Insert Table of Eligibility 1 Statewide MobilityRegional ImpactDivision Needs Eligible Projects: Statewide Regional Statewide Regional Division Overall.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
January 8, 2014 FMATS College Road Corridor Study FMATS Technical Committee Update.
Advertisements

Governor’s Freight Industry Summit Draft November 12, 2012 Sandra K. Beaupre’ Wisconsin DOT Governor’s Freight Industry Summit Draft November 12, 2012.
Ohio Department of Transportation Leadership Meeting#1 Jun 12, 2012 Steering Committee Meeting #1 WELCOME Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel Pike and Wok Travel.
From KY 89 at the northern city limits of McKee to the recently improved section of US 421 just north of the Jackson-Rockcastle County line. Six-Year Highway.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to presented by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. U.S. 70 Corridor Commission June 19, 2014 Paula Dowell,
US 1 CORRIDOR STUDY AND PROJECT PRIORITIZATION PROCESS Augusta, GA November 29, 2012 Jeff Carroll CDM Smith Georgia Association of MPOs Annual Conference.
Transportation Infrastructure Bond Corridor Mobility Improvement Account.
Proposition 1B and the Strategic Growth Plan Randell Iwasaki California Department of Transportation.
Simpson County Travel Demand Model July 22, 2003.
Designated by US DOT Publication of Draft PFN for Comments - Spring 2013 Initial Designation of the PFN – Fall 2013 National Freight Network Primary Freight.
Spring INTRODUCTION There exists a lot of methods used for identifying high risk locations or sites that experience more crashes than one would.
HSRD Systems Diagram Ten FRA Criteria 1.Ridership Forecasts: Calculated using a logit model that incorporates the reliability, cost, and travel time of.
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS OVERVIEW Lecture 2. n Provide a historical perspective of the evolution of PMS over the last 20 years n Describe the basic.
Framework for Model Development General Model Design Highway Network/Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) Development of Synthetic Trip Tables Development of.
AASHTO SCOP Linking Planning to Programming P2P Link Rural Transportation Summit January 16, 2014 ADOT Vision and Long-Range Plan Planning to Programming.
National Transportation || || 1 Lei Zhang, Ph.D. Associate Professor Director,
Overview of Project Main objective of study is to assess the impact of delay at border crossings and resulting changes in user benefits and broad macroeconomic.
Polk Transportation Planning Organization 2035 Mobility Vision Plan June 2010 Steering Committee - January 28, 2010 Polk Transportation Planning Organization.
Freight Bottleneck Study Update to the Intermodal, Freight, and Safety Subcommittee of the Regional Transportation Council September 12, 2002 North Central.
From Planning to Pouring: The Evolution of Safe Routes to School Julie Walcoff, Ohio DOT, Columbus, OH Alex Smith, Columbus Public Health, Columbus, OH.
MnDOT-ACEC Annual Conference March 5,  Capital planning and programming at MnDOT  Major considerations  A more transparent and collaborative.
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 26 Schedule.
Simpson County Travel Demand Model Mobility Analysis November 7, 2003.
Chapter 1: Highway Functions
Alachua County Future Traffic Circulation Corridors Map Project July 10 th, 2007.
Network Screening 1 Module 3 Safety Analysis in a Data-limited, Local Agency Environment: July 22, Boise, Idaho.
All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program Hot Spot ODOT Region 1 Kick-Off Meeting March 18, 2015.
SR 997 / KROME AVENUE Florida Department of Transportation April 27th, 2006 South Miami-Dade Watershed Study Advisory Committee.
Evaluation of Alternative Methods for Identifying High Collision Concentration Locations Raghavan Srinivasan 1 Craig Lyon 2 Bhagwant Persaud 2 Carol Martell.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to FHWA “Talking Freight” Seminar Series presented by Lance Neumann Cambridge Systematics, Inc. August.
