ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE Project Funding and Scoring Criteria

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE Project Funding and Scoring Criteria Section I. Project meets minimum MARC/State DOT/Federal DOT Requirements STBGP Set-Aside Project Eligibility The Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP) provides flexible funding to address State and local transportation needs. This includes dedicated funding for projects defined as STBGP Set-Aside projects, formerly referred to as Transportation Enhancements Activities (TE) or Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) projects. To be eligible for STBGP Set-Aside funds, an application must meet the following criteria: 1) Relate to surface transportation in terms of function, proximity, and impact. Function The project will serve as a functional component of the transportation system. This can include a bicycle and pedestrian path, the provision of bicycle racks or benches for pedestrians, etc. Proximity The project is located within the immediate vicinity of the transportation system and may be visible to the general public, such as the acquisition of scenic easements or landscaping. Proximity alone is not enough to establish the relationship to surface transportation. Impact The project has a physical impact on the transportation system, such as retrofitting an existing highway by creating a wetland to filter runoff from the highway. Projects with this type of transportation relationship are usually associated with ongoing or planned highway projects. ) Include at least one of the federally designated STBGP Set-Aside activities that MARC has condensed into five categories: I. Active Transportation Infrastructure Projects Infrastructure projects both on-road and off-road related to bicycle, pedestrian and other non-motorized forms of transportation. Recreational Trails Program projects Safe Routes to School infrastructure-related projects II. Historic Preservation/Archaeological Projects Historic preservation and rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities. Archaeological activities relating to impacts from implementation of transportation projects 1. III. Transportation Aesthetics and Scenic Values Inventory, control, or removal of outdoor advertising. Construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing areas. IV. Environmental Mitigation and Vegetation Management Environmental mitigation projects including pollution prevention and pollution abatement projects and mitigation to: o Address stormwater management, control, and water pollution prevention or o abatement related to highway construction or due to highway runoff. Reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or to restore and maintain connectivity among terrestrial or aquatic habitats. Vegetation management practices in transportation rights-of-way to improve roadway safety, prevent against invasive species, and provide erosion control. 1 Must be eligible under title 3, U.S.C. Includes activities described in sections 113(b)(11), 38(a), and 39 of title 3, U.S.C. 1

V. Safe Routes to School Non-Infrastructure Projects Safety and educational projects targeting children in Kindergarten through 8 th grade 3. 3) Project applications must be submitted by an eligible entity under section 133 of title 3, U.S.C. This includes: a. Local governments b. Regional transportation authorities c. Transit agencies d. Natural resource or public land agencies e. School district, local education agencies, or schools f. Tribal governments g. Nonprofit entity responsible for the administration of local transportation safety programs h. Any other local or regional entity with responsibility for oversight of transportation or recreational trails (other than a metropolitan planning organization [MPO] or a State agency) that the State determines to be eligible. Note: State DOTs and MPOs are not eligible project sponsors for STBGP Set-Aside funds; however, they may partner with any eligible entity project sponsor to carry out a project. Nonprofit organizations not eligible under section 133 of title 3, U.S.C. are eligible to partner with any eligible entity on a STBGP Set-Aside project, if State or local requirements permit. All STBGP Set-Aside projects will be evaluated for adherence with the MARC Complete Streets Policy, available at: http://www.marc.org/transportation/special-projects/assets/completestreetspolicy_dec01.aspx CMAQ Project Eligibility The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) provides funding for transportation programs and projects likely to contribute to the attainment or maintenance of a national ambient air quality standard, with a high level of effectiveness in reducing air pollution. While there are a number of eligible activities for the CMAQ program, the Active Transportation Programming Committee is only responsible for overseeing CMAQ projects categorized as Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects. This includes Outreach/Other projects related to bicyclists/pedestrians. Other CMAQ project categories (e.g., Transit, Alternative Fuel, and Outreach/Other non-related to bicyclists/pedestrians) will be managed by MARC s Air Quality Forum, a modal committee responsible for regional air quality issues. Any government (i.e., local, regional, or state) or public agency in the MARC planning area is eligible to apply for CMAQ funding. Not-for-profits and private entities may apply for funds if an eligible public entity agrees to serve as the primary project sponsor. To be eligible for CMAQ funds through the Active Transportation Programming Committee, an application must meet the following criteria: 1) All federal eligibility, based on the most recent guidance of the CMAQ Program, must be met. Available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/ ) Must be a transportation project that meets the federally designated CMAQ activity that MARC has categorized as: Bicycle Pedestrian Projects Construction of bicycle/pedestrian facilities (paths, bike racks, support facilities, etc.) that are not exclusively recreational and provide a reduction in single-occupant vehicle travel. Non-infrastructure outreach projects related to bicycle/pedestrian safety. Establishing and funding State bicycle/pedestrian coordinator positions for promoting and facilitating non-motorized transportation modes through public education, safety programs, etc. (limited to one full-time position per State). 3 Traffic education, enforcement, and encouragement activities must take place within approximately two miles of a primary or middle school (grades K-8).

