Prioritization 6.0 Workgroup Meeting #5 February 4, 2019 Desired - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Normalization Applying Normalization – Division Needs 3. Highway Only (Division Competition) • Within each Division, subtract amount of 4% programmed (over 10 yrs) (2% Statewide + 2% Division) • Set aside 6% of each Division’s allocation (10 yr, adjusted) • Determine how much of remaining is already spoken for  amount remaining is available for Prioritization • Within each Division, sort Hwy projects by score in descending order • Select projects until funding is allocated Highway 36

Normalization Applying Normalization – Division Needs 4. All-Modes (Flex) (Division Competition) • Determine 6% set aside (10 yr, adjusted from step 3) • Within each Division, sort Hwy & Non-Hwy projects by score in descending order • Select projects until funding is allocated All ‐ Modes (Flex) 37

Normalization STIP Unit Recommendation Mode Regional Impact Division Needs 90% (Region competition) 90% (Division competition) Highway 4% (Division competition) 4% (Statewide competition) Non-Highway 6% (Region competition) 6% (Division competition) Flex 38 90% / 4% / 6% continue to be applied across entire 10 year program

P6.0 Database

2020 ‐ 2029 STIP (P5.0) P6.0 Database Years 1 ‐ 6 Years 7 ‐ 10 Years 7 ‐ 10 Carryover (Committed Projects) P5.0 Projects Siblings of STIP, Siblings of STIP, Carryover Planning underway Planning underway not in STIP Holding Tank Projects Submittal P6.0 Submittals (total # capped) New Project Entries Submittal 40

Carryover Projects Projects that automatically carry over from P5.0 for evaluation in P6.0 • In STIP, not committed • Sibling of programmed • Active or completed NEPA Modifications • Segmenting counts, scope changes don’t • 1 out / 1 in All other projects “removed” and available for resubmittal [Holding Tank] ~250 Carryovers for P6.0 (siblings and planning incomplete) 41

Planning Organization # Carryovers Planning Organization # Carryovers Albemarle RPO 4 High Point Urban Area MPO 7 Burlington ‐ Graham MPO 5 Isothermal RPO 7 Cabarrus ‐ Rowan MPO 2 Jacksonville Urban Area MPO 7 Cape Fear RPO 7 Kerr ‐ Tar RPO 1 Capital Area MPO 17 Land ‐ of ‐ Sky RPO 2 Charlotte Regional Transportation Lumber River RPO 13 20 Planning Organization Mid ‐ Carolina RPO 5 Down East RPO 10 Mid ‐ East RPO 2 Durham ‐ Chapel Hill ‐ Carrboro MPO 16 New Bern Area MPO 3 Eastern Carolina RPO 6 Northwest Piedmont RPO 4 Fayetteville Area MPO 12 Peanut Belt RPO 2 French Broad River MPO 6 Piedmont Triad RPO 5 Gaston ‐ Cleveland ‐ Lincoln MPO 10 Rocky Mount Urban Area MPO 5 Goldsboro Urban Area MPO 7 Rocky River RPO 3 Grand Strand Area Transportation Study 1 Southwestern RPO 3 Greater Hickory MPO 5 Triangle Area RPO 5 Greensboro Urban Area MPO 14 Upper Coastal Plain RPO 7 Greenville Urban Area MPO 7 Wilmington Urban Area MPO 10 High Country RPO 6 Winston ‐ Salem Urban Area MPO 3 42

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 43

P6.0 Project Submittals P5.0 Definition: MPOs and RPOs: • Base of 12, plus: - 1 for every 50,000 in pop. - 1 for every 500 CL miles Divisions: • 14 Applies to each mode *The following slides do not yet have updated CL miles* Questions / concerns for P6.0? 44

P6.0 Project Submittals (P5 formula) Centerline Additional Population Additional 2017 Miles Projects rounded to Projects Centerline P6.0 Total MPO/RPO Name Census rounded to based on nearest Based on Miles Submittals Pop. nearest Centerline 50,000 Population 500 Miles 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 1,404,395 1,400,000 28 3,635 3,500 7 47 Organization Down East RPO 192,686 200,000 4 1,866 2,000 4 20 Durham ‐ Chapel Hill ‐ 437,771 450,000 9 1,308 1,500 3 24 Carrboro MPO 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 391,592 400,000 8 2,962 3,000 6 26 MPO 45

