Prioritization 6.0 Workgroup Meeting #5 February 4, 2019 Desired - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Wireless Access: RTPguest (May have to open web browser) Prioritization 6.0 Workgroup Meeting #5 February 4, 2019 Desired Meeting Outcomes Provide direction to various subcommittees Receive update and provide feedback on NCTA
February 4, 2019
Wireless Access: “RTPguest”
(May have to open web browser)
2
3
4
6
Met on Monday, January 28th:
Next steps:
scaling
8
Met on Tuesday, January 29th:
Next steps:
10
Met on Tuesday, January 29th:
Next steps:
12
Met on Friday, January 18th and Friday, February 1st:
Next steps:
David Wasserman NCDOT Division of Planning and Programming February 4, 2019
1833 Projects ($27.8B)
*Does not include unprogrammed funds set aside for these projects (holdouts) 15
Draft 2020-2029 STIP
Highway – 1020 (74%) Aviation ‐ 86 (6%) Bike & Ped – 184 (13.5%) Ferry – 6 (0.5%) Public Transit – 26 (2%) Rail – 52 (4%)
By Number of Projects
(1374 Total)
16
Draft 2020-2029 STIP
Highway – $23,560 (94%) Aviation ‐ $181 (0.8%) Bike & Ped – $205 (1%) Ferry – $38 (0.2%) Public Transit – $232 (1%) Rail – $723 (3%)
By Programmed Amount ($M)
($24,939 Total) Hwy – 74%, Non‐Hwy – 26% Hwy – 74%, Non‐Hwy – 26% Hwy – 94%, Non‐Hwy – 6% Hwy – 94%, Non‐Hwy – 6%
Highway – 332 (69%) Aviation – 41 (8%) Bike & Ped – 70 (14%) Ferry –4 (1%) Public Transit – 14 (3%) Rail – 22 (5%)
By Number of Projects
(483 Total)
17
Draft 2020-2029 STIP
Highway – $6,566 (90%) Aviation ‐ $70 (1%) Bike & Ped – $68 (1%) Ferry – $30 (0.4%) Public Transit – $205 (2.8%) Rail – $348 (4.8%)
By Programmed Amount ($M)
($7,287 Total) Hwy – 69%, Non‐Hwy – 31% Hwy – 69%, Non‐Hwy – 31% Hwy – 90%, Non‐Hwy – 10% Hwy – 90%, Non‐Hwy – 10%
2127 Total Projects Evaluated ($61.4B)
483 Total Projects Programmed ($7.3B)
18
Draft 2020-2029 STIP
Mode # of Projects $ Highway 28% 12% Non‐Highway 16% 10% All Projects 26% 12%
Success Rates
19
Draft 2020-2029 STIP
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% A B C D E F G [1 & 4] [2 & 3] [5 & 6] [7 & 9] [8 & 10] [11 & 12] [13 & 14]
Percentage of funding
Region [Divisions]
Average 8
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 A B C D E F G [1 & 4] [2 & 3] [5 & 6] [7 & 9] [8 & 10] [11 & 12] [13 & 14]
dollars per person
Region [Divisions]
Average 9
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
percentage of funding
Division
Average 10
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
dollars per person
Division
Average 11
cost increases
more often
P4.0 (cost estimation tool vs. human review)
24
Draft 2020-2029 STIP
25
Draft 2020-2029 STIP
Normalization
27
2014 confirms this
vs vs vs vs vs
Normalization
28
Competition based on quantitative scores, regardless of mode
vs vs
29
Highway Non-Highway Flex
Normalization
90% (Region competition) 2% (Statewide competition) 90% (Division competition) 4% (Split) 4% (Statewide competition) 2% (Division competition) 6% (Division competition) 6% (Region competition)
available for Prioritization
descending order
30