3) Must generate an emissions reduction. ) Must be located in or benefit a nonattainment or maintenance area within the Kansas City region. All CMAQ projects will be evaluated for adherence with the MARC Complete Streets Policy, available at: http://www.marc.org/transportation/special-projects/assets/completestreetspolicy_dec01.aspx STBGP Set-Aside Project Funding, Budgeting and Programming STBGP functions as a reimbursement program; therefore, it s important the applicant demonstrate financial feasibility while carrying their STBGP Set-Aside project(s) forward to completion in a timely manner. Project sponsors will assume financial responsibility for the entire project pending reimbursement, minus their portion (i.e., local match) of the eligible costs. It s important that: a. The STBGP Set-Aside project goes beyond activities customarily incorporated into motor vehicle roadway, highway and transit projects. b. The STBGP Set-Aside funding request does NOT include request for funds to support preliminary engineering and design work. c. Each STBGP Set-Aside project budget includes the required local match of at least 0 percent, available within the project s timeframe. d. STBGP Set-Aside projects be completed with the STBGP Set-Aside funds requested and the matching funds pledged by the applicant. e. STBGP Set-Aside project cost estimates are reasonable and of sufficient detail to ensure successful project implementation. f. Project sponsors demonstrate adequate plans for and consider ongoing maintenance costs for at least years or the project s expected life as STBGP Set-Aside funds can NOT be used for routine maintenance and operations. g. Entities submitting multiple applications, or jurisdictions with multiple projects in their communities, identify and prioritize projects. h. STBGP Set-Aside projects categorized as Historic Preservation/Archaeological Projects must submit a letter of eligibility determination from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) certifying that the project is listed, or eligible to be listed, on the National Register of Historic Places before any monies may be reimbursed. STBGP Set-Aside Project Funding Restraints Project sponsors are encouraged to limit project funding requests to $00,000 per project. CMAQ Project Funding, Budgeting and Programming CMAQ functions as a reimbursement program; therefore, it s important the applicant demonstrate financial feasibility while carrying the project forward to completion in a timely manner. Project sponsors will assume financial responsibility for the entire project pending reimbursement, minus their portion (i.e., local match) of the eligible costs. It s important that: a. Funding for the CMAQ project NOT be used for purposes of routine program implementation, meeting any legal mandate, or completion of work that should have been completed under a prior grant or cooperative agreement. b. Each CMAQ project budget includes the required local match of at least 0 percent, available within the project s timeframe. c. CMAQ project applications include a detailed budget identifying the source and amount of matching funds. d. CMAQ projects be completed with the CMAQ funds requested and the matching funds pledged by the applicant. e. CMAQ project cost estimates are reasonable and of sufficient detail to ensure successful project implementation. Emission reduction represents a group of terms. CMAQ-funded projects or programs must reduce CO, ozone precursors (NOx and VOCs), PM., PM, or PM precursor (e.g., NOx) emissions from transportation. 3

