Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Prioritization 4.0
NCDOT Strategic Prioritization Office of TransportationJuly 2015
Agenda• Background• General Overview of Changes From P3.0 To P4.0• Scoring and Scaling• Peak ADT• In-Depth Review of P4.0 Highway Criteria, Measures and Weights• In-Depth Review of P4.0 Non-Highway Criteria, Measures and
Weights• Timeline/Schedule• SPOT On!ine• Local Input Methodologies and Best Practices
2
Background
NCDOT is 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
Annual Budget of approx. $4.1 B (federal dollars account for 25% of total budget)
3
BackgroundKey Partners, as shown on colorful map below, include:• 19 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)• 18 Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs)• 14 Field Offices (Divisions)
4
*Unifour RPO has dissolved into adjacent MPOs
5
Strategic Transportation Investment (STI)
New funding formula for NCDOT’s Capital Expenditures• Focus on Mobility/Expansion and Modernization projects for all modes
House Bill 817 signed into Law June 26, 2013
Most significant transportation legislation in NC since 1989
Prioritization Workgroup charged with providing recommendations to NCDOT on weights and criteria. Reps include:• MPOs• RPOs• Division Engineers• Local Government Advocacy Groups
STI Legislation
New funding formula for all capital expenditures, regardless of mode. All modes must compete for the same funds
Funds come from NC Highway Trust Fund (primarily highway use tax)
Operations and Maintenance expenditures are funded from separate NC Highway Fund (primarily gas tax)
Projects (regardless of mode) will be scored on a 0‐100 point scale
Incentive For Local funding (highway projects only)• 50% of local commitment of non‐State/Federal funds will be returned to local area for other high scoring projects in that area
6
7
Focus Address Local Needs
Eligible Projects- Projects Not Selected in Statewide or Regional Categories
- Division Projects• Selection based on 50% Data & 50% Local Input
• Funding based on equal share for each Division (14) = ~$25M / yr
40% of Funds = $6B 30% of Funds = $4.5B 30% of Funds = $4.5B
How the STI Works
Statewide Mobility
Regional Impact
Division Needs
Estimated $15B in Funds for SFY 2016-2025
Focus Address Significant Congestion and Bottlenecks
Eligible Projects- Statewide type Projects (such as Interstates)
• Selection based on 100% Data• Projects Programmed prior to Local Input Ranking
Focus Improve Connectivity within Regions
Eligible Projects- Projects Not Selected in Statewide Mobility Category
- Regional Projects• Selection based on 70% Data & 30% Local Input
• Funding based on population within Region (7)
STI Legislation
Project Cap – No more than 10% of Statewide Mobility funds over 5 years (~$300M) may be assigned to a single project or contiguous projects in the same corridor in a single Division or adjoining Divisions
Funds included in the applicable category (Statewide, Regional, Division) but not subject to prioritization criteria:• Bridge Replacement• Interstate Maintenance• Highway Safety Improvements
Funds included in the computation of Division equal share but will be evaluated through separate prioritization processes:• STP‐DA (if funds used on Regional category eligible project, funds come from Regional)• Transportation Alternatives• Rail‐highway crossing program
8
9
regions &divisions
1010
Eligibility Definitions ‐ Highways
Statewide Regional Division
Highway
• Interstates and Future Interstates
• Routes on the NHS as of July 1, 2012
• Routes on Department of Defense Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET)
• Appalachian Development Highway System Routes
• Uncompleted Intrastate projects
• Designated Toll Facilities
~4,500 miles
• Other US and NC Routes
~10,500 miles
• All SR Routes
• ~65,000 miles
Insert Table of Eligibility
11
Statewide Mobility Regional Impact Division Needs
EligibleProjects: • Statewide • Statewide
• Regional
• Statewide • Regional • Division
OverallWeights: 100% Quantitative Data 70% Quantitative Data /
30% Local Input50% Quantitative Data /50% Local Input
EligibleQuant.Criteria (per legislation)
• Benefit‐Cost• Congestion• Economic Comp.• Safety• Freight• Multimodal• Pavement Condition• Lane Width• Shoulder Width
• Benefit‐cost• Congestion• Safety• Freight• Multimodal• Pavement Condition• Lane Width• Shoulder Width• Accessibility and connectivity to
employment centers, tourist destinations, or military installations
• Benefit‐cost• Congestion.• Safety• Freight• Multimodal• Pavement Condition• Lane Width• Shoulder Width• Accessibility and connectivity to
employment centers, tourist destinations, or military installations
Notes: Projects Selected Prior to Local Input Quant. Criteria can be different for each Region
Quant. Criteria can be different for each Division
STI Law Highway Project Scoring Overview
P4.0 Highway Criteria
13
Funding Category
QUANTITATIVE LOCAL INPUT
Data Division Rank MPO/RPO Rank
Statewide Mobility
Congestion = 30%Benefit‐Cost = 25%Safety = 15%Economic Competitiveness = 10%Freight = 15%Multimodal = 5%
Total = 100%
‐‐ ‐‐
Regional Impact
Congestion = 20%Benefit‐Cost = 20%Safety = 10%Accessibility/Connectivity = 10%Freight = 10%
Total = 70%
15% 15%
Division Needs
Congestion = 15%Benefit‐Cost = 15%Safety = 10%Accessibility/Connectivity = 5%Freight = 5%
Total = 50%
25% 25%
Note: Div. ____ have agreed to use different criteria for Regional Impact and/or Division Needs projects.
P4.0 Highway Scoring Criteria and Weights
14
Highway Criteria Changes
What are the most influential criteria measure changes that will impact scores in P4.0 vs. P3.0?
• Scaling – affects all modes• Peak ADT – affects several highway criteria• Statewide Travel Demand Model (NCSTM)• Local contribution• Safety benefits