OPEN HOUSE #4 JUNE AGENDA OPEN HOUSE 6:00 PM  Review materials  Ask questions  Provide feedback  Sign up for list  Fill out comment.
David B. Roden, Senior Consulting Manager Analysis of Transportation Projects in Northern Virginia TRB Transportation Planning Applications Conference.
Interstate 95 Corridor Improvement Program June 20, 2012.
WELCOME! July 31, 2012 ODOT District July 31, 2012 PURPOSE OF TONIGHT’S MEETING Introduce the project –Reconstruct I-75.
Is Transportation Sustainable?. Objectives By the end of this unit, students will be able to: 1.Examine and prioritize transportation project impacts.
Comprehensive Plan Update Kevin O’Neill Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board September 2, 2015.
Introduction Session 01 Matakuliah: S0753 – Teknik Jalan Raya Tahun: 2009.
Data Palooza Workshop May 9, 2013 Rabinder Bains, FHWA – Office of Policy and Government Affairs.
3000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 208 Washington, DC
TxDOT UTP Category 3 Urban Area (Non-TMA) Corridor Projects Workshops.
Forecasting and Evaluating Network Growth David Levinson Norah Montes de Oca Feng Xie.
Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board December 6th, 2013 Ashley Probart Deputy Director Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board Primary Freight.
Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions Freight Advisory Committee (FAC) Freight and Land Use: Making the Connection December 15, 2010 Ms.
Review of the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) 2007 Urban Mobility Report By Ronald F. Kirby Daivamani Sivasailam TPB Technical Committee October 5,
December 2015 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Funding Lauren Blackburn.
Tiffany Julien Office of Freight Management and Operations Implementation of the National Freight Network 1.
INCORPORATING INCOME INTO TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING Brent Spence Bridge Case Study October 13, 2015.
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM 2016 Project Scoring Update Workshop.
US 421 Centerline Rumble Strips in Chatham Co. Renee B. Roach, P.E. and Al Grandy May 2, 2007.
© 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved. North Country Access Improvements Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting No. 9 January 19, 2016.
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM 2016 Project Scoring Update Workshop.
Company LOGO Georgia Truck Lane Needs Identification Study Talking Freight Seminar March 19, 2008 Matthew Fowler, P.T.P Assistant State Planning Administrator.
Geometric Design: General Concept CE331 Transportation Engineering.
© 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved. North Country Access Improvements Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting No. 6 October 6, 2015.
1 THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL Michael S. Griffith Federal Highway Administration July 26 th, 2004.
MED SR 18 Corridor Project MED PID October 13, 2015.
SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP) GRANTS Presented By: Patrick V. DeChellis Deputy Director Los Angeles County Department.
Freight Transportation Plan Savannah, GA AMPO Conference - October 23, 2014.
Virginia House Bill 2 – Funding the Right Projects Intelligent Transportation System Activities May 19, 2016.
Regional Transportation Plan Draft Hybrid Scenario Transportation Policy Committee 7/22/03.
STI Prioritization and Programming Process
CAPITAL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Project Evaluation
PROJECT LOCATION Project begins at Garden Lane (East of I-4)
ITTS FEAT Tool Methodology Review ITTS Member States Paula Dowell, PhD
Mobility Fund High Impact/Low Cost Projects: Cape Fear RPO
Category 2 Parameters Transportation Management Areas (TMA) – 200,000+ pop. 8 TMAs in Texas Austin Corpus Christi Dallas-Fort Worth El Paso Hidalgo County.
HOT Lanes on I-77 Today vs 2010 May 6, 2013.
STP Shared Local Fund: Project Evaluation Criteria
Parks Highway Reconstruction: Lucas Road to Big Lake Road
Prioritization Explained
Presentation transcript:

