HRTPO TTAC RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE HB2 PRIORITIZATION PROCESS

Similar documents
HB2 and HB1887 Update

House Bill 20 Implementation. House Select Committee on Transportation Planning Tuesday, August 30, 2016, 1:00 P.M. Capitol Extension E2.

Strengthening Vermont s Economy by Integrating Transportation and Smart Growth Policy

LOCATION AND DESIGN DIVISION

FY 2017 Rural Transportation Planning Work Program SCOPE OF WORK

N A D O N A D O R E S E A R C H F O U N D AT I O N R P O A M E R I C A

I-81 Corridor Improvement Plan. October 2018 Public Meetings

2017 UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND HB 20 IMPLEMENTATION

Prepared by the South East Texas Regional Planning Commission-Metropolitan Planning Organization (SETRPC-MPO) December 6, 2013

INVESTING STRATEGICALLY

A. HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION FUND: MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT

Fiscal Year Revised VDOT Annual Budget November 2014

BINGHAMTON METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION STUDY CERTIFICATION NARRATIVE FY 2016

Northern Virginia Transportation Commission: 2018 Legislative and Policy Agenda

2045 Long Range Transportation

Mobility / Other Modes Roger Nober Executive Vice President Law and Secretary BNSF Railway

CRTPO Project Selection Direct Attributable & Bonus Allocation Funds

Fiscal Year VDOT Annual Budget June 2011

Northern Virginia District State of the District. Helen L. Cuervo, P.E. District Engineer March 15, 2016

Fiscal Year VDOT Annual Budget June 2017

ACTION TRANSMITTAL No

Strategic Prioritization Office of Transportation Local Input Point Assignment Methodology

CHAPTER 5 INVESTMENT PLAN

Accelerated Bridge Construction Decision Making Process 2010

Transportation Funding and Improving Roadway Services Delivery

Chapter 6. Transportation Planning and Programming. Chapter 6

Chapter 5: Cost and Revenues Assumptions

Research: Research and Technology Transfer Office Sept. 1, 1996-Dec. 31, 1996 P.O. Box 5080

I-64 Capacity Improvements Segment III Initial Financial Plan

Additionally, the UPWP serves as a source for the following information:

Metropolitan Planning Organizations in North Carolina. Chris Lukasina NCAMPO

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization

Texas Department of Transportation Page 1 of 42 Planning and Development of Transportation Projects

EXCELLENCE INNOVATION SERVICE VALUE

JACKSONVILLE URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM AMENDMENT 1 FISCAL YEAR 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge Improvement Project. Charles County Commissioners Presentation September 1, 2009

UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM

US 69 Hurricane Evacuation Corridor Improvements

Fiscal Year VDOT Annual Budget June 2018

2017 UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND HB 20 IMPLEMENTATION

Draft TransAction Plan: Overview and Findings. Keith Jasper, NVTA July 10, 2017

In addition to embarking on a new dialogue on Ohio s transportation priorities,

MEMORANDUM. June 21, 2018 Boston Region MPO Sandy Johnston, UPWP Manager Proposed Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2018 UPWP Amendment 1

Corridors of Commerce DRAFT Scoring and Prioritization Process. Patrick Weidemann Director of Capital Planning and Programming November 1, 2017

Addressing Virginia s Transportation Needs: A 3-Step Process. Delegate S. Chris Jones Southern Legislative Conference July 19, 2015

Congestion Management Process. Prepared by: Ghyabi & Associates, Inc.

TTFAC Hearing Regarding Chesapeake Transportation System June 18, 2012

Chapter 6: Financial Resources

NORTHERN VIRGINIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY MEMORANDUM

F = MA : CSG SLC WEBINAR DECEMBER 16, J. Douglas Koelemay, Director

ITEM #17: HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL CONNECTORS STUDY: Camelia Ravanbakht, HRTPO

2017 Educational Series FUNDING

Prioritization and Programming Process. NCDOT Division of Planning and Programming November 16, 2016

OHIO MPO AND LARGE CITY CAPITAL PROGRAM SFY 2015 SUMMARY

Texas Department of Transportation Corpus Christi District

ALL Counties. ALL Districts

Draft. Amendment FY Unified Planning Work Program

Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts Performance Audit Division

Form DOT F (8-72) 7. Author(s) Thomas L. Glenn. 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 16. Abstract

This item is under the Consent Agenda for approval; see Item #14-O. Mr. Dwight Farmer, Executive Director, will brief the HRTPO Board on this item.

