P4.0 Highway Quantitative Scoring Workgroup Recommendations

Similar documents
Data Driven Results: North Carolina s Strategic Prioritization Process through SPOT On!ine. NCDOT Strategic Prioritization Office April 4, 2016

INTERSTATE CORRIDOR PLANNING

MAP 21 Freight Provisions and Seaports

PLANES, TRAINS & SEMIS South Carolina s Statewide Freight Plan

Mobility and System Reliability Goal

NEW YORK TRANSPORTATION FACTS ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Proposed Comprehensive Update to the State of Rhode Island s Congestion Management Process

NC State Freight Plan

6.0 CONGESTION HOT SPOT PROBLEM AND IMPROVEMENT TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL ANALYSIS

2040 Transportation Policy Plan Conversion to Performance Based Planning Basis. 25 th Annual CTS Transportation Research Conference May 21, 2014

2016 Mid-Continent Transportation Research Symposium, October 24-25, Donna Brown-Martin, Director Bureau of Planning and Economic Development

INDIANA S INTERMODAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Stephen C. Smith Planning Manager, Transportation Planning Division Indiana Department of Transportation

MAP-21 themes. Strengthens America s highway and public transportation systems. Creates jobs and supports economic growth

CITY OF JACKSONVILLE 2030 MOBILITY PLAN STUDY UPDATE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES PREPARED FOR: CITY OF JACKSONVILLE

VISION STATEMENT, MISSION STATEMENT, AND GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Performance Measures Target Setting Regional Transportation Council

Appendix D: Functional Classification Criteria and Characteristics, and MnDOT Access Guidance

Freight and Rail Stakeholder Webinar. January 7, 2014

TBARTA 2015 Regional Transportation Master Plan 2040 Regional Long Range Transportation Plan AUGUST 2015

RTC Position on Pavement Condition Targets

State of Idaho Profile

VTrans2040 Multimodal Transportation Plan Corridors of Statewide Significance Needs Assessment Western Mountain Corridor (L)

Charlotte Region HOV/HOT/Managed Lanes Analysis. Technical Memorandum Task 1.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Presented to: MAASTO 2013 Conference. Presented by: Sandra K. Beaupre, Director Planning & Economic Development. July 2013

Appendix D Functional Classification Criteria and Characteristics, and MnDOT Access Guidance

Winston-Salem Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (WSMPO) Prioritization 4.0 Evaluation Criteria and Point Assignment Process

Peninsula Widening. Project Description. Overview of Project Status. Estimated Total Project Cost $4.7 - $7.3 Billion

Interstate and Strategic Corridor Plans. January 9, :30 AM

Virginia Critical Rural and Urban Freight Corridor Designation WebEx Discussion. September 28, 2017, 10:30 12:00

INTEGRATING FREIGHT IN CORRIDOR PLANNING AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT. Steve Linhart, AICP Caroline Mays, AICP

SECTION 5. Existing Conditions TRANSPORTATION NETWORK TRANSPORTATION

2017 Freight System Plan

FHWA Programs Supporting Freight

Infrastructure and Growth Leadership Advisory Group Ideas and Approaches Survey

Tri-County Regional Planning Commission 2045 Regional Metropolitan Transportation Plan Goals and Objectives Adopted March 22, 2017

9.0 Meeting the Challenges

Highway and Freight Current Investment Direction and Plan. TAB September 20, 2017

Technical Memorandum MULTIMODAL NEEDS. Prepared for: Oklahoma Department of Transportation. Prepared by:

Chapter 8 - The Decision-Making Process

MPO/RPO Briefings. MPO/RPO Briefing. Briefing Topics Plan framework o NCDOT Policy to Projects process o Relationship to local/regional plans

EIGHT PLANNING FACTORS

Winston-Salem Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (WSUAMPO) Prioritization 3.0 Evaluation Criteria and Point Assignment Process

Appendix B. OKI 2030 Regional Transportation Plan Project Scoring Process. Ohio Kentucky Indiana Regional Council of Governments

Chapter 10 Goals, Objectives + Policies

Multimodal Freight Transportation Policy Overview

Chapter 3 - Goals, Objectives, & Strategies

PROJECTS. The KIPDA MPO s Central Location

Jacksonville Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN. Draft

CORE MPO Freight Transportation Plan. Project Advisory Committee

TEXAS FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 2017

Transportation Advisory Board May 21, 2014

AMPO Annual Conference Session: Performance (Part 1) October 18, 2017 Savannah, GA

DEFINING THE WASHINGTON STATE TRUCK INTERMODAL NETWORK

Performance Measures Target Setting. Surface Transportation Technical Committee October 26, 2018

Will County Freight Advisory Council Meeting. April 11, 2017

Project Application Guidelines. For the. Major New Capacity Program

SCDOT Needs, Funding Challenges, and Economic Development. Getting to Good (and Staying There ) Robert St. Onge, SCDOT January 2013

Florida Multimodal Statewide Freight Model

Joint House and Senate Transportation Committee Update to the Ten Year Plan

Logistics Overview for North Carolina

House Select Committee on Strategic Transportation Planning and Long Term Funding Solutions. March 28, 2016

Massachusetts Rail Plan. September 16, 2010

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Memphis MPO March 30, 2015

GUIDING PRINCIPLES MEMORANDUM

11. POLICIES AND STRATEGIES

The Policies section will also provide guidance and short range policies in order to accomplish the goals and objectives.

