Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization Rural Technical Coordinating Committee (RTCC)

Transcription

1 Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization Rural Technical Coordinating Committee (RTCC) 14 December :30 AM to 1:00 PM Lee County Government Center Gordon Wicker Room 106 Hillcrest Drive, Sanford, NC RTCC Agenda (begins at 10:30 AM) 1. Welcome and Introductions Chris Kennedy, RTCC Chair 2. Purpose and Agenda for Today s Meeting Matt Day, TARPO Staff 3. Public Comment Chris Kennedy, RTCC Chair 4. October 12, 2017 Meeting Summary Approval Chris Kennedy, RTCC Chair 5. Decision Items Chris Kennedy, RTCC Chair a. Removal of TIP Project EB-5871 b. TARPO Local Point Assignment Methodology for Prioritization 5.0 c Meeting Schedule 6. Discussion Items Chris Kennedy, RTCC Chair a. NC 54 Corridor Study b. Midland Road Corridor Study c. Input for FY19 Planning Work Program d. Transportation Alternative Program (TAP) Funding Opportunity e. FY18 First Quarter Finance Update 7. Member Updates from Around the Region Chris Kennedy, RTCC Chair Joint RTCC/RTAC Agenda (begins at 12:00 PM) 8. NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch Update Julie Bogle, NCDOT TPB 9. NCDOT Division 7 Update Ed Lewis, NCDOT Div NCDOT Division 8 Update Bryan Kluchar, NCDOT Div TARPO Staff Update Matt Day, TARPO Staff 12. RTCC Adjournment & Report to RTAC Chris Kennedy, RTCC Chair Next Meeting: To be determined, but likely February 8, 2018 in Chatham County Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization Core Duties (G.S ) To develop, in cooperation with NCDOT, long-range local and regional multimodal transportation plans; provide a forum for public participation in the transportation planning process; develop and prioritize suggestions for transportation projects the organization believes should be included in the State Transportation Improvement Program; and provide transportation-related information to local governments and other interested organizations and persons.

2 TARPO Rural Technical Coordinating Committee Meeting Agenda Comments December 14, 2017 Item 4: October 12, 2017 Meeting Summary Approval Background The minutes of the October 12, 2017 TARPO RTCC meeting are attached for review. Recommendation Approval of October 12, 2017 TARPO RTCC meeting minutes.

3 Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) Rural Transportation Coordinating Committee (RTCC) October 12, 2017 Meeting Minutes Members Present: Matt Day, Triangle J Council of Governments Chris Kennedy, Southern Pines (chair) Pam Graham, Aberdeen Debra Ensminger, Moore County Stephen Wensman, Pinehurst Jason Sullivan, Chatham County (alternate for Cara Coppola) Jeff Jones, Pittsboro Ed Lewis, NCDOT Division 7 Nishith Trivedi, Orange County Julie Bogle, NCDOT Transportation Planning Bryan Kluchar, NCDOT Division 8 (alternate for Brandon Jones) David Montgomery, Sanford/Broadway/Lee County Jack Meadows, Siler City (vice chair) Others Present: Scott Walston, NCDOT Transportation Planning Jen Britt, NCDOT Division 8 Matthew Kitchen, NCDOT Division 8 Travis Morgan, NCDOT Division 8 Item 1 Welcome and Introductions At approximately 10:30 am, Mr. Kennedy noted that a quorum was in attendance and called the meeting to order. Introductions were conducted around the room. Item 2 Purpose & Agenda for Today s Meeting Mr. Day reviewed the agenda for the meeting. There were no amendments to the agenda. Item 3 Public Comment Mr. Kennedy called for any public comments. There were no members of the public who wished to make comments. Item 4 August 17, 2017 Meeting Summary Ms. Ensminger made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted, which was seconded by Ms. Graham. The motion passed unanimously. Item 5a CMAQ Project Submittal for FY19 Mr. Day explained that the Town of Pittsboro had requested removal of the West Street sidewalk from the CMAQ funding list for FY19, and as a result there was an opening for another project to be submitted. He noted that Orange County Public Transportation had requested $48,000 in CMAQ funding to purchase a light transit vehicle costing $60,000 (the remaining $12,000 would come from local funds). Mr. Trivedi made a motion to recommend that the RTAC approve submittal of Orange County Public Transportation s project request for CMAQ funding. Ms. Ensminger seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. Item 5b Pittsboro Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Grant Application Mr. Day noted that the Town of Pittsboro planned to submit an application for NCDOT funding of a bicycle and pedestrian plan, and that as part of the process the Town was requesting support from TARPO. Mr. Meadows made a motion to recommend that the RTAC pass the draft resolution included in the agenda packet in support of the Town of Pittsboro s application for a Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Grant. Ms. Graham seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. Item 6a Prioritization 5.0 Project List Mr. Day provided an updated list of the projects in the TARPO area being scored for Prioritization 5.0, including projects TARPO RTCC October 12, 2017 Meeting Minutes 1