Water Trust Board. The Water Trust Board was also. tasked, in collaboration with the Office of the State Engineer and the

Project Evaluation and Programming I Project Evaluation

PAYING OUR WAY: A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION FINANCE

STAFF REPORT Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Scenario Performance Update for Board Direction

sources for FY , only a portion of the statedistributed revenue would be available for new capital projects.

Richmond Area MPO RSTP and CMAQ Project Review, Selection, and Funds Allocation Process

Sec Transportation management special use permits Purpose and intent.

Public Works and Development Services

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION FUNDING, INCLUDING TEXAS CLEAR LANES AND CONGESTION RELIEF UPDATE

Technical Appendix. FDOT 2040 Revenue Forecast

COMPONENT 4. programming may differ from what is included in this chapter.

SOUTHERN BELTWAY US-22 TO I-79 PROJECT 2013 FINANCIAL PLAN. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Allegheny and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania

FINANCIAL REPORT JUNE 30, 2015

Technical Report No. 4. Revenue and Costs

SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR EVALUATION

ACTION ELEMENT CONCLUSIONS

Mobility Fee Study. Brad Thoburn. State Transportation Development Administrator Florida Department of Transportation. June 9,2010

Bringing Virginia s Transportation Funding Up to Speed. August 25, 2014 John W. Lawson Chief Financial Officer

GNC SWOT Analysis: Action Plan. Prepared by the Olsson Associates Team. Prepared for the Montana Department of Transportation.

2040 Plan Update. Land Use Advisory Committee March 16, 2017

Tony Mento, P.E. January 2017

SFY 2018 (July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018) Annual Report

Chapter 10 Equity and Environmental Justice

FY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

MADISON ATHENS-CLARKE OCONEE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM FY

RIDOA STATEWIDE PLANNING PROGRAM Transportation Planning

UCI Legislative Update. May 26, 2016 Julie Brown Local Assistance Division

Working with Proportionate Fair-Share

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

MEMORANDUM. June 21, 2018 Boston Region MPO Sandy Johnston, UPWP Manager Proposed Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2018 UPWP Amendment 1

Transit Funding and Reform Update

Working with Proportionate Fair-Share

Transportation Planning

Locally Maintained Pavement Condition Assessment. July 3, 2013 Jennifer B. DeBruhl Director, Local Assistance Division

Analysis of the Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan Prepared by Alameda County Transportation Commission

The Transit Fiscal Cliff:

Chairman Smedberg and the VRE Operations Board

Draft TransAction Plan: Overview and Findings. Martin E. Nohe, Chairman July 13, 2017

FY Statewide Capital Investment Strategy... asset management, performance-based strategic direction

Transcription:

HRTPO TTAC RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE HB2 PRIORITIZATION PROCESS February 4, 2015

BACKGROUND The Office of the Secretary of Transportation is coordinating stakeholder input during the development of the House Bill 2 (HB2) prioritization process. At this stage of development, the Secretary s Office has requested input on the following: 1. Project Submission a. Corridors of Statewide Significance b. Regional Networks c. Improvements to promote Urban Development Areas 2. Funding 3. Measures to be used in the evaluation of each of the following criteria: a. Safety b. Congestion Mitigation c. Accessibility d. Environmental Quality e. Economic Development f. Land Use & Transportation Coordination 4. Weighting of the criteria listed above for different area types 5. Other Issues HRTPO staff coordinated with staff from the localities, transit agencies, VDOT, and the Virginia Port Authority, via the Transportation Programming Subcommittee (TPS) and the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) to compile the following recommendations.

PROJECT SUBMISSION A presentation by the Secretary s Office recommended that eligible entities for submitting projects be based on the capacity need to be addressed by a proposed project, as follows: Corridors of Statewide Significance Only regional entities may submit projects Regional Networks Both regional entities and local governments may submit projects Improvements to promote Urban Development Areas Only local governments may submit projects 1. Due to the likelihood that a proposed project could be included in more than one of the categories listed above, the TTAC recommends that regional entities and local governments be eligible to submit projects under all three categories. 2. More clearly define regional entities. Recommend that public transportation authorities and agencies be expressly identified as regional entities. 3. With regard to Urban Development Areas (UDAs), recommend the category include designated UDAs and such similar areas that accommodate growth in a manner consistent with UDAs.

