Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Investment Strategy Summits, Prioritization 3.0 & Mobility Fund Prioritization NCDOT Strategic Planning Office May 3, 2012 – NC AMPO Conference.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Investment Strategy Summits, Prioritization 3.0 & Mobility Fund Prioritization NCDOT Strategic Planning Office May 3, 2012 – NC AMPO Conference."— Presentation transcript:

1 Investment Strategy Summits, Prioritization 3.0 & Mobility Fund Prioritization NCDOT Strategic Planning Office May 3, 2012 – NC AMPO Conference

2 Prioritization 2.0 (P2.0) Investment Strategy Summits Prioritization 3.0 (P3.0) Mobility Fund Outline

3 Prioritization 2.0 Investment Strategy Summits

4 1.Score Prioritize Projects using Data Local Input Multimodal Characteristics 2.Strategize Set Investment Strategy Classify ranked Projects into Buckets (Mode, Goal, Tier) Conduct Scenario/Trade-off Analysis with DOT & Partners Constrained only by Total Available Revenue 3.Schedule Program Projects Develop STIP using Project Rankings & Investment Strategy Apply Constraints Compare Selected Strategy vs. Applied Constraints Strategic Prioritization and Programming Process

5 1.Score Prioritize Projects using Data Local Input Multimodal Characteristics 2.Strategize Set Investment Strategy Classify ranked Projects into Buckets (Mode, Goal, Tier) Conduct Scenario/Trade-off Analysis with DOT & Partners Constrained only by Total Available Revenue 3.Schedule Program Projects Develop STIP using Project Rankings & Investment Strategy Apply Constraints Compare Selected Strategy vs. Applied Constraints Strategic Prioritization and Programming Process

6 How to Divide the Pie? - Determining the Investment Strategy ? %

7 Summits throughout NC – 7 Summits Partner and public input opportunity (220 participants) Purpose is to provide analysis of where to apply expected revenue What are the high-level priorities? What is the investment needed to achieve those priorities? Revenue is based on expected 10 Year total, unconstrained Participants allocate $ to Prioritization Buckets Use LOS to determine return on investment (i.e., if $X are allocated to Bucket “Y”, expected 10 Year LOS is “Z”) Outcome is a “picture of where transportation $ should be spent” Investment Strategy Summits

8 Desire to upgrade Levels of Service from “F” or “D” levels to “C” or better Focus on protecting assets of pavements & bridges, esp. on Statewide Tier Highway safety should not be overlooked or underfunded. Maintain or better the LOS for this area and recognize each project improves safety General recognition there is not enough revenue to meet the needs Invest more in Non-Highway Modes. Bike-Pedestrian programs received the most attention/discussion with desire for increased funding. Support to keep Ferry system operating at a high level. Ensure any commitment to Rail Program maximizes benefits to NC citizens Summary Comments from Seven Summits

9 LOS – Current Grades (Highways) GOALPerformance MeasureCurrent Level of Service Summit Average LOS Mobility % of miles with uncongested roadways BB Infrastructure Health (Pavement) % of miles with “Good” rating or better CC Infrastructure Health (Modernization) % of miles meeting DOT paved shoulder width standards DC Safety Fatal Crash Rates CC Infrastructure Health (Bridges) % of bridges with “Good” rating or better CC Overall Average for HighwaysCC *Note: letter grades reflect an average across Tiers

10 LOS – Current Grades (Non-Highways) MODEGOALPerformance Measure Current Level of Service Summit Average LOS AviationAll 3 Goals # of unfunded Projects D D Bicycle - PedestrianMobility Bike-Pedestrian Index D C Ferry Mobility # of vehicles left behind / year C C Health # of terminals / vessels meeting Coast Guard standards Public TransportationAll 3 Goals Passenger trips, age of fleet, dollars invested in safety/security C C RailMobility Mobility Index D D Overall Average for Non-HighwaysDC *Note: letter grades reflect an average across Tiers

