Investment Strategy Summits, Prioritization 3.0 & Mobility Fund Prioritization

NCDOT Strategic Planning Office

May 3, 2012 – NC AMPO Conference

Prioritization 2.0 (P2.0) Investment Strategy Summits

Prioritization 3.0 (P3.0)

Mobility Fund

Outline

Prioritization 2.0Investment Strategy Summits

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

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

Strategic Prioritization and Programming Process

How to Divide the Pie? - Determining the Investment Strategy

? %? %

? %? %

Summits throughout NC – 7 Summits• Partner and public input opportunity (220 participants)

Purpose is to provide analysis of 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

Participants allocate $ to Prioritization Buckets

Use LOS 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

Desire to upgrade Levels of Service from “F” or “D” levels to “C” or better

Focus on protecting assets of pavements & bridges, esp. on Statewide Tier

Highway safety should not be overlooked or underfunded. Maintain or better the LOS for this area and recognize each project improves safety

General recognition there is not enough revenue to meet the needs

Invest more in Non-Highway Modes. Bike-Pedestrian programs received the most attention/discussion with desire for increased funding.

Support to keep Ferry system operating at a high level.

Ensure any commitment to Rail Program maximizes benefits to NC citizens

Summary Comments from Seven Summits

LOS – Current Grades (Highways)GOAL Performance Measure Current

Level of ServiceSummit

Average LOS

Mobility % of miles with uncongested roadways B B

Infrastructure Health (Pavement)

% of miles with “Good” rating or better C C

Infrastructure Health (Modernization)

% of miles meeting DOT paved shoulder width standards D C

Safety Fatal Crash Rates C C

Infrastructure Health (Bridges) % of bridges with “Good” rating or

better C C

Overall Average for Highways C C

*Note: letter grades reflect an average across Tiers

LOS – Current Grades (Non-Highways)MODE GOAL Performance

MeasureCurrentLevel of Service

Summit Average

LOS

Aviation All 3 Goals # of unfunded Projects D D

Bicycle - Pedestrian Mobility Bike-Pedestrian Index D C

Ferry

Mobility # of vehicles left behind / year

C CHealth

# of terminals / vessels meeting Coast Guard

standards

Public Transportation All 3 GoalsPassenger trips, age of fleet, dollars invested in

safety/securityC C

Rail Mobility Mobility Index D D

Overall Average for Non-Highways D C

*Note: letter grades reflect an average across Tiers

BOT members appreciative of the opportunity; increased awareness of non-highway programs (transit, rail, etc.); desire for more information on transportation funding

Focus on protecting assets (pavements and bridges), specifically on Statewide Tier

General recognition there is not enough revenue to meet the needs

Quality of life and community benefit to increased funding of bicycle/pedestrian activities; recognize that not all bike/ped expenditures are captured in the exercise

Recognition that all congestion is not equitable; for future summits consider measuring congestion differently based on urban vs rural areas

For future summits consider how to compare ROI of investing in different modes (i.e. investment level per user or per capita?)

Summary Comments from BOT Summits

Mode Goal TierSubmitted

Needs

Current LOS (A-F)

Stay the Course(2018-2022)

Average from 7 Summits(2018-2022)

Statewide BOT Average

          $% of Total

LOS $% of Total

LOS $% of Total

LOS

Aviation

SafetyRegional & Subregional

$500 D $230 2.3% D $339 3.4% D $234 2.3% DMobility

Health

Bicycle & Pedestrian

Mobility All Tiers $390 D $20 0.2% F $237 2.4% C $134 1.3% D

FerryMobility

All Tiers $630 C $70 0.7% D $330 3.3% D $293 2.9% DHealth

Public Transportation

Safety

All Tiers $4,090 C $740 7.2% C $848 8.5% C $653 6.5% DMobility

Health

Rail Mobility Statewide $6,020 D $0 0.0% D $911 9.1% D $352 3.5% D

   Total NON-HIGHWAY $11,630   $1,060 10.4%   $2,665 26.7%   $1,665 16.7%  

                       