4 submitted by other agencies. He also shared some initial estimated quantitative scores for a subset of projects where this type of analysis is possible (this is not possible for all projects), but noted that these initial numbers should only be considered preliminary and are likely to change. Item 6b Comprehensive Transportation Plans in the TARPO Region There was a group discussion regarding the Comprehensive Transportation Plans in the region. Lee County there is an intent to begin work on this plan within the next year, but it has not yet been assigned to an engineer in the Transportation Planning Branch following the departure of Suzette Morales. Rupal Desai is working on completion of the travel demand model that Suzette began. Orange County the requested revisions to the Orange County plan should be relatively quick to do. This will be assigned to Julie Bogle. Chatham County Julie Bogle is currently working on a minor revision to the Chatham CTP to correct mistakes in the maps that were adopted last year, and is working to complete the CTP report document. Moore County Scott Walston is leading this project. There will be a Moore County Transportation Committee meeting soon to discuss updates and the schedule for moving forward. Local official meetings will hopefully occur in November and December, with public meetings in January. Item 7 Member Updates None were noted. At approximately 12:00 pm, the RTCC recessed. The remainder of the meeting was conducted jointly with the RTAC, and can be found in the RTAC minutes. TARPO RTCC October 12, 2017 Meeting Minutes 2

5 TARPO Rural Technical Coordinating Committee Meeting Agenda Comments December 14, 2017 Item 5a: Removal of TIP Project EB-5871 Background TIP Project EB-5871 is the construction of a sidewalk on East 3 rd Street in Siler City, from North 5 th Avenue to East 11 th Street. This project was selected for funding in Prioritization 4.0 and is currently scheduled for engineering in FY18 and construction in FY20. The estimated cost at the time of programming was $275,000. The Town of Siler City has requested that EB-5871 be dropped from the STIP at this time, for the following reasons: There is an ongoing construction/redevelopment project at the Mountaire poultry processing plant on East 3 rd Street, and the Town does not want to proceed with a sidewalk project that may be rendered obsolete due to other changes to the street or the area that may arise from the ongoing Mountaire project. The Town s on-call engineer has examined the project and determined that the cost estimate initially shown was far too low, and the actual cost of the project would be closer to $1.5 million. The Town has another funded sidewalk project on East Raleigh Street that will be parallel to the 3 rd Street corridor and connect many of the same areas of town. NCDOT has requested agreement from TARPO before it will proceed with removing the project from the STIP. TARPO staff recommends removal of the project, in accordance with the request from the Town of Siler City. Recommendation Recommend that the RTAC agree to the removal of project EB-5871 from the FY18-27 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.

6 E. 11th St. Mountaire Site EB-5871 E. d 3r St. R E. h ig e l a St. Ü Downtown Siler City Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

7 TARPO Rural Technical Coordinating Committee Meeting Agenda Comments December 14, 2017 Item 5b: TARPO Local Point Assignment Methodology for Prioritization 5.0 Background Each MPO and RPO is required to have an adopted methodology for the assignment of local input points in the STI Prioritization process. These methodologies are reviewed and updated as appropriate each time we go through a prioritization cycle (approximately every two years). The methodology must be approved by both the TARPO RTAC and the NCDOT Methodology Review Committee before the window for local points opens in April TARPO staff is recommending that the majority of our methodology remain the same as it was in Prioritization 4.0, but with the following modifications: Remove references to qualitative versus quantitative scoring elements, since NCDOT no longer requires us to include at least one of each. Remove Consistency with Plan as one of the highway scoring elements. This criterion does not relate to the relative quality of projects, does not result in a broad differentiation of scores, and penalizes areas that have not yet completed (or updated) their CTPs. This criterion was previously worth 30 points (15% of the total score) for highway projects and resulted in very skewed scores. Revise Congestion criterion for highway scoring by increasing the available points from 30 (15% of score) to 45 (22.5% of score). Revise the V/C scoring ratio for current volumes by allowing a score for V/C less than 0.8 so there are no longer zero values for this criterion. Rescale the current V/C scores to max out at 45 instead of 30. Rescale the future V/C scores to max out at 35 instead of 15. Revise Crash History criterion for highway scoring by increasing the available points from 15 (7.5% of score) to 25 (12.5% of score). Revise the crash severity scoring ratio to max out at 25 and the crash density scoring ratio to max out at 20. Revise Economic Development/Employment Access criterion for highway scoring by increasing the available points from 10 (5% of score) to 15 (7.5% of score). Revise the score for industrial/business park or location with 200 employees to 15, and revise the score for location with less than 200 employees to 7.5. Revise transit and rail mode criteria to match with revised criteria used by NCDOT for Prioritization 5.0. Update schedule, dates, and website information.

8 The draft document being presented today is gather initial feedback, and request permission to submit the document to NCDOT for review and approval. Once approved by NCDOT, any additional changes that may be required by NCDOT will be brought back to the RTCC and RTAC at their February 2018 meetings, and the final document will be presented for adoption at that time. The draft document will also be posted on the TARPO website for public review and comment. Recommendation Recommend that the RTAC release the draft Project Prioritization Policy for review by the public and by NCDOT.