11 BOT members appreciative of the opportunity; increased awareness of non- highway programs (transit, rail, etc.); desire for more information on transportation funding Focus on protecting assets (pavements and bridges), specifically on Statewide Tier General recognition there is not enough revenue to meet the needs Quality of life and community benefit to increased funding of bicycle/pedestrian activities; recognize that not all bike/ped expenditures are captured in the exercise Recognition that all congestion is not equitable; for future summits consider measuring congestion differently based on urban vs rural areas For future summits consider how to compare ROI of investing in different modes (i.e. investment level per user or per capita?) Summary Comments from BOT Summits

12 ModeGoalTier Submitted Needs Current LOS (A-F) Stay the Course (2018-2022) Average from 7 Summits (2018-2022) Statewide BOT Average $ % of Total LOS$ % of Total LOS$ % of Total LOS Aviation Safety Regional & Subregional $500D$2302.3%D$3393.4%D$2342.3%D Mobility Health Bicycle & Pedestrian MobilityAll Tiers$390D$200.2%F$2372.4%C$1341.3%D Ferry Mobility All Tiers$630C$700.7%D$3303.3%D$2932.9%D Health Public Transportation Safety All Tiers$4,090C$7407.2%C$8488.5%C$6536.5%D Mobility Health RailMobilityStatewide$6,020D$00.0%D$9119.1%D$3523.5%D TotalNON-HIGHWAY$11,630 $1,06010.4% $2,66526.7% $1,66516.7% Highway SafetyAll Tiers$1,010C$1501.5%D$5815.8%C$3703.7%C Mobility Statewide$22,070B$3,92038.4%A$1,09210.9%B$2,31623.2%B Regional$10,080A$4304.2%A$1952.0%A$4014.0%A Subregional$7,630A$5305.2%A$1871.9%A$4194.2%A Health Statewide$1,740C$9809.6%B$8738.7%B$9729.7%B Regional$3,320D$7006.9%D$8378.4%C$8018.0%C Subregional$3,830D$9609.4%F$2,58625.9%D$2,10321.0%D Bridge (All Tiers)$1,520C$1,48014.5%C$9849.8%C$9529.5%C Total HIGHWAY$51,200 $9,15089.7% $7,33573.3% $8,33383.3% GRAND TOTAL$62,830 $10,210100.1% $10,000100.0% $10,000100.0%

13 1.Score Prioritize Projects using Data Local Input Multimodal Characteristics 2.Strategize Set Investment Strategy Classify ranked Projects into Buckets (Mode, Goal, Tier) Conduct Scenario/Trade-off Analysis with DOT & Partners Constrained only by Total Available Revenue 3.Schedule Program Projects Develop STIP using Project Rankings & Investment Strategy Apply Constraints Compare Selected Strategy vs. Applied Constraints Strategic Prioritization and Programming Process

14 TIP Project Development Time Priority Ranking Equity Formula Funding Constraints Investment Strategy Construction Sequence Factors Influencing TIP Prioritization Results ≠ Programming *Draft 10 Year Plan/STIP expected to be released summer 2012*

15 Prioritization 3.0

16 Continue to build off success of P1.0 and P2.0 Biggest technological change is to move to a GIS-based Environment Near real-time data/scores For both highway and bicycle/pedestrian projects Automated cost estimation tool Workgroup to guide further enhancements MPO Reps: Paul Black, Mike Kozlosky, Tyler Meyer RPO Reps: Matt Day, Bjorn Hansen, Craig Hughes Other Reps: Metro Mayor’s Coalition, League of Municipalities, Association of County Commissioners, Regional Council of Govts, Freight & Ports Reps First meeting next Tuesday (May 8 th ) “Go-Live” expected in Spring 2013 Prioritization 3.0

17 North Carolina Mobility Fund Project Scoring

18 Created by Governor and Legislature in 2010 First project is Yadkin River Bridge Phase II Initial project selection criteria developed FY 13 = $40M; FY 14+ = $58M Legislature modified project selection language in 2011 NCDOT revised project selection criteria NCDOT solicited projects in December 2011 History