Insert Table of Eligibility 1 Statewide MobilityRegional ImpactDivision Needs Eligible Projects: 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 Highway Project Scoring Overview

Highway Scoring – Eligible Quantitative Criteria CriteriaExisting Conditions Project Benefits (Future Conditions) - Congestion (Volume / Capacity Ratio + AADT) - Benefit/Cost (Travel Time Savings / Project Cost) - Safety Score (Critical Crash Rates, Density, Severity) - Pavement Score (Pavement Condition Rating) - Lane Width (Existing Width vs. Standard Width) - Shoulder Width (Existing Width vs. Standard Width) - Multimodal (Military, Transportation Terminals & Trucks) - Economic Competitiveness (Jobs + Value Added in $) - Accessibility / Connectivity (TBD)

All projects scored on point scale For projects on new location, existing data comes from a “parallel route” Parallel Route defined as the roadway(s) motorists currently use to travel between the beginning and end of the project All quantitative scores will be calculated automatically by application (SPOT On!ine) – user will be able to see preliminary scores shortly after project entry HIGHWAY Scoring

TIPRouteFromToDescriptionCountyDivEligibility R-2248EI-485NC 115I-85 North Construct Freeway on New Location Mecklenb urg 10Statewide I-4744I-40 SR 1728 (Wade Ave) I-440/US 1/64Widen RoadwayWake5Statewide R-2554BA US 70 (Goldsboro Bypass) East of SR 1300 (Salem Church Rd) East of SR 1556 (Wayne Memorial Dr) Construct Freeway on New Location Wayne4Statewide R-4463BNC 43 ConnectorUS 70NC 43/55 Construct Roadway on New Location Craven2Regional R-2911BUS 70Iredell County Line SR 1001 (Old Amity Hill Road) Widen RoadwayRowan9Regional R-2519AUS 19E East of SR 1336 (Jacks Creek Rd) NC 80Widen RoadwayYancey13Regional U-3810 SR 1406 (Piney Green Rd) NC 24US 17Widen RoadwayOnslow3Division U-4909 SR 2643 (Union Cross Rd) SR 2691 (Wallburg Rd) SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Rd) Widen RoadwayForsyth9Division R-3833A SR 1100 (Brawley School Rd) SR 1177 (Chuckwood Rd) US 21Widen RoadwayIredell12Division Example Projects (Completed or Under Construction) 4 Note: Values shown for scoring on subsequent slides are based on 2010 data

Purpose – measure existing level of mobility along roadways by indicating congested locations and bottlenecks ((Existing Vol. / Capacity Ratio x 100) x 60%) + ((Existing Vol. / 1,000) x 40%) Note: The use of Travel Time Index, which is a comparison of actual congested speeds from GPS devices to ideal travel speed, is continuing to be investigated for use in P3.0. Based on input from NCDOT’s traffic engineers, this measure may replace the use of Volume/Capacity ratio in the above equation. HIGHWAY – Congestion Funding CategoryCriteria Weight Statewide Mobility30% Regional Impact30% Division Needs20%

TIPProject Existing Volume Existing Capacity Volume / Capacity Ratio Congestion Score R-2248EI-485 New Location 117,000140, I-4744I-40 Widening 94,00070, R-2554BAUS 70 (Goldsboro Bypass) 31,00060, R-4463BNC 43 Connector 24,00040, R-2911BUS 70 Widening 9,00016, R-2519AUS 19E Widening 14,00016, U-3810 SR 1406 (Piney Green Rd) Widening 20,00016, U-4909 SR 2643 (Union Cross Rd) Widening 16, R-3833A SR 1100 (Brawley School Rd) Widening 18,00016, Example Projects – Congestion Score 6

Purpose – measure the expected travel time savings benefits of the project over a 30 year period against the estimated project cost to NCDOT Travel Time Savings over 30 years in $ / Project Cost to NCDOT Travel Time Savings calculated using comparison if project was implemented today then multiplied by 30 yrs Project Cost consists of Construction, Right-of-Way, and Utilities costs Cost can be lowered if other funds are committed to project by locals HIGHWAY – [Travel Time] Benefit-Cost Funding CategoryCriteria Weight Statewide Mobility30% Regional Impact30% Division Needs20%