Normalization
Statewide Mobility Statewide Mobility
amount remaining is available for Prioritization
31
Normalization
Non‐Highway Only
(over 10 yrs)
remaining is available for Prioritization
descending order
32
Normalization
Highway Only
in descending order
33
Normalization
All‐Modes (Flex)
available for Prioritization
34
Normalization
Non‐Highway
divide by 14
available for Prioritization
35
Normalization
Non‐Highway
yrs) (2% Statewide + 2% Division)
remaining is available for Prioritization
36
Normalization
Highway
descending order
37
Normalization
All‐Modes (Flex)
38
Highway Non-Highway Flex
Normalization
90% (Region competition) 90% (Division competition) 4% (Division competition) 4% (Statewide competition) 6% (Division competition) 6% (Region competition)
90% / 4% / 6% continue to be applied across entire 10 year program
40
Siblings of STIP, Planning underway
(Committed Projects)
Siblings of STIP, Planning underway Submittal Submittal Carryover Carryover
41
Projects that automatically carry over from P5.0 for evaluation in P6.0
All other projects “removed” and available for resubmittal [Holding Tank] ~250 Carryovers for P6.0 (siblings and planning incomplete)
42
Planning Organization # Carryovers Albemarle RPO 4 Burlington‐Graham MPO 5 Cabarrus‐Rowan MPO 2 Cape Fear RPO 7 Capital Area MPO 17 Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization 20 Down East RPO 10 Durham‐Chapel Hill‐Carrboro MPO 16 Eastern Carolina RPO 6 Fayetteville Area MPO 12 French Broad River MPO 6 Gaston‐Cleveland‐Lincoln MPO 10 Goldsboro Urban Area MPO 7 Grand Strand Area Transportation Study 1 Greater Hickory MPO 5 Greensboro Urban Area MPO 14 Greenville Urban Area MPO 7 High Country RPO 6 Planning Organization # Carryovers High Point Urban Area MPO 7 Isothermal RPO 7 Jacksonville Urban Area MPO 7 Kerr‐Tar RPO 1 Land‐of‐Sky RPO 2 Lumber River RPO 13 Mid‐Carolina RPO 5 Mid‐East RPO 2 New Bern Area MPO 3 Northwest Piedmont RPO 4 Peanut Belt RPO 2 Piedmont Triad RPO 5 Rocky Mount Urban Area MPO 5 Rocky River RPO 3 Southwestern RPO 3 Triangle Area RPO 5 Upper Coastal Plain RPO 7 Wilmington Urban Area MPO 10 Winston‐Salem Urban Area MPO 3
43
Division # Carryovers 01 6 02 23 03 28 04 28 05 19 06 24 07 33 08 16 09 5 10 22 11 10 12 16 13 14 14 6
44
P5.0 Definition: MPOs and RPOs:
Divisions:
Applies to each mode Questions / concerns for P6.0?
*The following slides do not yet have updated CL miles*
45
MPO/RPO Name 2017 Census Pop. Population rounded to nearest 50,000 Additional Projects Based on Population Centerline Miles Centerline Miles rounded to nearest 500 Additional Projects based on Centerline Miles P6.0 Total Submittals Albemarle RPO 171,857 150,000 3 2,906 3,000 6 21 Burlington‐Graham MPO 163,689 150,000 3 1,023 1,000 2 17 Cabarrus‐Rowan MPO 335,662 350,000 7 1,978 2,000 4 23 Cape Fear RPO 145,122 150,000 3 2,234 2,000 4 19 Capital Area MPO 1,213,855 1,200,000 24 3,956 4,000 8 44 Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization 1,404,395 1,400,000 28 3,635 3,500 7 47 Down East RPO 192,686 200,000 4 1,866 2,000 4 20 Durham‐Chapel Hill‐ Carrboro MPO 437,771 450,000 9 1,308 1,500 3 24 Eastern Carolina RPO 172,294 150,000 3 2,962 3,000 6 21 Fayetteville Area MPO 388,337 400,000 8 1,286 1,500 3 23 French Broad River MPO 403,871 400,000 8 2,561 2,500 5 25 Gaston‐Cleveland‐Lincoln MPO 391,592 400,000 8 2,962 3,000 6 26