15
How Projects are Scored
1. Projects entered into SPOT On!ine – existing/modified and new projects
2. Data derived for each project – GIS data, travel time savings, safety, cost, etc.
3. Criteria measure values calculated – some measure values=derived GIS data
4. Criteria measure values scaled – scaling will occur relative to other projects
5. Criteria scores calculated from scaled measure values – using approved weights
6. Quantitative score calculated from criteria scores – using approved weights
7. Local Input Points entered – by MPOs/RPOs and Divisions
8. Total project score calculated – Sum of quantitative score and weighted local input points
16
Scaling ScoresWhy scale scores in P4.0?Address P3.0 biggest statistical issues of small range of values, low values, and criteria that have a disproportional impact on the total score (from Cambridge)
How will scaling be applied in P4.0?Using a relative distribution approach, based on the % of projects with higher, lower, or equal values for each criteria measure• Measure = portion of the criteria score that has defined % weight (e.g., V/C ratio = 60%)• Highest raw measure value = 100• Lowest raw measure value = 0• Median raw measure value = 50 (meaning 50% of raw values are higher, 50% are lower)
Scaling is essentially grading the measure values on a curve comparing an individual project measure value against all other project measure values
In P3.0, the criteria scores were based on the raw measure values without a comparison to other projects
17
18
19
Criteria ScalingCriteria Measure Measure
Weight Notes
Congestion
Volume/Capacity60% (Statewide)80% (Regional)100% (Division)
Volume40% (Statewide)20% (Regional)0% (Division)
Benefit‐Cost Benefit/Cost 100%
Scaling based on raw (Benefit/Cost to NCDOT) ratio only and not extra % for local funds/tolls. Extra % added to Scaled B/C score with total Benefit‐Cost criteria score not to exceed 100. Travel Time and Safety Benefits are summed in Benefits (numerator)
Safety
Crash Density (segments) 33%
Crash Severity (segments) 33%
Critical Crash Rate (segments) 33%
Crash Frequency (intersections) 50%
Severity Index (intersections) 50%
Economic Competitiveness
% Change in Value Added 50%
Long‐term Jobs 50%
20
Criteria Scaling (continued)Criteria Measure Measure
Weight Notes
Accessibility / Connectivity
County Economic Indicator 50%
Upgrade Roadway Travel Time Savings 50% Scaling based only on projects that are eligible
for this component
Freight
Truck Volume 50%
Volume/Capacity on Non‐Interstate STRAHNet or Future Interstate Route
30% Scaling based only on projects that are eligible for this measure
Distance to Freight Terminal 20% Scaling based only on projects within 20 miles of Freight Terminal
Multimodal
Distance to Multimodal Passenger Terminal 60% Scaling based only on projects within 5 miles of
Multimodal Passenger Terminal
Volume/Capacity on Route near Multimodal Passenger Terminal 40% Scaling based only on projects that are eligible
for this measure
Lane Width Lane Width Difference 100% Scaling based only on projects where difference is greater than 0
Paved Shoulder Width
Paved Shoulder Width Difference 100% Scaling based only on projects where difference
is greater than 0
Pavement Condition Pavement Condition Rating 100%
21
Scaling Scores ‐ ExamplesCongestion CriteriaTwo Measures: Volume/Capacity Ratio (60% of score) and Volume (40% of score)
Benefit‐Cost Criteria
Example does not account for differences in travel time saving calculation or safety benefits which will be incorporated in P4.0
PrioritizationVersion
Raw Volume / Capacity Ratio
Scaled Volume / Capacity Ratio Value (60%)
Raw Volume Scaled Volume Value (40%)
Congestion Criteria Score
P4.0 (using Scaling) 1.29 89 40,000 53 74.6
P3.0 1.29 N/A 40,000 N/A 93.4
Prioritization Version Benefits / Cost to NCDOT Scaled B/C Value Local Funds/Toll % Benefit‐Cost Criteria
Score
P4.0 (using Scaling) 2.4 64.8 25% 89.8
P3.0 2.4 N/A 25% 2.4
Peak ADT PADT = AADT x PADT Factor
Primary Routes – factor based on continuous counts and coverage countsSecondary Routes – factor based on default values
PADT to be used in the following:• Congestion (volume/capacity and volume)• Freight (volume/capacity)• Multi‐modal (volume/capacity)
P5.0+ Explore expanding coverage counts to provide a more accurate PADT for additional locations
22
http://www.itre.ncsu.edu 23
GIS AND GEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
GIS Analysis (Fac_month)
Continuous Count Stations
http://www.itre.ncsu.edu
Coverage Count Stations with Peak ADT Factor >1.2
http://www.itre.ncsu.edu
PADT Factor and AADT
25
Peak ADTPrimary Routes – factor based on continuous counts and coverage counts
26
Need to fill in the gaps along a corridor
27
Criteria Existing Conditions
Project Benefits (Future Conditions)
‐ Congestion (Volume/Capacity + Volume)
‐ Benefit/Cost (Travel Time Savings + Safety Benefits / Cost to NCDOT)
‐ Safety Score (Critical Crash Rates, Density, Severity)
‐ Economic Competitiveness (Jobs + Value Added in $)
‐ Accessibility / Connectivity (County Economic Indicator, Upgrade Roadway)
‐ Freight (Truck Volumes, STRAHNet/Future Interstate, Freight Terminals)
‐Multimodal (Passenger Terminals)
‐ Lane Width (Existing Width vs. Standard Width)
‐ Shoulder Width (Existing Width vs. Standard Width)
‐ Pavement Score (Pavement Condition Rating)
Highway Scoring – Eligible Quantitative Criteria
28
Purpose – Measure existing level of mobility along roadways by indicating congested locations and bottlenecks
Peak ADT will be used as the Existing Volume
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility 30%Regional Impact 20%Division Needs 15%
Highway – Congestion
Statewide Mobility 60% ‐ Existing Volume/Capacity Ratio40% ‐ Existing Volume
Regional Impact 80% ‐ Existing Volume/Capacity Ratio20% ‐ Existing Volume
Division Needs 100% ‐ Existing Volume/Capacity Ratio
29
Purpose – measure the expected benefits of the project over a 10 year period against the estimated project cost to NCDOT
((Travel Time Savings over 10 years in $ + Safety Benefits over 10 years in $) / Project Cost to NCDOT) + ((Other Funds) / Total Project Cost) x 100)
• Travel Time Savings:- Statewide Mobility and Regional Impact projects calculated using Statewide Travel Model (NCSTM)- Division Needs projects calculated using before & after project accounting for growth from NCSTM
• Safety benefits calculated using crash reduction factors multiplied by existing crashes• Project Cost to consists of Construction, Right‐of‐Way, and Utilities costs
• Cost can be lowered and score increased if other funds (non‐federal or non‐state funds) are committed to project by locals
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility 25%Regional Impact 20%Division Needs 15%
Highway – Benefit‐Cost
30
Travel Time Savings (TTS)
Statewide Mobility and Regional Impact categoriesUse North Carolina Statewide Travel Demand Model (NCSTM) to calculate travel time savings over 10 years (direct benefits)• Inputs to Benefit‐Cost and Economic Competitiveness criteria
Since NCSTM is still relatively new, NCDOT is continuing to review/refine/improve the model over the summer prior to evaluating projects for P4.0
All project inputs will be reviewed to ensure they are correct and model outputs will be reviewed for reasonableness
31
Travel Time Savings (TTS)
Division Needs categoryUse formula based approach that incorporates 10 year growth from NCSTM1. Calculate TTS using current volume2. Calculate TTS with current volume grown 10 years3. Calculate area under the curve to capture total TTS
- Growth based on VMT Growth Rates by county, facility type, and area type
• Use for all Division Needs eligible projects• Update Congestion Factor (VDF curves) to match NCSTM – Cambridge Recommendation• Eliminate use of ideal speed – Cambridge RecommendationNotes:
• Similar concept used for intersection/interchange projects evaluated in TransModeler
32
Travel Time Savings (TTS)
For P4.0 – TTS would be calculated for entire area under curve (all green)
33
Purpose – measure existing crashes along/at the project
• All data provided by Mobility & Safety Division (3 year moving average)• Higher scores indicate poorer performance
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility 15%Regional Impact 10%Division Needs 10%
Highway – Safety
Segments 33% ‐ Crash Density33% ‐ Crash Severity33% ‐ Critical Crash Rate
Intersections 50% ‐ Crash Frequency50% ‐ Severity Index
34
Purpose – measure the economic benefits the transportation project is expected to provide in economic activity (GDP) and jobs over 10 yrs
Score based on Output from (Economic Impact Model)
• Primary input is Travel Time Savings• Output is # of long‐term jobs created (50%) + Value added in $ (50%) based on % change in County
Economy - Includes wages increased, increased productivity- Accounts for current economic conditions (includes use of labor statistics)- Results based on 10 year forecast using Moody’s Analytics data
• Does NOT include contingent (prospective) development• Criteria is not intended to evaluate projects for recruiting purposes
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility 10%Regional Impact N/ADivision Needs N/A
Highway – Economic Competitiveness
35
Purpose – Improve access to opportunity in rural and less‐affluent areas and improve interconnectivity of the transportation network.
