Appendix B OKI 2030 Regional Transportation Plan Project Scoring Process
APPENDIX B OKI 2030 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN PROJECT SCORING PROCESS Background This scoring process is intended to assist selection of worthy capacity related roadway and transit projects for the. Its basis is a procedure originally adopted on February 13, 2004 by the OKI Intermodal Coordinating Committee and Board of Directors to evaluate Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and ODOT Transportation Review Advisory Committee (TRAC) projects. It has been adapted to fit the nature of the Regional Transportation Plan development. Most recently the criteria have been revised on November 30, 2007 to include consideration of freight and land use elements. The process makes best use of available data and points of emphasis in the federal transportation bill. Maintenance projects are not included since they are of high importance and are assumed to be part of the plan. This process provides a systematic approach to ranking the numerous projects which will need to be evaluated in the development of a financially constrained regional transportation plan. This is also an opportunity to incorporate the intent of SAFETEA- LU s eight planning factors. A numeric ranking for each project will be determined for a relative comparison with other projects. This scoring process is meant to provide information for decision making and development of a recommended list of projects in the plan. Public input and OKI leadership will determine the final recommended list of projects. The Project Scoring Process Several criteria are evaluated in the scoring process. The first five apply to all projects and provide a potential of 50 points. A project is then scored under the roadway or the transit sections, either of which provide a potential for another 40 points. Finally, all applications are subjected to a hybrid benefit/cost evaluation which can provide up to 10 additional points, giving a total possible of 100. A description of the criteria and the OKI Project Scoring Process follows. Overall Criterion 50 points possible Environmental Justice The Environmental Justice criterion addresses the emphasis placed on transportation impacts on minority, low income, elderly and zero-car household populations. Impacts could include such things as affects on travel times, division of neighborhoods, or increases in noise and air pollution. This is a subjective evaluation. Projects are awarded points as follows: Overall benefits (good to excellent) Overall benefits (fair to good) Overall benefits (none to fair) five points three points one point B-
Economic Vitality The economic vitality criterion awards points for projects that serve to support existing, expanding or new non-retail employment centers. Projects that have a significant positive impact are awarded five points. Otherwise a score of zero points is given. Air Quality/Energy The air quality or energy criterion relates to continued efforts to improve the regional air quality and encourage investment in more environmentally friendly forms of fuel use. As measures, the reduction in VMT (vehicle miles of travel), VHT (vehicle hours of travel) and Emissions Reduced will be considered to allocate up to 10 points. Depending on the intensity of the improvement, a subjective high (seven to 10 points), medium (four to six points), or low (zero to three points) score is assigned. Examples of these measures include installation of a natural gas refueling station (Emissions Reduced), intersection signal improvements (VHT reduced), construction of a new roadway link reducing circuitous travel (VMT reduced), a new bus on an existing route reducing headway (VMT and VHT reduced), a new compressed natural gas bus on a new route. Multimodal/Intermodal The multimodal or intermodal criterion awards points based on the project s ability to include and/or enhance more than the primary mode or specifically address freight needs. If the proposed project facilitates intermodal integration and connectivity, or includes design elements for more than one transportation mode up to ten points may be obtained. An example of multimodal integration would be a roadway reconstruction project that creates adequate space for bicycle use, even though a formal bike path is not part of the design. Another example would be a bus purchase by a transit operator where the specifications called for bicycle racks to be included. An example of multimodal investment is a roadway widening project that provides bus turnouts at designated bus stops, or a bus pre-emption feature in the traffic signal design. If a transit operator proposed a project for a park and ride lot or transfer center that also provided a linkage to an existing bike path and provided bike racks, the maximum of 10 points could be scored. Corridor Study/ Land Use Plan Recommendation The corridor study or land use plan recommendation criteria awards up to 10 points for projects identified as high priority through a formal corridor study or comprehensive planning process. This is meant to recognize the significant overall detailed planning invested in key transportation corridors. Important yet lower priority projects may be awarded five points and projects with little or no status relative to a corridor study or a comprehensive plan will be scored zero points in this category. Local/Regional Priority The local/regional priority criterion reflects the relative importance of each project as indicated by affected communities. It is important that OKI have a sense of the local situation and preference for solutions to transportation problems. Local communities are asked to review and prioritize all projects within their area. The prioritized project listings received from the city, county or state agencies are used to assign high, B-2
