Attachment B: GM Memo a

Transcription

1 Attachment B: GM Memo a TO: Partnership Technical Advisory Committee DATE: May 18, 2003 FR: Lisa Klein W.I.: RE: Project Performance Measures for Transportation 2030 (2005 RTP) Legislation enacted in 2002 requires MTC to evaluate all new projects and programs in the 2005 RTP and sets a deadline of July 1, 2003 for the Commission to adopt performance measures. This is a challenging assignment, given the diverse and potentially large number of new investments that may need to be evaluated. A joint committee of P-TAC and the MTC Advisory Council has met regularly on this topic since January. This memo reviews the approach under development. Legislative Requirements Section of the Government Code, added by the 2002 legislation, sets forth three requirements: 1. MTC must establish performance measurement criteria at the project and corridor level by July 1, MTC must adopt goals and measurable objectives for RTP corridors. 3. MTC must evaluate all new projects and programs (investments) in the 2004 RTP. The results of MTC s evaluation would be considered by CMAs as they assemble their new lists of projects for the financially constrained 2005 RTP. Corridor Goals and Objectives We plan to recommend that the six existing RTP Goals serve as overarching corridor goals. Through discussions with the joint committee we have defined five categories of universal corridor objectives that would serve as the basis for the performance measures in all RTP corridors for the 2005 RTP. (See Attachment A.) This approach reflects the general support voiced early on for a common set of corridor objectives that provide a basis for evaluating projects across corridors. We are aware there is continued interest in identifying more detailed, corridor-specific objectives for the RTP. We will continue to work with CMAs and others through the RTP public involvement process to develop specific objectives for each RTP corridor pivoting off the universal corridor objective framework. The corridor management objectives from the 2001 RTP provide a starting point, along with comments already received from this group and others. The RTP corridor management objectives will refine those in the current RTP and could be used for subsequent project performance evaluations such as may be conducted in a new corridor study or future RTP update. Performance Measures Framework The approach being developed by the joint committee has two main elements: 1. Project Needs Assessment MTC would use a blend of quantitative and qualitative indicators to assess future conditions or needs in the areas targeted by specific projects. Future needs would be

2 RTP Project Performance Measures Page 2 assessed with respect to each group of corridor objectives. Wherever possible, the measures for this analysis are based on quantitative data extracted from the MTC travel demand model. A main advantage of the needs-based project measures is that they can be calculated consistently for a wide range of projects and programs. 2. Corridor Benefits Analysis MTC would calculate user benefits, accessibility changes, and emissions changes at the corridor level for packages of investments using the regional travel demand model. We would probably try to group the investments into three region-wide alternatives for modeling and extract data at the corridor level. We propose this approach because it would be difficult to discern the benefits of individual investments and because the legislation calls for corridor-level analysis. This analysis also will capture interactive effects. In addition, those proposing projects would provide cost information in accordance with MTC guidelines to be developed over the summer. The guidelines will address inclusion of project support costs in total capital cost estimates, as well as estimation of annualized capital cost and net annual operating and maintenance cost. Attachment B lists the measures in general terms and illustrates how the results could be summarized by corridor. For each applicable measure, projects would be rated based on a standardized scale and these results presented along side project cost estimates. Attachment C shows the specific measures under consideration. Process and Schedule for Evaluation Some milestones in the evaluation process are discussed below. Attachment D lays out the schedule for evaluation relative to the overall RTP development process. Preliminary List for Evaluation (July 2003). MTC would work with the CMAs to develop a preliminary list of investments for evaluation. The CMAs would help identify projects by traditional sponsors. Members of the public would submit proposals to MTC and the CMAs and would be encouraged to consult with CMA staff prior to the submittal. Sponsors with projects in more than one county would submit proposals to MTC with copies to the affected CMAs. Projects that would likely seek Track 1 funding if approved as part of new sales tax measures prior to adoption of the 2005 RTP should be identified at this stage. MTC would provide a preliminary estimate of new Track 1 revenues for each county to help guide this process. To provide a reasonable range of alternatives, the estimated RTP-cost of the resulting list should not exceed twice the estimated new Track 1 funds. Existing Track 1 Investments. Existing Track 1 investments would be subject to evaluation only if they have significant changes in scope or significant increases in costs funded with RTP revenues. Projects in this category should be identified in July. An increase in RTP-cost is significant if it is more than 30% of the previous amount funded with RTP revenues. Projects would not be subject to evaluation once they were in the TIP. In recognition of the region s established fix-it first policy, maintenance and rehabilitation programs for which cost increases are based on more current information or new methodology would not be subject to evaluation. Screening and Refined List for Evaluation (August September 2003). MTC and the CMAs would jointly screen investments and develop a refined list. The following screening criteria identify investments that would not be evaluated: Investment is not defined sufficiently to generate sketch level data for evaluation Investment is proposed to replace an existing Track 1 project Investment was studied and rejected in a recently completed corridor/major investment study The cost of the investment is not reasonable in proportion to estimated new Track 1 funds (i.e. a single project should not require more than 40% of estimated Track 1 funds)