46
MPO/RPO Name 2017 Census Pop. Population rounded to nearest 50,000 Additional Projects Based on Population Centerline Miles Centerline Miles rounded to nearest 500 Additional Projects based on Centerline Miles P6.0 Total Submittals Goldsboro Urban Area MPO 90,544 100,000 2 564 500 1 15 Grand Strand Area Transportation Study 41,151 50,000 1 267 500 1 14 Greater Hickory MPO 364,040 350,000 7 3,157 3,000 6 25 Greensboro Urban Area MPO 393,925 400,000 8 1,533 1,500 3 23 Greenville Urban Area MPO 128,970 150,000 3 442 500 1 16 High Country RPO 210,013 200,000 4 4,161 4,000 8 24 High Point Urban Area MPO 292,141 300,000 6 1,830 2,000 4 22 Isothermal RPO 132,025 150,000 3 2,079 2,000 4 19 Jacksonville Urban Area MPO 143,418 150,000 3 536 500 1 16 Kerr‐Tar RPO 163,739 150,000 3 2,830 3,000 6 21 Land‐of‐Sky RPO 75,020 100,000 2 1,198 1,000 2 16 Lumber River RPO 227,564 250,000 5 3,355 3,500 7 24
47
MPO/RPO Name 2017 Census Pop. Population rounded to nearest 50,000 Additional Projects Based on Population Centerline Miles Centerline Miles rounded to nearest 500 Additional Projects based on Centerline Miles P6.0 Total Submittals Mid‐Carolina RPO 190,586 200,000 4 3,455 3,500 7 23 Mid‐East RPO 118,070 100,000 2 2,146 2,000 4 18 New Bern Area MPO 51,180 50,000 1 262 500 1 14 Northwest Piedmont RPO 169,952 150,000 3 2,989 3,000 6 21 Peanut Belt RPO 116,901 100,000 2 2,625 2,500 5 19 Piedmont Triad RPO 250,707 250,000 5 3,942 4,000 8 25 Rocky Mount Urban Area MPO 75,718 100,000 2 482 500 1 15 Rocky River RPO 108,075 100,000 2 2,114 2,000 4 18 Southwestern RPO 136,912 150,000 3 2,616 2,500 5 20 Triangle Area RPO 225,288 250,000 5 2,912 3,000 6 23 Upper Coastal Plain RPO 233,038 250,000 5 3,077 3,000 6 23 Wilmington Urban Area MPO 269,996 250,000 5 788 1,000 2 19 Winston‐Salem Urban Area MPO 421,783 400,000 8 1,454 1,500 3 23
48
Division 2017 Census Pop. Centerline Miles P6.0 Total Submittals 01 259,691 5,183 14 02 497,434 5,046 14 03 715,383 5,580 14 04 592,632 6,358 14 05 1,550,893 6,564 14 06 686,398 6,216 14 07 931,245 5,448 14 08 526,103 6,885 14 09 759,311 5,076 14 10 1,538,877 5,022 14 11 369,183 5,973 14 12 755,237 6,132 14 13 506,803 5,096 14 14 362,696 4,909 14
February 4, 2019 presented by Alpesh Patel, Don Voelker
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
52
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
53
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
Objectives:
ability to manage a reliable transportation network, address congestion, leverage limited financial resources, and provide more user choice
Department’s consideration of toll financing as an integral and important strategy to deliver critical, time- sensitive transportation solutions.