P6.0 Project Submittals (P5 formula) Centerline Additional Population Additional 2017 Miles Projects rounded to Projects Centerline P6.0 Total MPO/RPO Name Census rounded to based on nearest Based on Miles Submittals Pop. nearest Centerline 50,000 Population 500 Miles Goldsboro Urban Area MPO 90,544 100,000 2 564 500 1 15 Grand Strand Area 41,151 50,000 1 267 500 1 14 Transportation Study Greater Hickory MPO 364,040 350,000 7 3,157 3,000 6 25 Greensboro Urban Area 393,925 400,000 8 1,533 1,500 3 23 MPO 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 143,418 150,000 3 536 500 1 16 MPO 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 46

P6.0 Project Submittals (P5 formula) Centerline Additional Population Additional 2017 Miles Projects rounded to Projects Centerline P6.0 Total MPO/RPO Name Census rounded to based on nearest Based on Miles Submittals Pop. nearest Centerline 50,000 Population 500 Miles 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 75,718 100,000 2 482 500 1 15 MPO 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 269,996 250,000 5 788 1,000 2 19 MPO Winston ‐ Salem Urban 421,783 400,000 8 1,454 1,500 3 23 Area MPO 47

P6.0 Project Submittals (P5 formula) 2017 Census Centerline P6.0 Total Division Pop. Miles 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 48

NC Turnpike Authority Handbook

NC Toll Project Development Handbook P6.0 Work Group - RTP February 4, 2019 presented by Alpesh Patel, Don Voelker

NC Toll Project Development Handbook Today’s Objectives Review purpose of NC Toll Policy, Handbook, and accomplishments to date Review suggestions to facilitate enhanced toll project scoring in P6.0 Solicit input to shape Handbook topics and next steps 52

NC Toll Project Development Handbook State of Tolling in NC NCDOT authorized to construct, operate and maintain up to eleven projects • no limit on how many can be studied Current STIP lists eight tolled projects, such as I-485 Express Lanes (I-5507) and Mid-Currituck Bridge (R-2576) • Turnpike projects subject to Strategic Prioritization • Turnpike projects require approval from local planning organizations • Encourage local funding participation; Limited to only new capacity No single practice or methodology for early partner coordination 53

NC Toll Project Development Handbook NC Toll Policy Adopted February 2018 Objectives: Operationalize: Applied - project must be : • Improve NCDOT’s • Define feasibility of ability to manage a tolling and priced • Nominated by MPO reliable transportation managed lanes in or RPO through network, address cooperation with inclusion in their congestion, leverage MPOs/RPOs and adopted CTP, MTP, limited financial guidelines in a Toll or other adopted resources, and provide Project Feasibility local plan; more user choice Handbook • Expand the • Scored in Strategic Department’s • Standardize state/local Prioritization consideration of toll practice • Meet STIP related financing as an • Consider requirements integral and benchmarks, criteria, important strategy to • Adhere to state law and tests to evaluate deliver critical, time- and advance tolling sensitive transportation solutions. 54

NC Toll Project Development Handbook Why develop a Handbook? • Create a defined process (Pre-Submittal Assessment) to support local decision making when considering tolling • Identify performance criteria and financial feasibility metrics which provide an early indication of project viability • Engage partners, develop protocols/procedures to guide increased coordination between NCDOT and project sponsors • Increase accountability through more openness and transparency, particularly as NCDOT faces funding challenges posed by diminishing reliability of traditional funding sources for HTF 55

NC Toll Project Development Handbook Handbook Development • Internal NCDOT team (PMT) • Advisory Work Group – MPO/RPO, League of Municipalities, County Commissioner, Metro Mayor & FHWA representatives • Multi-disciplinary consultant support • Preparation of 6 Technical Memos (chapters of the Handbook) • Complete by June 2019 56

NC Toll Project Development Handbook 1 2 3 FINANCIAL PEER REVIEW PROTOTYPE TESTING FEASIBILITY TESTING (near completion) May – June 2018 July – Aug 2018 Sept – Feb 2019 Synthesis of tolling Lessons learned from national opportunity Assessment tools best practice “beta” test mix of project Evaluation practices State/local coordination types considerations Steps and inputs for Potential standards, measures financial steps Policy considerations 4 5 6 PSA PRIORITIZATION AND IMPLEMENTATION (near completion) PROGRAMMING June 2019 & beyond Sept – Feb 2019 Feb ‐ April 2019 Refine standards, measures *Brief P6.0 Work Group* Cross functional for uniform evaluation & support and execution describe sketch level tool NC HANDBOOK b/w SPOT, STIP, (May 2019 ‐ ID data, tools, approaches to Technical Services “living document”) address state/local interests