3 RTP Project Performance Measures Page 3 There is not a reasonable guarantee of operating funds Investment has a fatal environmental flaw Investment requires a change in law or regulations to be funded or implemented Proposal is a broad policy (e.g. value pricing, smart growth) rather than a project Projects for which a willing sponsor has not been identified would be eligible for evaluation; however, a willing and eligible sponsor must be identified by May 2004 in order to include the project in the RTP. MTC Evaluation (October 2003 January 2004). In order to focus on the investments with regional significance, MTC would start with projects that are on the MTS and above a total cost threshold between $5 and $10 million. (Note that all transit is considered to be on the MTS.) MTC would request more complete project information at this stage, including a discussion of benefits, cost estimates in accordance with MTC guidelines, and definition for modeling. The results would be available for CMA-led outreach efforts in early Use of Evaluation Results (February May 2004). The purpose of the evaluation is to inform - but not blindly dictate - the selection of new projects for in the 2005 RTP. To recognize this, CMAs would submit to MTC a narrative description of how the evaluation results were used to develop the financially constrained lists for Track 1 due in May MTC would do the same for regional commitments. Near Term Next Steps To meet the legislated deadline, MTC s Planning and Operations Committee will consider this item on June 13, and the full Commission will consider it on June 25. We intend to check back with the Joint P-TAC and Advisory Council Committee at a number of key points over the summer and fall including: Development of initial list of projects based on submittals (July 2003) Results from testing the measures against a few example projects (August 2003). Development of refined list of projects based on screening (September 2003) Definition of projects packages for the corridor benefits analysis (September October 2003). J:\COMMITTE\Partnership\Partnership TAC\2003 Items\03 Memos\May 27\RTP Performance Measures.doc

4 Attachment A Recommended Corridor Objectives for RTP Performance Measures Maintain the system Reduce maintenance and rehabilitation shortfalls Improve system safety Minimize injuries and loss of life in event of seismic failure, collisions or other safety or security incidents Accommodate future person travel and freight while preserving or improving travel time Operate the system more reliably Operate the system more efficiently Increase person capacity and reduce bottlenecks through strategic expansion Increase convenience for persons and freight Operate the system more reliably Improve system connectivity Improve access between communities and activity centers Operate the system with greater attention to customer service Maximize external benefits and minimize disbenefits Improve the environment and public health Improve community vitality Address equity by providing access to jobs and services for the region s most disadvantaged households

5 Project Needs Assessment Attachment B Illustration of Evaluation Summary for Corridor X Maintenance Safety (1) Wear and tear Seismic (vehicles, % number 2025 trucks, users passenger and Other recent revenue vehicle collision record miles) (past 3 years) Trips and Travel Time Reliability Crowding (V/C ratio or load factor) Efficiency & Capacity Crowding or change in travel time from today to 2025 Illustrative Projects* (grouped by main objective in order of objective priority) Objective Categories External Benefits Convenience Access & Connectivity (2) Air Quality Noise Connectivity Access & Is project a Highway or rail Customer Service Number TCM? volumes in area of potential beneficiaries of project (vehicles or transit riders) in 2025 Freight Access change in travel time to ports/ airports Community Vitality Equity Number of trips Is project part in zone where project is located Is project part of community based plan? of a lifeline network or supports this network? Additional Benefits/ Comments Annualized Capital Cost(3) (millions) Net Annual O&M Total Annualized Objective: Maintenance Non-pavement maintenance H NA NA NA NA NA NA NA $ 14.8 $ 14.8 Repair of erosion on XX roadway M NA NA NA NA NA NA NA $ 1.1 $ 1.1 Objective: Safety Pax rail grade separations NA H NA NA NA NA NA NA $ 8.0 $ 8.0 Objective: Convenience I-XXX local access improvements NA NA L H+ NA NA NA NA Connects to freight distribution center $ 0.4 $ 0.4 Bicycle trail gap closure NA M NA M NA NA L NA $ 0.1 $ 0.1 Downtown transit center NA NA M H NA NA M L $ 0.5 $ 0.5 Objective: Trips and Travel Time Widen local roadway from 2 to 4 lanes NA NA M NA NA NA H NA Serves redevelopment area $ 0.2 $ 0.1 $ 0.3 Regional express bus route NA NA H NA M NA NA H Serves W2W market $ 0.7 $ 4.3 $ 5.0 Objective: External Benefits Soundwalls NA NA NA NA NA L NA NA $ 2.2 $ 2.2 Zero emissions vehicles and fleet facilities H NA NA NA H NA NA NA $ 6.0 $ 6.0 Notes: H indicates a high rating for the applicable measure (1) Rating weighted to recognize investments that have safety benefits for more than one mode. M indicates a medium rating (2) Rating weighted to recognize investments that have benefits for passenger and freight access. L indicates a low rating (3) Costs based on RTP commitments for similar investments in Track 1 and Blueprint.

