1. HB2 Briefing for Tennessee MPOs & TDOT June 11, 2015 Meadowview Conference Center

2. 2 Agenda 1.VTrans, HB2 and HB1887 – How they relate 2.HB2 Overview 3.HB2 Scoring 4.Implementation Schedule 5.Next Steps

3. 3 VTrans, HB2 and HB1887 How they relate

4. Life Cycle of a Candidate Project How it’s planned. 4 How it’s scored. How it’s funded.

5. 5 VTrans is the long-range, statewide multimodal policy plan that lays out overarching Vision and Goals for transportation in the Commonwealth It identifies transportation investment priorities and provides direction to transportation agencies on strategies and programs to be incorporated into their plans and programs How it’s planned VTrans2040

6. VTrans 2040 serves two functions and produces two independent, but connected documents: VTrans 2040 Vision document will outline the policy vision for Virginia’s transportation system over the next 25 years VTrans 2040 Multimodal Transportation Plan (VMTP) includes Multimodal Needs Assessment and will serve as the guiding document for Virginia’s transportation agency business plans and statewide transportation funding programs until the next update in five years 6

7. How it’s planned VTrans2040 7 Needs Assessment: VMTP will identify future needs for all modes travel across the Commonwealth – not project specific Policy and recommendations of the plan will focus on: Corridors of Statewide Significance Identified regional networks Local designated growth areas

8. VMTP Needs Assessment – UNDER DEVELOPMENT 8 Note: Map includes all locally designated growth areas that appear consistent with the intent of 15.2-2223.1. OIPI is asking that localities who want their growth areas to qualify for HB2 funding to add a code reference (15.2-2223.1) by October 1, 2015 to ensure that projects submitted to promote these areas meet the HB2 screening requirement. Projects promoting UDA-like designated growth areas with the proper code reference submitted after October 1 will not be considered in the first round of HB2 project screening.

9. 9 Corridors of Statewide Significance CoSS Approved by the CTB Demonstrate the following characteristics: Multiple modes and/or an extended freight corridor Connection among regions, states and/or major activity centers High volume of travel Unique statewide function and/or fulfillment of statewide goal

10. 10 Virginia CoSS

11. 11 Regional Networks – Under Development Defined as: Jurisdictions that are included either in whole or in part within MPO Planning Area Boundaries Any additional element of the transportation system that is connected to the MPO area and deemed critical to the MPO

12. 12 Urban Development Areas UDAs Areas voluntarily designated by local governments as prime areas for future economic growth pursuant to 15.2- 2223.1 Must reflect transportation- efficient land use principles including Mixed-use land use Interconnected streets Moderately compact growth

13. 13 Urban Development Areas UDAs Statistics: Number of UDAs currently designated in Virginia: 77 Number of UDAs within MPO boundaries: 35 Designated UDAs: Cities – 7 Counties – 54 Towns – 16 Average size of designated UDAs: 3.41 square miles Average population (2010) of designated UDAs: 3,921

14. HB2 Screening Process 14 Only projects that meet a need identified in VTrans 2040 will be prioritized Corridors of Statewide Significance Regional Networks Improvements to promote urban development areas Projects that do not meet the screening criteria will not be scored or prioritized under HB2

15. How HB2 is funded HB1887 removes the 40-30-30 formula put in place in by the 1986 Special Session legislation New construction formula established, effective FY 2021:  State of Good Repair – 45%  High-Priority Projects Program (Statewide) * – 27.5%  District Grant Programs* – 27.5% 15 *To be programmed according to HB 2 in FY17

16. How HB2 is funded In the interim (FY17-20): Funds not programmed to projects are to be distributed 50/50 to: High-Priority Projects Program (Statewide) District Grant Programs 16

17. Funds Available for HB 2 (in millions) – Based on Draft SYIP (Subject to Revision) 17 HB 1887 Grant ProgramsPercentage6-Year Total District Grant Program Bristol7.0% $27.7 Culpeper6.2% 24.4 Fredericksburg6.9% 26.9 Hampton Roads20.2% 79.2 Lynchburg7.1% 28.0 Northern Virginia20.7% 81.4 Richmond14.4% 56.7 Salem9.6% 37.7 Staunton7.8% 30.6 High Priority Projects Program (Statewide) 392.6 Total100.0% $785.2

18. Funds Available for State of Good Repair (in millions) - Based on Draft SYIP (Subject to Revision) 18 DistrictPercentage6-Year Total Bristol11.7% $40.1 Culpeper6.0% 20.5 Fredericksburg12.1% 41.4 Hampton Roads14.8% 50.6 Lynchburg7.6% 26.0 Northern Virginia10.6% 36.1 Richmond17.4% 59.7 Salem12.1% 41.4 Staunton7.9% 26.9 Total100.0% $342.7

19. 19 HB2 Overview

20. 20 Schedule: May to October 2015 Upcoming Events: June 16 th – CTB Meeting: HB2 final process to be adopted July 2015 – VTRANS2040 VMTP identification of transportation draft needs June/July – Training for VDOT staff July/Aug. – Training Entities (e.g. Localities, MPOs, PDCs) Process overview Online application system July 1 st – VDOT to begin working with Entities Aug 1 st – Entities begin inputting applications Sept 30 th – On-line applications deadline

