HB 599 Study Overview A detailed evaluation framework and methodology to evaluate regionally significant projects and their impact on congestion

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "HB 599 Study Overview A detailed evaluation framework and methodology to evaluate regionally significant projects and their impact on congestion"

Transcription

1 HB 599 Study Overview A detailed evaluation framework and methodology to evaluate regionally significant projects and their impact on congestion Kanathur Srikanth VDOT NoVA District VASITE June 26, 2014

2 Briefing Outline 1. Study Background o Study Genesis o Statutory Framework o Goals and Objectives 2. Study Setup o Tasks and Process o Study Schedule 3. Project Selection Model o Contents o Scoring System 4. Projects Nominated And Selected o Process o Type of Projects o Project Selection Scores 5. Project Evaluation Framework o Performance Measures o Scores and Ratings 2

3 Study Genesis and Context 2012 VA-GA: HB 599 / SB :1 Evaluating and Rating at Least 25 Significant Projects 2013 VA-GA: HB 2313 various sections Publish Project Ratings NVTA Fund Statewide H R Informs allocations CTB / Others Governs allocations (Non-transit capacity adding projects) 70% Regional 30% Local 3

4 Statutory Framework For Study CTB establishes priorities for NoVA :1.D: For purposes of this section, the significant transportation projects to be evaluated shall comprise at least 25 such projects selected according to priorities determined by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Significant multi-modal projects to be evaluated :1.A:.shall evaluate all significant transportation projects, including highway, mass transit, and technology projects,. Projects over wide area :1.A: projects, in and near the Northern Virginia Transportation District.. Project s funding source not considered :1.D: For purposes of this section, 25 such projects selected without regard to the funding source of the project, Analytical Evaluation :1.A: evaluation shall rely on analytical techniques and transportation modeling, including those that employ computer simulations Quantitative Rating :1.A: shall provide an objective, quantitative rating for each project... Rating Based on Congestion and Mobility Considerations only :1.A:... rating for each project according to the degree to which the project is expected to reduce congestion and, to the extent feasible, the degree to which the project is expected to improve regional mobility in the event of a homeland security emergency. 4

5 Goals Study Goals And Objectives Evaluate significant highway, mass transit and technology projects in and near Northern Virginia. Provide an objective, quantitative rating for each project according to the degree the project is expected to reduce congestion and improve mobility in the event of a homeland security emergency. Evaluate and rate at least 25 significant transportation projects. Objectives Projects evaluated and rated will be consistent with CTB s priorities. Projects evaluated and rated will be significant projects that reduce congestion. Focus on projects that effectively reduce congestion in the most congested corridors and intersections. Evaluation will be based on rigorous analytical techniques and transportation modeling guided by nationally renowned peer review group. 5

6 Study Tasks and Process Study Priorities From CTB (10/17/2013) Project Nominations (Hwy./Tran./Tech.) CTB & NVTA Select Projects to Evaluate: Are Significant and will Reduce Congestion Defined in coordination with NoVA CTB members and NVTA Consistent with CTB priorities? Is it regionally significant? Project Evaluation (MOEs): Multimodal Congestion & Emergency Mobility Defined in coordination with NoVA CTB members and NVTA Will it Reduce Congestion? Project Ratings (Performance Measures) Congestion Reduction Emergency Mobility Technical Analysis Transportation Modeling Travel Demand Forecasting Traffic Operational Analysis Select 40 Eligible Projects (Project Package) NVTA Coordination CTB - Approval 6

7 Study Schedule Project Selection Method Project Evaluation Measures Identify Existing and Future Congestion Problems Project Selection Analyze and Evaluate Projects Project Rating * Detailed ^ Project Rating Materials for public outreach * Basic modeling (Like TA2040) ^ Demand And Operational modeling 7

8 Project Selection Model Designed to screen projects that are not significant or do not have congestion reduction potential from the detailed analysis Tier One Screening: Six CTB Priority Principles (Yes / No) Tier Two Screening: Three categories of criteria (Quantitative) A. Project Significance 5 Attributes project type, designated corridors, high travel volume, connects activity centers, connects major facilities B. Congestion Reduction Potential 5 Attributes congestion severity, congestion duration, person hours of delay, adds capacity, reduces vehicle trip C. Homeland Security Mobility 1 Attribute facility and operational improvements 8