NC Toll Project Development Handbook Partnership & Ownership Handbook development : • Partnership between NCDOT and its primary planning partners • Supports locally-driven decisions • Future projects evaluated through a “Pre-submittal 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 Input Received, Key Takeaways • Keep it simple ; benefits of new process should translate with local boards • Models are imperfect …statewide model designed for highest level assessment; interaction with local/regional models may improve toll sensitivity/analysis • Develop tools to facilitate analysis and convey results – Sketch level, excel based – Leverage existing local data (project costs, transit utilization) 59

NC Toll Project Development Handbook Input Received, Key Takeaways • Different standards , criteria for type of project – New location, managed lanes, bridges • Keep in step with local policies / plan updates – 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 Input Received, Key Takeaways • Clarify where and how PSA fits into existing process – Optimal time to conduct analysis; how long will it take? – Resources or additional data needed – Coordination with other ongoing initiatives (SPOT, STIP, Project Planning/NEPA) • Criteria / Standards which provide best starting point : – Freight and economic impact, travel time reliability, accessibility, and other user benefits – Financial feasibility for revenue to contribute to upfront funding – Avoid binary criteria that forces yes/no response or from comparing facilities as a measure 61

NC Toll Project Development Handbook Task 3 Financial Feasibility 62

NC Toll Project Development Handbook Financial Feasibility Tool Screenshot 63

NC Toll Project Development Handbook Input Data - Express Lanes 64

NC Toll Project Development Handbook Capital and O&M Costs • Toll System Capital Costs • Tolling Renewal and Replacement Costs • Toll System O&M Costs • Project Development and Capital Costs • Roadway and Bridge O&M Costs Planning ‐ level Toll System Capital Costs per Planning ‐ level Toll System Capital Costs per Lane ‐ Mile – Greenfield Toll Roads (2018 dollars) Lane ‐ Mile – Express Lanes (2018 dollars) Facility State Cost/Lane ‐ mile Facility State Cost/Lane ‐ mile Sugarloaf Parkway GA $519,000 SR ‐ 400 GA $428,000 Extension I ‐ 285 GA $832,000 Monroe Expressway NC $335,000 I ‐ 77 NC $496,000 Triangle Expressway NC $476,000 Average $585,000 Average $443,000 65

NC Toll Project Development Handbook Financial Feasibility Module • Dynamic Financial Flow of Funds Assessment – 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 Covers – Likely won't cover O&M Only O&M (i.e., additional funding sources would likely be needed) Likely Covers Likely Won’t O&M and Cover O&M Some Capital 66 66

NC Toll Project Development Handbook Task 4 Pre-Submittal Assessment 67

NC Toll Project Development Handbook Tech Memo #4 - Pre-Submittal Assessment (PSA) Goals and Objectives – Performance based criteria tied to Strategic Prioritization – Practice within planning process, specifically CTP, MTP development – Considerations for P6.0 Workgroup to better enable toll project scoring – PSA schedule, online application 68

NC Toll Project Development Handbook Tech Memo #4 - Pre-Submittal Assessment (PSA) Performance Based Criteria tied to Strategic Prioritization – Ex. Congestion Relief Volume ‐ to ‐ Capacity Ratio Transit Utilization • Calculated from Statewide Model or • Requested from Regional Transit Congestion Management Team Authorities • Compare V/C ratio with and without • Quantify expected number reduced project single ‐ occupancy vehicle trips Travel Time Savings Travel Time Reliability • Calculated from Statewide Model or • Calculated from Statewide Model or Congestion Management Team Congestion Management Team • Requires value ‐ of ‐ time assumption • Requires financial decision ‐ making modeling 69

NC Toll Project Development Handbook Tech Memo #4 - Pre-Submittal Assessment (PSA) Practice within planning process, specifically CTP, MTP development – Precedes update – Prior to Strategic Prioritization submission – During update 70

NC Toll Project Development Handbook Tech Memo #4 - Pre-Submittal Assessment (PSA) Incorporate into early scoping and “CTP Set Up” meetings – Checklist – Sets expectations with local communities – Supports “fiscal realism” for RPO CTPs 71