9 Project Prioritization Policy Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization DRAFT - December 14, 2017 The following methodology has been developed by the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization for the purpose of determining regional priorities for transportation funding, as carried out through the State of North Carolina s Strategic Transportation Investments (STI) law and the associated SPOT Prioritization Process. This methodology is intended to incorporate both measurable, objective data and information about priorities from local jurisdictions, to ensure a process that is both data-driven and responsive to local needs. The Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization serves Lee and Moore Counties, as well as the portions of Chatham and Orange Counties that are not within the planning area of a Metropolitan Planning Organization. This methodology has been developed to meet the requirements of Session Law (Senate Bill 890), which requires that MPOs and RPOs have a process for determining project prioritization. The local prioritization process will consist of three parts: (1) ranking of projects at the countywide level; (2) quantitative scoring of submitted projects; and (3) ranking of scored projects and assignment of SPOT points. Each of these is discussed in more detail below. Countywide Ranking of Projects Within each TARPO county, all the local jurisdictions (including the county and any municipalities within the county) must work together to develop a single ranked list of projects in all modes to submit to TARPO for use in the SPOT process. This list must be based on the list of projects that have been previously submitted to NCDOT new projects cannot be added at this point in the process. These should be ranked in order from highest priority (#1) to lowest (#10). If there are more than 10 projects within a county, then only the top 10 should be ranked. It is up to the local jurisdictions to determine the best method for achieving this within each county; however, the following general rules apply: All jurisdictions should be given an opportunity to participate in the development of their county s ranked project list if they choose The process must include at least one meeting open to the public that allows for public comment There must be written documentation stating the reasoning behind the selected project ranking (this must be submitted to TARPO and will be posted online along with the project list) These local ranked priority lists should be developed and submitted to TARPO by May 15, 2018, after NCDOT releases its draft quantitative scores for projects. Once submitted to TARPO, the local priority DRAFT Project Prioritization Policy December 14,

10 lists will be posted online and made available for additional public comment prior to the TARPO RTAC s approval of local input points on projects. County Rank Scoring All projects will be assigned a 50% portion of their total score based on the ranking assigned to that project by local officials in the above-described countywide rankings. This applies to all modes. These points will be assigned as follows: # 1 Priority in County 100 points # 6 Priority in County 50 points # 2 Priority in County 90 points # 7 Priority in County 40 points # 3 Priority in County 80 points # 8 Priority in County 30 points # 4 Priority in County 70 points # 9 Priority in County 20 points # 5 Priority in County 60 points # 10 Priority in County 10 points All projects that are not ranked within the top 10 projects in each county will receive a score of 0 for this item. This item will be weighted as 50% of the overall score. Additional Project Scoring Criteria After projects are submitted by local jurisdictions at the county level, the projects will be scored by TARPO staff based on the criteria described below. There are separate scoring methodologies for each mode of transportation (highway, bike/ped, transit, rail, and aviation). Regardless of mode, this score will account for 50% of the overall project score. The worksheets on pages 7-11 will be used to complete this scoring. Highway There are four elements that the TARPO Transportation Advisory Committee has determined to be important in the selection of highway projects for prioritization within the RPO: congestion, crash history, economic development, and multimodal elements. These criteria are described in more detail below. Congestion 45 points maximum Highway has existing volume-to-capacity ratio greater than or equal to 1.0 (road is currently over capacity) 45 points Highway has existing volume-to-capacity ratio less than 1.0 (road is currently under capacity) ( V/C * 45 ) (results in a sliding scale from 0 to 45 points) Highway is not currently at capacity, but has projected future volume-to-capacity ratio greater than or equal to 1.0 (road is expected to be over capacity in the future, based on the projections documented in a CTP) 35 points Highway is not currently at capacity, but has projected future volume-to-capacity ratio greater than or equal to 0.8 but less than 1.0 (road is expected to be approaching capacity in the future, based on the projections documented in a CTP) ( V/C * 35 ) (results in a sliding scale from 28 to 35 points) DRAFT Project Prioritization Policy December 14,

11 Crash History 25 points maximum Choose either this: Location with a high crash severity score (corresponding to a SPOT crash severity score greater than or equal to 50) Severity Score * 0.25 (minimum=12.5, maximum=25) Or this: Location with a high crash density score (corresponding to a SPOT crash density score greater than or equal to 50) Density Score * 0.20 (minimum=10, maximum=20) All other projects (those with crash severity and crash density scores below 50) 0 points Economic Development/Employment Access 15 points maximum Project provides direct access to an active industrial/business park development site OR proposed new employment location with more than 200 employees 15 points Project provides direct access to an existing employment center (one or more employers in close proximity) with more than 200 employees 7.5 points All other projects 0 points Multimodal Elements 15 points maximum Project includes facilities/features for all three of the following: bicycles, pedestrians, and transit 15 points Project includes facilities/features for two of the following: bicycles, pedestrians, and transit 10 points Project includes facilities/features for one of the following: bicycles, pedestrians, and transit 5 points All other projects 0 points Bicycle and Pedestrian There are five elements that the TARPO Transportation Advisory Committee has determined to be important in the selection of bicycle and pedestrian projects for prioritization within the RPO: safety, connectivity, project purpose/need, access to underserved populations, and inclusion on the regional priority bicycle/pedestrian network. These criteria are described in more detail below. Safety/Crash Exposure 30 points maximum Pedestrian project (sidewalks, crosswalks) on a roadway with a reported pedestrianrelated crash in the last five years 30 points Project adds sidewalk on a road that does not currently have any sidewalks vehicle AADT on roadway * (results in sliding scale where any road with more than 5000 vehicles receives the maximum 30 points) DRAFT Project Prioritization Policy December 14,

