1. DMMC SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

2. HIGHLIGHTS OF HIGHWAY COST- EFFECTIVENESS METHODOLOGY z5 Weighted Categories Of Benefits. zExisting And 20-yr Design Traffic Scenarios. zCompare Build Vs. No-build For Each Traffic Scenario. zUse of Algorithm that Combines Pavement Surface Condition with Volume/Capacity Ratio. HCS or SYNCHRO for intersections. zReview latest CRF’s and Countermeasure research for application in determining Accident Reduction Benefit. zRelative Scaling Of Benefits. zFinal Cost-effectiveness Score.

3. RELATIVE WEIGHTING OF HIGHWAY BENEFIT CRITERIA

4. HIGHWAY PROJECT APPLICATION ESSENTIALS zMandatory Coordination With IDOT On Design Parameters & Project Limits. zPerform Geotechnical Survey If In Doubt About The Need For Reconstruction. zProvide 3-year Accident History By Severity Of Accident. zInclude Current ADT (& Peak Hour Turn Movements For Major Inter-sections That Will Be Improved). zCoordinate With CMAP On 20-yr. Design Traffic Projections.

5. ADT PROJECTIONS FOR STP PROJECTS REQUEST LETTER CONTACT: Mr. Don Kopec Chicago Metropolitan Area for Planning (CMAP) 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60606 TECHNICAL QUESTIONS: Ms. Claire Bozic Tel: 312-386-8744 Cbozic@CMAP.Illinois.gov PROVIDE: 1. Brief Description of Project (Reference DMMC STP Program) 2. Location Map 3. Existing ADT’s (include peak hour data if available) 4. Pertinent Land Use/Development Information START THIS PROCESS EARLY !!!

6. RECURRING HIGHWAY COST-EFFECTIVENESS RANKING ISSUES 1. Obtaining CMAP-approved Traffic Forecasts. 2. Scope-of-work (Cost) Changes. a. Insufficient Geotechnical Investigation. b. Unfamiliarity w/IDOT Design Criteria & Policies. c. Project Limits Not Extended Far Enough. d. Unresolved Local Issues. 3. Annual Updates Of Traffic & Accident Data. 4. Adjusting Project Cost For Inflation (Allowable Cost Increase Includes Inflationary Effects).

7. HIGHWAY APPLICATION REMINDERS 1.For street segment improvements, crash data should be only for the approaches being improved at termini or mid-block intersections. 2.Include traffic and geometric/traffic control data for adjacent intersections if your project anticipates a diversion effect. 3.If the project includes signalized intersections that are part of a closed-loop system, include peak and off-peak system cycle lengths with the application.

8. MINIMUM TCM ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA zMunicipal Or County Sponsor zCommitment For Local Match zCommitment For On-going Maintenance and/ Operation. zConsistent With Local/Regional Plans zNot A Recurring Or Areawide Program zEligible Project Type zSatisfies Minimum Design Criteria / Warrants zSpecial ITS Eligibility Criteria

9. TCM EVALUATION CRITERIA yEmissions Reductions (X2) yBenefit Area (X2) yTime To Realize Benefits (X1) yCongestion Mitigation (X1) yProject Innovation (X1) yPriority Target Area (X1) (currently “Transit)

10. FEASIBILITY STUDIES & DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS PROJECT ELIGIBILITY Not a stand-alone design or construction engineering project. Satisfies minimum Fed, State, Regional, DMMC guidelines. May have to meet a minimum (threshold) evaluation score established by DMMC. PROJECT EVALUATION Projects rated low to high on a scale of 1 to 5 on the following criteria: -Project Innovation -Application for Other Areas -Implementation Potential -Priority Target Area