AGENDA ITEM #6: HRTPO PROJECT PRIORITIZATION: RECOMMENDED - - PDF document

▶
agenda item 6 hrtpo project prioritization recommended
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

AGENDA ITEM #6: HRTPO PROJECT PRIORITIZATION: RECOMMENDED - - PDF document

Oct 26, 2022 45 likes •256 views

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

slide-1
SLIDE 1

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

  • f 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.

slide-2
SLIDE 2

HRTPO PROJECT PRIORITIZATION POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS AND SCORING WEIGHTS

Summary of Prioritization Task Force Meeting from January 24, 2020

Attachment 6

Attachment 6A

slide-3
SLIDE 3

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

DIRECTION FROM LRTP SUBCOMMITTEE

  • 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)
  • Public Review and Comment Period
  • HRTPO Board Approval (February or March 2020)

2

Attachment 6A

slide-4
SLIDE 4

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

TASK FORCE MEETING RECOMMENDATION

  • 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

3

Attachment 6A

slide-5
SLIDE 5

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ENHANCEMENTS

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 Improved “Other” category to use in RSTP scoring process (projects not evaluated as part of the LRTP) Modified calculation of Cost Effectiveness

4

  • These enhancements have been vetted through LRTP Subcommittee, Project

Prioritization Working, and other relevant committees/stakeholder groups (between 2018-2019)

Attachment 6A

slide-6
SLIDE 6

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

FEEDBACK ON WEIGHTS

  • Input received from:
  • Transportation Technical Advisory

Committee (TTAC)

  • Community Advisory Committee (CAC)
  • Roadways, Transit, and Active

Transportation

  • Freight Transportation Advisory

Committee (FTAC)

  • Intermodal
  • Active Transportation Subcommittee

(ATS)

  • Active Transportation
  • Transportation Programming

Subcommittee (TPS)

  • Other RSTP
  • TTAC Responses:
  • Newport News
  • Norfolk
  • Virginia Beach
  • Williamsburg
  • Windsor
  • Franklin and Southampton

County

  • Gloucester County
  • HRT
  • WATA

5

Attachment 6A

slide-7
SLIDE 7

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

COMMENTS RECEIVED

  • 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

6

Attachment 6A

slide-8
SLIDE 8

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

COMMENTS RECEIVED (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%)
  • Regional Travel Time and Delay Impacts: 30/300 (10%)

7

Attachment 6A

slide-9
SLIDE 9

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

COMMENTS RECEIVED (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

weights to crashes that involve fatalities, serious injuries, visible injuries, and non-visible injuries

8

Attachment 6A

slide-10
SLIDE 10

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

COMMENTS RECEIVED (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 mobilizations). FHWA/SDDC are encouraging states and MPOs to incorporate STRAHNET considerations into project prioritization.

9

Attachment 6A

slide-11
SLIDE 11

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

COMMENTS RECEIVED (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)

  • Captured under Provides access to areas with high

unemployment – can reword to “economically distressed areas”

10

Attachment 6A

slide-12
SLIDE 12

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

COMMENTS RECEIVED (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.

11

Attachment 6A

slide-13
SLIDE 13

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

COMMENTS RECEIVED (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 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

  • btained)

12

Attachment 6A

slide-14
SLIDE 14

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

COMMENTS RECEIVED (CONTINUED)

  • Project Viability (continued)
  • Existing projects and those with outside funding should be

recognized

  • These measures are captured under Project Readiness (Percent of

Additional Funding and Prior Commitment)

  • Consider land use compatibility under Increased Opportunity
  • There is a factor under Increased Opportunity measuring Support for

Future Growth (measuring the ability of a project to encourage economic development through expanding or attracting new business and the role of the project locality’s long-term development plans)

13

Attachment 6A

slide-15
SLIDE 15

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

COMMENTS RECEIVED (CONTINUED)

  • Project Viability (continued)
  • 4(f) Interference is useful in determining compatibility with

land use

  • Since not all projects will have initiated Environmental

review, we can use both the Locality Comprehensive Plan and/or Section 4(f) to help make this determination.