9 Project Selection - Tier One Screening CTB Priorities Assessment = project consistent with at least one of the following priorities (Yes / No) Preserve and Enhance Statewide Mobility through the Region Increase Coordinated Safety and Security Planning Improve the Interconnectivity of Regions and Activity Centers Reduce the Cost of Congestion to Virginia Residents and Businesses Increase System Performance by Making Operational Improvements Increase Travel Choices to Improve Quality of Life for Virginians 9

10 Tier Two: Project Significance Criteria 1. Project Type The project includes a highway, rail, bus, technology or large scale travel demand management investment. 2. Designated Corridors The project is on a facility in/near Northern Virginia and included in the Statewide Mobility System; Corridors of Statewide Significance; in a Super NoVA corridor; or in a TransAction 2040 corridor 3. High Travel Volume The project is in a corridor that serves a high volume of person trips. 4. Connects Regional Activity Centers (RACs) The project enhances or expands transit, HOV/HOT lanes or roadway connections between noncontiguous regional activity centers (RACs). 5. Connects Major Facilities The project enhances or completes connections between interstate highways, principal arterials or transit stations, park-&-ride lots, and DCA or IAD airports. 10

11 Tier two: Congestion Reduction Potential Criteria 6. Congestion Severity The project is located in a heavily congested corridor. 7. Congestion Duration The project corridor experiences moderate to heavy congestion for multiple hours of the day. 8. Person Hours of Delay The project is located in a corridor with significant person hours of delay. 9. Adds Capacity The project adds person moving capacity to a congested location, facility or corridor. 10.Reduces Vehicle Trips The project has the potential to reduce vehicle trips on a congested facility or corridor. Tier two: Emergency Mobility Criteria 11.Facility and Operational Improvements The project improves regional mobility in the event of a homeland security emergency. 11

12 Project Selection - Tier Two Screening: Project Attributes & Stakeholder Weights Number Project Attribute Score Range Stakeholder Weights Max. Score Is the Project Significant? 55.5% Type of Project (Highway/Transit/Technology) 0 or % In a Designated Corridor 0 or % In a High Volume Corridor 0 to % Connects Regional Activity Centers 25 to % Connects Regional Transportation Facilities 0 / 50 / % 8.0 Does the Project have the Potential to Reduce Congestion? 36.5% In a Heavily Congested Corridor 0 to % Corridor is Congested for Multiple Hours in a Day 25 / 50 / % Many People Experience Delay Daily 25 / 75 / % Adds Person Moving Capacity 0 / 50 / % Reduces Single Occupant Vehicles 25 / 75 / % 4.6 Does the Project have the Potential to Improve Emergency Mobility? 8.0% Improves Movement / Adds Capacity on Radial Routes 0 / 50 / % 8.0 Total Project Selection Score 100.0%

13 Project Selection Process NVTA nominated (32) projects for evaluation NoVA CTB members nominated (4) projects for evaluation Tier 1- assessed each nominated project against the six CTB priorities Tier 2 assessment - applied a point value to each of the 11 project attributes Determined a total weighted selection score for each nominated project/package Total weighted score informs the selection of a finite number of qualified projects to be evaluated in this study 13

14 Project Selection Results 36 projects nominated (32 NVTA, 4 NoVA CTB) 24 roadway improvements/widenings, 1 HOV widening 5 interchange construction 4 intersection improvements 2 ITS projects Tier 1 selection criteria: All projects submitted met at least one of the CTB priorities 16 met all 6 CTB priorities, 20 met multiple CTB priorities Tier 2 selection criteria: Project PSM scores ranged from a high of 78 to a low of 24 All projects are in designated corridors (COSS, TA2040, SuperNova, SMS) One project affects over 200,000 persons per day, 15 projects affect fewer than 50,000 persons per day 23 projects are within or connect activity centers 27 projects are congested during the peak hour or longer 31 projects add more than 10% to their person moving capacity 14

