change in cumulative job accessibility (within 45 minutes) (within 60 minutes for transit projects)

– 20% of score - Change in cumulative job accessibility for disadvantaged populations (within 45 minutes by automobile and 60 minutes by transit)

– 20% of score – Assessment of the project support for connections between modes, and promotion of multiple transportation choices

Measuring ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

34

– 50% of score – Potential of project to reduce criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions

– 50% of Score – Potential impacts to natural and cultural resources

Measuring ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

35

– 70% of score – Assessment of progress made towards new economic development (new and expansion of existing)

– 30% of score - Rate projects based on the extent to which the project is deemed to enhance access to critical intermodal locations, interregional freight movement, and/or freight intensive industries

– Travel time reliability measure under development

Measuring LAND USE

36

– 100% of score – Degree to which project will support transportation efficient land use patterns and local policies

How Scoring Works

37

Scores will be graded on a curve.

10090

8070 60

Factor Weighting Framework (May 2015)

38

FactorCongestion Mitigation

Economic Development Accessibility Safety

Environmental Quality

Land Use

Category A 35% 10% 25% 10% 10% 10%

Category B 15% 20% 25% 20% 10% 10%

Category C 15% 25% 25% 25% 10%

Category D 10% 35% 15% 30% 10%

Factor Weighting Framework by MPO and PDC (May 2015)

39

40

Sample Project Scoring

Project "A" - located in Typology A

Congestion Safety Accessibility Environ. Econ. Dev.Land Use

Throughput Delay

F &SI Crashes

F &SI Crash Rate

Access to Jobs

Access to Jobs

(Dis. Pop.)

Multimodal Choic

es

Air Qualit

y

Natural & Cult. Resources

Economic Developme

nt

Goods Movement

Trans. Efficie

nt Land Use

Measure Score 62 48 20 32 10 20 10 38 28 30 20 17

Measure Weight 50% 50% 50% 50% 60% 20% 20% 50% 50% 70% 30% 100%

Weighted Measure Score 31 24 10 16 6 4 2 19 14 21 6 17

Raw Factor Score 55 26 12 33.0 27.0 17

Factor Weighting (Typ. A) 35% 10% 25% 10% 10% 10%

Weighted Factor Score 19.3 2.6 3 3.3 2.7 1.7

Project Score 32.55

Total Project Cost $20,000,000

Score Divided by Total Cost 16.3

Draft HB 2 Process Timeline for implementation

41

42

Additional Resources

• Presentations to the CTB• www.ctb.virginia.gov

• HB2 Implementation Guide and Appendices• http://

virginiahb2.com/docs/HB2PolicyGuide_MeasuresAppendices_05182015.pdf

• HB2 Website• http://virginiahb2.com/

43