CMAQ Project Funding Restraints Infrastructure projects must exceed $0,000. Non-infrastructure projects must exceed $,000. Public Support For both STBGP Set-Aside and CMAQ project applications, it s important that a public involvement process can be demonstrated and documentation for support is included in the supplementary narrative. Projects are expected to be available for public use in perpetuity and should be consistent with local comprehensive, land use, and transportation plans. Section II. Project scoring criteria STBGP Set-Aside Project Scoring A number of federally designated programs and projects are eligible for STBGP Set-Aside funding. MARC has condensed these activities into five categories: Active Transportation Infrastructure Projects, Historic Preservation/Archaeological Projects, Transportation Aesthetics and Scenic Values, Environmental Mitigation and Vegetation Management, and Safe Routes to School Non-Infrastructure Projects. STBGP Set-Aside projects are scored based on the particular category an application is categorized under. The scoring criteria and point system are based on a process that reflects the goals of Transportation Outlook 00, and a system that the former Kansas Transportation Enhancements Committee and Missouri Transportation Enhancements Committee used to evaluate project applications. Each category has a rating system based on a total of 0 points. These ratings and the resulting project rankings are intended to provide information to MARC s Active Transportation Programming Committee to aid their decision-making process for developing funding recommendations to MARC s Total Transportation Policy Committee. Note: The project scores determined through this process provide information about how each project relates to regional transportation policy goals and objectives, and are not the sole factor for determining funding recommendations. Category I: Active Transportation Infrastructure Projects Transportation Outlook 00 Policy Goals & Objectives All Category Total Transportation Choices Public Health 1 1 Economic Vitality Climate Change and Energy Use Environment Place Making 1 Safety and Security 1 1 System Condition 0 System Performance Equity Implementation Local Match Total 30 70 0 Committee Members Ranking Composite Total 1

Category II: Historic Preservation/Archaeological Projects Transportation Outlook 00 All Category Total Policy Goals & Objectives Transportation Choices 1 1 Economic Vitality Climate Change and Energy Use Environment Place Making 1 0 Public Health 0 Safety and Security 0 System Condition 1 1 System Performance Equity Implementation Local Match Total 30 70 0 Committee Members Ranking Composite Total 1 Category III: Transportation Aesthetics and Scenic Values Transportation Outlook 00 All Category Total Policy Goals & Objectives Transportation Choices 1 1 Economic Vitality Climate Change and Energy Use Environment Place Making Public Health Safety and Security 0 System Condition System Performance Equity Implementation Local Match Total 30 70 0 Committee Members Ranking Composite Total 1

Category IV: Environmental Mitigation and Vegetation Management Transportation Outlook 00 Policy All Category Total Goals & Objectives Transportation Choices 1 1 Economic Vitality Climate Change and Energy Use Environment 1 1 Place Making Public Health Safety and Security 0 System Condition 0 System Performance Equity Implementation Local Match Total 30 70 0 Committee Members Ranking Composite Total 1 Category V: Safe Routes to School Non-Infrastructure Projects Transportation Outlook 00 Policy Goals & Objectives All Category Total Transportation Choices Public Health Economic Vitality Climate Change and Energy Use 0 Environment 0 Place Making Safety and Security 1 1 System Condition 0 0 System Performance 0 0 Equity Implementation Local Match Total 30 70 0 Committee Members Ranking Composite Total 1 6