50% ‐ County Tier Designation – Points are based on economic distress indicators from Dept. of Commerce (includes rankings of: property tax base per capita, population growth, median household income, unemployment rate)
50% ‐ Does project upgrade how the roadway functions? – Points are based on whether the project upgrades the roadway to one which provides a higher level of mobility by enhancing traffic flow, eliminating/bypassing signalized sections, increasing control of access, and accounting for the travel time savings per user
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 10%Division Needs 5%
Highway – Accessibility / Connectivity
36
Highway – Accessibility / Connectivity
Facility Type Upgrade (Does project upgrade the roadway)• Focus on improving how the roadway functions, with emphasis on enhancing traffic flow,
removing/bypassing traffic signals, and increasing access control• Eligibility based on combination of Existing Facility Type and Project Facility Type (see below)
New Location (Freeway, Multilane Highway, Superstreet) and Upgrade Intersection to Interchange/Grade separation projects also eligible)
• If project is eligible, use travel time savings per user
Existing Facility Type (From) Project Facility Type (To)
Two Lane Highway Freeway
Two Lane Highway Multilane Highway
Two Lane Highway Superstreet
Multilane Highway Freeway
Arterial (Signalized Roadway) Freeway
Arterial (Signalized Roadway) Multilane Highway
Arterial (Signalized Roadway) Superstreet
Superstreet Freeway
Superstreet Multilane Highway
37
Purpose – measure congestion along routes that provide connection to freight intermodal terminals and that have high truck volumes
50% ‐ Truck volumes along route30% ‐ Volume [Peak ADT] /capacity if project is on non‐Interstate STRAHNET route or
designated future Interstate20% ‐ (20 miles – distance project is to nearest freight intermodal terminal)
Freight terminals (includes facilities within 20 miles of NC):• Public freight intermodal terminals (truck/rail/pipeline) – as defined in NHS• Seaports and inland ports• Statewide Mobility eligible airports which handle large movement of freight (CLT, RDU, GSO)• Major military bases• Major ferry terminals• Large private freight intermodal terminals (truck to rail)
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility 15%Regional Impact 10%Division Needs 5%
Highway – Freight [+ Military]
38
Purpose – measure congestion along routes that provide a connection to multimodal passenger terminals
40% ‐ Volume [Peak ADT] / Capacity ratio along route if project is within 5 miles of a multimodal passenger terminal
60% ‐ (5 miles – distance project is to nearest multimodal passenger terminal)
Multimodal passenger terminals:• Amtrak stations (bus and rail stations run by Amtrak)• Major transit terminals• Commercial service airports• Red & blue general aviation airports• Major military bases• Ferry terminals
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility 5%Regional Impact ‐Division Needs ‐
Highway – Multimodal [+ Military]
39
Purpose – measure the existing lane width vs. DOT design standard
Existing Lane Width – DOT design standard Lane Width
• Greater the difference, the higher points the project receives- 1 ft difference = 25 pts- 2 ft difference = 50 pts- 3 ft difference = 75 pts- 4+ ft difference = 100 pts
• Does NOT mean that project will be constructed to design standard
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility ‐Regional Impact ‐Division Needs ‐
Highway – Lane Width
40
Purpose – measure the existing paved shoulder width vs. DOT design standard
Existing Paved Shoulder Width – DOT design standard Paved Shoulder Width
• Greater the difference, the higher points the project receives- 1 ft difference = 25 pts- 2 ft difference = 50 pts- 3 ft difference = 75 pts- 4+ ft difference = 100 pts
• Does NOT mean that project will be constructed to design standard
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility ‐Regional Impact ‐Division Needs ‐
Highway – [Paved] Shoulder Width
41
Purpose – measure the existing pavement condition along the project
100 – Pavement Condition Rating
• Based on 2014 Pavement Condition Survey• Higher scores indicate poorer pavement condition
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility ‐Regional Impact ‐Division Needs ‐
Highway – Pavement Condition
42
Alternate Criteria ‐ Regional Impact / Division NeedsRequirements:1. All MPO/RPO/Division Engineers unanimously agree on Alternate Criteria and % weights
by funding category• Alternate Criteria/Weights from P3.0 will not carry to P4.0• Within respective Paired Funding Region(s) or Division(s)
2. Memo to SPOT from each MPO/RPO/Division Engineer – reference TAC Chair(s) agreement
• Can begin process once Workgroup agrees to weights • Memo must be received by October 1, 2015
P4.0 Non‐Highway Criteria
44
STI – Non‐Highway Criteria
Separate prioritization processes for each mode• Must have minimum of 4 quantitative criteria• Criteria based on 0‐100 point scale with no bonus points and not favoring any particular mode of transportation
4545
Eligibility Definitions – Non‐HighwaysStatewide Regional Division
Aviation
Large Commercial Service Airports. Funding not to exceed $500K per airport project per year
Other Commercial Service Airports not in Statewide. Funding not to exceed $300K per airport project per year
All Airports without Commercial Service. Funding not to exceed $18.5M for airports within this category
Bicycle‐Pedestrian N/A N/A All routes
Public Transportation N/A
Service spanning two or more counties and serving more than one municipality. Funding amounts not to exceed 10% of regional allocation.
Service not included on Regional. Multimodal terminals and stations serving passenger transit systems
Ferry N/A State maintained routes, excluding replacement vessels Replacement of vessels
Rail Freight Capacity Service on Class I Railroad Corridors
Rail service spanning two or more counties not included on Statewide
Rail service not included on Statewide or Regional
P4.0 Aviation Criteria
Statewide Mobility– Commercial Service Airports• Airport is in the Federal Aviation Administration's National Plan of Integrated
Airport Systems (NPIAS)• International Service or 375,000 enplanements• $500,000 cap per airport per project per year• Charlotte Douglas International Airport, Raleigh Durham International Airport,
Piedmont Triad International Airport, Wilmington International Airport, Asheville Regional Airport
Regional Impacts – Commercial Service Airports • NPIAS airports that are not included in subdivision (1) of this section• $300,000 cap per airport per project per year• Albert J. Ellis Airport, Coastal Carolina Airport, Concord Regional Airport, Pitt-
Greenville Airport, Fayetteville Regional AirportDivision Needs – General Aviation Airports
• NPIAS airports that are not included in subdivision (1) or (2) • General Aviation airports• Statewide total funding not to exceed $18,500,000
47
STI – Eligibility for Airports
Airports by STI Classification
48 48
*Asheville is now Statewide
Airports are Unique
• Locally owned = Airport Sponsor• Project must be on an FAA approved Airport
Layout Plan in order to be considered• Minimum of 10% match is required• Sponsor must request project (also tied to
the FAA NPIAS requirements)• Federally Obligated to follow FAA guidelines
49
Definition for Capital Projects P3.0 vs P4.0
P3.0 considered all projects that changed the ‘footprint’ of the airport’s infrastructure.
P4.0 will consider only projects that exceed the system objectives or regulatory requirements for the airport’s infrastructure.
50
51
Criteria Measure Statewide Weight
Regional Weight
Division Weight
NCDOA Project Rating NCDOA Project Rating 40% 30% 25%
FAA ACIP RatingFederal Aviation Administration Airport Capital Improvement Plan
(ACIP) rating10% 5% 10%
Non‐State Contribution
Index
% of local funds compared to state funds toward the project 30% 20% 5%
Benefit/Cost
[ ( Total $ Econ. Contribution of Tier / Total # of IFR Ops of Tier ) * NCDOA Capital Project Rating ] /
Project Cost
20% 15% 10%
P4.0 Aviation Criteria
52
Purpose: Assigns point values based on priority and need of the project. Utilizes the North Carolina Division of Aviation (DOA) Master Project Categories from the recently completed NC Airports System Plan
Measure: NCDOA Project Rating
Sources: – NC Airport System Plan– NC Airport Development Plan– Airport’s FAA approved Airport Layout Plan– Scoring based on points assigned to project as evaluated by NCDOA recommended criteria
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility 40%Regional Impact 30%Division Needs 25%
Aviation – NCDOA Project Rating
53
Purpose: The ACIP rating serves as the primary planning tool for the FAA for systematically identifying, prioritizing and assigning funds to critical airport development and associated capital needs for the National Airspace System (NAS)