54
Operationalize:
tolling and priced managed lanes in cooperation with MPOs/RPOs and guidelines in a Toll Project Feasibility Handbook
practice
benchmarks, criteria, and tests to evaluate and advance tolling
Applied - project must be:
inclusion in their adopted CTP, MTP,
local plan;
Prioritization
requirements
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
local decision making when considering tolling
which provide an early indication of project viability
55
protocols/procedures to guide increased coordination between NCDOT and project sponsors
more openness and transparency, particularly as NCDOT faces funding challenges posed by diminishing reliability of traditional funding sources for HTF
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
56
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
NC HANDBOOK
(May 2019 ‐ “living document”)
PEER REVIEW
May – June 2018
Lessons learned from national best practice State/local coordination considerations Policy considerations
PROTOTYPE TESTING
July – Aug 2018
Synthesis of tolling
“beta” test mix of project types Potential standards, measures
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY TESTING (near completion)
Sept – Feb 2019 Assessment tools Evaluation practices Steps and inputs for financial steps
PSA (near completion)
Sept – Feb 2019
Refine standards, measures for uniform evaluation & describe sketch level tool ID data, tools, approaches to address state/local interests
PRIORITIZATION AND PROGRAMMING
Feb ‐ April 2019
*Brief P6.0 Work Group*
IMPLEMENTATION
June 2019 & beyond Cross functional support and execution b/w SPOT, STIP, Technical Services
1 2 3 4 5 6
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
Assessment” (PSA) process and evaluative tool
– Not a “pass/fail” test, not a quantitative score – Benchmarks project potential against a set of standards – Arms local planning staff/Policy Board with additional information – Creates best practice approach specific to NC – Incorporates lessons learned from other states – Conducted prior to project submittal to SPOT
58
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
– Sketch level, excel based – Leverage existing local data (project costs, transit utilization)
59
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
– CRTPO – New freeway capacity is assumed to be tolled – CAMPO – Triangle Tolling Study completed June 2019 – Lack of current tolling consideration in RPO plans, policies, MOUs
60
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
61
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
62
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
63
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
64
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
65
Facility State Cost/Lane‐mile Sugarloaf Parkway Extension GA $519,000 Monroe Expressway NC $335,000 Triangle Expressway NC $476,000 Average $443,000
Planning‐level Toll System Capital Costs per Lane‐Mile – Greenfield Toll Roads (2018 dollars)
Facility State Cost/Lane‐mile SR‐400 GA $428,000 I‐285 GA $832,000 I‐77 NC $496,000 Average $585,000
Planning‐level Toll System Capital Costs per Lane‐Mile – Express Lanes (2018 dollars)
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
– Likely covers O&M and portion of Capital (i.e., presents positive financial flexibility) – Likely covers O&M only (i.e., potential financial flexibility) – Likely won't cover O&M (i.e., additional funding sources would likely be needed)
66 66
Likely Covers O&M and Some Capital Likely Covers O&M Only Likely Won’t Cover O&M Flow of Funds
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
67
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
68
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
69
Volume‐to‐Capacity Ratio
Congestion Management Team
project
Transit Utilization
Authorities
single‐occupancy vehicle trips
Travel Time Savings
Congestion Management Team
Travel Time Reliability
Congestion Management Team
modeling
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
70
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
71
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
divert trucks from the existing project. Calculate by comparing truck volumes of existing project before and after candidate toll project is constructed. Scoring based on the delta, i.e., the higher the difference the more the points. This could better highlight the impact
managed lanes (note - this is a policy decision that may not be known at the time of project submission).
72
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
upgrades the mobility of the roadway (e.g. eliminating signals, improving mobility by upgrading the roadway facility type i.e. two lane to freeway) and points are based on travel time savings per user. Propose managed lanes, greenfield toll facilities, and bridges be added as project facility types eligible for scoring.
73
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
74
– 3 month period – Inputs tailored to supplement evaluation – Close coordination between NCDOT Intra-Departmental Project Eval Team and local staff
Project Information Project Title: _____________________________________________________________ Project Purpose and Need: __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ MPO/RPO Submitting Project: ________________________________________________ MPO/RPO Point of Contact: ________________________________________________ Email: _________________________________ Phone: ________________________ Is Project Part of Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) or Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP): ____________________ If Yes, list CTP or LRTP and year adopted: ______________________________________ Roadway Attributes Data for italicized fields are optional and will be completed by NCDOT if omitted. Existing number of general purpose lanes: ________________________________________ Number of proposed express lanes: ________________________________________ Number of proposed intermediate access points: __________________________________ Existing lane width: _________________ Existing shoulder width: _________________ Existing speed limit: _________________ Projected speed limit: _________________
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
75
NC Toll Project Development Handbook
76
Transportation
Transportation
Mode Statute Language
Highway (STRAHNET) Subdivision 4 ‐ Item (c) Highway routes on the United States Department of Defense Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET). Supported by Subdivision 3 (for Regional projects) and Subdivision 2 (for Division projects). Rail (STRACNET)
Add Subdivision 4 ‐ Item (i) "Rail corridors on the United States Department of
Defense Strategic Rail Corridor Network (STRACNET) and military‐owned or controlled rail lines.”
Modify supporting Subdivisions 3 (for Regional projects) and Subdivision 2 (for
Division projects) to read “This sub‐division does not include short line railroads except for those on the United States Department of Defensive Strategic Rail Corridor Network (STRACNET) and military‐owned or controlled rail lines."
