Transcription

1 SEDA-COG MPO Lng Range Transprtatin Plan, Appendix D Prject Scring & Selectin Prcess

2

3 SEDA-COG MPO Lng Range Transprtatin Plan Prject Scring and Selectin Prcess The purpse f the Scring and Selectin Prcess is t ensure that the prjects in the Lng Range Transprtatin Plan (LRTP) serve t implement the plan gals. The SEDA-COG MPO staff develped the riginal prcess framewrk fr the 2011 LRTP. Fr the current 2016 LRTP Update, the framewrk remains much the same, with revisins made t sme f the evaluatin methds and criteria. This dcument summarizes the revised Scring and Selectin Prcess t be used in the 2016 LRTP Update. Prcess Framewrk The prject scring and selectin prcess prvides a ratinal methd fr evaluating candidate prjects and ranking them in pririty rder fr the available funding. A high-level, flwchart representatin f the prcess is illustrated in Exhibit 1. Scring Prcess Candidate Prject Listing When prjects are submitted fr cnsideratin in the LRTP, they are cllected int the Candidate Prject Listing. The listing draws frm the fllwing surces, which encmpass bth new prjects and previusly identified prjects that have nt yet entered develpment (i.e., preliminary engineering, final design, r cnstructin): Previus LRTP Fiscally-Cnstrained Prject Listing Previus LRTP Illustrative Listing Prjects identified thrugh Radway Safety Reviews Prjects identified thrugh public utreach effrts Prjects requested by the PennDOT District staff Prjects submitted by the Cunties and MPO staff in respnse t slicitatins frm the State Transprtatin Cmmissin (STC) and PennDOT Prjects are added prgressively as they are identified by the MPO and its cnstituent stakehlders, and the Candidate Prject Listing may cntain any number f prjects. T better fit the anticipated funding and make prject scring mre efficient, each cunty has been asked t identify up t ten (10) candidate prjects fr cnsideratin in the scring prcess. These prjects may be new prjects r previusly identified prjects that have nt yet entered develpment. Scring Preparatin The MPO Staff alng with the Cnsultant Team will review the pl f Candidate Prjects and, based n guidance frm the Cunties, identify up t ten (10) prjects per cunty that will prceed int prject scring. Prjects will be classified by type (radway, bridge, transit, pedestrian/bicycle, rail, airprt) and then separated by purpse (system preservatin, facilities extensin, planning). Page 1 Appendix D - Page 1

4 Scring Step 1 Scring in Step 1 utilizes quantifiable, data-driven criteria t identify the mst critical needs in the regin accrding t the fllwing criteria categries: Netwrk classificatin, Level f use, Facility cnditin, Prject readiness, Prject funding, and Safety Table 1 gives the categries and criteria t be used in Scring Step 1, accrding t the prject type. Prjects with similar purpses are scred tgether based n categries and criteria that are suited t that particular prject purpse. As such, Table 1 has three (3) parts A, B, and C that crrespnd t the three (3) prject types, as fllws: Table 1A System Preservatin Prjects Table 1B Facilities Extensin Prjects Table 1C Studies and Planning Prjects The Step 1 scring is an autmated prcess, based n datasets cmpiled by the MPO Staff and Cnsultant Team. Prjects receive pints in each categry accrding t the pint scale. A maximum f ne (1) pint may be received in any given categry. A weight is then applied t each categry scre accrding t the relative imprtance f that categry. The initial weights were generated by the SEDA-COG MPO staff (using Decisin Lens) and are vetted thrugh the LRTP Steering Cmmittee. The ttal Step 1 scre fr a prject is the sum f the weighted categry scres. The weights are structured such that the maximum Step 1 scre wuld be 100 pints. Step 1 is t be cmpleted prir t the first meeting f the Prject Scring Grup. Scring Step 2 Scring in Step 2 utilizes qualitative, experience-driven criteria t evaluate prjects based n their imprtance and/r value in achieving the LRTP gals, which are as fllws: Supprt the ecnmic vitality f the regin. Increase the safety and security f the transprtatin system fr all users. Increase the accessibility and mbility f peple and fr freight. Prtect and enhance the envirnment, imprve the quality f life, and prmte cnsistency between transprtatin imprvements and state and lcal planned grwth and ecnmic develpment patterns. Enhance the integratin and cnnectivity f the transprtatin system. Prmte efficient transprtatin system management and peratins. Emphasize the preservatin f the existing transprtatin system. Fster cmpatibility between land use and transprtatin facilities t yield rderly grwth and develpment. Page 2 Appendix D - Page 2