Measure: Federal Aviation Administration Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) rating
Sources: – Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Order 5100.39– Airport Capital Improvement Plan
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility 10%Regional Impact 5%Division Needs 10%
Aviation – FAA ACIP Rating
54
Purpose: Provides greater points for those projects that have a higher % of non‐state funding sources, such as local, federal, and private funding
Measure: % of local funds compared to state funds toward the project
Importance: Lessens burden on state capital dollars and measures financial commitment of the airport to the project
Source: Quantified at project request stage by the airport sponsor
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility 30%Regional Impact 20%Division Needs 5%
Aviation – Non‐State Contribution Index
55
Purpose: Measures total economic contribution
Measure: [ ( Total $ Econ. Contribution of Tier / Total # of IFR Ops of Tier ) * NCDOA Capital Project Rating ] / Project Cost
Notes: Includes direct, indirect and induced economic contributions for each airportUses averaged Economic Contribution for all airports within each TierUses average number of total IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) operations by Tier
Sources: Number of IFR Operations reported by FAA per airport
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility 20%Regional Impact 15%Division Needs 10%
Aviation – Benefit Cost
P4.0 Bicycle/Pedestrian Criteria
57
Criteria Measure Division Weight
Safety(Number of crashes x 40%) +(Posted speed limit x 40%) +(Project safety benefit x 20%)
15%
Access(Destination Type within 1 mile (pedestrian) or 3 miles (bicycle)
of facility x 50%) +(Distance to Prime Destination x 50%)
10%
Demand
# of households and employees per square mile within 1 ½ mile (bicycle) or ½ mile (pedestrian) of facility
(includes factor for unoccupied housing units (second homes) +group housing, excluding prisons)
10%
ConnectivityScore per each SIT, based on degree of bike/ped separation
from roadway, ADA compliance, and connectivity to a similar or better project type
10%
Cost Effectiveness (Safety + Access + Demand + Connectivity) /Estimated Project Cost to NCDOT 5%
P4.0 Bicycle/Pedestrian Criteria
58
Purpose: Projects or improvements where bicycle or pedestrian accommodations are non‐existent or inadequate for safety of users
Measure: Number of crashes * 40% +Posted speed limit * 40% +Project safety benefit * 20%
Sources: – Division of Bike and Pedestrian Transportation (DBPT) 2007‐2011 geocoded crash data– NCDOT (Road Characteristics Data or Other)– Safety benefit score based on lookup table
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact N/ADivision Needs 15%
Bicycle/Pedestrian – Safety
Bike/Ped Criteria – Safety Calculation
Proposed Scoring Scale: 0-100Bicycle/Pedestrian Crashes: 40% weight: (0-100 points) • Bicycle or pedestrian crashes within last
5 years along the corridor• For multi-use projects, both bicycle and
pedestrian crash data will be used• For new off-road facilities, crash data for
parallel routes will be used
Posted Speed Limits: 40% weight (0-100 pts.)• Posted speed limit
Project Safety Benefit: 20% weight (0-100 pts) Creates score for each Specific Improvement
Type (SIT)- see Table 1
Posted Speed Limit 50% Weight x Total Pts
55 and over 10040 to 50 5030 to 40 25
25 10
59
Crashes will be scaled, not capped
Safety Benefit Lookup Table
60
Proposed Project Type Facilities Included: Safety Improvement Points
Off‐Road/Separated Linear Bicycle Facility Multi‐use Path; Cycle Track; Side Path; Buffered Bicycle Lane; Bridge/Tunnel 100
On‐Road; Designated Bicycle Facility Bicycle Lane or Other Designated On‐Road Space 75
On‐Road Bicycle Facility Shared Lane Markings; Paved Shoulder; Route Signage 50
Multi‐Site Bicycle FacilityBicycle Parking; Bicycle Share Stations; Bicycle Signals; Intersection Improvements 25
Protected Linear Pedestrian Facility Sidewalks; Multi‐Use Path; Side Path; Bridge/Tunnel 100
Multi‐Site Pedestrian Facility; ADA Compliance
Curb Ramps; Accessible Pedestrian Signals; Streetscape/Corridor Improvements 75
Multi‐Site Pedestrian Facility Pedestrian signals; Curb extensions; Crosswalks; 50
Improved Pedestrian FacilityTrail Improvement; Sidewalk Widening; Paved Shoulder; Streetscape/Corridor Improvements; Wayfinding signage 25
61
Purpose: Destinations that draw or generate high volumes of bikes/pedestrians
Measure: Destination Type within 1 mile (pedestrian) or 3 miles (bicycle) of facility * 50% + Distance to Prime Destination * 50%
Source: Local input regarding destinations and distances
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact N/ADivision Needs 10%
Bicycle/Pedestrian – Access
62
Purpose: Areas with access to multiple destinations
Measure: # of households and employees per square mile within 1 ½ mile (bicycle) or ½ mile (pedestrian) of facility
(includes factor for unoccupied housing units (second homes) + group housing, excluding prisons)
Sources: 2010 US Census
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact N/ADivision Needs 10%
Bicycle/Pedestrian – Demand
63
Purpose: Measure impact of project on reliability and quality of network
Measure: Score per each SIT, based on degree of bike/ped separation from roadway, ADA compliance, and connectivity to a similar or better project type
Creates “Community Quality of Service (CQoS)” Index)Formula: (CQOSendA+CQOSendB…..)/n
Sources: Local Input – score based on lookup table
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact N/ADivision Needs 10%
Bicycle/Pedestrian – Connectivity
Connectivity Lookup Table Continuity‐Quality of Service Index
Existing Facility at End Point A/B (Project connects to or adds to…) Existing Facility at End Point A/B
Proposed Project Type
Multi‐use Path; Cycle Track; Side Path; Buffered Bicycle Lane; Bridge/Tunnel
Bicycle Lane or Other Designated On‐Road Space; Bicycle Signals or Intersection Improvements; Bicycle Parking; Bicycle Share Stations; Along regional or state‐designated route
Shared Lane Markings; Paved Shoulder; Route Signage; Bus stop or passenger terminal None
Sidewalks; Multi‐Use Path; Side Path; Bridge/Tunnel; Curb Ramps; Accessible Pedestrian Signal
Paved Shoulder; Crosswalk; Pedestrian Signal; Bus Stop or Passenger Terminal None
Off‐Road/Separated Linear Bicycle Facility
Multi‐use Path; Cycle Track; Side Path; Buffered Bicycle Lane; Bridge/Tunnel 100 75 50 25
On‐Road; Designated Bicycle Facility
Bicycle Lane or Other Designated On‐Road Facility 75 50 25 15
On‐Road Bicycle Facility Shared Lane Markings; Paved Shoulder; Route Signage 50 25 15 10
Multi‐Site Bicycle FacilityBicycle Parking; Bicycle Share Stations; Bicycle Signals; Intersection Improvements 35 15 10 5
Protected Linear Pedestrian Facility
Sidewalks; Multi‐Use Path; Side Path; Bridge/Tunnel 100 50 25
Multi‐Site Pedestrian Facility; ADA Compliance
Curb Ramps; Accessible Pedestrian Signals 50 25 15
Multi‐Site Pedestrian Facility Pedestrian signals; Curb extensions; Crosswalks 25 15 10
Improved Pedestrian Facility
Trail Improvement; Sidewalk Widening; Paved Shoulder; Streetscape/Corridor Improvements; Wayfinding Signage 15 10 564
Connectivity Examples
65
Description: Greenway Trail connecting two parks, with bridge or tunnel needed to cross the rail line. Two intersection improvements needed. Connecting two greenways.
Using Formula: [(CQOSendA+CQOSendB…..)/n:
[(100+100/2)]
TOTAL = 100
Connectivity Examples
66
Description: Lane reduction from four to three lanes including on‐road bicycle lanes for 3 miles, shared‐lane markings for 1.3 miles.
Connects at point A to a side path, point B to a bicycle lane, point C to no facilities and point D to a greenway.
Using Formula: [(CQOSendA+CQOSendB+CQOSendC+CQOSendD)/n]:
[(75+75+15+75)/4]
TOTAL = 60
A
B
Connectivity Examples
67
Description: Construct 10 curb ramps within downtown area. Intersections all have existing sidewalks.
Using Formula: [(CQOSendA+CQOSendB…..)/n]/:
[(100+100+100+100+100+100+100+100+100+100)/10]
TOTAL = 100
68
Purpose: Ratio of calculated user benefit divided by NCDOT project cost
Measure: (Access + Safety + Demand + Connectivity)/Estimated Project Cost to NCDOT
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact N/ADivision Needs 5%
Bicycle/Pedestrian – Cost Effectiveness
Ferry
Eligibility Definitions – Ferry Division
70
Types of Ferry Division Eligible Projects:
Statewide Regional Division
Not Eligible • New Installation of Ramp & Gantry (Capacity Expansion)
• Bulkhead Expansion (associated with Capacity Expansion)
• Additional Mooring Slips (to accommodate capacity expansion)
• New (Capacity Expansion) Ferry (Riveror Sound Class)
• Replacement of Ferry (River, Hatteras, or Sound Class)
• Replacement of Support Vessels (Barges, Tugs, etc.)