  • Suggest replacing Environmental Measures of Effectiveness

(taken from SMART SCALE) with a more basic environmental review (3pts). Example questions:

  • Is there a fatal flaw for permitting?
  • Is the intrusion into sensitive areas justified?
  • Does the project significantly reduce emissions?
  • Agreed

14

Attachment 6A

slide-16
SLIDE 16

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

COMMENTS RECEIVED (CONTINUED)

  • Project Viability (continued)
  • “Project includes improvements to freight rail network or

intermodal (truck to rail) facilities/ports/terminals” appears to double dip from the Economic Vitality section

  • Suggest removing measure

15

Environmental (potential impacts) Criteria 10 Points Environmental MOEs Environmental Permitability 3 Acres of Natural and Cultural Resources 3 Project Reduces Traffic Delay at a Congested Intersection, Interchange, or Other Bottleneck with a high percentage of truck traffic 2 Project includes improvements to the freight rail network or intermodal (truck to rail) facilities/ports/terminals 2

Attachment 6A

slide-17
SLIDE 17

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

COMMENTS RECEIVED (CONTINUED)

  • Project Viability (continued)
  • “Project includes improvements to freight rail network or

intermodal (truck to rail) facilities/ports/terminals” appears to double dip from the Economic Vitality section

  • Suggest removing measure

16

Environmental (potential impacts) Criteria 10 Points Environmental MOEs Environmental Permitability 3 Acres of Natural and Cultural Resources 3 Project Reduces Traffic Delay at a Congested Intersection, Interchange, or Other Bottleneck with a high percentage of truck traffic 2 Project includes improvements to the freight rail network or intermodal (truck to rail) facilities/ports/terminals 2

  • with a high percentage of truck traffic

2

Attachment 6A

slide-18
SLIDE 18

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

COMMENTS RECEIVED (CONTINUED)

  • Project Viability (continued)
  • 55 points seems excessive for Project Readiness
  • Project Readiness was previously weighted 100 points (already

capturing a significant decrease with proposed Tool modifications)

  • Cost Effectiveness measure provides the best “is it worth

doing” measure and should therefore carry extra weight

  • Many projects at this stage are still conceptual (no real design,

alignment identified, etc.) and thus have planning level costs. Therefore, caution assigning too much weight to preliminary costs.

17

Attachment 6A

slide-19
SLIDE 19

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

FEEDBACK ON WEIGHTS

18

  • Averaged Feedback on

Weights

  • Based on feedback

received, recommend:

  • Reducing Project Readiness

to 50 points (from 55)

  • Suggest removing “Additional

Environmental Permits Obtained” measure

  • Increasing Cost

Effectiveness to 20 points (from 15)

Highway Projects

Attachment 6A

slide-20
SLIDE 20

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

TEST PROJECTS

  • Purpose: ensure new measures and the redistribution
  • f measures/weights are reasonable and cohesive

Category Number of Test Projects Highway 17 Interchange 3 Bridge/Tunnel 3 Intermodal 5 Transit (Fixed Guideway) 2 Active Transportation 5

  • Selected projects from 2040 LRTP

Prioritization

  • Retained data previously submitted
  • Used readily available data for some

measures

  • Staff best estimate on other

measures (measures that would be provided by locality/VDOT or with updated data)

  • Test scores DO NOT represent draft

2045 LRTP prioritization scores

19

Attachment 6A

slide-21
SLIDE 21

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

TEST PROJECTS CONCLUSIONS

Highway Projects Project Utility Economic Vitality Project Viability Total Score Original Average 66 44 21 130 Average with Enhancements 55 47 52 153

  • Able to incorporate most recommendations
  • More balanced components (Project Utility, Economic Vitality,

Project Viability)

  • Higher Project Viability scores (fewer “zero” scores)
  • Average change in Project Score: +23
  • Reminder: Tool is intended to be DYNAMIC. We can still adjust

as necessary as we evaluate 2045 candidate projects

20

Attachment 6A