medium or low priority. Scoring is assigned 10, six or three respectively. Roadway Projects - 40 points possible Safety The safety criterion measures two facets. First, using a set of measures that deal with accidents per million vehicle miles (MVMT) and personal injury, a range of zero to five points are possible. This represents the current conditions of the location. A second set of measures assesses the impact the proposal will have on the existing situation, ranging from zero to five points. New facilities will be scored based on existing routes it is designed to alleviate, if any. Average Daily Traffic (ADT)/Facility Type The average daily traffic (ADT) or facility type combines two features which are a barometer of a roadway s significance in the regional system. This combination allows for the consideration of both current volume and functional hierarchy. This combination permits the roadways with high volumes to be assigned a high score even if the facility is not high on the functional class system. ADT and functional class are readily available. High volume roadways on the interstate system will score highly, up to five points. Low volume local roads will be scored lower. The scoring process table lists the ranges. Existing Congestion Level The existing congestion level uses observed travel time and delay estimates to assign up to five points for highly congested locations, three points for moderate congestion and zero for little or no congestion. 2030 Level of Service 2030 Level of Service is a two-step criterion. Levels A through E/F produce scores ranging from one point to five points, based on forecasted 2030 conditions. The extent to which the proposal alleviates the future level of congestion has a range of zero to five points. If the proposal does not improve the congestion at all, zero points are awarded. Any new facility will be scored based on existing routes it is designed to alleviate, if any. Freight Corridors The freight corridors factor provides points for corridors based on percentage of truck traffic within the project area. Up to five points are awarded. Feasibility Some projects have merit but lack feasibility due to economic or social constraints, such as lack of political or public will, right of way availability or other issues. The feasibility criterion is an indication of the likelihood of a project to advance to construction or implementation based on these factors. Those projects which appear to be highly feasible will be scored five points. Those projects perceived as unfeasible will score zero points. Moderate and marginally feasible projects will score four and two points respectively. B-3
Transit Projects - 40 points possible Type The type of project being sought relates to the score as shown. The term type may include but not necessarily be limited to vehicle replacement, service support, fixed facilities such as park and ride, stations or bus barns and vehicle expansion. The range again reflects the importance of maintaining and supporting the existing service, as opposed to expansion activities. Projects can receive up to 10 points in this category. Ridership Impact An important component of transit projects is their ridership impact. Investments should be oriented to at least maintaining the existing ridership, if not increasing it. The scores of zero, seven, and 10 points echo this philosophy. Safety and Security The significance of the improvement to overall safety and security is reflected in the scoring range of from zero to 10 points. Timing and Analysis Level The sooner a proposal can be put in place, the sooner its impact will be felt in the region. Timing and analysis level is the criterion that assigns a value to this as follows. Projects which could be implemented within five years (matches transit operator s approximate long range planning horizon) are awarded 10 points. Improvements to, or expansion of the system, such as opening new transit hubs, that are anticipated to be implemented after five years and are included in a local planning study or transit development plan are awarded five points. Those that are anticipated to be implemented after five but are not included in a local planning study or transit development plan are awarded zero points. Benefit/Cost Ratio - 10 points possible The final scoring section makes use of a hybrid benefit/cost analysis. The extensive variability in project type and the amount of time it would take to do a true benefit/ cost analysis has led to the selection of this method. While cost is readily available, the benefit side is represented by a surrogate that is valued according to the score awarded up to this point for the subject proposal (the points, in effect, represent the intrinsic benefit to the region). The point subtotal (maximum 90) is divided by the cost of the proposal in millions. The subsequent value (which can have a very wide numerical range) is then scored from two to 10 points via the scale shown in the scoring process. When added to the previous subtotal, a maximum of 100 points is possible. B-4
OKI Project Scoring Parameters (page 1 of 2) ALL PROJECTS (50) TRANSIT PROJECTS (40) CRITERION MEASuRE POINTS CRITERION MEASuRE POINTS Benefits (good to excellent) 5 Type Bus replacement 0 Environmental Justice Benefits (fair to good) 3 Service support 8 Benefits (none to fair) 1 Fixed facility Economic Vitality Significant Enhancement 5 Vehicle Expansion 4 No Significant Enhance. 0 Other 2 Significant 7-0 Ridership Impact Increase 0 Air Quality (Emission Moderate 4- Maintain 7 Reduction) Low 0-3 No impact 0 Local/Regional Priority High 10 Safety/Security Essential 10 Medium Significant 8 Low 3 Moderate Multi/Intermodal 3+ mode or intermodal 0 Minimal 4 2 mode design 5 None 0 Primary mode only 0 Timing & Analysis Level Near term (< 5 years) 0 Corridor Study/Land Mid/long term & part of Use Plan High 0 local Plan (> 5 years) Recommendation 5 Moderate 5 Long term & not part of local plan (> 5 years) No status 0 Subtotal (add overall & transit) 0 Benefit/Cost Greater than 000 0 (Subtotal points divided Greater than 00 8 by cost in millions) Greater than 10 Greater than 5 4 Greater than 2 Total Points (Maximum 100) B-5
OKI Project Scoring Parameters (page 2 of 2) ROADWAY PROJECTS (40) CRITERION MEASuRE POINTS Safety > 9 crashes per MVMT 5 > 7 crashes per MVMT 4 > 5 crashes per MVMT 3 > 3 crashes per MVMT 2 > crashes per MVMT Impact on Safety High impact 5 Medium Impact 3 Low Impact 0 ADT/Facility Type 40k+ or Freeway\Expressway 5 30k+ or Principal Arterial 4 20k+ or Minor Arterial 3 10k+ or Collector 2 Less than 0k or Local Existing Congestion Level High 5 (based on observed delay) Moderate 3 Little or none 0 2030 Level of Service E/F 5 D 4 C 3 B 2 A Level of Service Impact High impact 5 Medium Impact 3 Low Impact 0 Freight Corridors (% Truck) 25% or greater 5 20 to <25% 4 5 to <20% 3 0 to <5% 2 5 to <0% <5% 0 Feasibility High 5 Moderate 4 Marginal 2 Not feasible 0 Subtotal (add overall & roadway) B-