Default Percentages
87
Statewide Mobility
Congestion = 30% Benefit‐Cost = 25% Freight = 25% Safety = 10% Economic Comp. = 10%
‐‐ ‐‐ Funding Category QUANTITATIVE LOCAL INPUT Data Division MPO/RPO Regional Impact
Congestion = 20% Benefit‐Cost = 20% Safety = 10% Accessibility/Connectivity = 10% Freight = 10%
Division Needs
Congestion = 15% Benefit‐Cost = 15% Safety = 10% Accessibility/Connectivity = 5% Freight = 5%
100% 70% 50% 25% 25% 15% 15%
Note: Region A and Divisions 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, and 14 use Area‐Specific Criteria Weights
88
89
STATEWIDE: Congestion 10% Benefit/Cost 10% Safety 20% Lane Width 20% Shoulder Width 20% Pavement Cond. 20% REGIONAL: Congestion 5% Benefit/Cost 5% Safety 20% Lane Width 15% Shoulder Width 15% Pavement Cond. 10% DIVISION: Congestion 5% Benefit/Cost 5% Safety 15% Lane Width 10% Shoulder Width 10% Pavement Cond. 5%
90
STATEWIDE: Congestion 10% Benefit/Cost 10% Safety 25% Lane Width 25% Shoulder Width 10% Freight 20% REGIONAL: Congestion 5% Benefit/Cost 5% Safety 25% Lane Width 25% Shoulder Width 5% Freight 5% DIVISION: Congestion 5% Benefit/Cost 5% Safety 15% Lane Width 15% Shoulder Width 5% Pavement Cond. 5%
91
Next Steps: Analyze results from P5 project set Solidify scaling Provide results to discuss at next Highway Subcommittee Meeting Bring recommendations back to Workgroup Note: Area Specific Weights will apply to both project types i.e each set of weights can be modified
(from subcommittee)
93
Work Underway
(destinations), bike/ped infrastructure network
for individual projects
94
Specific Improvement Types
designation to include in Access/Connectivity
types – changing how Safety Benefit is scored, so it is not related to SIT
95
Bundling projects
bundling, local matches, and project management
by connecting PO/Division?
Transportation Disadvantage
sheet / rubric
(from subcommittee)
98
99
Transportation and Bicycle/Pedestrian Divisions, there will be a better handle by P7.0 on desired direction for both modes overall
available
(from subgroup)
Bobby Walston, NCDOT Director of Aviation February 4, 2019
Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report
103
94% of North Carolina’s population lives within a 30-minute drive of a public airport
104
NCDOT Division of Aviation Update
Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report
105
– Alex Rosser, Piedmont Triad International Airport Deputy Director – Andy Shorter, Coastal Carolina Regional Airport Director
– Dan Danieley, Burlington-Alamance Regional Airport Executive Director – George Futrelle, Duplin County Airport Director – John Ferguson, Statesville Regional Airport Manager
– Sarah Lee, Senior Transportation Engineer
– Chris Lukasina, Capital Area MPO Executive Director – Matt Day, Triangle Area RPO Principal Planner – Anthony Prinz, NC League of Municipalities
– Bobby Walston, Aviation Director – Jon Arnold, Deputy Aviation Director – Ron McCollum, Senior Airport Project Manager – Stephanie Sudano, Systems Engineer
Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report
106
Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report
107
Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report
108
Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report
109
Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report
110
Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report
111
Bobby Walston Director of Aviation 919 814 0573 | bwalston@ncdot.gov
113
February 4, 2019 Continued Discussion Bike/Ped Number of Submittals New Topics Aviation Public Transportation Rail Normalization
114
March 4, 2019 Desired Consensus Items Rail Normalization Number of Submittals Continued Discussion Bike/Ped Public Transportation Aviation Resiliency Factor New Topics Safety Benefit Factors Update HERE Reliability Measure
115
April 1, 2019 Desired Consensus Items Bike/Ped Public Transportation Aviation
116
April 29, 2019 June 3, 2019 Unscheduled Ferry
117
Next Meeting: Monday, March 4, 2019 9:30am – 3:00pm RTP Headquarters