12 Project adds sidewalk on a road that currently only has sidewalk on one side vehicle AADT on roadway * (results in sliding scale where any road with more than vehicles receives the maximum 30 points) Project adds crossing improvements on a road vehicle AADT on roadway * (results in sliding scale where any road with more than vehicles receives the maximum 30 points) On-road bicycle project (bike lanes, wide outside lanes, paved shoulders, shared lane markings) on a roadway with a reported bicycle-related crash in the last five years 30 points Project adds on-road bicycle facility vehicle AADT on roadway * (results in sliding scale where any road with more than vehicles receives the maximum 30 points) Off-road greenway project that is accessible to pedestrians and/or bicyclists and is physically separated from a roadway 30 points Off-road greenway project that is parallel to a roadway ( sidepath ) 15 points Connectivity 20 points maximum Projects that connect two previously disconnected (or inconveniently connected) sections of bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure (missing links) 20 points Projects that connect neighborhoods with schools and/or colleges 20 points Projects that are located in or provide a connection to a downtown or major employment center 15 points Projects that are located in or provide a connection to a shopping or entertainment area or a park 10 points Projects that are located in or provide a connection to a small and/or rural community center or a large residential area/subdivision 5 points All other projects 0 points Project Purpose/Need 15 points maximum Project has a primarily transportation-related purpose 15 points Project has some transportation use, but is primarily for recreational use 10 points Project has little use as a transportation facility 5 points Project has only recreational utility, with no transportation function 0 points Access to Underserved Populations 20 points maximum For all projects, points are assigned by taking the percentage of population living in poverty within the census tract where the project is located (or the tract with the highest percentage of population in poverty if the project is located in multiple tracts) and dividing by two, with results capped at a maximum of 20 (corresponds with 40% of the population living in poverty, which is the approximate maximum within the TARPO region at this time). DRAFT Project Prioritization Policy December 14,

13 Projects that provide a connection to a permanent bus stop location receive an additional 5 points (up to the total cap of 20 for this criterion). Inclusion in TARPO Priority Network 15 points maximum Projects that are located on identified priority network corridors in the TARPO Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Framework for both bicycle facilities and pedestrian facilities 15 points Projects that are located on identified priority network corridors in the TARPO Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Framework for either bicycle facilities or pedestrian facilities, but not both 10 points All other projects 0 points Transit TARPO proposes to use the quantitative scoring methods already developed by NCDOT for the purpose of scoring transit projects. For simplicity, TARPO will use the current scoring method in use by NCDOT for transit projects in the Division Needs category at the time of prioritization, multiplied by 2 to put this on a 100-point scale instead of a 50-point scale. Based on the proposed NCDOT criteria at the time of this document s preparation, the scoring would be based on the following factors (subject to change by NCDOT in the future): For Mobility Projects: 20% based on Impact 20% based on Demand/Density 20% based on Efficiency 40% based on Cost Effectiveness For Demand Response Projects: 20% based on Impact 30% based on Demand/Density 20% based on Efficiency 30% based on Cost Effectiveness For Facility Projects: 30% based on Impact 20% based on Demand/Density 20% based on Efficiency 30% based on Cost Effectiveness DRAFT Project Prioritization Policy December 14,

14 Aviation TARPO Proposes to use the quantitative scoring methods already developed by NCDOT for the purpose of scoring aviation project. Since all three airports in the TARPO region are within the Division Needs category of funding, TARPO will use the current scoring methods in use by NCDOT for aviation projects in that category at the time of prioritization, multiplied by 2 to put this on a 100- point scale instead of a 50-point scale. Based on the proposed NCDOT criteria at the time of this document s preparation, the scoring would be based on the following factors (subject to change by NCDOT in the future): 50% based on the NCDOA Project Rating 20% based on the FAA Airport Capital Improvement Plan Rating 10% based on the Non-state Contribution Index 20% based on Benefit/Cost Rail TARPO proposes to use the quantitative scoring methods already developed by NCDOT for the purpose of scoring rail projects. For simplicity, TARPO will use the current scoring method in use by NCDOT for rail projects in the Division Needs category at the time of prioritization, multiplied by 2 to put this on a 100-point scale instead of a 50-point scale. Based on the proposed NCDOT criteria at the time of this document s preparation, the scoring would be based on the following factors (subject to change by NCDOT in the future): 20% based on Benefit-Cost 30% based on System Opportunities 20% based on Safety 20% based on Capacity and Diversion 10% based on Economic Competitiveness Ferry There are no current or planned ferry operations in the TARPO area, so no scoring method is proposed for this category. Project Scoring Worksheets The following worksheets detail the points associated with the quantitative criteria, and will be used to score each project. There are separate worksheets for each mode of transportation. DRAFT Project Prioritization Policy December 14,

15 Highway Project Scoring Worksheet Project Name: XXXXX (SPOT ID: xxxx) COUNTY RANK SCORING (50% of total) Countywide Ranking (100 points maximum) Enter ranking here (enter N/A if unranked): Refer to document for scoring scale 0 Section Subtotal 0 ADDITIONAL PROJECT SCORING CRITERIA (50% of total) Congestion (choose one of the following 45 points maximum) Enter existing V/C ratio V/C * 45 (V/C>1.0=45) 0 here: Enter future V/C ratio here: V/C * 35 (V/C<0.8=0; V/C>1.0=35) 0 Crash History (choose one of the following 25 points maximum) Enter Crash Severity Score If over 50, then Severity Score * 0.25, else 0 0 here: Enter Crash Density Score here: If over 50, then Density Score * 0.20, else 0 0 All other projects (0 points) 0 Economic Development (choose one of the following 15 points maximum) Project that provides direct access to an active industrial/business park development site OR proposed new employment location with more than 200 employees (15 points) Project that provides direct access to an existing employment center (one or more employers in close proximity) with more than 200 employees (7.5 points) All other projects (0 points) 0 Multimodal Elements (choose one of the following 15 points maximum) Includes facilities/features for all 3 of the following: bicycles, pedestrians, and transit (15 points) 0 Includes facilities/features for 2 of the following: bicycles, pedestrians, and/or transit (10 points) 0 Includes facilities/features for 1 of the following: bicycles, pedestrians, or transit (5 points) 0 All other projects (0 points) 0 Section Subtotal 0 GRAND TOTAL (County Rank Score * Additional Criteria Score * 0.5) Lower Section To Be Completed After All Projects Are Scored: Project s Grand Total Score Ranking within County: Project s Grand Total Score Ranking within TARPO Overall: SPOT Points Recommended for Assignment to this Project by TARPO staff:

16 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Scoring Worksheet Project Name: XXXXX (SPOT ID: xxxx) COUNTY RANK SCORING (50% of total) Countywide Ranking (100 points maximum) Enter ranking here (enter N/A if unranked): Refer to document for scoring scale 0 Section Subtotal 0 ADDITIONAL PROJECT SCORING CRITERIA (50% of total) Safety/Crash Exposure (choose one of the following 30 points maximum) Pedestrian project (sidewalks, crosswalks) on roadway with a reported pedestrian-related crash in last five years (30 points) 0 Project adds sidewalks on road that does AADT * (sliding scale, max=30 AADT: not currently have any sidewalks pts for AADT over 5000) 0 Project adds sidewalks on road that AADT * (sliding scale, max=30 AADT: currently only has sidewalk on one side pts for AADT over 10000) 0 Project adds crossing improvements on a AADT * (sliding scale, max=30 AADT: road (crosswalks, ped signals, etc.) pts for AADT over 10000) 0 On-road bicycle project (bike lanes, wide outside lanes, paved shoulders, shared lane markings) on a roadway with a reported bicycle-related crash in the last five years (30 points) 0 Project adds on-road bicycle facility AADT: AADT * (sliding scale, max=30 pts for AADT over 20000) 0 Off-road greenway that is accessible to pedestrians and/or bicyclists and is physically separated from a roadway (30 points) 0 Off-road greenway that is accessible to pedestrians and/or bicyclists and is located parallel to a roadway ( sidepath ) (15 points) 0 Connectivity (choose one of the following 20 points maximum) Projects that connect two previously disconnected (or inconveniently connected) sections of bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure (missing links) (20 points) 0 Projects that connect neighborhoods with schools and/or colleges (20 points) 0 Projects that are located in or provide a connection to a downtown or major employment center (15 points) 0 Projects that are located in or provide a connection to a shopping or entertainment area or a park (10 points) 0 Projects that are located in or provide a connection to a small and/or rural community center or a large residential area/subdivision (5 points) 0 All other projects (0 points) 0 Project Purpose/Need (choose one of the following 15 points maximum) Project has a primarily transportation-related purpose (15 points) 0 Project has some transportation use, but is primarily for recreational use (10 points) 0 Project has little use as a transportation facility (5 points) 0 Project has only recreational utility, with no transportation function (0 points) 0 Access to Underserved Populations (choose one or both of the following 20 points maximum) Percent of population living in poverty within census tract (highest percentage if project is in multiple tracts) %: Percentage /2 (sliding scale, max = 20 points for percentage over 40) Projects that provide a connection to a permanent bus stop (5 additional points, up to cap of 20) 0 Inclusion in TARPO Priority Network (choose one of the following 15 points maximum) Project is located on identified bicycle priority network and pedestrian priority network in the TARPO Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Framework (15 points) 0 Project is located on either the bicycle priority network or the pedestrian priority network in the TARPO Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Framework (10 points) 0 All other projects (0 points) 0 Section Subtotal 0 GRAND TOTAL (County Rank Score * Additional Criteria Score * 0.5) 0 Lower Section To Be Completed After All Projects Are Scored: Project s Grand Total Score Ranking within County: Project s Grand Total Score Ranking within TARPO Overall: SPOT Points Recommended for Assignment to this Project by TARPO staff: 0

17 Transit Project Scoring Worksheet Project Name: XXXXX (SPOT ID: xxxx) COUNTY RANK SCORING (50% of total) Countywide Ranking (100 points maximum) Enter ranking here (enter N/A if unranked): Refer to document for scoring scale 0 Section Subtotal 0 ADDITIONAL PROJECT SCORING CRITERIA (50% of total) For Mobility Projects (100 points maximum) Impact Score from NCDOT (x2) 20 pts max 0 Demand/Density Score from NCDOT (x2) 20 pts max 0 Efficiency Score from NCDOT (x2) 20 pts max 0 Cost Effectiveness Score from NCDOT (x2) 40 pts max 0 For Demand Response Projects (100 points maximum) Impact Score from NCDOT (x2) 20 pts max 0 Demand/Density Score from NCDOT (x2) 30 pts max 0 Efficiency Score from NCDOT (x2) 20 pts max 0 Cost Effectiveness Score from NCDOT (x2) 30 pts max 0 For Facility Projects (100 points maximum) Impact Score from NCDOT (x2) 30 pts max 0 Demand/Density Score from NCDOT (x2) 20 pts max 0 Efficiency Score from NCDOT (x2) 20 pts max 0 Cost Effectiveness Score from NCDOT (x2) 30 pts max 0 Section Subtotal 0 GRAND TOTAL (County Rank Score * Additional Criteria Score * 0.5) 0 Lower Section To Be Completed After All Projects Are Scored: Project s Grand Total Score Ranking within County: Project s Grand Total Score Ranking within TARPO Overall: SPOT Points Recommended for Assignment to this Project by TARPO staff:

18 Aviation Project Scoring Worksheet Project Name: XXXXX (SPOT ID: xxxx) COUNTY RANK SCORING (50% of total) Countywide Ranking (100 points maximum) Enter ranking here (enter N/A if unranked): Refer to document for scoring scale 0 Section Subtotal 0 ADDITIONAL PROJECT SCORING CRITERIA (50% of total) NCDOA Capital Project Rating Score from NCDOT (x2) 50 pts max 0 FAA Airport Capital Improvement Plan Rating Score from NCDOT (x2) 20 pts max 0 Non-state Contribution Index Score from NCDOT (x2) 10 pts max 0 Benefit/Cost Score from NCDOT (x2) 20 pts max 0 Section Subtotal 0 GRAND TOTAL (County Rank Score * Additional Criteria Score * 0.5) 0 Lower Section To Be Completed After All Projects Are Scored: Project s Grand Total Score Ranking within County: Project s Grand Total Score Ranking within TARPO Overall: SPOT Points Recommended for Assignment to this Project by TARPO staff:

19 Rail Project Scoring Worksheet Project Name: XXXXX (SPOT ID: xxxx) COUNTY RANK SCORING (50% of total) Countywide Ranking (100 points maximum) Enter ranking here (enter N/A if unranked): Refer to document for scoring scale 0 Section Subtotal 0 ADDITIONAL PROJECT SCORING CRITERIA (50% of total) Benefit-Cost Score from NCDOT (x2) 20 pts max 0 System Opportunities Score from NCDOT (x2) 30 pts max 0 Safety Score from NCDOT (x2) 20 pts max 0 Capacity and Diversion Score from NCDOT (x2) 20 pts max 0 Economic Competitiveness Score from NCDOT (x2) 10 pts max 0 Section Subtotal 0 GRAND TOTAL (County Rank Score * Additional Criteria Score * 0.5) 0 Lower Section To Be Completed After All Projects Are Scored: Project s Grand Total Score Ranking within County: Project s Grand Total Score Ranking within TARPO Overall: SPOT Points Recommended for Assignment to this Project by TARPO staff:

20 SPOT Point Assignment Once all projects in each mode have been scored according to the qualitative and quantitative criteria for that mode, TARPO staff will develop a ranked list of projects within each county and within the region as a whole based on the outcome of the scoring. This ranked list of all projects in all modes will be used to develop the recommended point assignments that are presented to the public for comment and to the RTCC and RTAC for approval. The recommendation will call for the two top-scoring projects within each county (regardless of mode) to be allocated 100 points each. Additionally, the six next-highest scoring projects within the region (regardless of county and mode) will also be allocated 100 points, to reach TARPO s total point allocation of 1400 points. In the event that a county does not have at least two eligible projects, then additional projects will be selected from the top of the list of remaining projects in the other counties. This allows for geographic equity of projects in the region. No projects with a DOT quantitative score less than 10 will receive local input points in either the Regional Impact or Division Needs categories. TARPO will be allowed to assign points differently within the Regional Impact and Division Needs categories. Some projects will be eligible for both categories, while some will only be eligible in the Division Needs category. An example of this process is shown below. Example: The projects within the Example RPO were ranked as follows: Projects County Regional Eligible Regional Points Division Points Project pts County A Yes Project pts County A Yes Project pts County C No 100 Project pts County B No 100 Project pts County C Yes Project pts County A Yes Project pts County B No 100 Project pts County D Yes Project pts County B Yes Project pts County B No 100 Project pts County C Yes Project pts County D No 100 Project pts County A Yes Project pts County A No 100 Project pts County C Yes 100 Project pts County C No Project pts County A Yes 100 Project pts County A Yes 100 Project pts County D Yes 100 Project pts County C No Project pts County B No DRAFT Project Prioritization Policy December 14,

21 Project pts County B Yes 100 Project pts County D No Project pts County A Yes 100 Project pts County C No In this example, for the Regional Impact category, projects 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 19, and 22 were selected as the two top-scoring eligible projects within their respective counties and projects 6, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 24 were selected as the six highest-scoring remaining projects. County A would receive Regional Impact points for 7 projects, County B for 2 projects, County C for 3 projects, and County D for 2 projects. For the Division Needs category, projects 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 12 were selected as the two top-scoring eligible projects within their respective counties and projects 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 were selected as the six highest-scoring remaining projects. County A would receive Division Needs points for 5 projects, County B for 4 projects, County C for 3 projects, and County D for 2 projects. These recommended point assignments will be presented to the RTCC and RTAC for their review and approval. The RTCC retains the discretion to make recommendations to the RTAC regarding changes to list. The RTAC has the final discretion regarding assignment of local points, and retains the flexibility to make changes to these point assignments if it is able to document a reason for doing so. These changes must be documented and made available as information to the public. Cascading Projects TARPO will submit its Regional Impact local point assignments separately from its Division Needs local point assignments, and will be able to learn which projects are funded in the Regional Impact category before assigning points in the Division Needs category. As a result, if there are projects funded in the Regional Impact category that would otherwise be in line to receive Division Needs points as a result of this methodology, those Division Needs points will instead be assigned to the next-highest scoring eligible project that has not received points (subject to the rules requiring at least two projects from each county receive points). This process will be clearly explained as part of the public outreach process, and the list of next in line projects that could potentially be affected by this rule will be presented at the same time the initial point assignment recommendations are presented. Point Sharing On projects that cross outside of the TARPO planning boundary, TARPO must coordinate with its neighboring organizations on the allocation of points. By right, TARPO may only assign the number of points equal to the percentage of the project that is located inside the TARPO boundary for example, TARPO could assign a project that was 48% located within its boundary only 48 points by right. However, TARPO will coordinate with its neighboring organizations to share points to ensure that these projects reach a point total of 100 points in the example above, TARPO would share 52 points with its neighbors to ensure the project receives 100 points. In the event that point sharing is not necessary on these projects, either because the neighboring organization already plans to assign its full amount of points for the project or because the neighboring organization rejects TARPO s offer to share points, TARPO will only assign the points for the portion within its boundary and the DRAFT Project Prioritization Policy December 14,