71
Criteria Measure Regional Weight Division Weight
Asset Condition 100 ‐ Asset Condition Rating 15% 15%
Benefits Monetized value of number of hours saved 10% 10%
Accessibility/Connectivity
The number of POI within 3 concentric rings of the route is
determined, scaled by a multiplying factor (75% for Ring 1, 50% for Ring 2,
25% for Ring 3), and totaled
10% 10%
Asset Efficiency 3‐year maintenance cost / pro‐rated 3‐year replacement cost 15% 15%
Capacity/Congestion
Percentage of the number of vehicles left behind at each departure
compared to the total number of vehicles loaded and carried by the
route (in a year time frame)
20% ‐
P4.0 Ferry Criteria
72
Purpose: Integrity of asset condition
Measure: 100 ‐ Asset Condition Rating
Source: Ferry Division (Vessel Health Ratings)
Note: Vessels reviewed annually, full inspections completed every three years
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 15%Division Needs 15%
Ferry – Asset Condition
73
Purpose: Project benefits based on monetized travel time savings due to VMT reduction
Measure: Monetized value of number of hours saved
Source: Ferry Division Via National Mapping Software
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 10%Division Needs 10%
Ferry – Benefits
Ferry Criteria – Benefits
74
Route Main Highway RoutesTime Via Land in
Mins
Time Via
Ferry in Mins
Mins Saved
Per Vehicle
Trip
Avg Number of Vehicles Per Year*
Number of Cars
Number of Trucks
Total Time Savings for
Cars (in Hrs)
Total Time Savings for Trucks (in
Hrs)
Monitized Total Time Savings for
Cars
Monetized Total Time Savings for
Trucks
Total Monetized Savings for
Utilizing the Ferry
Hatteras Inlet US 264 366 59 307 294,412 250250 44162 1280446.75 225961.19 $ 28,169,828 $ 878,053,554 $ 906,223,383
Cherry Branch – Minnesott NC 101–NC 306 – US 70 62 21 41 227,199 204479 22720 139727.51 15525.28 $ 3,074,005 $ 483,923 $ 3,557,928
Cedar Island – OcracokeNC 101-US 70
393 168 225 59,749 54969 4780 206132.67 17924.58 $ 4,534,919 $ 558,709 $ 5,093,628 -US264
Southport –NC 133–NC 211 - US13 76 31 45 178,890 164579 14311 123434.24 10733.41 $ 2,715,553 $ 334,560 $ 3,050,114
Ft. Fisher
Bayview - Aurora US 264-NC 99 70 39 31 67,389 61998 5391 32032.05 2785.40 $ 704,705 $ 86,821 $ 791,526
Swan Quarter – Ocracoke US 264 234 158 76 29,852 27762 2090 35165.42 2646.86 $ 773,639 $ 82,503 $ 856,142
Currituck – Knotts Island NC 168–NC 615 53 47 6 23,303 19808 3495 1980.76 349.55 $ 43,577 $ 10,895 $ 54,472
Totals = 783,844 96,949 $ 40,016,227 $ 879,610,966 $ 919,627,192
Fleet Average 111,978 13,850 $ 5,716,604 $ 125,658,709 $ 131,375,313
Note: * These traffic values are the per year totals based on an average of FY09‐10 thru FY13‐14Monetized Time Values as Provided by SPOT Office: Cars = $ 22.00 per hour
Trucks = $ 31.17 per hour
75
Purpose: Accessibility to jobs, services, and other points of interest
Measure: The number of POI within 3 concentric rings of the route is determined, scaled by a multiplying factor (75% for Ring 1, 50% for Ring 2, 25% for Ring 3), and totaled
Source: Points of Interest as counted from maps of the important destination within the pre‐determined circles of influence. These maps are generated in collaboration between NCDOT and NC Department of Commerce GIS personnel.
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 10%Division Needs 10%
Ferry – Accessibility/Connectivity
76
Purpose: Cost effectiveness of maintenance for the asset vs. replacement of the asset. Maintenance costs at 60% of replacement cost is critical.
Measure: 3‐year maintenance cost / pro‐rated 3‐year replacement cost
Source: SAP/BSIP and like purchase histories
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 15%Division Needs 15%
Ferry – Asset Efficiency
77
Purpose: Evaluation of traffic left and number of trips. Indicates need to enhance capacity and reduce congestion.
Measure: Percentage of the number of vehicles left behind at each departure compared to the total number of vehicles loaded and carried by the route (in a year time frame)
Sources: Based on monthly traffic report
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 20%Division Needs ‐
Ferry – Capacity/Congestion
Public Transportation
79
Eligible Project Types by FundingFundingCategory
Project Types
Expansion Vehicle Facility Fixed Guideway
Statewide(100% Criteria
Score)
Not Eligible Not Eligible Not Eligible
Regional(70% Criteria
Score)
Fleet Vehicle BusFleet Vehicle VanFleet Vehicle Light Transit Fixed Guideway Vehicle
Administrative/ Operations Facility, Bus Shelter, Park and Ride, PropertyAcquisition/Design/Construction, Paving/Resurfacing, Transfer Facility, Maintenance Facility, Passenger Facility
Commuter Rail, Light Rail, Street Car, Bus on Shoulder, Bus Rapid Transit, Track Improvement/Extension,
Division(50% Criteria
Score)
Fleet Vehicle BusFleet Vehicle VanFleet Vehicle Light Transit Fixed Guideway Vehicle
Administrative/OperationsFacility, Bus Shelter, Park and Ride, PropertyAcquisition/Design/Construction, Paving/Resurfacing, Transfer Facility, Maintenance Facility, Passenger Facility
Commuter Rail, Light Rail, Street Car, Bus on Shoulder, Bus Rapid Transit,TrackImprovement/Extension,
Note: Minimum Cost of $40,000 total project cost. Bus shelters must be bundled along route corridors.Note: No phasing of project submittals. All phasing of projects will be handled by the Program Development Branch
80
Criteria Measure Regional Weight Division Weight
Access Annual OpStat Reported Hours / Vehicles in Fleet 10% 5%
System Safety OpStat Reported Miles / 3 Year Average of Incidents 10% 10%
Impact
(Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips + Projected New Unlinked Annual
Passenger Trips ) / Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips
20% 15%
Cost EffectivenessProjected New Annual Unlinked Passenger
Trips for the Life of the Vehicle / Cost to the State
20% 15%
Market Share(Unlinked Passenger Trips + Projected New
Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips) / Service Area Population
10% 5%
P4.0 Public Transportation Criteria(Vehicle)
81
Purpose: Considers the availability of the vehicle fleet for passenger service
Measure: Annual OpStat Reported Hours / Vehicles in Fleet
Importance: If existing fleets are not being well‐utilized, there is no need for expansion vehicles
Note: 2400 hours per vehicle is considered optimum
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 10%Division Needs 5%
Public Transportation (Vehicle) – Access
82
Purpose: Examines the safety record over 3 year period
Measure: OpStat Reported Miles / 3 Year Average of Incidents
Importance: If safety records are poor, expansion vehicles may be abused
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 10% 5%Division Needs 10% 5%
Public Transportation (Vehicle) – System Safety
83
Purpose: Considers the relative impact of the proposed service measured by the total of expected trips divided by existing trips
Measure: (Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips + Projected New Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips ) / Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips
Importance: Measures the impact of the proposed project to overall service
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 20%Division Needs 15%
Public Transportation (Vehicle) – Impact
84
Purpose: Measure of the number of trips to be provided over the life of the expansion vehicle compared to the amount of state investment
Measure: Projected New Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips for the life of the vehicle / Cost to State
Importance: Compares the return on state investment to other projects in terms of people served
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 20%Division Needs 15%
Public Transportation (Vehicle) – Cost Effectiveness
85
Purpose: Effectiveness of the transit system with the proposed new trips
Measure: (Unlinked Passenger Trips + Projected New Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips) / Service Area Population
Importance: Measures the impact of the proposed project on the system and areas served
Note: Service Area Population Definitions:Fixed Route = Population within ¾ mile of routeDemand Response = Population within entire system area
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 10% 15%Division Needs 5% 10%
Public Transportation (Vehicle) – Market Share
86
Criteria Measure Regional Weight Division Weight
Impact(Expansion projects only)
(Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips + Projected New Unlinked Annual
Passenger Trips ) / Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips 20% 15%
Age(Non‐expansion projects) Age / 45 years
Cost Effectiveness Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips / Cost to the State 20% 15%
Market Share
(Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips + Projected Annual Unlinked
Passenger Trips) / Service Area Population
15% 10%
Ridership Growth Ridership Growth Trend for the Previous 5 Years 15% 10%
P4.0 Public Transportation Criteria (Facility – Passenger)
Note: Weights are the same for Passenger Facility and Administrative/Maintenance/Operations Facility.All definitions are also the same, with the exception of Impact.
