Prioritization 6.0 Workgroup Meeting #8 April 29, 2019 Desired - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Wireless Access: RTPguest (May have to open web browser) Prioritization 6.0 Workgroup Meeting #8 April 29, 2019 Desired Meeting Outcomes Reach consensus on Aviation scoring Reach consensus on Highway Modernization Weights
April 29, 2019
Wireless Access: “RTPguest”
(May have to open web browser)
2
3
4
7
Met on Wednesday, April 17th:
9
Met on Wednesday, April 17th:
11
Met on Friday, April 12th:
Bobby Walston, NCDOT Director of Aviation April 29, 2019
Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report
21
Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report
22
Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report
23
Non-State Contribution Index = Total non-state funding sources Total state funding
Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report
24
25
Current Measure: Notes: ‐ Includes direct, indirect and induced economic contributions for each airport ‐ Uses averaged Economic Contribution for all airports within each Tier ‐ Uses average number of total IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) operations by Tier
Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report
Total $ Econ. Contribution of Tier * NCDOA Capital Project Rating Total # of IFR Ops of Tier Cost to NCDOT $ Econ. Contribution of Airport x NCDOA Capital Total # of IFR Ops of Airport Project Rating + Other Funds x 100 Cost to NCDOT Total Project Cost Recommended Measure: Notes: ‐ Includes direct, indirect and induced economic contributions for each airport ‐ Uses the Economic Contribution and IFR operations of the airport ‐ Use average IFR Ops of airport color tier for the 5 +/‐ airports that do not have ops. ‐ Includes a funding leverage component to increase score for all other funds _(non‐federal or non‐state funds) committed to the project ‐ Funding leverage will not be capped or scaled
Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report
26
27
Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report
28
increase for each item
compliant measures
Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report
29
Airport DoA Financial Risk Factor Rating
assurance that the subrecipient administers federal awards in compliance with laws, regulations, and the provisions of contracts or grant agreements and that performance goals are
Guidance, subrecipients may be evaluated as higher risk or lower risk to determine the need for closer monitoring.
Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report
30
Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report
31
Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report
32
Funding Category Proposed Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility 10% Regional Impact 10% Division Needs 5%
Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report
Item Subtotal Maximum
% of Total Criteria Score Project design complete (90% complete at submission of project) 100 30% Project final environmental document complete at submission of project 80 24% Land acquisition 60 18% Construction project and requires land acquisition Construction project and does not requires land acquisition 60 Land acquisition only project 60 Project meets system plan goals 40 12% No Only exceeds 20 Meets or meets and exceeds 40 Airport DoA Financial Risk Factor Rating (25 points - the rating score) 25 7% Airport has clear approach for each end of primary runway 20 6% Has “close in” obstructions No “close in” obstructions 3 No obstructions within RSA, including FAA compliant measures 7 No obstructions within threshold siting surface 9 No obstructions within Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 10 Airport has a legally enforceable protection zone 10 3% Does not have a legally enforceable protection zone Has a legally enforceable protection zone but does not meet Part 77 5 Legally enforceable protection zone meets Part 77 10 Total 335 100%
