CAPITAL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Project Evaluation AMPO Annual Conference 10/26/16 Quantitative and Qualitative Benefits

Agenda Previous Project Evaluations Issues Revision Objectives Revision Process New Project Evaluations TIP Evaluation Results Comments and Questions

Previous Project Evaluations CDTC has been calculating quantifiable benefits in our benefit/cost (B/C) ratio calculation for many years. We use our travel demand computer model to develop the costs of not improving the facility for each project, and calculate safety, travel time, operating, user costs, and facility life benefits. For non-quantifiable benefits we were using a system of “filters” and “networks” that each project passed or failed, but that did not capture all of the non-quantifiable benefits. Filters include B/C top half, on NHS, network points top half, pass/fail screening, advisory committee recommendation

Issues In 2014 we undertook a project to better determine or score the non-quantifiable project benefits. We understood members’ concerns and confusion regarding the use of “filters” and “networks” in previous TIP updates. And we also recognized that because of this confusion we sometimes relied too heavily on the project B/C ratio.

Objectives Provide a direct link between our long range plan principles, recommendations, and funding priorities and our TIP project selection so that project selection directly reflects the New Visions priorities. Provide an easily adjustable evaluation system if New Visions priorities change. Quantify the non-quantifiable project benefits that are not included in the B/C ratio. Provide an explicit, objective, transparent, easily understood and complete evaluation system that better reflects the project value. Replace the use of “filters” and “networks” that were not easily understood in project evaluations and potentially biased the process against rural projects. Augment and not replace the project B/C ratio. Provide incentives for sponsors to include beneficial project features in project scopes.

Process Early in the development of this new merit evaluation system, staff examined several precedents and MPO examples of best practices. We also examined the merit evaluation systems used by more than 20 large to medium MPOs. Ten merit evaluation systems, which used a point scoring system and were relevant, explicit, and transparent, were further analyzed.

Process Our new merit evaluation system is similar to the project evaluation systems used in: Nashville, Tennessee Boston, Massachusetts Seattle, Washington Syracuse, New York San Diego, California Richmond, Virginia Winston-Salem, North Carolina Northern New Jersey Genesee Transportation Council (Rochester, NY) Mid-Ohio (Columbus) But CDTC’s system includes more categories and more specific descriptions for each score.

Process CDTC’s new draft merit evaluation system was submitted to our Planning Committee for their review, and several adjustments were made. The new system was tested using 15 representative past projects and 11 potential future projects. The tests confirmed the objectivity and effectiveness of the new evaluation system. There was considerable debate over the actual scores, negative scores, impacts on different projects, and weight of merit score v. B/C ratio. 11 potential projects were all NYS DOT projects.

New Project Evaluation Our new merit evaluation system measures non-quantifiable project benefits by using a point scoring system for each of the following 11 categories: Regional Benefit Community Quality of Life & Equity Appropriate Infrastructure Multi-Modalism Environment & Health Economic Development Safety & Security Operations & Technology Freight Innovation Project Delivery

New Project Evaluation Each point in each category is clearly defined so that project sponsors can accurately estimate the score for each project, and project evaluators can accurately and consistently score each project. Unlike most other systems, there is a very specific, logical, and related progression from one point score to another, which reduces judgement and uncertainty. For CDTC it was originally a maximum score of 67 points, then scaled to 50 points. The final merit category score assigned to each project can range from a -21 to +50 points. This score is added to the benefit/cost ratio (maximum of 50 points) so that each project can receive a total score ranging from -21 to +100 points.

In spreadsheet form the rating scoresheet is connected to the summary sheet.

New Project Evaluation A copy of our new merit evaluation system can be found at (http://www.cdtcmpo.org/images/News/solicitations/Merit_Categories_Final_v12_09012016.pdf ). If you would like an Excel version, give me your business card or email me at mfranchini@cdtcmpo.org.

TIP Evaluation Results This year CDTC used our new merit evaluation system and the merit scoresheet to evaluate 119 new projects for our new 2016-2021 TIP. Projects were broken into categories (bridge, pavement, etc.) with easily comparable scores. There was little disagreement with final scores. Selected highest rated projects! The following is an example of the results submitted to the Planning and Policy Committees.

Read headings and total project scores.

2016-21 TIP New Projects Project Type Cost ($M) Number of Projects Pavement Preservation Projects  9.536 9 Pavement Beyond Preservation Projects  2.251 1 Bridge Preservation Projects  34.729 7 Bridge Beyond Preservation Projects  37.020 6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Preservation Projects 0.721 2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Beyond Preservation Projects 7.436 Other Beyond Preservation Projects  2.857 Low Volume Local Projects  2.907 Total 97.457 41 Sponsor Type   Cost ($M) Number of Projects Number of Sponsors State  75.825 15 1 County  7.306 9 3 City  9.485 10 5 Town  3.285 Village  1.556 2 Total 97.457 41 16 Other Beyond Preservation included intersection projects, slope repair, roundabouts, traffic signals, etc. Low volume = 2600 AADT or less.

Michael V. Franchini, Executive Director Questions Contact: Michael V. Franchini, Executive Director 518-458-2161 mfranchini@cdtcmpo.org http://www.cdtcmpo.org