87
Purpose: Relative impact of the proposed expansion or new facility compared to the existing facilities. Measures improvement to current system performance.
Measure: (Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips + Projected New Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips ) / Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips
Importance: Identifies the how much the project could improve current conditions. Focuses on additional passengers.
Note: Used only for expansion passenger facilities
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 20%Division Needs 15%
Public Transportation (Facility – Passenger) –Impact
88
Purpose: Compares the age of facility to the useful life based on definitions provided by Ernst &Young and FTA
Measure: Age / 45 years
Importance: Identifies need based on current conditions of the facility
Notes: Used for non‐expansion passenger facilities in need of updates45 year useful life is the same as in P3.0Age is calculated since last major renovation (major renovation = Improvement was at least 50% of the value of the facility)
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 20%Division Needs 15%
Public Transportation (Facility – Passenger) –Age
89
Purpose: Effectiveness of state dollar output
Measure: Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips / Cost to the State
Importance: Measures the effectiveness of state dollars in terms of trips
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 20%Division Needs 15%
Public Transportation (Facility – Passenger) –Cost Effectiveness
90
Purpose: Effectiveness of the transit system with the proposed new trips
Measure: (Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips + Projected Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips) / Service Area Population
Importance: Measures the impact of the proposed project on the system and areas served
Note: Service Area Population = ADA Service area population (for fixed route system) or county population (for demand response)
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 15%Division Needs 10%
Public Transportation (Facility – Passenger) –Market Share
91
Purpose: Examines a transit system’s need to expand
Measure: Ridership Growth Trend (% growth) for the Previous 5 Years
Importance: Growth in ridership is one indicator of need for larger or additional facilities
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 15%Division Needs 10%
Public Transportation (Facility – Passenger) –Ridership Growth
92
Criteria Measure Regional Weight Division Weight
Impact(Expansion projects only)
(Additional Capacity + Existing Capacity) / Existing Capacity 20% 15%
Age(Non‐expansion projects) Age / 45 years
Cost Effectiveness Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips / Cost to the State 20% 15%
Market Share
(Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips + Projected Annual Unlinked
Passenger Trips) / Service Area Population
15% 10%
Ridership Growth Ridership Growth Trend for the Previous 5 Years 15% 10%
P4.0 Public Transportation Criteria(Facility – Administrative/Maintenance/Operations)
Note: Weights are the same for Passenger Facility and Administrative/Maintenance/Operations Facility.All definitions are also the same, with the exception of Impact.
93
Purpose: Relative impact of the proposed expansion or new facility compared to the existing facilities
Measure: (Additional Capacity + Existing Capacity) / Existing Capacity
Importance: Focuses on increased workspace which would create efficiencies
Notes: Used only for expansion admin/maint/op facilitiesFor every 10 buses, 1 service bay and 2 mechanics are needed
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 20%Division Needs 15%
Public Transportation (Facility – Admin/Maint/Op) – Impact
94
Purpose: Compares the age of facility to the useful life based on definitions provided by Ernst &Young and FTA
Measure: Age / 45 years
Importance: Identifies need based on current conditions of the facility
Notes: Used for non‐expansion passenger facilities in need of updates45 year useful life is the same as in P3.0Age is calculated since last major renovation (major renovation = Improvement was at least 50% of the value of the facility)
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 20%Division Needs 15%
Public Transportation (Facility – Admin/Maint/Op) – Age
95
Purpose: Effectiveness of state dollar output
Measure: Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips / Cost to the State
Importance: Measures the effectiveness of state dollars in terms of trips
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 20%Division Needs 15%
Public Transportation (Facility – Admin/Maint/Op) – Cost Effectiveness
96
Purpose: Effectiveness of the transit system with the proposed new trips
Measure: (Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips + Projected Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips) / Service Area Population
Importance: Measures the impact of the proposed project on the system and areas served
Note: Service Area Population = ADA Service area population (for fixed route system) or county population (for demand response)
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 15%Division Needs 10%
Public Transportation (Facility – Admin/Maint/Op) – Market Share
97
Purpose: Examines a transit system’s need to expand
Measure: Ridership Growth Trend (% growth) for the Previous 5 Years
Importance: Growth in ridership is one indicator of need for larger or additional facilities
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 15%Division Needs 10%
Public Transportation (Facility – Admin/Maint/Op) – Ridership Growth
98
Criteria Measure Regional Weight Division Weight
Mobility Estimated Annual Trips(1 point for every 250,000 Trips) 20% 15%
Cost Effectiveness
Cost of the Trip Over the Life of the Project
(100 points for a cost of $1 or less per trip; decreasing by 1 point for every $0.03 increase per trip)
15% 15%
Economic Development
1 point per 1,000 new employees and 1 point per 500 new residents 20% 10%
Congestion Relief
((Guideway Passengers/Day) x 290 Days x 30 Years x Avg Time of Trip x
Value of Time) / $10,000,000
15% 10%
P4.0 Public Transportation Criteria (Fixed Guideway)
99
Purpose: Impact of new fixed guideway to area served
Measure: Estimated Annual Trips(1 point for every 250,000 Trips)
Importance: Identifies how much the project could improve current conditions
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 20%Division Needs 15%
Public Transportation (Fixed Guideway) –Mobility
100
Purpose: Cost per trip over the life of the project
Measure: Cost of the Trip Over the Life of the Project(100 points for a cost of $1 or less per trip, decreasing by 1 point for every $0.03 increase per trip)
Importance: Reflects actual cost of project
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 15%Division Needs 15%
Public Transportation (Fixed Guideway) –Cost Effectiveness
101
Purpose: Measures the new employment and population growth in the fixed guidewaycorridor over 20 years
Measure: 1 point per 1,000 new employees and 1 per 500 new residents within ½ mile of the project stations/stops
Importance: Identifies potential economic impacts along project corridor
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 20%Division Needs 10%
Public Transportation (Fixed Guideway) –Economic Development
102
Purpose: Travel time benefit savings to the fixed guideway passenger over a 30 year period
Measure: (Projected Guideway Passengers/Day * 290 Days * 30 Years * Avg. Time of Trip * Value of Time) / $10,000,000
Importance: Measures benefit to users
Notes: Avg Time of Trip (hours) based on project submittedValue of time based on 50% median wage of the MSADivide by $10,000,000 to bring score down to a 0 to 100 range, since not a sufficient number of projects are available to scale
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 15%Division Needs 15%
Public Transportation (Fixed Guideway) –Congestion Relief
Rail
104
P4.0 Rail Project Types and Eligibility
Funding CategoriesProject Types
Freight Rail Passenger Rail
Statewide Class I Freight Capacity and Safety Improvements
Not Eligible
Regional Class I Freight Capacity and Safety Improvements
Passenger Infrastructure Improvements
Division Class I Freight Capacity and Safety Improvements
Passenger Infrastructure Improvements (including multimodal terminals and
stations)
105
Criteria MeasureStatewide Weight
(Freight only*)
Regional Weight
Division Weight
Cost Effectiveness
(Return on Investment Index * 75%) + (Regional Job Creation Index *
25%)35% 25% 20%
System Health(Capacity Index * 75%) +
(Accessibility/Connectivity Index * 25%)
35% 20% 10%
Safety and Suitability Safety Index 20% 15% 10%
Project Support Funding Leverage Index 10% 10% 10%
P4.0 Rail Criteria
*Passenger Rail only eligible for Regional Impact and Division Needs
106