TEXAS FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN: DRAFT KEY POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE I 76 INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROJECT TO THE CONNECTIONS 2040 PLAN FOR GREATER PHILADELPHIA

National Performance Measure Target Recommendations

Regional Transportation Profile Guidelines. final. report. April tpd.azdot.gov

A PRACTITIONER S INTRODUCTION TO LEAP - LOCAL ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT PACKAGE

Performance Measures for Transportation Planning Part 1

ARKANSAS. Long Range Intermodal Transportation Plan. LRITP Stakeholder Meetings. June 27-30, 2016

Regional Performance Measures Annual Progress Report TPO Board - 2/4/2016 Presentation by: Chris Wichman, Senior Planner

2. Goals and Objectives

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROCEDURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE

CORE MPO Freight Transportation Plan. Project Advisory Committee December 3, 2014

GDOT-Office of Planning Update

CHAPTER 5: TRANSPORTATION

Connectivity North and Beyond Nevada s I 80 Corridor

GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

Appendix O Level of Service Standard and Measurements

SIS Policy & Implementation

PWC Neighborhood Services Conference. February 20, 2016 Aleksandra Tuliszka Assistant Transportation and Land Use Director

Technical Briefing Report

VTrans2040 Multimodal Transportation Plan Corridors of Statewide Significance Needs Assessment Eastern Shore Corridor

Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee January 8, NCDOT Rail Division. Paul Worley, NCDOT Rail Division Director

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

REPORT. Freight Physical Infrastructure Profile May 11, Submitted to: Rappahannock-Rapidan Regional Commission (RRRC)

MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN

RESOLUTION NO

Introduction. Performance Measurement. Pg. 01

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD. Spatial Modeling for Highway Performance Monitoring System Data: Part 1. Tuesday, February 27, :00-4:00 PM ET

Project Application. General Information ODOT PID. Primary County (3 char abrv) HAM/CLE HAM/CLE HAM ODOT. District. Project Manager (Contact Person)

Bridges Prioritizing Criteria and Measures

Benefit Cost Analysis Narrative

Oklahoma Long Range Transportation Plan

Transportation Facility Inventory

Contents i Contents Page 1 A New Transportation Plan Community Involvement Goals and Objectives... 11

Overview of the Draft Highway Primary Freight Network. November 20, :00 2:30 pm ET Coral Torres Ed Strocko

Transcription:

P4.0 Highway Quantitative Scoring Workgroup Recommendations May 18, 2015

Highway Project Scoring Overview Insert Table of Eligibility Statewide Mobility Regional Impact Division Needs Eligible Projects: Statewide Statewide Regional Statewide Regional Division Overall Weights: 100% Quantitative Data 70% Quantitative Data / 30% Local Input 50% Quantitative Data / 50% Local Input Quant. Criteria 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 2

Highway Scoring Eligible Quantitative Criteria Criteria 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) Existing Conditions Project Benefits (Future Conditions) 3

P4.0 Highway Scoring Criteria and Weights Funding Category Statewide Mobility Regional Impact Division Needs QUANTITATIVE Congestion = 30% Benefit Cost = 25% Safety = 15% Economic Competitiveness = 10% Freight = 15% Multimodal = 5% Total = 100% Congestion = 20% Benefit Cost = 20% Safety = 10% Accessibility/Connectivity = 10% Freight = 10% Total = 70% Congestion = 15% Benefit Cost = 15% Safety = 10% Accessibility/Connectivity = 5% Freight = 5% Total = 50% LOCAL INPUT Data Division Rank MPO/RPO Rank 15% 15% 25% 25% Note: Div. have agreed to use different criteria for Regional Impact and/or Division Needs projects. 4

Highway Congestion Statewide Mobility 30% Regional Impact 20% Division Needs 15% Purpose Measure existing level of mobility along roadways by indicating congested locations and bottlenecks Statewide Mobility Regional Impact Division Needs 60% Existing Volume/Capacity Ratio 40% Existing Volume 80% Existing Volume/Capacity Ratio 20% Existing Volume 100% Existing Volume/Capacity Ratio Peak ADT will be used as the Existing Volume 5

Highway Benefit Cost Statewide Mobility 25% Regional Impact 20% Division Needs 15% 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 6

Highway Safety Statewide Mobility 15% Regional Impact 10% Division Needs 10% Purpose measure existing crashes along/at the project Segments Intersections 33% Crash Density 33% Crash Severity 33% Critical Crash Rate 50% Crash Frequency 50% Severity Index All data provided by Mobility & Safety Division (3 year moving average) Higher scores indicate poorer performance 7

Highway Economic Competitiveness Statewide Mobility 10% Regional Impact N/A Division Needs N/A 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 8

Highway Accessibility / Connectivity Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 10% Division Needs 5% 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 9

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) Existing Facility Type (From) Project Facility Type (To) Two Lane Highway Two Lane Highway Two Lane Highway Multilane Highway Arterial (Signalized Roadway) Arterial (Signalized Roadway) Arterial (Signalized Roadway) Superstreet Superstreet Freeway Multilane Highway Superstreet Freeway Freeway Multilane Highway Superstreet Freeway Multilane Highway 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 10

Highway Freight [+ Military] Statewide Mobility 15% Regional Impact 10% Division Needs 5% Purpose measure congestion along routes that provide connection to freight intermodal terminals and that have high truck volumes 50% Truck volumes along route 30% Volume [Peak ADT] /capacity if project is on non Interstate STRAHNET route or designated future Interstate 20% (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, ILM?) Major military bases Large private freight intermodal terminals defined as (truck to another mode) TBD 11

Highway Multimodal [+ Military] Statewide Mobility 5% Regional Impact Division Needs 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 12

Highway Lane Width Statewide Mobility Regional Impact Division Needs 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 13

Highway [Paved] Shoulder Width Statewide Mobility Regional Impact Division Needs 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 14

Highway Pavement Condition Statewide Mobility Regional Impact Division Needs 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 15