All Projects A. Implementation Points Right of way possible Not yet started 0 In process 1 Completed (using federal guidelines) or not required Project readiness 3 possible Conceptual only 1 Preliminary plans complete Final plans complete 3 Project has multi-jurisdictional support (through funding, easements, etc.) Demonstrated community support 3 B. Equity Points Improves access for an environmental justice (EJ) area possible Not in an EJ area 0 A portion of the project but less than 0% of project is in an EJ area AND applicant clearly explains how project improves access for that EJ area 0% or more of project is in an EJ area AND applicant clearly explains how project improves access for that EJ area OR Non-construction project that applicant clearly explains how project will positively impact populations in an EJ area Public participation No public participation cited Project supports goals and strategies developed through a comprehensive/general planning process that included public engagement and incorporated feedback received Conceptual project underwent further planning and refinement in a process that included public engagement and incorporated feedback received Project implementation will include public engagement strategy. Strategy is clearly described in attachment and includes specific techniques to engage transportation disadvantaged populations 6 C. Place Making Points Project is consistent with larger plans and/or applicable regional standards 3 Project is part of a local plan D. Local Match Points The cost estimate is detailed, complete, and realistic and includes a minimum of 0% local match (points for local match %): 0-9% 30-39% 0-9% >0% All Projects Total Possible possible 0 1 possible 3 30 Points MARC defines environmental justice areas two ways: 1. Census tracts with a greater percentage of minority populations than the Kansas City metropolitan planning boundary average; and/or. Census tracts where more than 0 percent of the households are in poverty. 6 See pg. 1 for Public Participation Scoring Detail table 7

Category I: Active Transportation Infrastructure Projects A. Transportation Choices/Public Health: Relationship to Transportation 1 Points Creates link in identified gap or provides new access in walking or bicycling network possible General improvements (no plans referenced) Improvements to local corridor (references local plans) Improvements to regional corridor (references regional or national plans) Improves access to existing transit service B. Economic Vitality Points Serves regional activity centers possible Project does not meet any criteria below Project serves any activity center 0 Project serves activity center found to be of higher development intensity and walkability AND Project sponsor is able to clearly and objectively document how served activity center has increased in intensity and walkability in order to warrant a higher intensity status Project serves activity center found to be of highest development intensity and walkability AND/OR Project implements elements & recommendations of Planning Sustainable Places or corridor demonstration projects from Creating Sustainable Places initiatives AND/OR Project sponsor is able to clearly and objectively document how served activity center has increased in intensity and walkability in order to warrant a higher intensity status C. Climate Change and Energy Use Points Project includes elements that use renewable energy sources, recycled materials, or other green technologies D. Environment Points Preserves or restores environmentally sensitive lands, cultural resources or agricultural lands and/or includes an environmental mitigation plan 7 E. Place Making Points Appropriate design elements contributing to quality places (up to pt. total) possible Bicycle parking 1 Trash cans 1 Benches 1 Traffic calming (e.g., bulb outs, narrowing travel lanes, raised crosswalks) Uses new tested visibility technology or treatment beyond MUTCD requirements Lighting Other (must describe) F. Safety and Security 1 Points Provides separated crossing or parallel safe accommodation for pedestrians and/or bicyclists for railroads, freeways, rivers or other similar barriers Crossing treatments, hazard mitigation, or proven safety countermeasures 8 are provided at intersections or uncontrolled locations Facility Width possible 13 ft. curb lane OR ft. SUP OR ft. min sidewalk on one side of street 3 1 ft. curb lane OR 1 ft. SUP OR ft. min sidewalks both sides of street ft. bike lane or ride able shoulder OR >1 ft. SUP OR > ft. sidewalks both sides of street G. System Performance Points Population residents & employees w/in 1-mi radius 3 6 possible <,000,000-9,999 8

,000-1,999 6 1,000-0,000 8 >0,000 Active Transportation Infrastructure Projects Total Possible 70 Points 7 See pg. 1 for Environment Scoring Detail table 8 Examples can be found in the Destination Safe Coalition s Kansas City Regional Safety Blueprint. 9

