AGENDA ITEM #6: HRTPO PROJECT PRIORITIZATION: RECOMMENDED ENHANCEMENTS The HRTPO Project Prioritization Tool was developed to assist regional decision-makers in prioritizing transportation projects based off technical merits and regional benefits, evaluating projects based on Project Utility, Economic Vitality, and Project Viability. The Tool, which has been used in the past two Long-Range Transportation Plan updates and in the identification of the Regional Priority Projects, was designed to be updated periodically to reflect current conditions, regional priorities, and new data sources. On April 5, 2017, the LRTP Subcommittee unanimously voted for HRTPO staff to initiate the process of updating the Project Prioritization Tool based on recommendations received. Since that time, HRTPO staff has been conducting research and soliciting additional feedback from regional stakeholders to refine potential measures to incorporate or enhance in the Tool, and adjust weighting factors based on these recommended improvements. Feedback received through multiple stakeholder meetings has been incorporated into the Tool and a small group of test projects has been scored. On January 24, 2020, the Project Prioritization Task Force met to review and discuss remaining comments and the results of the scoring of test projects incorporating the proposed enhancements and updated weighting factors (attachment 6A includes summary slides from this meeting). After much discussion, the Project Prioritization Task Force recommends the LRTP Subcommittee approve the recommended enhancements to the HRTPO Project Prioritization Tool, including adjusted weighting factors. Recommended modifications will be put out for public review and comment before seeking Board approval. As next steps, HRTPO staff will evaluate/score the 2045 LRTP Candidate Projects using the enhanced Project Prioritization Tool. Ms. Dale Stith, Principal Transportation Planner, will brief the LRTP Subcommittee on this agenda item. Attachment 6A: Prioritization Task Force Summary Slides Attachment 6B: Updated Draft Prioritization Weighting Factors RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend TTAC approval of the enhancements to the HRTPO Project Prioritization Tool, including adjusted weighting factors.
HRTPO P ROJECT P RIORITIZATION P OTENTIAL M ODIFICATIONS A ND S CORING W EIGHTS Summary of Prioritization Task Force Meeting from January 24, 2020 Attachment 6 Attachment 6A
D IRECTION FROM LRTP S UBCOMMITTEE Convene a small task force to finalize proposed enhancements and review test scores Review: Feedback on scoring weights (received from HRTPO • Committees: TTAC, CAC, FTAC, TPS, and ATS) Outstanding comments/questions • Next Steps: LRTP approval (February 5, 2020 at 9:00 AM) • TTAC approval (February 5, 2020) • Attachment 6A Public Review and Comment Period • HRTPO Board Approval (February or March 2020) • P ROJECT P RIORITIZATION 2
T ASK F ORCE M EETING R ECOMMENDATION Task Force Meeting – 1/24/2020 Recommendation – Task Force recommends LRTP approval of the enhancements to the HRTPO Project Prioritization Tool, including adjusted weighting factors Attachment 6A P ROJECT P RIORITIZATION 3
S UMMARY OF R ECOMMENDED E NHANCEMENTS These enhancements have been vetted through LRTP Subcommittee, Project • Prioritization Working, and other relevant committees/stakeholder groups (between 2018-2019) Balance Three Components (Project Utility, Economic Vitality, Project Viability) • More robust Economic Vitality and Project Viability measures Add Economic Vitality to Active Transportation and ”Other” (smaller scope) projects Improved alignment with Federal Performance Measures Improved alignment with SMART SCALE Measures (congestion, safety, environmental considerations) Incorporated Resiliency Enhanced Accessibility and Social Equity considerations throughout categories Improved Intermodal/Freight, Transit, and Active Transportation Measures Attachment 6A Improved “Other” category to use in RSTP scoring process (projects not evaluated as part of the LRTP) Modified calculation of Cost Effectiveness P ROJECT P RIORITIZATION 4
F EEDBACK ON W EIGHTS Input received from: TTAC Responses: Transportation Technical Advisory Newport News • • Committee (TTAC) Norfolk • Community Advisory Committee (CAC) • Virginia Beach • Roadways, Transit, and Active - Williamsburg • Transportation Windsor • Freight Transportation Advisory • Franklin and Southampton • Committee (FTAC) County Intermodal - Gloucester County • Active Transportation Subcommittee • HRT (ATS) • WATA Active Transportation • - Transportation Programming Attachment 6A • Subcommittee (TPS) Other RSTP - P ROJECT P RIORITIZATION 5