33
Criteria Measure Statewide Mobility (100%) Regional Impact (70%) Division Needs (50%) NCDOA Project Rating NCDOA Project Rating 40% 30% 25% FAA ACIP Rating FAA Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) rating 10% 30% 5% 15% 10% Benefit/Cost Total Economic Contribution/ Cost to NCDOT 20% 15% 10% Constructability Index Measures Project Constructability 30% 10% 20% 10% 5%
Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report
34
Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report
Aviation STI P6.0 Work Group Report
35
Bobby Walston Director of Aviation 919 814 0573 | bwalston@ncdot.gov
37
39
STATEWIDE MOBILITY REGIONAL IMPACT DIVISION NEEDS Congestion 10 Congestion Congestion Safety 25 Safety 25 Safety 20 Freight 25 Freight 10 Freight Lane Width 10 Lane Width 10 Lane Width 5 Shoulder Width 20 Shoulder Width 15 Shoulder Width 10 Pavement Condition 10 Pavement Condition 10 Pavement Condition 15 100% 70% 50%
40
P5.0 MODERNIZATION SCALED WITH ALL HWY PROJECTS SIT‐16 Modernize Roadway SIT‐17 Freeway to Interstate SW Helped 15 4 11 SW Net Zero SW Hurt 7 3 4 REG Helped 68 59 9 REG Net Zero REG Hurt 53 47 6 DIV Helped 109 101 8 DIV Net Zero DIV Hurt 86 79 7
41
STATEWIDE MOBILITY REGIONAL IMPACT DIVISION NEEDS Congestion 10 Congestion 5 Congestion Safety 20 Safety 25 Safety 20 Freight 20 Freight 10 Freight 5 Lane Width 10 Lane Width 10 Lane Width 5 Shoulder Width 25 Shoulder Width 10 Shoulder Width 10 Pavement Condition 15 Pavement Condition 10 Pavement Condition 10 100% 70% 50%
42
P5.0 MODERNIZATION SCALED WITH ALL HWY PROJECTS SIT‐16 Modernize Roadway SIT‐17 Freeway to Interstate SW Helped 15 4 11 SW Net Zero SW Hurt 7 3 4 REG Helped 58 (‐10) 50 (‐9) 8 (‐1) REG Net Zero REG Hurt 63 (+10) 56 (+9) 7 (+1) DIV Helped 104 (‐5) 96 (‐5) 8 DIV Net Zero DIV Hurt 91 (+5) 84 (+5) 7
Funding Category QUANTITATIVE LOCAL INPUT Data Division MPO/RPO
43
Statewide Mobility
Congestion = 10% Safety = 25% Freight = 25% Lane Width = 10% Shoulder Width = 20% Pavement Condition = 10%
‐‐ ‐‐ Regional Impact
Congestion = ?% Safety = 25% Freight = 10% Lane Width = 10% Shoulder Width = ?% Pavement Condition = 10%
Division Needs
Safety = 20% Freight = ?% Lane Width = 5% Shoulder Width = 10% Pavement Condition = ?%
100% 70% 50% 25% 25% 15% 15%
Note: Area‐Specific Criteria Weights pending
64
risk factor, weighted to calculate total score per roadway segment
Risk Factor Background Notes Weight
Location within an incorporated area (incl. ETJ) Overall descriptor for crash locations Preferred over urbanized/non‐urbanized; similar to land use results
10
Surrounding land uses More refined context descriptor for crash locations, indicates travel Residential/Commercial rank highest; Agri/Vacant, Institutional, Other lower categories
20
Roadway configuration Median without positive control OR one‐way may indicate longer crossing distances Heavy emphasis on two‐way, undivided roadways (over one‐way or divided roadways)
20
Posted speed limit Indicator for risk for severe or fatal crashes 25, 35 mph rank highest; 45, 55 mph mid‐tier; 60+ mph lowest scores
20
Annual average daily traffic Indicates increase risk for crash (exposure) Highest scores to 15,000‐40,000; Mid‐tier scores for (2,000‐6,000), (6,000‐9,000), (9,000‐15,000); Lowest scores for roads <2,000 or >40,000
30
66
Point values based entirely on SIT Issues: 1. Some members felt that certain eligible facilities within each SIT do not align with the same assumed benefit to the safety of users 2. Not enough variation in potential lookup values (?)