6 Corridor Evaluation Attachment B Illustration of Evaluation Summary for Corridor X Corridor Benefits Relative to 2001 RTP Cost (mill) User Benefits Change in Accessibility (avg travel time) 1. Package 1 $15 million -2 minute 2. Package 2 $10 million -1 minutes 3. Package 3 $30 million -1.0 minutes Change in Emissions (tons per day) ROG: XX NOx: XX Annualized Capital Net Annual O&M Total Annualized PM10: XX $30 $5 $35 ROG: XX NOx: XX PM10: XX $40 $10 $50 ROG: XX NOx: XX PM10: XX $60 $10 $70 Description of Packages: Package 1: Brief description List of Projects Package 2: Brief description List of Projects Package 3: Brief description List of Projects

7 Attachment C Performance Measures Under Consideration Project Needs Assessment Objective Group/ Aspect Measured Measures from Travel Model Other Measures Rationale Maintain the System Pavement shortfall Non pavement shortfall 2025 vehicle trips factored for percent trucks Transit rehab shortfall 2025 daily passenger miles per vehicle 1 + daily vehicle miles per vehicle 2 Reflection of pavement use and need to maintain existing roads. More trucks indicates higher need. Measure does not really reflect need for nonpavement but may be a surrogate. Reflection of wear and tear on vehicles based both on passenger use and mileage. Improve Safety Seismic safety Number of users of facility in 2025 State highways only: Is facility on lifeline system? Motor vehicle safety State roads - Average collision rate per million vehicle miles traveled (current 3 year average)* Other roads Average number of collisions per year (current 3-year average)* Bike/ped safety Grade crossing safety Average number of collisions per year (current 3-year average)* Transit safety and security Rate of incidents by incident type (e.g., collision, violent crime, non-collision injury) per passenger miles traveled over past 3 years* Number persons at risk in event of failure. For state highways, attach more importance to facilities on the lifeline system, which is considered critical to emergency response Identifies current safety concerns Identifies current safety concerns Identifies current safety concerns 1 Calculate as [2003 average trip length] x [2025 forecasted trips]; average trip length provided by operator; 2025 forecasted trips by operator from regional travel model. Use number of vehicles from Finance Plan. 2 Not sure how to calculate daily vehicle miles in * Information provided by sponsor when project submitted