22 remaining points will be allocated to the next-highest-scoring project on the project list that did not already receive points. Public Participation in Project Scoring Process As part of this project scoring process, TARPO will post the list of projects being submitted for Prioritization 5.0, the county-level priority lists, the results of the quantitative analysis, the recommended SPOT point assignments, and the final adopted SPOT point assignments at the following website: The public is invited to submit comments via the website, , phone, or mail, as well as in person at RTCC and RTAC meetings at any point throughout the process. Additionally, a public hearing will be held at a time after the initial staff-recommended scoring is developed based on this adopted scoring policy, but before the RTCC and RTAC approve the assignment of points. Any comments provided by the public will be addressed by the RTCC and RTAC before the vote on the assignment of points and those discussions will be documented in the meeting minutes. Proposed Schedule for Implementation of Policy in Prioritization 4.0 RTCC & RTAC Adoption of Project List to Submit to NCDOT occurred on August 17, 2017 Adoption of this Policy February 2018 (Public Hearing at beginning of RTAC meeting) NCDOT Provides Scoring Information to TARPO end of March 2018 (this information will be posted on the TARPO website once available) Each county will approve a ranked list of its top ten projects and submit this list to TARPO (the list should be developed jointly by the county and towns within the county) April/early May 2018 (this information will be posted on the TARPO website once available; due to TARPO by May 15, 2018) TARPO Staff Will Calculate Scores for Local Point Assignment and Post the Draft Point Assignments on the TARPO Website late May 2018 Public Workshop(s) to Present Local Point Assignment and Gather Input late May/early June 2018 RTCC & RTAC Adoption of Regional Impact Local Point Assignments June 2018 (final point assignments will be posted on TARPO website following meeting) RTCC & RTAC Adoption of Division Needs Local Point Assignments October 2018 (final point assignments will be posted on TARPO website following meeting) NCDOT Releases Draft STIP January 2019 (this information will be posted on the TARPO website once available) Amendments to Policy This policy may be amended by a majority vote of the members of the RTAC. Prior to adopting an amendment, the proposed amended policy should be made available for public comment and a DRAFT Project Prioritization Policy December 14,

23 public hearing should be announced. Following adoption of an amendment, a copy of the new policy should be provided to NCDOT to ensure compliance with SL Adoption A motion was made by and seconded by for the adoption of this policy, and upon being put to a vote it was duly adopted on. Chair, Triangle Area RPO RTAC Secretary, Triangle Area RPO RTAC Version Date: Previous Versions: December 14, 2017 draft December 10, 2015 (official) August 14, 2014 (official) December 19, 2013 (official) December 6, 2012 (official) October 21, 2015 draft October 8, 2015 draft November 13, 2013 draft November 4, 2013 draft October 17, 2013 draft December 6, 2012 draft DRAFT Project Prioritization Policy December 14,

24 TARPO Rural Technical Coordinating Committee Meeting Agenda Comments December 14, 2017 Item 5c: 2018 Meeting Schedule Background A draft RTCC and RTAC meeting schedule is attached, which would maintain the current schedule of meeting on the second Thursday of alternating months, with meeting locations alternating between Chatham and Lee Counties. This draft schedule does not list specific meeting room locations, but these will be arranged once the schedule is adopted. In past years, the RTCC has voted to follow the same meeting schedule adopted by the RTAC. Recommendation Recommend RTAC approval of the draft 2018 meeting schedule. Approve the use of the schedule that is ultimately approved by the RTAC for RTCC meetings as well, even if it differs from the schedule that was recommended by the RTCC.

25 Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization A program of Triangle J Council of Governments 4307 Emperor Boulevard, Suite 110, Durham, NC (919) Calendar Year 2018 Meeting Calendar Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) Rural Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC) and Rural Technical Coordinating Committee (RTCC) For purposes of attending to appropriate matters of business, the following meeting calendar will be observed for the TARPO RTAC and RTCC for Calendar Year February 8, 2018 Chatham County April 12, 2018 Lee County June 14, 2018 Chatham County August 9, 2018 Lee County October 11, 2018 Chatham County December 13, 2018 Lee County RTCC meetings will begin at 10:30 am and RTAC meetings will begin at 12:00 noon, unless otherwise announced by the TARPO Secretary. This calendar was approved by the RTAC on December 14, RTAC Chair RTAC