Category II: Historic Preservation/Archaeological Projects A. Transportation Choices: Relationship to Transportation 1 Points Extent to which project currently does or will serve a specific transportation function Extent to which project addresses a specific transportation impact B. Economic Vitality Points Serves regional activity centers possible Project does not meet any criteria below Project serves any activity center Project serves activity center found to be of higher development intensity and walkability AND Project sponsor is able to clearly and objectively document how served activity center has increased in intensity and walkability in order to warrant a higher intensity status Project serves activity center found to be of highest development intensity and walkability AND/OR Project implements elements & recommendations of Planning Sustainable Places or corridor demonstration projects from Creating Sustainable Places initiatives AND/OR Project sponsor is able to clearly and objectively document how served activity center has increased in intensity and walkability in order to warrant a higher intensity status C. Climate Change and Energy Use Points Project reduces VMT by increasing access to multimodal transportation options (connecting trails, park and rides, transit) 3 Project uses recycled materials, renewable materials, or materials or techniques that are historically or archaeologically unique AND/OR reduces carbon-based fuel use through landscaping/right-of-way management D. Environment Points Preserves or restores environmentally sensitive lands, cultural resources or agricultural lands and/or includes an environmental mitigation plan 7 E. Place Making 1 Points Adequate documentation of project's historic significance and uniqueness to region or place possible Project site has undergone review and recognition by a local historic register Project site is a local historic landmark OR within a local historic district Project site has local historic significance and uniqueness Supports Creating Sustainable Places guiding principles 9. Project achieves 0% or more of the concepts within: 1- Principles 3- Principles Principles 6+ Principles 0 6 8 possible F. System Condition 1 Points Relieves a threat to an existing historic resource Preserves/restores existing condition of the site or facility AND meets preservation/restoration standards Addresses long-term maintenance/preservation of the site in the future G. System Performance Points Creates community partnerships between government and non-governmental organizations Historic Preservation/Archaeological Projects Total Possible 1 70 Points 7 See pg. 1 for Environment Scoring Detail table 9 See pg. 1 for Creating Sustainable Places guiding principles

Category III: Transportation Aesthetics and Scenic Values A. Transportation Choices: Relationship to Transportation 1 Points Extent to which project currently does or will serve a specific transportation function Extent to which project addresses a specific transportation impact B. Economic Vitality Points Serves regional activity centers possible 11 Project does not meet any criteria below Project serves any activity center Project serves activity center found to be of higher development intensity and walkability AND Project sponsor is able to clearly and objectively document how served activity center has increased in intensity and walkability in order to warrant a higher intensity status Project serves activity center found to be of highest development intensity and walkability AND/OR Project implements elements & recommendations of Planning Sustainable Places or corridor demonstration projects from Creating Sustainable Places initiatives AND/OR project sponsor is able to clearly and objectively document how served activity center has increased in intensity and walkability in order to warrant a higher intensity status C. Climate Change and Energy Use Points Project includes elements that use renewable energy sources, recycled materials, or other green technologies D. Environment Points Preserves or restores environmentally sensitive lands, cultural resources or agricultural lands and/or includes an environmental mitigation plan 7 E. Place Making Points Supports Creating Sustainable Places guiding principles 9. Project achieves 0% or more of the possible concepts within: 1- Principles 3- Principles Principles 6+ Principles 1 F. Public Health Points Includes facilities for active modes (walking, bicycling or transit) possible 1 mode 1 modes 3 3 modes G. System Condition Points Visual Preference Survey score based on removing existing visual blighting influence or substantially enhancing visual environment (up to pt. total) H. System Performance Points Number of people directly benefitting from project Vehicular traffic at project location 7 See pg. 1 for Environment Scoring Detail table 9 See pg. 1 for Creating Sustainable Places guiding principles 0 6 possible Residents & employees within a 1-mile radius <,000 1,000-0,000 3 >0,000 possible Daily ADT <0,000 1 0,000-0,000 3 >0,000