5 A Scring Grup (sub-cmmittee f the LRTP Steering Cmmittee) will be designated t cmplete Scring Step 2. The Scring Grup is expected t meet twice in persn. During the first meeting, the Step 1 scres will be reviewed, and the Step 2 prcess will be discussed. Between meetings, the Step 2 scring prcess will be cmpleted using Decisin Lens. During the secnd meeting, the Step 2 scres will be reviewed fr cnsistency and adjusted befre being finalized. Table 2 gives the scring categries and criteria cnsideratins t be assessed in Step 2. In this step, all prjects (regardless f type r purpse) are scred accrding t the same categries and criteria, which are directly linked t the LRTP gals. The Step 2 scring is based n the experience, knwledge, and judgement f the members f the Scring Grup. Each member assesses the imprtance and/r value f a prject in achieving each LRTP gal, and then assigns pints accrding t the fllwing: 3 pints: Prject is very imprtant / very valuable in achieving this gal 2 pints: Prject is imprtant / valuable tward achieving this gal 1 pint: Prject is slightly imprtant / slightly valuable tward achieving this gal 0 pints: Prject is nt imprtant / nt valuable tward achieving this gal The imprtance f a prject may be related t hw fully the prject achieves a gal OR hw well it achieves the gal in relatin t the ther prjects under cnsideratin. The value f a prject is a functin f the cst versus expected impact in achieving the gal. The Decisin Lens applicatin will be used in Step 2 t cllect scres frm the Scring Grup members, generate cmpsite scres fr each gal, and accunt the scres fr each prject. Once again, a weight is applied t the scre fr each gal accrding t its relative imprtance. The initial weights were generated by the SEDA-COG MPO staff and are vetted thrugh the LRTP Steering Cmmittee. The ttal Step 2 scre fr a prject is the sum f the weighted scres fr each gal. The weights are structured such that the maximum Step 2 scre wuld be 100 pints. Ttal Prject Scres & Ranking A prject s ttal scre is the cmbined ttal f the weighted Step 1 and Step 2 scres. Again, the weights were generated, initially, by the SEDA-COG MPO staff (using Decisin Lens) and are vetted thrugh the LRTP Steering Cmmittee. The weights are structured such that the maximum final scre wuld be 100 pints. Accrding t the initial weights, the final scre wuld be calculated as fllws: FINAL SCORE = ( [Step 1 Scre] * 0.70 ) + ( [Step 2 Scre] * 0.30) Prjects are ranked accrding t their scres and frmatted int the Preliminary Ranked Prject List. This list typically cntains sub-lists that rank prjects in certain grups accrding t purpse, mde and/r eligibility fr certain surces, and streams f funding. Selectin Prcess The Prject Selectin Prcess uses a scenari-based apprach t cnnect the Ranked Prjects with the anticipated transprtatin funding. PennDOT prvides the MPO with financial guidance that gives the specific funding amunts that can be assumed during the LRTP planning perid. The funding amunts are estimated accrding t the current state and Federal legislatin, which als structures transprtatin funding int streams f mney (a.k.a., pts f mney). The streams are generally designated t be spent n certain types and classificatins f facilities, but there is sme flexibility in Page 3 Appendix D - Page 3

6 allcating certain funding streams. Scenaris are created by varying the assumptins abut hw funding is allcated, which prjects are funded, and the rder in which they are funded. The MPO Staff and Cnsultant Team will create and prpse ne r mre scenaris fr cnsideratin by the LRTP Steering Cmmittee. The scenari assumptins will be identified and the resulting list f funded prjects will be identified. The Steering Cmmittee will have an pprtunity t review the scenari(s) and suggest changes befre selecting the Preferred Scenari. As required by Federal regulatin, the Final Prject Listing in the LRTP will cntain the fllwing prject lists: Fiscally-Cnstrained Prject List Prjects anticipated t be funded Illustrative Prject List Prjects nt funded but carried fr future cnsideratin Page 4 Appendix D - Page 4