15 Project Selection Scores N-01 Columbia Pike 62 N-13 Route 15 Bypass 35 N-25 Main-Maple Purcellville 24 N-02 Rolling Road 53 N-14 Northfax (US 29/50) 46 N-26 Route 7/Battlefield 47 N-03 US 29 Widening 57 N-15 Jermantown/US N-27 East Elden Street 42 N-04 Braddock Rd HOV 68 N-16 Frying Pan Road 45 N-28 Route 1 - PW 41 N-05 Van Dorn-Franconia 67 N-17 Kamp Washington 51 N-29 Route 15 Widening 30 N-06 Frontier Dr 48 N-18 Alex. Adaptive Controls 53 N-30 Route 28 Fairfax 67 N-07 Fairfax Co.Pkwy 78 N-19 Glebe Rd ITS 56 N-31 Route 28 - PW 44 N-08 Belmont Ridge 43 N-20 Pohick Road 39 N-32 Godwin Drive 53 N-09 Loudoun Co.Pkwy 61 N-21 Shirley Gate Rd 49 C-1 PW Pkwy Interchanges 46 N-10 Route 7 Bridge 54 N-22 Northstar Blvd 49 C-2 Route 7 Widening 56 N-11 US 1 - Dumfries 48 N-23 Route 7/690 Interchange 28 C-3 I-395 SB Lane 71 N-12 US 1 - Fairfax 54 N-24 Route 234/Grant Ave 30 C-4 Fairfax Co.Pkwy US 1 52 C-5 Fairfax Co.Pkwy US 1 (Alt) 48 N-# = NVTA Project Number C-# = NoVA CTB Project Number 15

16 Project Evaluation Framework Projects will be evaluated and rated based on how well they reduce congestion and improve mobility during emergencies The change in performance measures will be calculated for each project using the TPB regional demand model and TRANSIMS simulation software The performance measure weights developed through the stakeholder engagement process will determine the relative importance of each performance measure A weighted congestion reduction or mobility improvement score will be assigned to each performance measure for each project The sum of the weighted score of all of the performance measures will constitute the project s congestion reduction / mobility improvement rating 16

17 Project Evaluation Performance Measures 1. Congestion Duration Reduction in the number of hours of the day auto and transit passengers experience heavily congested travel conditions 2. Person Hours of Delay Reduction in the number of person hours of travel time above free flow travel time 3. Person Hours of Congested Travel in Automobiles Reduction in the number of person hours of travel in automobiles and trucks on heavily congested facilities 4. Person Hours of Congested Travel in Transit Vehicles Reduction in the number of person hours of travel in buses and trains on heavily congested facilities or in crowded vehicles 5. Transit Crowding Reduction in the number of transit route miles experiencing crowded conditions 6. Accessibility to Jobs Increase in the number of jobs that can be reached from each household based on a 45 minute travel time by automobile and a 60 minute travel time by transit 7. Emergency Mobility Increase in the person hours of travel time resulting from a 10 percent increase in peak hour trip making 17

18 Evaluation and Rating Process Travel Demand and Simulation Models Absolute Change in each Performance Measure (MOE) for each Project Assign a Score (0-100) to each MOE Based on 100 points for the greatest absolute change in each MOE (with and without the project) Stakeholder Input Apply Blended Weights to the MOE Scores Sum Weighted MOE Scores = Project Rating 18

19 Project Rating Using Performance Measures MOE Performance Measure Score (S) Range Stakeholder Weights 1 Evaluation Score Impact on Congestion 1 Congestion Duration 0 to % 27.9% * S % * S41 2 Person Hours of Delay 0 to % 20.3% * S % * S42 3 Person Hours of Congested Travel in Automobiles 0 to % 15.4% * S % * S43 4 Person Hours of Congested Travel in Transit Vehicles 0 to % 11.8% * S % * S44 5 Transit Crowding 0 to % 11.5% * S % * S45 Impact on Mobility 6 Accessibility to Jobs 0 to % 9.5% * S26 9.5% * S46 7 Emergency Mobility 0 to % 3.6% * S27 3.6% * S47 Project Rating 1. Attribute weights determined through the stakeholder consensus building process 2. S21-S47 represent the project performance score from the modeling process 100% 2020 Rating 2040 Rating 19

20 Questions / Comments THANKS! HB 599 Study Overview A detailed evaluation framework and methodology to evaluate regionally significant projects and their impact on congestion VASITE June 26, 2014