21. 21 What funds are subject to HB2? Funds that are subject to HB2 include state and federal highway funds (small proportion of total funding over 6 years) Legislation excluded the following projects and types of funding from the prioritization process: Asset management Revenue sharing Regional revenues CMAQ federal funds Highway Safety federal funds Transportation Alternatives funding Funding Subject to HB2

22. HB2 Project Types 22 Eligible project types include: Highway improvements  Widening projects  Operational improvements  Access management Transit and rail capacity expansion projects Transportation demand management  Van Pools  Park & Ride facilities  Telecommuting Passenger Rail

23. HB2 Project Types 23 Project types excluded: Asset Management Structurally deficient bridges Reconstructive paving Routine maintenance Transit and Rail State of Good Repair projects

24. 24 Applicant Eligibility Project System Regional Entity (MPOs, PDCs) Locality (Counties, Cities, Towns) Public Transit Agencies Corridor of Statewide Significance Yes Yes, with a resolution of support from relevant regional entity Yes, with resolution of support from relevant regional entity Regional Network Yes Yes, with resolution of support from relevant entity Urban Development Area NoYesNo

25. 25 HB2 Overview - Scoring The prioritization process must be objective, quantifiable and consider at least the following factors relative to cost: Congestion mitigation Economic development Accessibility Safety Environmental Quality In areas over 200,000 an additional composite transportation and land use factor will be used

26. 26 HB2 Overview - Scoring House Bill 2 requires that the CTB weight the factors differently in different parts of the CommonwealthFactor Congestion Mitigation Economic Development AccessibilitySafety Environmental Quality Land Use Category A35%10% 25%10% Category B15%20% 25%20% 10% 10%10% Category C15%25% 10% Category D10%35% 15%30% 10%

27. 27 HB2 Overview – Scoring Evaluating Benefits Relative to Cost House Bill 2 requires that benefits produced by a project be analyzed on a basis of relative costs Results to be provided to CTB based on: Benefits relative to total costs Benefits relative to HB2 costs

28. 28 HB2 Scoring

29. HB2 Factors 29 For more details see: http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2015/May/pres2/Pre sentation_Agenda_Item_1.pdf

30. Factor Areas Goals that guided measure development Safety – reduce the number and rate of fatalities and severe injuries Congestion – reduce person hours of delay and increase person throughput Accessibility – increase access to jobs and travel options Economic Development – support economic development and improve goods movement Environmental Quality – improve air quality and avoid impacts to the natural environment Land Use – support transportation efficient land development patterns 30

31. Measuring SAFETY 31 –50% of score – Expected reduction in total fatalities and severe injuries (100% of score for transit projects) –50% of score – Expected reduction in the rate of fatalities and severe injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled

32. Measuring CONGESTION MITIGATION 32 –50% of score – Change in peak period (multimodal) person throughput in the project corridor –50% of score - Change in the amount of peak period person hours of delay in the project corridor

33. Measuring ACCESSIBILITY 33 –60% of score – Change in cumulative job accessibility (within 45 minutes) (within 60 minutes for transit projects) –20% of score - Change in cumulative job accessibility for disadvantaged populations (within 45 minutes by automobile and 60 minutes by transit) –20% of score – Assessment of the project support for connections between modes, and promotion of multiple transportation choices

34. Measuring ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 34 –50% of score – Potential of project to reduce criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions –50% of Score – Potential impacts to natural and cultural resources

35. Measuring ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 35 –70% of score – Assessment of progress made towards new economic development (new and expansion of existing) –30% of score - Rate projects based on the extent to which the project is deemed to enhance access to critical intermodal locations, interregional freight movement, and/or freight intensive industries –Travel time reliability measure under development

36. Measuring LAND USE 36 –100% of score – Degree to which project will support transportation efficient land use patterns and local policies

37. How Scoring Works 37 Scores will be graded on a curve. 100 90 80 70 60

38. Factor Weighting Framework (May 2015) 38 Factor Congestion Mitigation Economic Development AccessibilitySafety Environmental Quality Land Use Category A35%10% 25%10% Category B15%20% 25%20% 10% Category C15%25% 10% Category D10%35% 15%30% 10%

39. Factor Weighting Framework by MPO and PDC (May 2015) 39

40. 40 Sample Project Scoring Project "A" - located in Typology A CongestionSafetyAccessibilityEnviron.Econ. Dev. Land Use Throughput Delay F &SI Crashes F &SI Crash Rate Access to Jobs Access to Jobs (Dis. Pop.) Multimodal Choices Air Quality Natural & Cult. Resources Economic Development Goods Movement Trans. Efficient Land Use Measure Score 624820321020103828302017 Measure Weight 50% 60%20% 50% 70%30%100% Weighted Measure Score 31241016642191421617 Raw Factor Score 55261233.027.017 Factor Weighting (Typ. A) 35%10%25%10% Weighted Factor Score 19.32.633.32.71.7 Project Score32.55 Total Project Cost$20,000,000 Score Divided by Total Cost16.3

41. Draft HB 2 Process Timeline for implementation 41

42. 42 Additional Resources Presentations to the CTB www.ctb.virginia.gov HB2 Implementation Guide and Appendices http://virginiahb2.com/docs/HB2PolicyGuide_ MeasuresAppendices_05182015.pdfhttp://virginiahb2.com/docs/HB2PolicyGuide_ MeasuresAppendices_05182015.pdf HB2 Website http://virginiahb2.com/

43. 43