Highway

Safety All Tiers $1,010 C $150 1.5% D $581 5.8% C $370 3.7% C

Mobility

Statewide $22,070 B $3,920 38.4% A $1,092 10.9% B $2,316 23.2% B

Regional $10,080 A $430 4.2% A $195 2.0% A $401 4.0% A

Subregional $7,630 A $530 5.2% A $187 1.9% A $419 4.2% A

Health

Statewide $1,740 C $980 9.6% B $873 8.7% B $972 9.7% B

Regional $3,320 D $700 6.9% D $837 8.4% C $801 8.0% C

Subregional $3,830 D $960 9.4% F $2,586 25.9% D $2,103 21.0% D

Bridge (All Tiers) $1,520 C $1,480 14.5% C $984 9.8% C $952 9.5% C

  Total HIGHWAY $51,200   $9,150 89.7%   $7,335 73.3%   $8,333 83.3%  

                           

    GRAND TOTAL $62,830   $10,210 100.1%   $10,000 100.0%   $10,000 100.0%  

     

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

Strategic Prioritization and Programming Process

TIP

Project Developmen

t Time

PriorityRanking

Equity Formula Funding Constraints

Investment Strategy

Construction Sequence

Factors Influencing TIP

Prioritization Results ≠ Programming

*Draft 10 Year Plan/STIP expected to be released summer 2012*

Prioritization 3.0

Continue to build off success of P1.0 and P2.0

Biggest technological change is to move to a GIS-based Environment• Near real-time data/scores• For both highway and bicycle/pedestrian projects• Automated cost estimation tool

Workgroup to guide further enhancements• MPO Reps: Paul Black, Mike Kozlosky, Tyler Meyer• RPO Reps: Matt Day, Bjorn Hansen, Craig Hughes• Other Reps: Metro Mayor’s Coalition, League of Municipalities, Association of

County Commissioners, Regional Council of Govts, Freight & Ports Reps• First meeting next Tuesday (May 8th)

“Go-Live” expected in Spring 2013

Prioritization 3.0

North Carolina Mobility FundProject Scoring

Created by Governor and Legislature in 2010• First project is Yadkin River Bridge Phase II• Initial project selection criteria developed• FY 13 = $40M; FY 14+ = $58M

Legislature modified project selection language in 2011• NCDOT revised project selection criteria

NCDOT solicited projects in December 2011

History

Must be on Statewide or Regional Tier (defined by NCMIN)Light rail, bus rapid transit, and commuter rail will be eligible.

Focus on short delivery time – funds must be obligated for construction within 5 years.

Must be identified on an adopted long-range transportation plan, consistent with a local land use plan where available.

Projects must be in a conforming air quality plan in non-attainment or maintenance areas.

Capital expenditures only; Maintenance, Operational & Planning costs ineligible.

No minimum cost as threshold for funding.

Minimum Eligibility Requirements

Recommended Criteria & Weights

CRITERIA WEIGHT DESCRIPTION

Mobility Benefit / Cost 80%

• Measured by travel time savings (in vehicle hours)

• Divided by “cost to Mobility Fund”

• Used to compare projects across transportation modes

Multimodal / Intermodal 20%

• Yes / No question • Project improves more than one

mode of travel• Sliding scale

No Cap on the Mobility Benefit/Cost Scoring

Multimodal / Intermodal Scoring

Improvement Points

Light Rail 100

Bus Rapid Transit / Busway 100

Commuter Rail 100

Intercity rail 100

Highway and Rail Projects which improve access to or within ports, military installations, and inland ports; rail projects which reduce truck traffic on the highway system

100

Shortline Rail projects which enhance access to industrial sites 100

HOV / HOT Lanes 100

Multimodal / Intermodal Scoring

Improvement Points

Addition of a new bus route to a fixed route system 50

Adding new transit vehicles to improve frequency of service (not replacement vehicles) 50

Aviation Runway/Taxiway Projects 25

Ferry 25

Bicycle/Pedestrian commuter projects (not recreational) 10

Note: Projects can only receive points for one improvement. If a project includes more than one improvement listed above, the project receives the higher of the points.