7 Exhibit 1. SUMMARY OF PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS Page 5 Appendix D - Page 5

8 Table 1A. Scring Step 1 Categries & Criteria System Preservatin Prjects Step Categry & Criteria Descriptins Criteria Scale System Preservatin Prjects NETWORK CLASSIFICATION Weight: 13.4% Is the planned prject n a rute r facility f reginal imprtance? Significance r imprtance f the rute r facility. FACILITY USAGE Weight: 38.7% Is the prject n r des it serve ne f the highest vlume facilities within its classificatin? Traffic vlume range f the facility, in relatin t thers in the same classificatin. FACILITY CONDITION Weight: 17.6% Des the prject repair a facility in the wrst cnditin? Cnditin range f the facility. Bridge Risk Assessment. Pavement IRI r Pririty. SAFETY Weight: 21.1% Is the prject in an area with a histry f a high incidence f reprtable crashes? Des the prject address existing deficiencies? Crashes vs. Crash Rate matrix range fr the prject area. Crash Rates and Number f Crashes by radway segment ranked by quartile 1 (Q1) represents the highest rates r number f crashes PROJECT FUNDING Weight: 4.0% Des the prject include a cmmitted lcal match fr state r federal funding, r allw tw r mre streams f funding t be applied t a single prject area? PROJECT READINESS Weight: 5.1% Is envirnmental clearance cmplete? (25%) Des the prject require additinal right-f-way t be acquired? (25%) Is design cmplete? (50%) Lesser benefit r pririty Higher benefit r pririty Nn-NHS < 500 ADT Furth Furth Nn-NHS 500 t 2,000 ADT Third Third N N Yes N Lcal Match In develpment Design n TIP Nn-NHS > 2,000 ADT Secnd Secnd Interstate r NHS. Reginal Rute First First A bnus f pint (up t the categry max. f pint) may be given fr prjects mitigating an issue identified in a Safety Imprvement Prgram (ISIP, RDIP, r Tp 25). Lcal Match cmmitted Clearance cmplete N Design cmplete Page 6 Appendix D - Page 6

9 Table 1B. Scring Step 1 Categries & Criteria Facilities Extensin Prjects Step Categry & Criteria Descriptins Criteria Scale Facilities Extensin Prjects NETWORK CLASSIFICATION Weight: 13.4% Is the planned prject a reginal facility? Significance r imprtance f the rute r facility. USAGE Weight: 38.7% Will the prject serve a high vlume f users? Traffic vlume frecast range f the facility, in relatin t thers in the same classificatin. CONDITION Weight: 17.6% Des the prject prvide an alternative t rutes with existing deficiencies, weight r clearance pstings r existing cngestin? Cnditin range f the existing facility. Bridge Risk Assessment. Pavement IRI r Pririty. SAFETY Weight: 21.1% Is the prject n r prvide an alternative t a facility with a high recrded incidence f reprtable crashes? Crashes vs. Crash Rate matrix range fr the existing facility. Crash Rates and Number f Crashes by radway segment ranked by quartile 1 (Q1) represents the highest rates r number f crashes PROJECT FUNDING Weight: 4.0% Des the prpsed prject need fall within existing annual funding amunts? PROJECT READINESS Weight: 5.1% Is envirnmental clearance cmplete? (25%) Des the prject require additinal right-f-way t be acquired? (25%) Is design cmplete? (50%) Lesser benefit r pririty Higher benefit r pririty Nn-NHS < 500 ADT Furth Furth Nn-NHS 500 t 2,000 ADT Third Third N N Yes N Lcal Match In develpment Clearance cmplete N Design n TIP Nn-NHS < 500 ADT Secnd Secnd Nn-NHS 500 t 2,000 ADT First First A bnus f pint (up t the categry max. f pint) may be given fr prjects mitigating an issue identified in a Safety Imprvement Prgram (ISIP, RDIP, r Tp 25). Lcal Match cmmitted Design cmplete Page 7 Appendix D - Page 7