Transportation Aesthetics and Scenic Values Total Possible 70 Points Category IV: Environmental Mitigation and Vegetation Management A. Transportation Choices: Relationship to Transportation 1 Points Eliminates existing problem impacting transportation function of existing facility Addresses future problems at a transportation facility B. Economic Vitality Points Serves regional activity centers possible Project does not meet any criteria below Project serves any activity center Project serves activity center found to be of higher development intensity and walkability AND Project sponsor is able to clearly and objectively document how served activity center has increased in intensity and walkability in order to warrant a higher intensity status Project serves activity center found to be of highest development intensity and walkability AND/OR Project implements elements & recommendations of Planning Sustainable Places or corridor demonstration projects from Creating Sustainable Places initiatives AND/OR Project sponsor is able to clearly and objectively document how served activity center has increased in intensity and walkability in order to warrant a higher intensity status C. Climate Change and Energy Use Points Reduces VMT by increasing access to multimodal transportation options (connecting trails, park and rides, transit) 6 Reduces carbon-based fuel usage through alternative fuels, renewable energy or landscaping/right-of-way management D. Environment 1 Points Preserves or restores environmentally sensitive lands, cultural resources or agricultural lands and/or includes an environmental mitigation plan 7 E. Place Making Points Supports Creating Sustainable Places guiding principles 9. Project achieves 0% or more of the possible concepts within: 1- Principles 3- Principles Principles 6+ Principles 1 F. Public Health: Water Quality Points Addresses problems created from stormwater runoff (e.g., soil erosion, water quality) 3 Applies strategies and practices from the MARC/APWA Manual of Best Management Practices to Protect Water Quality G. System Performance Points Approximate number of people directly benefiting from project annually possible <0,000. 0,000-0,000 >0,000 Environmental Mitigation and Vegetation Management Total Possible 0 6 1 70 Points 7 See pg. 1 for Environment Scoring Detail table 1

Category V: Safe Routes to School Non-Infrastructure Projects A. Transportation Choices/Public Health Points possible Addresses only walking or bicycling Addresses both walking and bicycling B. Economic Vitality Points Serves a primary or middle school (grades K-8) possible Project does not address a primary or middle school (grades K-8) 0 Project addresses a planned future primary or middle school (grades K-8) AND explains how project serves that school Project addresses a primary or middle school (grades K-8) AND explains how project serves that school C. Safety and Security 1 Points Extent to which project addresses safety conflicts and one of three Safe Routes to School components 1 possible Education a 1 Enforcement b Encouragement c D. System Condition 0 Points Documents need for proposed services or program; does not duplicate or overlap existing programs or services 0 F. System Performance 0 Points Existing: Success in achieving goals & reaching target audience, or; New: Success of case studies or other examples OR innovates in field Extent to which project outcome is reasonable and attainable Extent to which program will be evaluated and monitored Approximate number of people directly benefiting from project annually possible <1,000 1 1,000-,999,000-9,999 3,000-1,000 >1,000 Safe Routes to School Non-Infrastructure Projects Total Possible Note: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recommends that Safe Routes to School efforts incorporate directly or indirectly components, often referred to as E s. Three of the E s and examples of each include: 70 Points a. Education Teaching children about the broad range of transportation choices, instructing them in important lifelong bicycling and walking safety skills, and launching driver safety campaigns in the vicinity of schools. b. Enforcement Partnering with local law enforcement to ensure traffic laws are obeyed in the vicinity of schools (this includes enforcement of speeds, yielding to pedestrians in crossings, and proper walking and bicycling behaviors), and initiating community enforcement such as crossing guard programs. c. Encouragement Using events and activities to promote walking and bicycling. 13

Public Participation: Scoring Detail Project implementation will include public engagement strategy. Strategy is clearly described in attachment and includes specific techniques to engage transportation disadvantaged populations. Strategy should include the following: 1. Demonstrated understanding of transportation disadvantaged populations that may be effected positively or negatively by this project. (MARC defines transportation disadvantaged populations as minority, low-income, older adults, disabled, zero-car households, and/or veterans.). Public Participation goal (Goal should, at a minimum, target the Consult impact level or greater, according to the IAP Spectrum of Public Participation (http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iap.org/resource/resmgr/imported/iap%0spectrum_vertica l.pdf) 3. Proposed techniques and communication channels and which ones are targeted to transportation disadvantaged populations. pts. Environment: Scoring Detail Preserves or restores environmentally sensitive lands, cultural resources or agricultural lands and/or includes an environmental mitigation plan 1. Applicant provides a map identifying priority natural resource conservation and restoration opportunities along project corridor and in project watershed.. Applicant specifies which conservation areas (e.g., forests, floodplains, waterways, wetlands, etc.) will be protected, articulates how those areas will be protected and what resources will be required to accomplish the work. 3. Applicant specifies which natural resource areas will be protected AND restored, and articulates how those areas will be protected and restored and what resources will be required to accomplish the work.. In addition to item #3, applicant also articulates a comprehensive plan to conserve and restore on a watershed or sub-watershed scale, with explicit linkages to other community and environmental assets (e.g., trails, bike paths, parks) Categories I, II, III Category IV 1 pt. 3 pts. pts. 6 pts. 3 pts. 9 pts. pts. 1 pts. Note: MARC staff will use the Natural Resources Inventory in the project analysis. For more information about the Natural Resources Inventory, visit: http://www.marc.org/environment/natural- Resources/Natural-Resources-Inventory/Natural-Resource-Inventory.aspx 1