Review all submitted projects for eligibility• 95 total projects evaluated

Worked with the following units on project scoring:• Division of Aviation – Provided Aviation project data

• Rail Division – Provided Freight Rail project data

• Congestion Management – Evaluated Intersection/Interchange Improvement Projects

• Preliminary Estimate Section – Provided/Updated Construction Cost Estimates

• Right-of-Way Branch – Provided/Updated Right-of-Way Cost Estimates

Scoring Process

1. Calculate Travel Time along existing facilityTT (Existing) = Length/Ideal Speed x Congestion Factor

2. Calculate Travel Time along improved facilityTT (Project) = Length/Ideal Speed x Congestion Factor

Travel Time Savings (hours) = TT (Project) – TT (Existing)

Multiply Savings by # users x # working days/yr x 30 yrs x $ per hour

Notes:• For Project Travel Time, Length and Speed could change.• For Projects on New Location, a current/parallel route is used for existing

travel time; and the new route is used for the project travel time

Travel Time Savings Calculation

Mobility Fund Project Scores

Project County(s) Points

1. Triangle Bus-On-Shoulder-System Wake, Durham 496.32

2. I-77 HOT Lanes from I-277 to Catawba Avenue Mecklenburg 108.18

3. NC 54 (Hillsborough St) / Blue Ridge Road / NCRR Grade Separation Wake 101.07

4. CSX and Norfolk Southern Grade Separation Mecklenburg 89.23

5. I-440 (Beltline) Widening from I-40 to Wade Avenue Wake 73.54

6. US 501 (Roxboro Road) / Latta Road/Infinity Road Intersection Improvements Durham 63.56

7. I-485 Express Toll Lanes from I-77 to US 74 Mecklenburg 58.68

8. I-40 Widening from US 15-501 to I-85 Orange 52.61

9. NC 54 / Farrington Road / I-40 Intersection Improvements Durham 52.58

10. NCVA Railroad Mainline Track Improvements Northampton, Bertie, Hertford 50.75

Mobility Fund Project Scores

Project County(s) Points

11. Pembroke Northeast Rail Connector Robeson 47.88

12. US 70 / Brier Creek Parkway Interchange Wake 47.87

13. I-40 / Aviation Parkway Interchange Improvements Wake 42.75

14. I-295 (Fayetteville Loop) from Cliffdale Road to Yadkin Road Cumberland 40.67

15. NC 54 Widening from I-40 to Barbee Chapel Road Durham, Orange 39.18

16. US 70 / Slocum Road Intersection Improvements Craven 36.27

17. US 74 (Independence Blvd) Upgrade from NC 27 to Idlewild Rd Mecklenburg 35.92

18. I-40 Widening from US 70 Bus. to US 70 Bypass Wake 34.57

19. Wallace to Castle Hayne Rail Improvements New Hanover, Pender 34.46

20. US 70 (Glenwood Ave) Widening from Duraleigh Road to Triangle Drive Wake 33.02

Program Development Branch scheduling top projects

Considering:• Project readiness (i.e. when project can be let)• Available Mobility Fund dollars

Programmed projects included in Draft STIP in Summer

Mobility Fund Next Steps

Don Voelker – Director of Strategic Planning Officedjvoelker@ncdot.gov(919) 707-4740

Alpesh Patel – Senior Transportation Engineeragpatel@ncdot.gov(919) 707-4742

David Wasserman, P.E. – Senior Transportation Engineerdswasserman@ncdot.gov(919) 707-4743

NCDOT Strategic Planning Office1501 Mail Service CenterRaleigh, NC 27699-1501http://ncdot.gov/performance/reform/prioritization/

Contact Information