P4.0 Training MPOs, RPOs, and DPEs July 2015 · Strategic Transportation Investment (STI) New funding formula for NCDOT’s Capital Expenditures • Focus on Mobility/Expansion and

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



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


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


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



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


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


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)



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


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


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



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



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



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



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



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



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


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



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



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



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


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


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



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



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



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.



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



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


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


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



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


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



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



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


Statewide Mobility N/ARegional Impact 10% 15%Division Needs 5% 10%

Public Transportation (Vehicle) – Market Share

86


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



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)



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



Public Transportation (Facility – Passenger) –Cost Effectiveness

90


Measure: (Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips + Projected Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips) / Service Area Population


Note: Service Area Population = ADA Service area population (for fixed route system) or county population (for demand response)



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



Public Transportation (Facility – Passenger) –Ridership Growth

92


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



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)



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



Public Transportation (Facility – Admin/Maint/Op) – Cost Effectiveness

96


Measure: (Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips + Projected Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips) / Service Area Population


Note: Service Area Population = ADA Service area population (for fixed route system) or county population (for demand response)



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



Public Transportation (Facility – Admin/Maint/Op) – Ridership Growth

98


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



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



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



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



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


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



Rail – System Health

109


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


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


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)


113


114


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



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



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 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


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


• 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


• 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

[email protected]

David Wasserman, P.E.(919) 707‐4743

[email protected]

Sarah E. Lee(919) 707‐[email protected]

http://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/

Contact Information NCDOT Strategic Prioritization Office

Documents

P4.0 Training MPOs, RPOs, and DPEs July 2015 · Strategic Transportation Investment (STI) New funding formula for NCDOT’s Capital Expenditures • Focus on Mobility/Expansion and