FUNDING HB2 requires that the benefits produced by a project be analyzed on a basis of relative costs. A presentation by the Secretary s Office asks, Which costs should be considered when determining a project s relative benefit to its cost? HRTPO 1. The cost portion of the cost-benefit analysis should be based only on the amount of HB2 1. The funding cost being portion requested of the cost-benefit for the project. analysis This should method be would based only give credit on the to amount projects of with HB2 funding significant being commitments requested for of non-hb2 the project. funding. This method would give credit to projects with significant commitments of non-hb2 funding. 2. The benefit portion of the cost-benefit analysis should be based on the total benefit of 2. The the project. benefit portion of the cost-benefit analysis should be based on the total benefit of the project.

MEASURES Material provided by the Secretary s Office listed potential measures to be considered for each of the six criteria or factors. The TTAC viewed the listed potential measures as examples to assist with the development of actual recommended measures. Using a small set of measures for each factor is preferable, as using a large number of measures could tend to dilute the importance or value of each measure. The TTAC recommended measures for each factor are listed below. These recommended measures are meant to be in place of, not in addition to, the potential measures provided by the Secretary s Office. Factor: Safety 1. Use Equivalent Property Damage Only as a measure. The EPDO rate is an industry standard for rating safety and covers several of the suggested potential measures. 2. In order for a project to get points for being on or part of an evacuation route the project should provide a relevant improvement, such as improving the capacity or improving flood prone portions of an evacuation route. 3. Take into account whether the project provides designated facilities for various modes of transportation (i.e. bicycle/pedestrian, transit, vehicles, ADA improvements).

MEASURES FACTOR: CONGESTION MITIGATION 1. Use Decrease Vehicle Hours of Delay as a measure. 2. Use Increase Travel Time Reliability as a measure. 3. Take into account the Impact of or Lack of Parallel Routes as a measure. 4. Use Reduce Number of Auto Trips (such as by diverting auto trips to other modes) as a measure. Factor: Accessibility 1. Use System Continuity (i.e. closing a gap in existing roadway, transit, or bicycle/pedestrian network as a measure.. 2. Use Improves Multimodal Connectivity as a measure.

MEASURES FACTOR: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 1. Use Minimizes Environmental Impacts to: Natural resources, such as streams, wetlands, threatened and endangered species, agriculture, protected lands, etc.; Cultural and historic resources and properties; and Noise impacts as a measure. 2. Use Supports Environmental Justice as a measure. Factor: Economic Development 1. Use Supports Local, Regional, and/or Statewide Economic Development Strategies as a measure. Recommend using a tiered scoring system that gives points for each level (local, regional, state), so that a project that supported local and regional strategies, for example, would get more points than one that supported only local strategies. Projects that provide local, regional, and state economic development would be score highest. 2. Use Supports Adding Jobs and Expected Population Growth as a measure.

MEASURES FACTOR: LAND USE & TRANSPORTATION COORDINATION 1. Use Is in or Connects Designated Growth Areas as a measure. 2. Use Increases Mobility Options as a measure. 3. Recommend that this criterion be considered in all areas of the state (not just MPOs with population greater than 200,000) Weighting of Factors for Different Area Types For the sake of consistency and transparency, fewer weighting frameworks is preferable. The TTAC recommends that the number of weighting frameworks be limited to two one for Urban areas and one for Rural areas. In addition, it is recommended that membership in an MPO not be used to define what constitutes an area as urban or rural since many MPO areas contain areas that are clearly rural.

OTHER ISSUES 1. What should be done if project cost, scope, or funding available changes significantly after a project has been selected? The TTAC recommends the development of a sliding scale (similar to the one used in the VDOT/FHWA agreement) to which to compare changes in cost estimate, scope, or funding on a selected project. Changes that exceed the sliding scale would trigger evaluation by the CTB to determine whether the project should be run back through the HB2 prioritization process. 2. Maintenance of an HB2 Reserve Account The TTAC recommends that an HB2 Reserve Account be maintained to help cover the inevitable cost overruns on selected and funded projects.

OTHER ISSUES 3. Project Viability The TTAC recommends measuring the readiness of a project for construction by examining factors such as the status of: project design, environmental documents, environmental decisions, right-of-way acquisition, utilities coordination, and any additional environmental permits as needed. 4. Project Categories The TTAC recommends evaluating projects by separate categories, e.g. highway, bridge/tunnel, transit, intermodal, active transportation, etc.