67
Options: 1. Group by SBF/CMF
CMFs are not intended to be used as singular data points (intended for use in formulas)
2. Keep as-is for P6.0 (with intent to research and improve for P7.0) 3. Group by actual facilities based on assumed benefit to the safety of users (more specific than based only on SIT)
69
Bicycle SIT Pedestrian SIT Score
Multi‐Use Path, Rail‐Trail, Shared‐Use Path, Overpass, Underpass 2 Multi‐Use Path, Rail‐Trail, Shared‐Use Path, Overpass, Underpass 7 7 Buffer, Buffered Bicycle Lane, Contra‐Flow Bicycle Lanes, Separated Bike Lane, Sidepath 2 Sidepath, Sidewalk 7 6 Bicycle Lane 3 Sidewalk Widening, Trail Improvement 9 5 Paved Shoulder 4 Crossing Island, Curb Extensions, Streetscape/Corridor Improvements 8,9 4 Bicycle Signal, Bike Detection/Actuation, Curb Raddi Revisions, Intersection Markings, Lighting, Merge and Weave Area Redesign, Roundabout/Traffic Circle, Sight Distance Improvements, Turning Restriction, HAWK, Protected Crossing, Bike Boxes 5 Accessible Pedestrian Signals, Curb Ramp, Marked Crosswalk, Mid‐Block Crossing, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, Pedestrian Signal, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon, Lighting 8 3 Shared Lane Marking ("Sharrow"), Bicycle Route, Share the Road Sign 4 2 Bicycle Corral, Bicycle Parking, Bicycle Wheel Channel, Wayfinding 5 Wayfinding 9 1
71
Total A/C score = POI # total (no cap) + Conn # total (not averaged/no cap) + Route # (total) Total A/C score would be scaled
72
municipal centers) – geocoding
universities, colleges
districts, major sports)
public/private clinics)
theaters, auditoriums) – manual?
73
layer in SPOT On!ine and externally in GIS – shows existing and planned infrastructure
along project º Tiered point values for options of connecting to bike/ped facilities:
74
designated state/federal trails
1. On a route – 2 2. Connects to a route (whether infrastructure exists or not) – 1
76
Criteria Measure Division Needs (50%) Safety (Number of crashes x 40%) + (Crash severity x 20%) + (Crash Risk x 20%) + (Project safety benefit x 20%) 15% 20% Accessibility/ Connectivity Points of Interest pts + Connections pts + Route pts 10% 15% Demand/ Density # of households and employees per square mile near facility 10% Connectivity Degree of bike/ped separation from roadway, connectivity to a similar or better project type, part
10% Cost Effectiveness (Safety + Accessibility/Connectivity + Demand/Density) / Cost to NCDOT 5%
77
79
AECOM under contract (in process) to update the bicycle and pedestrian cost estimation tool for P6.0 projects
created by UNC Charlotte and updated in P5.0 by consultant with simpler guidance
80
Anticipated requirements of the new tool will include the following:
accommodate those who are unfamiliar with the project design and construction processes
SPOT Online
and appointed officials
2019
82
P6.0
83
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: Area‐Specific Criteria Weights pending
84
Statewide Mobility
Congestion = 10% Safety = 25% Freight = 25% Lane Width = 10% Shoulder Width = 20% Pavement Condition = 10%
‐‐ ‐‐ Funding Category QUANTITATIVE LOCAL INPUT Data Division MPO/RPO Regional Impact
Congestion = ?% Safety = 25% Freight = 10% Lane Width = 10% Shoulder Width = ?% Pavement Condition = 10%
Division Needs
Safety = 20% Freight = ?% Lane Width = 5% Shoulder Width = 10% Pavement Condition = ?%
100% 70% 50% 25% 25% 15% 15%
Note: Area‐Specific Criteria Weights pending
Criteria Measure(s)
Congestion
SW: (60%) Volume/Capacity + (40%) Volume REG: (80%) Volume/Capacity + (20%) Volume DIV: (100%) Volume/Capacity
Benefit / Cost
(Travel Time Savings $ + Safety Benefits $) / Cost to NCDOT + Funding Leverage
Safety
Segments: (20%) Critical Crash Rate + (20%) Density + (20%) Severity + (40%) Safety Benefits Intersections: (30%) Frequency + (20%) Severity + (40%) Safety Benefits
Freight
(50%) Truck Volume + (50%) Truck Percentage + Future Interstate Completion Factor
Economic Competitiveness
(50%) Percent Change in Jobs + (50%) Percent Change in County Economy
Criteria Measure(s)
Accessibility / Connectivity
(50%) County Economic Indicator, (50%) Improve Mobility
Multimodal
Multimodal Benefits (Table Reference)
Lane Width
Existing Width vs. Standard Width
(Paved) Shoulder Width
Existing Width vs. Standard Width
Pavement Score
Pavement Condition Rating
103
104