10 Table 1C. Scring Step 1 Categries & Criteria Studies & Planning Prjects Step Categry & Criteria Descriptins Criteria Scale Studies and Planning Prjects SCOPE & SCALE Weight: 35.1% Is the area cnsidered in the prject reginal r cnsisting f mre than five separate lcatins? What is the prject s area r ppulatin f influence? PLAN DEVELOPMENT Weight: 15.5% Is the prject updating r expanding a previusly cmpleted effrt? PLANNING PROCESS REQUIREMENT Weight: 37.8% Des the prject cmplete a plan r update required under state r federal guidelines, such as LRTP, Crdinated Transit Plan, r Develpment f Reginal Significance reprt? PROJECT FUNDING Weight: 11.6% Des the prject include cmmitted lcal match? Lesser benefit r pririty Higher benefit r pririty Single Lcatin N N N Multiple (2-5) Lcatins Lcal Ppulatin Center Yes Develps Prjects Fr the TIP Lcal Match In develpment Reginal Reginal r Multi-Cunty Planning Prcess Requirement Lcal Match cmmitted Page 8 Appendix D - Page 8

11 Step All Prjects Categry & Criteria Descriptins 1. ECONOMIC VITALITY Weight: 18.0% Table 2. Scring Step 2 Categries & Criteria All Prjects Prvides, imprves, r maintains access t an existing r prpsed KOZ, Targeted Investment Area, majr emplyer, DCNR investment area, turist, r ther attractin Facilitates reginal mvement f freight Listed n the reginal Cmprehensive Ecnmic Develpment Strategy 2. SAFETY & SECURITY Weight: 8.0% Reduces crashes and cnflicts between mtrized and nn-mtrized transprtatin mdes Imprves safety f intersectins and radway alignments Imprves the security f the traveling public (imprves incident respnse, establishes detur/evacuatin rutes, implements security features n public transprtatin) 3. ACCESSIBILITY & MOBILITY Weight: 9.0% Imprves public transprtatin services: rutes, ride share, vanpls, and park and ride lts Imprves pedestrian and bicycle facilities Imprves access t airprts, freight distributin facilities, r majr cmmercial/industrial districts Implements Cmplete Streets principles 4. ENVIRONMENT Weight: 7.0% Prtects sensitive envirnmental, cultural, r histric resurces Supprts redevelpment f a brwnfield r re-ccupancy f a previusly develped facility Benefits air quality r demnstrably reduces greenhuse gas emissins Reduces the number r length f daily vehicle trips Criteria Scale Lesser imprtance/value Greater imprtance/value Nt imprtant / valuable Slightly imprtant / valuable Imprtant / valuable Very imprtant / Valuable Page 9 Appendix D - Page 9

12 Step All Prjects Categry & Criteria Descriptins 5. INTEGRATION & CONNECTIVITY Weight: 9.0% Table 2. Scring Step 2 Categries & Criteria All Prjects (cntinued) Eliminates/vercmes barriers (clsures, deturs/delays, weight restrictins) in key crridrs Establishes/maintains intermdal cnnectins Intrduces new cnnectins between existing travel patterns (street cnnectivity, linking bicycle/pedestrian rutes, cnnectins between transit rutes and prviders) 6. EFFICIENCY Weight: 8.0% Reduces cngestin, imprvees Levels f Service, reduces travel times Increases public transprtatin service frequency and capacity Imprves system functinality (signal upgrades, ITS applicatins, access management) 7. SYSTEM PRESERVATION Weight: 30.0% Prlngs useful life f the existing transprtatin system and infrastructure thrugh recnstructin, rehabilitatin and preventative maintenance Rehabilitates and mdernizes public transprtatin facility/fleet Imprves ride quality (reduces Internatinal Rughness Index) 8. LAND USE & TRANSPORTATION COMPATIBILITY Weight: 11.0% Imprves/supprts the existing transprtatin infrastructure and land use patterns Prmtes Smart Grwth Principles Manages r revises access t higher rder facilities (arterials, cllectrs) Avids islating r dividing cmmunities Criteria Scale Lesser imprtance/value Greater imprtance/value Nt imprtant / valuable Slightly imprtant / valuable Imprtant / valuable Very imprtant / Valuable Page 10 Appendix D - Page 10