TIPProject Travel Time Savings over 30 years ($) Project Cost Other Funding Cost to NCDOT Benefit/Cost Score R-2248EI-485 New Location $4,859,808,000$206,836,000 $0 $206,836, I-4744I-40 Widening $3,502,916,000$59,910,000 $0 $59,910, R-2554BA US 70 (Goldsboro Bypass) $2,060,655,000*$335,731,000* $0 $335,731,000*6.14 R-4463BNC 43 Connector $963,071,000*$67,415,000* $0 $67,415,000*14.29 R-2911BUS 70 Widening $108,246,000$23,544,000 $0 $23,544, R-2519AUS 19E Widening $457,696,000$72,288,000 $0 $72,288, U-3810 SR 1406 (Piney Green Rd) Widening $219,185,000$97,235,000 $0 $97,235, U-4909 SR 2643 (Union Cross Rd) Widening $81,080,000$90,308,000 $0 $90,308, R-3833A SR 1100 (Brawley School Rd) Widening $106,009,000$64,347,000 $0 $64,347, Example Projects – [Travel Time] Benefit-Cost Score 8 *Full benefits of the project are not realized until entire new location roadway is complete. Travel Time Savings and Cost values are based on the entire project.

Purpose – measure existing safety conditions along/at the project Segments  (Crash Density x 33%) + (Severity Index x 33%) + (Critical Crash Rate x 33%) Intersections  (Crash Frequency x 50%) + (Severity Index x 50%) All data provided by Mobility & Safety Division (3 year moving average) Higher scores indicate poorer conditions HIGHWAY – Safety Funding CategoryCriteria Weight Statewide Mobility10% Regional Impact10% Division Needs10%

TIPProject Crash Density Severity Index Critical Crash Rate Safety Score R-2248EI-485 New Location I-4744I-40 Widening R-2554BAUS 70 (Goldsboro Bypass) R-4463BNC 43 Connector R-2911BUS 70 Widening R-2519AUS 19E Widening U-3810 SR 1406 (Piney Green Rd) Widening U-4909 SR 2643 (Union Cross Rd) Widening R-3833A SR 1100 (Brawley School Rd) Widening Example Projects – Safety Score 10

Purpose – measure the economic benefits the transportation project is expected to provide in economic activity (GDP) and jobs over 30 yrs Score based on Output from (Economic Impact Model) Primary inputs are Travel Time Savings, Location, and Freight Traffic Output is # of long-term jobs created (50%) + Value added in $ (50%) based on % change in NCDOT Division Economy ­ Includes wages increased, increased productivity ­ Accounts for current economic conditions (includes use of labor statistics) ­ Results based on 30 year forecast using Moody’s Analytics data Does NOT include contingent (prospective) development Criteria is not intended to evaluate projects for recruiting purposes HIGHWAY – Economic Competitiveness Funding CategoryCriteria Weight Statewide Mobility10% Regional ImpactN/A Division NeedsN/A

TIPProject Travel Time Savings (per yr) Div Long-term Employment % Change in Economic Value Added Economic Competitiveness Score R-2248EI-485 New Location 7,040, , % I-4744I-40 Widening 5,074, , %97.93 R-2554 US 70 (Goldsboro Bypass) 2,995, %98.55 R-4463BNC 43 Connector 1,404, %73.65 R-2911BUS 70 Widening 156, %5.75 R-2519AUS 19E Widening 665, %45.84 U-3810 SR 1406 (Piney Green Rd) Widening 328, %10.92 U-4909 SR 2643 (Union Cross Rd) Widening 121, %4.04 R-3833A SR 1100 (Brawley School Rd) Widening 158, %7.56 Example Projects – Economic Competitiveness Score 12

Purpose – measure how to improve connections between rural areas and employment centers, tourist destinations, or military installations (connecting people and places) 3 options proposed: 1.Accessibility / Connectivity Index with rural areas defined as municipalities with population between 2,500 and 20,000 people 2.Accessibility / Connectivity Index with rural areas defined as municipalities with population between 1,500 and 20,000 people (new) 3.Evaluation of projects 20 minutes outside of employment centers (new) HIGHWAY – Accessibility / Connectivity Funding CategoryCriteria Weight Statewide MobilityN/A Regional Impact-- Division Needs--