Purpose: Takes into account return on investment (ROI) and long‐term job creation for project scoring, and incorporates the P3.0 Benefit‐Cost and Economic Competitiveness criteria
Measure: (Return on Investment Index * 75%) + (Regional Job Creation Index * 25%)
Notes: Return on Investment Index = Monetized Benefits / Cost to NCDOTRegional Job Creation Index= Long‐term Jobs Created in Year 20 * County Unemployment Rate
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility 35% (freight only)Regional Impact 25%Division Needs 20%
Rail – Cost Effectiveness
107
Rail – Cost Effectiveness
Return on Investment Index
Monetized Benefits• Travel Time• Modal Diversions• Value of Cargo / Supply Chain Effects• Environmental – Emissions• Safety – Crash Incidents
Cost to NCDOT• Right of Way + Construction Costs – Outside Contributions
Regional Job Creation Index
For projects crossing county lines, a weighted unemployment rate will be used
108
Purpose: Incorporates P3.0 Capacity/Congestion, Accessibility, and Connectivity criteria, and reflects Cambridge global and rail recommendations
Measure: (Capacity Index * 75%) + (Accessibility/Connectivity Index * 25%)
Notes: Capacity Index = Vexisting/CexistingAccessibility/Connectivity Index = measured by GIS spatial analysis
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility 35% (freight only)Regional Impact 20%Division Needs 10%
Rail – System Health
109
Rail – System Health
Volume / Capacity Index
Passenger service and stations: based on Amtrak station design standards, track charts, and equipment specifications
Freight and passenger tracks and facilities: based on track charts, reported rail volumes, and capacity modeling
Grade crossings: based on peak average daily traffic (highway), reported traffic counts, roadway capacity, and the State Authoritative Rail and Highway database
110
Rail – System Health
Accessibility/Connectivity Index
Passenger station: POIs within 10 miles of a new passenger rail station / Average POIs within 10 miles of existing state‐supported stations
Freight improvements: Percentage of a project that improves the NC Transportation Network (NCTN) statewide rail system
Grade crossings: Employment density
111
Rail – System Health
Points of Interest for Passenger Stations
• Municipalities greater than 2500 people*• Airports *• Hospitals*• Military Bases*• Colleges and Universities*• County Seat*• Business Locations (Employing 100+)*• National Historic Places*• National Historic Districts*• Multimodal passenger terminals**• Managed Lands (recreation, culture)
*Applied by Ferry Division**Under development by WG
112
NCTN for Freight Improvements
The NC Transportation Network (NCTN) models important corridors for the purpose of economic development and environmental stewardship
Freight projects are analyzed based on the percentage of the project that improves each of the 5 NCTN freight corridors:• Ports and terminal service• Double‐stack lines• Core mainlines• Strategic/emerging market service (namely, coal and nuclear)• The DOD’s Strategic Rail Corridor Network (STRACNET)
(NCTN passenger service is excluded from the freight analysis)
Rail – System Health
113
Rail – System Health
114
Rail – System Health
Employment Density for Grade Crossings
InfoUSA employment data provided by NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch
115
Purpose: Represents the P3.0 Safety criterion, and is based on the Rail Division’s FHWA‐approved Investigative Index that measures crash potential at grade crossings
Measure: Safety Index
Notes: Safety Index = SARAH Investigative Index * Mitigation FactorMitigation Factor = 1.0 for grade separations (eliminates risk), 0.5 for at‐grade improvements
Rail Division developed the Investigative Index formula to rank potentially hazardous crossings; it is derived from level of crossing protection, highway traffic volume, train volume, train speed, track parameters, crash history, and sight distance
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility 20% (freight only)Regional Impact 15%Division Needs 10%
Rail – Safety and Suitability
116
Purpose: Leverages projects with alternative funding sources, and could include non‐monetary measures of local support as metrics are established
Measure: Funding Leverage Index
Notes: Funding Leverage Index = Outside Contributions / Cost to NCDOTOutside contributions: railroads, local match, other funding sourcesCost to NCDOT: ROW acquisition and capital costs minus outside contributions
Funding Category Criteria Weight
Statewide Mobility 10% (freight only)Regional Impact 10%Division Needs 10%
Rail – Project Support
P4.0 Additional Information
NormalizationIntent of STI legislation is to fund best transportation projects regardless of mode
Definition – Methodology for comparing quantitative scores across all modes
Challenges:• Different criteria and weights used for evaluating projects in each mode• No “best practice” from national review – Peer Exchange in Dec. 2014 confirms this• Cambridge Systematics recommends to allocate $ by mode in a transparent manner
118
vs vs vs vs vs
119
Normalization
P4.0 (same as P3.0)• Statewide Mobility (only) – No normalization, scores are stand‐alone for comparison (highway, aviation, freight rail)
• Regional Impact & Division Needs – Allocate funds to Highway and Non‐Highway modes based on minimum floor or %s
Mode Workgroup & BOT Recommendation
HistoricalBudgeted
HistoricalExpenditures
Draft 2016‐2025 STIP Funding
Highway 90% (min.) 93% 96% 95%
Non‐Highway 4% (min.) 7% 4% 5%
120
Existing ProjectsProjects automatically considered “Submitted/Existing” for P4.0• Projects programmed for R/W or CON only in years 6‐10 based on Final STIP• Siblings of programmed projects (i.e., Section A is funded in year 3, Sections B, C, D – all unfunded – would remain in database)
• Projects with a completed NEPA document or planning actively underway as of 12/31/14• Any project that received any amount of local input points in P3.0
Modifications of Existing projects allowed without counting against new submittals (need agreement between MPO/RPO and Division) – Due Sept. 1st
• Includes segmenting of projects, such as evaluating interchanges separately
All other projects to be removed (and put in SPOT On!ine holding tank)• Holding tank allows user to resubmit project, but keep some existing data (such as SPOT ID and mapping)
• Holding tank projects not resubmitted for P4.0 will be deleted from database
121
New Project Submittals# of New Submittal Options for EACH of the 6 Modes• Each MPO/RPO gets a minimum of 10 new submittals + 1 additional based on every 100K in population, with max. of 20 (same approach as P3.0)
• Each Division gets 7 new projects• 1 in, 1 out allowed as long as agreement between MPO/RPO and Division
- Deletions of existing projects due October 1st
• All new projects must be submitted by MPOs/RPOs/Division Engineers• New submittals may be a combination of brand new projects and removed projects that are in holding tank
• If you segment a project in holding tank and submit both segments, this counts as two submittals
Note: 2013 Population figures will be used
122
Local Input Points
Use in Regional Impact & Division Needs categories only All Modes
# of Points = 1000 points + additional points based on population (same as P3.0)
Separate Allocation of Points for Regional Impact Category and Division Needs Category• Point allocation is the same for each• 100 point max per project per category (e.g., project H123456 can receive 100 points max in Regional Impact and 100 points max in Division Needs)
MPOs/RPOs required to have NCDOT approved process for assigning local input points based on combination of quant. & qualitative data (per S.L. 2012‐84)
Division Engineers have formal process for assigning local input points based on combination of quantitative and qualitative data
Date Activity
September 1, 2015 • Project Modifications projects due• Anticipated Intersection/Interchange/Operational/Superstreet projects due
October 1, 2015 • Alternate Criteria for Regional Impact and Division Needs scoring due• Existing Project Deletions due for receiving extra new submittals (one out,
one in)
October 2015 • SPOT On!ine available for Entering Projects for 1 month (exact date tbd)
End of March 2016 • Quantitative Scores and Draft list of Programmed Statewide Mobility Projects released
April 1, 2016 • Regional Impact Local Input Point window opens for 2 months• Deadline for Approval of Local Input Point Assignment Methodologies
End of July 2016 • Draft list of Programmed Regional Impact Projects released
August 1, 2016 • Division Needs Local Input Point window opens for 2 months
October 2016 • Final P4.0 Scores released
December 2016 • 2017‐2027 Draft STIP released
Key dates
125
STI Connect Site (to be updated for P4.0) ‐https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/ResourcesMPO‐RPO.aspx
Project Scores/Data, MPO/RPO/Division Methodologies, presentations, etc.