C OMMENTS R ECEIVED The comments on the following slides were received from regional stakeholders during the solicitation of input on weighting factors Comments and responses were discussed with the Prioritization Task Force at its 1/24/2020 meeting Attachment 6A P ROJECT P RIORITIZATION 6
C OMMENTS R ECEIVED ( CONTINUED ) Congestion The LRTP Project Prioritization Tool should not identically • reflect the criteria of SMART SCALE. There are other grant programs out there that do not place such a high priority on congestion. The LRTP needs to reflect all grant programs, not just SMART SCALE. Our Project Prioritization Tool is tailored to our region and is • more robust than the criteria for SMART SCALE (including many non-congestion related criteria) Congestion: 40/300 pts (13%) Travel Time Reliability: 15/300 (5%) Attachment 6A Regional Travel Time and Delay Impacts: 30/300 (10%) P ROJECT P RIORITIZATION 7
C OMMENTS R ECEIVED ( CONTINUED ) Safety and Security Historical crash data loses effectiveness when projecting • 20+ years, especially considering the rate of safety development Evaluation factors should include more than just fatal and • serious injuries (local roads with lower speeds have less severe injuries and property damage from crashes) Safety is both a priority of the transportation planning • process and a factor that is included in most funding programs, including SMART SCALE We plan on using the SMART SCALE process, which applies • Attachment 6A weights to crashes that involve fatalities, serious injuries, visible injuries, and non-visible injuries P ROJECT P RIORITIZATION 8
C OMMENTS R ECEIVED ( CONTINUED ) Labor Market Access Category appears to entirely focus on the destination with little • consideration to travel delays and impacts at origin sites (major residential areas) Travel delays are captured through Travel Time Reliability and • Regional Travel Time and Delay Impacts Key/Basic Sector Industries Access to Defense Installations and STRAHNET should be • consolidated as they are generally the same Our Tool makes a distinction on the type of roadway providing • access to Defense Installations (with more weight given to STRAHNET facilities due to their importance in military Attachment 6A mobilizations). FHWA/SDDC are encouraging states and MPOs to incorporate STRAHNET considerations into project prioritization. P ROJECT P RIORITIZATION 9
C OMMENTS R ECEIVED ( CONTINUED ) Addresses the Needs of Basic Sector Industries Expand Truck Zones to Industrial Zones • Our Truck Zones are heavy industrial zones (identified by HRTPO • staff with VPA assistance). This is a data input in our regional travel demand model. Economic Distress Factors Suggestion to include economically distressed areas • FHWA defines economically distressed areas as having “a per • capita income of 80% or less of the national average or the area has an unemployment rate that is at least 1% greater than the national average (FHWA provides maps of these areas) Attachment 6A Captured under Provides access to areas with high • unemployment – can reword to “economically distressed areas” P ROJECT P RIORITIZATION 10
C OMMENTS R ECEIVED ( CONTINUED ) Transit Discuss any proposed changes to weights for transit projects • with transit agencies No additional weight changes have been made to transit • criteria. Potential changes to Project Viability for all categories (described in later slide). Change “Percent of trips removed from highways” to • “Percent of trips removed from roadways” Modified. Data to be provided by transit agencies. For test • projects, used congestion on parallel roadway facility as a proxy. Attachment 6A P ROJECT P RIORITIZATION 11
C OMMENTS R ECEIVED ( CONTINUED ) Project Viability Environmental status appears to be counted under both • Project Readiness and Environmental Considerations Project Readiness Environmental Documents/Decisions criteria related to NEPA process; Environmental Considerations is evaluating potential environmental impact Concern over Environmental documents/permits expiring • (when project not fully funded) – prefer to see additional points for design completeness and percent of additional funding The locality/VDOT determines when NEPA is initiated, not our LRTP/Prioritization process, therefore expiration of said documents is Attachment 6A an unrelated issue. The Environmental Documents/Decision status is a measure to evaluate how ready the project is to proceed to construction (projects cannot proceed until these decisions are obtained) P ROJECT P RIORITIZATION 12
Recommend
More recommend