Option 1 – Accessibility / Connectivity Index with rural areas defined as municipalities with population between 2,500 and 20,000 people Score based on Accessibility / Connectivity Index Map Activity Center and Census Block Groups with 5,000+ Jobs ­ Activity Centers include cities over 20,000 people, military bases, ports, UNC campuses, trauma centers, top tourist destinations Rural Area (Rural Population Center) = Municipality with population between 2,500 and 20,000 Map illustrates overlap of drive times from Activity Centers/Block Groups and Rural Population Centers HIGHWAY – Accessibility / Connectivity – con’t

(Rural Population Centers with 2,500 to 20,000 people)

TIPProject Option 1 Score (Rural Center 2,500-20,000 pop.) Option 2 Score (Rural Center 1,500-20,000 pop.) Existing Volume Eligible Route? Option 3 Score R-2248EI-485 New Location ,000 N0 I-4744I-40 Widening ,000 N0 R-2554BA US 70 (Goldsboro Bypass) ,000 N0 R-4463BNC 43 Connector ,000 N0 R-2911BUS 70 Widening ,000 N0 R-2519AUS 19E Widening ,000 Y70 U-3810 SR 1406 (Piney Green Rd) Widening ,000 N0 U-4909 SR 2643 (Union Cross Rd) Widening ,000 N0 R-3833A SR 1100 (Brawley School Rd) Widening ,000 N0 Example Projects – Accessibility / Connectivity Score 17

Funding Category QUANTITATIVE LOCAL INPUT DataDivision RankMPO/RPO Rank Statewide Mobility [Travel Time] Benefit/Cost = 30% Congestion = 30% Economic Competitiveness = 10% Safety = 10% Multimodal [& Freight + Military] = 20% Total = 100% -- Regional Impact [Travel Time] Benefit/Cost = 20% Congestion = 15% Safety = 15% Lane Width = 10% Shoulder Width = 10% Total = 70% 15% Division Needs [Travel Time] Benefit/Cost = 10% Congestion = 10% Safety = 10% Lane Width = 10% Shoulder Width = 10% Total = 50% 25% Rec. Highway Scoring Criteria and Weights – Divisions 1 & 4

Funding Category QUANTITATIVE LOCAL INPUT DataDivision RankMPO/RPO Rank Statewide Mobility [Travel Time] Benefit/Cost = 30% Congestion = 30% Economic Competitiveness = 10% Safety = 10% Multimodal [& Freight + Military] = 20% Total = 100% -- Regional Impact [Travel Time] Benefit/Cost = 20% Safety = 25% Multimodal [& Freight + Military] = 25% Total = 70% 15% Division Needs Congestion = 20% Safety = 20% Multimodal [& Freight + Military] = 10% Total = 50% 25% Rec. Highway Scoring Criteria and Weights – Divisions 2 & 3

Local Input Points Use in Regional Impact and Division Needs categories only Points to allocate to projects across all modes as an MPO/RPO TAC Member and communication with Division Engineer # of Points = 1000 points + additional points based on population Separate Allocation of Points for Regional Impact Category and Division Needs Category Point allocation is the same for each 100 point cap for any one project; points can also be donated across Regions/Divisions 20

Normalization – Workgroup Discussion Definition – Methodology for comparing quantitative scores across all modes together Challenges: Different criteria and weights used for evaluating projects in each mode No easy solution  conducted review of methodologies across country No other state has successfully implemented such a comparison Evaluated several potential options including: - Qualitative value judgment - Weighted benefit/cost - Statistical analysis 21 vs

Apr Prioritization 3.0 Schedule JanDecNovSeptAugMayMarJanDecJulyMarFebAprJuneOctFeb DOT Calculates Quant. Scores, & Programs STW Mob. Projects Submit New Projects MPOs/RPOs & Divisions Assign Local Input Points DOT Finalizes Scores for All Modes Final STIP Adopted by July 1, 2015 Score Exist. Projects July 2, MayJune All Modes DOT Develops Draft STIP Air Quality Conformity Analysis Draft STIP Public Comment Period BOT Input through MPO/RPO TACs and Division Engineers BOT Input 25 Year Infrastructure Planning Process Final STIP must be Approved by October 1, 2015 by FHWA to Continue Receiving Federal Dollars BOT Input through MPO/RPO TACs and Division Engineers BOT Input