125
126126
127
SPOT On!ine – P4.0
Vendor currently updating application for P4.0
Includes:• New Specific Improvement Types
- Highway (6 new 23 total)- Bike & Ped (8 new/total)- Public Transportation (3 new/total)- Rail (4 new/total)- Aviation (16 new/total)
• Ability to change base map• New/updated details screens for Bike & Ped and Public Transportation• Ability to put in cross‐streets for intersections• Improved cost estimation
- Updated R/W and Construction costs and calculations- New intersection/interchange combinations- Detailed cost reports 127
128
SPOT On!ine – P4.0
SPOT On!ine will primarily be used to enter projects and derive some data
No criteria scores will be available (hopefully P4.0 only)
Some raw measure values may be automatically calculated (see next slide)
Scaling to be applied after all projects are scored (by end of March 2016)• Scaling applied to measures• Measures multiplied by weights = Criteria Scores• Scaling may be incorporated into SPOT On!ine in P5.0 using P4.0 scores
Other enhancements to be available in March (detailed summaries, exports)
128
129
SPOT On!ine Automated Hwy Raw MeasuresCriteria Measure May be Automatically
Calculated
CongestionVolume/Capacity Yes
Volume Yes
Benefit‐Cost Benefit/Cost No
Safety
Crash Density (segments) Yes
Crash Severity (segments) Yes
Critical Crash Rate (segments) Yes
Crash Frequency (intersections) No
Severity Index (intersections) No
Economic Competitiveness
% Change in Value Added No
Long‐term Jobs No
Accessibility / Connectivity
County Economic Indicator No
Upgrade Roadway Travel Time Savings No
Freight
Truck Volume Yes
Volume/Capacity on Non‐Interstate STRAHNet or Future Interstate Route Yes
Distance to Freight Terminal Yes
MultimodalDistance to Multimodal Passenger Terminal Yes
Volume/Capacity on Route near Multimodal Passenger Terminal Yes
130
SPOT On!ine – P4.0
Developing project entry requirements (anticipated Aug/Sept)
SPOT On!ine training to occur 1st or 2nd week after new submittal window opens• Opening anticipated October 12th or 19th
Submit SPOT On!ine user info to Sarah
130
“The Department shall develop and utilize a process for selection of transportation projects that is based on professional standards in order to most efficiently use limited resources to benefit all citizens of the State.
The strategic prioritization process should be a systematic, data‐driven process that includes a combination of quantitative data, qualitative input, and multimodal characteristics, and should include local input.
The Department shall develop a process for standardizing or approving local methodology used in Metropolitan Planning Organization and Rural Transportation Planning Organization prioritization.“ ‐ S.L. 2012‐84
Prioritization Process is now in Law
MPO/RPO Local Input Methodologies
132
MPO/RPO Local Input Methodologies
• All MPO/RPO methodologies need reaffirmation/approval from their TAC’s and approval from NCDOT prior to April 2016 (Assignment of Regional Impact points)
- Reminder: two sixty‐day local input periods are now available- No public meeting required if no change
• One quantitative and one qualitative criteria
• Scoring methodology understandable to the public
• Preliminary point assignments guided by a scoring methodology
• Public comment period/review of preliminary point assignments
133
MPO/RPO Local Input Methodologies
• Final point assignments guided by public comment/review
• Any changes to point assignments clearly articulated for public consumption and posted on websites
• MPO/RPO staff enters TAC‐approved final point assignments in SPOT On!ine during local input point assignment window
• Review and approval of MPO/RPO methodologies will be coordinated by NCDOT with the SPOT office serving as the chair of the review committee
P4.0 Local Input Review Committee
Make recommendations to NCDOT on approval of local input methodology point assignment
Committee Members:• SPOT• Program Development Branch• Transportation Planning Branch• MPO representative – Advisory Member• RPO representative – Advisory Member• Chief Engineer’s Office – Advisory Member
134
Best Practices of Local MPO/RPO Methodologies
July, 2015
Most Importantly : These are a compendium of best practices from P3.0.
NCDOT Requirements were outlined in Mr. Trogdon’s October 15, 2013 letter to each MPO/RPO
For P4.0, the local input review committee will make recommendations to NCDOT on conditional approvals of MPO/RPO local input methodology.
Conditional approval means the MPO/RPO can proceed to complete their local input process and point assignment.
All Local Methodologies must be approved by NCDOT by the opening of local input point assignment period (April 1, 2016)
136
Local Input Methodologies
Local Input Methodology Development
Staff develops project scoring methodology across all modes based on thefollowing criteria:
• At least one quantitative criteria- spell out criteria, measure(s) and weights- some MPOs/RPOs use the Department’s quantitative (not required)
• At least one qualitative criteria- spell out criteria, measure(s) and weights
137
Example Methodologies from P3.0
Some MPOs/RPOs allow each county/municipality to select one or more projects for full local input point assignment before any remaining points are assigned. This is a local decision.
Some MPOs/RPOs allocate a certain percentage of points to each mode “off the top”‐ This is a local decision.
Some MPOs/RPOs use “discretionary” points that are added to projects provided the TAC agrees and reasons why are made public.
Some MPOs/RPOs determine final “local input methodology scores” and then assign the highest scored project a 100, the second highest one a 99, the third a 98 etc. until they run out of points. This is to announce which project is truly the MPO/RPO highest priority.
138
Some MPOs/RPOs use a methodology of targeting projects having the best potential to be funded. If used, it is imperative to view the project quantitative scores in your paired funding Region and Division.
• Obtain from Program Development the estimated available funding for the next ten years for your paired funding Region and your Division.
• Estimate how many projects could be funded within available funding IF every project in that category (paired Region or your Division) was given full local input points (MPO/RPO AND DE).
• Make an assumption on what you believe will be the lowest scoring project to receive funding in a draft STIP.
• Assign sufficient points to your projects to boost their final scores above what point level you assumed/estimated to be the lowest level that could be funded in a draft STIP.
139
Example Methodologies from P3.0
Methodology Deviations
Include a statement in the MPO/RPO local input methodology to the effect that if the final point assignment is changed by the TAC, the reasons for the change will be clearly articulated to the public
The language used is something like one of these two statements: 1. “Any rationale for point assignments made by the TAC or via public input which deviate
from this local methodology will be placed on the MPO/RPO website.”2. “The TAC has the final discretion regarding assignment of local points, and retains the
flexibility to make changes to these point assignments if it is able to document a reason for doing so.”
These changes must be documented and made available as information to the public
140
1. MPO/RPO and Division staff meet to discuss priorities and the status of eachproject• Includes discussions with adjacent MPOs/RPOs• Projects reviewed for issues involving schedules, permits, and cost to determinewhich projects are feasible for local input, including point transfers
2. MPO/RPO staff prepares preliminary point assignment based on approved methodology• Preliminary scores and point assignment are posted on the MPO/RPO website
3. MPO/RPO follows their normal public comment requirements which allows public review and input on the proposed point assignment • This includes holding a public meeting/hearing
141
MPO/RPO Point Assignment Steps
MPO/RPO Point Assignment Steps
4. MPO/RPO TCC and TAC reviews all public comments and revises point assignments as appropriate
5. MPO/RPO TAC approves local input point assignment• Final local input point assignments posted on the MPO/RPO website• Include clearly articulated reasons for changes to point assignment by TAC, if applicable
6. MPO/RPO staff assigns the approved local input points according the Prioritization schedule • Regional Impact (April‐May 2016)• Division Needs (August‐September 2016)
142
143
Next Steps for MPOs, RPOs, and Divisions
Prepare any modifications (due Sept. 1st)
Prepare any Anticipated Intersection/Interchange/Operational/Superstreet projects (due Sept. 1st)
Discuss any Alternate Criteria for Reg. Impact and Division Needs (due Oct. 1st)
Prepare for new project entry (anticipated Oct. 12th or 19th)• Discuss projects for all modes with appropriate parties and NCDOT modal staff• Collaborate, Coordinate, and Communicate project entry with appropriate MPOs, RPOs, and Divisions – be familiar with other partners’ projects.
Is there anything else SPOT can provide to assist?
143
144
Don Voelker(919) 707‐4740
David Wasserman, P.E.(919) 707‐4743
Sarah E. Lee(919) 707‐[email protected]
http://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/
Contact Information NCDOT Strategic Prioritization Office