26 TARPO Rural Technical Coordinating Committee Meeting Agenda Comments December 14, 2017 Item 6a: NC 54 Corridor Study Background The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO (DCHC MPO) and the Burlington-Graham MPO (BGMPO) are conducting a joint corridor study on the NC 54 corridor between Carrboro and Graham, which passes through a portion of the TARPO planning area. Staff will provide an update on the status of this study. More information about the study can be found at Recommendation For information only

27 TARPO Rural Technical Coordinating Committee Meeting Agenda Comments December 14, 2017 Item 6b: Midland Road Corridor Study Background Division 8, the Town of Southern Pines, the Village of Pinehurst, and Moore County recently developed a corridor study for the Midland Road corridor between Pinehurst and Southern Pines. Staff will provide an update on the outcome of this study. More information can be found at pdf. Recommendation For information only

28 TARPO Rural Technical Coordinating Committee Meeting Agenda Comments December 14, 2017 Item 6c: Input for FY19 Planning Work Program Background The Planning Work Program is the guiding document for the tasks that TARPO staff will work on over the coming year. At the February RTCC and RTAC meetings, staff will present a draft version of the FY19 TARPO Planning Work Program for consideration. In order to prepare the draft, staff wishes to solicit input from members about items they wish to see included in the Planning Work Program. A copy of the existing FY18 Planning Work Program is attached for reference. Recommendation For discussion only

29

30

31

32

33

34

35 TARPO Rural Technical Coordinating Committee Meeting Agenda Comments December 14, 2017 Item 6d: Transportation Alternative Program (TAP) Funding Opportunity Background NCDOT has federal Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) funding available to use on new or retrofitted handicapped sidewalk ramps and short sections of sidewalk associated with nearby ramps in order to create a continuous path. In order to be considered for this funding, a local jurisdiction must make a request to NCDOT. These requests must be received at the NCDOT Division Office by March 30, A sample letter is attached. Recommendation For information only

36

37

38

39 TARPO Rural Technical Coordinating Committee Meeting Agenda Comments December 14, 2017 Item 6e: FY18 First Quarter Finance Update Background A memorandum is attached with information about TARPO s finances through the first quarter of FY18. Recommendation For information only

40 Triangle Area RPO Summary of Expenditures for First Quarter of FY MEMORANDUM TO: TARPO RTCC and RTAC Members FR: Matt Day, TARPO Principal Planner RE: First Quarter Expenditures and Financial Information for FY For the period from July 1, 2017 through September 30, 2017, the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization incurred expenses of $34, Of this total, $27, (78.7%) has been submitted to NCDOT for payment, $6, (19.7%) has been paid out of the local matching funds provided by the RPO member counties, and $ (1.6%) has been paid out of the local supplemental funds provided by the RPO member counties. The costs are summarized by type in the table below, and by PWP category and task in the table on the reverse side of this document. Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Salary $15, $ - $ - $ - $15, Fringe $5, $ - $ - $ - $5, Travel/Mileage $3.00 $ - $ - $ - $3.00 Vehicle Allowance** $ $ - $ - $ - $ Meeting Expense* $ $ - $ - $ - $ Telecom $3.00 $ - $ - $ - $3.00 Conference*** $ $ - $ - $ - $ Software $ $ - $ - $ - $ Indirect $12, $ - $ - $ - $12, *The meeting expense category includes food purchased for TCC/TAC meetings. These food expenses ($310.00) are not eligible for payment by NCDOT and must be paid out of the local supplemental funds. **Due to new travel policies being enforced by NCDOT in Q1, only $ in vehicle mileage costs were billable to state funds or standard local match funds. The remaining $ in costs were billed to the supplemental local funds. Staff anticipates that NCDOT will be reversing this policy in Q2, possibly retroactively. ***Due to new travel policies being enforced by NCDOT in Q1, only $ in costs related to lodging and meals were billable to state funds or standard local match funds. The remaining $6.80 in costs were billed to the supplemental local funds. The difference is due to differences between per diem meal rates for NCDOT versus TJCOG.

41 Triangle Area RPO Summary of Expenditures for First Quarter of FY Spending In 1 st Qtr % of FY Budget PWP Section/Task FY Spent I-1. Data Collection and Assessment $ % Gathering/assessment of freight data $ II-1. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Development $6, % Participation in Chatham County CTP Meetings $1, Work with NCDOT to develop and/or review Moore County CTP Maps $4, II-2. Prioritization and Program Development $13, % Prioritization 5.0 Process $13, II-3. Project Development $3, % Attend project meetings $1, Review & comment on project-related documents $1, II-4. General Transportation Planning $5, % Attend NCARPO quarterly meetings $2, Participate in NCARPO Executive Committee $1, Participate in NCDOT SPOT Work Group $ Assisting with CMAQ project applications and administration $ Participate in training courses/conferences $1, III-1. Administrative Documents and Public Involvement $5, % Develop quarterly invoices and progress reports $1, Develop TCC and TAC agendas, minutes, presentations, and handouts $1, Attend TCC and TAC meetings $ Coordinate TAC ethics requirements $ Respond to miscellaneous member requests $1, TOTAL $34, % ITEMS PAID OUT OF SUPPLEMENTAL LOCAL FUNDS IN 1 st QUARTER (See Supplemental PWP Document for Reference): Meeting food expense $ Vehicle usage NCARPO quarterly meeting $ Vehicle usage U-5814/5815 project meeting in Aberdeen $21.90 Vehicle usage TPB/RPO review meeting in Raleigh $5.48 Meal per diem NCARPO quarterly meeting $6.80 TOTAL $561.72