8 Attachment C Performance Measures Under Consideration Objective Group/ Aspect Measured Measures from Travel Model Other Measures Rationale Accommodate Growth in Person Travel from now to 2025 and Preserve or Improve Travel Time Make existing capacity more V/C or transit load factor at corridor reliable screenlines in 2025 More efficient use of existing capacity Construct/create new capacity Some Alternatives Measures of congestion/crowding: For roads 2025 V/C ratio at screenlines; calculate separate V/C ratios for mixed flow and HOV lanes. For Transit 2025 load factors 3 at screenlines Measures relating to user travel time: Change in average travel time per traveler by mode from 2000 to 2025 between selected corridor origins and destinations As system approaches capacity, incidents and breakdowns have more severe reliability impacts Projects would be associated with one of the objectives. As crowding increases, efficiency gains or capacity increases are needed. Calculate separate V/C ratios for HOV lanes to reflect person carrying capacity differential. If average travel time has deteriorated significantly from today to 2025 assuming no improvement, then more efficient use of existing capacity or additional corridor capacity may be warranted. Increase user convenience Improve connectivity o Interchange or local road network improvements o Transit improvements o Bicycle gap closures Improve access for passengers to transit and regional highway system Vehicles using facilities in 2025 Transferring transit riders in 2025 Interchange volumes in 2025 Transit station boardings in 2025 Potential bike users* Is project recommended in MTC Transit Connectivity Study? Population and job growth in zones around transit or highway system ( ) Use indicates importance of improved connections and potential beneficiaries Indicates a need for improved access Improve access to regional freight network Change in travel time to/from ports and airports from selected origins and destinations ( ) Indicates need for improvements to preserve access Customer service improvements Estimates of number of customers who would benefit by program (2025)* Potential beneficiaries 3 For rail, calculate 2025 load factors based on station boardings and egresses; for buses, use operator data on current load factors and factor up for overall growth in operator trips or corridor transit trips in * Information provided by sponsor when project submitted

9 Attachment C Performance Measures Under Consideration Objective Group/ Aspect Measured Measures from Travel Model Other Measures Rationale External Benefits Air Quality Is project a TCM in federal or state plan? Noise reduction Highway volumes in proximity of project (or number of trains for rail noise considerations) Community vitality Number of trips in zone where project is located Is project from a community based transportation plan?* Equity Is project part of Lifeline transit network or supports this network? Individual project air quality impacts will be minor (see corridor user benefits) Noise exposure related to use Potential beneficiaries Evidence of planning basis for project Evidence of planning basis for project Corridor Benefit Measures Measure from Corridor Benefit Travel Model Mobility User benefit: Value of time saved for all modes (transit, auto, non-motorized, and trucks) and change in traveler out-ofpocket costs for all trips within the corridor. Out-of-pocket costs include transit fares, bridge tolls, parking, and auto operating costs (fuel, maintenance, oil) Accessibility Change in average travel time for all trips within corridor Rationale Similar to prior systems level analysis, but at corridor level; includes benefits to freight as well as passengers. This measure captures travel time savings. Reflects spatial proximity of activities as well as impacts of transportation system improvements. Air quality Change in vehicle trips and VMT; uses EMFAC2002 for emission levels for ozone and PM Air quality impacts best estimated at corridor level. * Information provided by sponsor when project submitted

10 Attachment D Schedule of RTP Performance Evaluation and RTP Milestones 2004 RTP Outreach Milestones Polling/Focus Groups Qtr. 2 Qtr. 3 Qtr. 4 Qtr. 1 Qtr. 2 Qtr. 3 Qtr. 4 Qtr. 1 Qtr. 2 Qtr. Phase 1: Regional Phase 2: Local Phase 3: Hearings RTP Summit Regional Workshops: Complete: 11/04 Meeting: 9/03-11/03 CMA Outreach: 6/14/03 1/04-6/03 Complete: 9/04 Key 2004 RTP Decision Milestones Initial Final 1 RTP Revenue Projections 2 Identify Regional and County Proposed RTP Investment Strategies/Criteria Regional Expenditure Plans Local Sales Tax 3 Complete Modeling/Conformity of RTP and EIR 4 Release Draft EIR for Public Review 5 Release Draft 2004 RTP for Public Review 6 Commission Adoption of 2004 RTP 7 Federal Conformity Approval of 2004 RTP Project Performance Measures Establish performance measure criteria MTC tests performance measures on sample projects MTC develops summary of corridor conditions/needs in 2025 MTC and CMAs jointly screen projects on preliminary list (See #2 above) Refined list of projects for regional evaluation with complete information from proposers MTC conducts Project-Specific Needs Assessment and Corridor Benefits Analysis Complete: 6/03 Complete:7/1/03 Complete: 12/03 Preliminary Final Complete: 7/03 Complete: 5/04 6/03-8/03 8/03 5/03-9/03 9/03 Nov. election - SF Mar. election - $3 Bridge Toll Complete: 1/04 8/04 9/04 9/04 Nov. election - Regional Gas Ta Nov. election - CC Mar, Son, SMART 1/05 3/05 Review results with proposers and CMAs 2/04 CMAs submit narrative on how performance measures used to develop Track 1 lists 5/04