NC Toll Project Development Handbook Tech Memo #4 - Pre-Submittal Assessment (PSA) Considerations for P6.0 Workgroup to better enable toll project scoring Freight : account for key indicators of freight movement • Propose measure includes ability of candidate toll projects to 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 of Greenfield projects but also encourage the allowance of trucks on 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 Tech Memo #4 - Pre-Submittal Assessment (PSA) Considerations for P6.0 Workgroup to better enable toll project scoring Accessibility/Connectivity : improve access to opportunities in rural and less affluent areas & improve interconnectivity of network • Fifty percent of the scoring of this criteria is whether the project 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 Tech Memo #4 - Pre-Submittal Assessment (PSA) PSA schedule, online application Project Information Project Title: _____________________________________________________________ – 3 month period Project Purpose and Need: __________________________________________________________________________ – Inputs tailored to __________________________________________________________________________ MPO/RPO Submitting Project: ________________________________________________ supplement MPO/RPO Point of Contact: ________________________________________________ Email: _________________________________ Phone: ________________________ evaluation Is Project Part of Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) or Long ____________________ Range Transportation Plan (LRTP): – Close coordination If Yes, list CTP or LRTP and year adopted: ______________________________________ between NCDOT Roadway Attributes Intra-Departmental Data for italicized fields are optional and will be completed by NCDOT if omitted. Existing number of general purpose lanes: ________________________________________ Project Eval Team Number of proposed express lanes: ________________________________________ Number of proposed intermediate access points: __________________________________ and local staff Existing lane width: _________________ Existing shoulder width: _________________ Existing speed limit: _________________ Projected speed limit: _________________ 74

NC Toll Project Development Handbook Next Steps • Finalize Handbook content for Tasks 3, 4 • Review PSA Tool User Guide • Feb. 12 WG meeting • Live Tool Demonstration • March 12 WG meeting • Present Draft Handbook • May 1 BOT meeting 75

NC Toll Project Development Handbook QUESTIONS? 76

Rail Improvements

STRAHNET and STRACNET • Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET) • Strategic Rail Corridor Network (STRACNET) • STI Programming and Funding • ELIGIBLE: Highway routes on the STRAHNET • NOT DESIGNATED: Rail corridors on STRACNET • INELIGIBLE: Short line railroads Transportation

Proposed Legislative Changes to NCGS 136-189.10 Article 14B • Modify Subdivisions 4, 3 and 2 (for rail mode) to the following : Mode Statute Language Subdivision 4 ‐ Item (c) Highway routes on the United States Department of Defense Highway Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET). Supported by Subdivision 3 (for Regional (STRAHNET) projects) and Subdivision 2 (for Division projects). 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.” Rail Modify supporting Subdivisions 3 (for Regional projects) and Subdivision 2 (for (STRACNET) 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." • Aligns rail (STRACNET) with highway (STRAHNET) STI statutes • Would allow all NC railroads designated as STRACNET and military-owned or controlled railroads to become eligible for STI Transportation

Highway - Mobility & Modernization Default Percentages

P5.0 Highway Criteria & Weights (Default) LOCAL INPUT QUANTITATIVE Funding Category Data Division MPO/RPO Congestion = 30% Benefit ‐ Cost = 25% Statewide 100% ‐‐ ‐‐ Freight = 25% Mobility Safety = 10% Economic Comp. = 10% Congestion = 20% Benefit ‐ Cost = 20% Regional 70% 15% 15% Safety = 10% Impact Accessibility/Connectivity = 10% Freight = 10% Congestion = 15% Benefit ‐ Cost = 15% Division Safety = 10% 50% 25% 25% Needs Accessibility/Connectivity = 5% Freight = 5% Note: Region A and Divisions 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, and 14 use Area ‐ Specific Criteria Weights 87

Mobility and Modernization (from P2 discussions) 88

Modernization Weights – From P2 Discussions STATEWIDE: DIVISION: Congestion 10% Congestion 5% Benefit/Cost 10% Benefit/Cost 5% Safety 20% Safety 15% Lane Width 20% Lane Width 10% Shoulder Width 20% Shoulder Width 10% Pavement Cond. 20% Pavement Cond. 5% REGIONAL: Congestion 5% Benefit/Cost 5% Safety 20% Lane Width 15% Shoulder Width 15% Pavement Cond. 10% 89

Modernization Weights – Option from Subcommittee STATEWIDE: DIVISION: Congestion 10% Congestion 5% Benefit/Cost 10% Benefit/Cost 5% Safety 25% Safety 15% Lane Width 25% Lane Width 15% Shoulder Width 10% Shoulder Width 5% Freight 20% Pavement Cond. 5% REGIONAL: Congestion 5% Benefit/Cost 5% Safety 25% Lane Width 25% Shoulder Width 5% Freight 5% 90

Mobility and Modernization 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 91

Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements (from subcommittee)