Creating Sustainable Places guiding principles Sustainable places, wherever they occur, are vibrant, efficient, and enduring and are characterized by the following principles: Reinvestment Transportation Choices Housing Choices Development in Corridors and Activity Centers Design for Healthier Lifestyles Preservation of Unique Community Characteristics Resource Conservation and Energy Efficiency Project achieves 0% or more of the concepts within: 1- Principles 3- Principles Principles 6+ Principles points possible 1 pt. pts. pts. pts. Note: For more information about Creating Sustainable Places guiding principles, visit: http://codes.sustainable-kc.org/principles 1

CMAQ Project Scoring A number of federally designated programs and projects are eligible for CMAQ funding; however, the Active Transportation Programming Committee is responsible for scoring projects that fall within CMAQ s Bicycle/Pedestrian category. Other CMAQ project categories will be scored by separate modal committees. The scoring criteria and point system are based on a system that the former Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Committee now known as the Air Quality Forum used to evaluate project applications. The Bicycle/Pedestrian category has a rating system based on a total of 0 points. This rating and the resulting project rankings are intended to provide information to MARC s Active Transportation Programming Committee to aid in their decision-making process for developing funding recommendations to MARC s Total Transportation Policy Committee. Note: The project scores determined through this process are not the sole factor for determining funding recommendations. Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects A. Emission Reduction 3 Points Lifetime emissions reductions (kg) 3 possible 0-1,99 0 1,00-3,99 7 3,00-7,99 1 7,00-1,99 1 1,00-19,999 8 >0,000 3 B. Cost Effectiveness 3 Points Cost effectiveness (CMAQ funding/kg) 3 possible >00 0 00-99 7 300-399 1 00-99 1 0-199 8 0-99 3 C. Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction 1 Points VMT reduction/project lifetime 1 possible 0 0 1-99,999 7 00,000 or more 1 D. Land Use/Category Specific (All Projects) 1 Points Supports redevelopment, infill development, and mixed-use development in existing town centers, activity centers, established neighborhoods and/or a ¼ mile area around transit stations currently served by public facilities by constructing new or improving existing transportation facilities within these areas. 1. Land Use/Category Specific (Infrastructure Projects Only) Increases connectivity. possible Extends a current bike path/trail/system 1 Provides a missing link Improves access to public transit. Land Use/Category Specific (Outreach/Other Projects Only) Supplements or enhances the benefits of previously funded CMAQ projects to avoid duplication or incompatibility. Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects Total Possible 0 Points 16

Section III. Project committee ranking Committee ranking is the final step in developing a project score. This process allows the Active Transportation Programming Committee members the ability to increase a score by as much as points or as little as none. The committee members will be asked to rank all projects in order based on the total number of projects received. The ranking will be done in reverse order with the last project receiving a rank of 1. Ballots are recorded and the average rank is recorded. The total points possible will be divided by the total number of applications to produce a rank factor. This factor will be multiplied by the average of each project s rank. Scores will be rounded to the nearest whole number. For example: STBGP Set-Aside project applications / = a factor of 0. A project with an average rank of.6 is multiplied by a factor of 0. would score.77 additional points. Rounded up to the nearest whole number, that equals additional points. Therefore, if a project initially scored an 88 on the composite score, its final score would be (88+ = 93) 93 out of a possible 1 points. 17