Subcommittee Discussion Work Underway • Connectivity – examine projects starting new networks • Access/Connectivity – specific data sources for points of interest (destinations), bike/ped infrastructure network • Benefit/Cost – economic impact data • Potentially further break down project statistics by standard deviation for individual projects 93

Subcommittee Discussion Specific Improvement Types • SIT 1 – removing route designation – considering moving the route designation to include in Access/Connectivity • SITs 3/4/5 – intersection improvements • Not moving intersection improvements from SIT 5 into 3 or 4 • Instead creating 5 different Safety Benefit “groups” of project types – changing how Safety Benefit is scored, so it is not related to SIT • Adding bicycle HAWK & protected crossing facility types to SIT 5 94

Subcommittee Discussion Bundling projects • Allow across geographies and across varying project types • Does not have to be contiguous/related • Can be multiple SITs (SIT used for submittal must be majority by cost) • Can be within a single municipality, or across multiple governments • Multiple governments will need to provide documentation of agreement on bundling, local matches, and project management • Geographic limitations need to be decided – potentially must be linked somehow by connecting PO/Division? • Makes projects more attractive for LIPs and easier to manage/let Transportation Disadvantage • If any are used, Metrics 1 or 2 seem best choices • Data is still not the best, and would be better when combined with a manual score sheet / rubric • Difficult to incorporate under the structure of STI and current scoring criteria 95

Public Transportation Improvements (from subcommittee)

Subcommittee Discussion • Transportation Disadvantage (discussed with Bike/Ped) • Bundling projects • Same geographic allowances as Bike/Ped discussion • Keep within project category bucket (not bundle Mobility with Demand Response) • How does it affect scoring (adding vs. averaging data) • Demand Response eligibility 98

P6.0 Improvements  Proposal: keep P6.0 scoring as-is (same as P5.0) • In light of NCDOT internal structural changes to Public Transportation and Bicycle/Pedestrian Divisions, there will be a better handle by P7.0 on desired direction for both modes overall • Besides TD, no new potential data or scoring metrics have become available 99

Aviation Improvements (from subgroup)

Division of Aviation Report to STI P6.0 Workgroup Bobby Walston, NCDOT Director of Aviation February 4, 2019

Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report Report from Aviation P6.0 Work Group • Aviation Work Group Charter • Work Group Members • Issues & Expected Actions – Prescreening – Project Eligibility – Aviation Non-State Index – New Project Criteria • Questions 103

NCDOT Division of Aviation Update 72 Airports | 10 Commercial Service | 62 General Aviation 94% of North Carolina’s population lives within a 30-minute drive of a public airport 104

Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report Aviation Work Group Charter • Two objectives: – Review P5.0 criteria and develop recommendations that will better represent aviation funding needs to present to the P6.0 Workgroup – Develop a recommended strategy for airports to engage staff at RPOs, MPOs and NCDOT Divisions to improve aviation’s opportunities to compete 105

Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report Work Group Members • 2 commercial service airport sponsors – Alex Rosser, Piedmont Triad International Airport Deputy Director – Andy Shorter, Coastal Carolina Regional Airport Director • 3 general aviation airport sponsors – Dan Danieley, Burlington-Alamance Regional Airport Executive Director – George Futrelle, Duplin County Airport Director – John Ferguson, Statesville Regional Airport Manager • 1 NCDOT SPOT representative – Sarah Lee, Senior Transportation Engineer • 3 MPO/RPO/local government representatives from the STI P6.0 Workgroup – Chris Lukasina, Capital Area MPO Executive Director – Matt Day, Triangle Area RPO Principal Planner – Anthony Prinz, NC League of Municipalities • 4 Division of Aviation staff members – Bobby Walston, Aviation Director – Jon Arnold, Deputy Aviation Director – Ron McCollum, Senior Airport Project Manager – Stephanie Sudano, Systems Engineer 106

Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report Prescreening Process Issue : Some current STI Aviation projects may not be able to get FAA approval on purpose and need Expected Actions: • DoA will improve process to screen and vet projects for justification prior to STI submission. This may include requiring a DOA approval letter with each project submittal. • DoA will develop a plan for communicating the new process to airports 107

Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report Project Eligibility Issue : With pre-screening, we will need to increase the number of projects eligible for STI Expected Action: Remove system plan goal requirement and expand eligible projects to include projects that increase the capacity of the airport. 108

Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report Aviation Non-State Contribution Index Criteria Issue : Scaling greatly skews the scores for this criteria because most GA airports do not provide a non-state contribution. Expected Action: Remove this criteria and incorporate a funding leverage piece into the Benefit-Cost criteria. This would be similar to Highways and Rail. 109