19 Must be on Statewide or Regional Tier (defined by NCMIN) Light rail, bus rapid transit, and commuter rail will be eligible. Focus on short delivery time – funds must be obligated for construction within 5 years. Must be identified on an adopted long-range transportation plan, consistent with a local land use plan where available. Projects must be in a conforming air quality plan in non-attainment or maintenance areas. Capital expenditures only; Maintenance, Operational & Planning costs ineligible. No minimum cost as threshold for funding. Minimum Eligibility Requirements

20 Recommended Criteria & Weights CRITERIAWEIGHTDESCRIPTION Mobility Benefit / Cost80% Measured by travel time savings (in vehicle hours) Divided by “cost to Mobility Fund” Used to compare projects across transportation modes Multimodal / Intermodal20% Yes / No question Project improves more than one mode of travel Sliding scale No Cap on the Mobility Benefit/Cost Scoring

21 Multimodal / Intermodal Scoring ImprovementPoints Light Rail100 Bus Rapid Transit / Busway100 Commuter Rail100 Intercity rail100 Highway and Rail Projects which improve access to or within ports, military installations, and inland ports; rail projects which reduce truck traffic on the highway system 100 Shortline Rail projects which enhance access to industrial sites100 HOV / HOT Lanes100

22 Multimodal / Intermodal Scoring ImprovementPoints Addition of a new bus route to a fixed route system50 Adding new transit vehicles to improve frequency of service (not replacement vehicles) 50 Aviation Runway/Taxiway Projects25 Ferry25 Bicycle/Pedestrian commuter projects (not recreational)10 Note: Projects can only receive points for one improvement. If a project includes more than one improvement listed above, the project receives the higher of the points.

23 Review all submitted projects for eligibility 95 total projects evaluated Worked with the following units on project scoring: Division of Aviation – Provided Aviation project data Rail Division – Provided Freight Rail project data Congestion Management – Evaluated Intersection/Interchange Improvement Projects Preliminary Estimate Section – Provided/Updated Construction Cost Estimates Right-of-Way Branch – Provided/Updated Right-of-Way Cost Estimates Scoring Process

24 1. Calculate Travel Time along existing facility TT (Existing) = Length/Ideal Speed x Congestion Factor 2. Calculate Travel Time along improved facility TT (Project) = Length/Ideal Speed x Congestion Factor Travel Time Savings (hours) = TT (Project) – TT (Existing) Multiply Savings by # users x # working days/yr x 30 yrs x $ per hour Notes: For Project Travel Time, Length and Speed could change. For Projects on New Location, a current/parallel route is used for existing travel time; and the new route is used for the project travel time Travel Time Savings Calculation

25 Congestion Factor = Based on Volume/Capacity ratio for highways Higher the v/c ratio = higher congestion factor Based on data correlating travel times and v/c ratio (also used in traffic models) For most highway projects, volume will stay the same for existing and project scenarios; capacity will increase for project calculation – Example (Frwy widen): For projects on new location, volume & capacity of parallel highway is used for existing; new route is used for project data – Example (Frwy bypass of arterial): Travel Time Savings Calculation VolumeCapacityV/C RatioCong. Factor Existing83,00070,0001.143.63 Project83,000106,0000.781.10 VolumeCapacityV/C RatioCong. Factor Existing42,00032,0001.313.78 Project42,000102,0000.411.00

26 Mobility Fund Project Scores ProjectCounty(s)Points 1.Triangle Bus-On-Shoulder-SystemWake, Durham496.32 2.I-77 HOT Lanes from I-277 to Catawba AvenueMecklenburg108.18 3. NC 54 (Hillsborough St) / Blue Ridge Road / NCRR Grade Separation Wake101.07 4.CSX and Norfolk Southern Grade SeparationMecklenburg89.23 5.I-440 (Beltline) Widening from I-40 to Wade AvenueWake73.54 6. US 501 (Roxboro Road) / Latta Road/Infinity Road Intersection Improvements Durham63.56 7.I-485 Express Toll Lanes from I-77 to US 74Mecklenburg58.68 8.I-40 Widening from US 15-501 to I-85Orange52.61 9.NC 54 / Farrington Road / I-40 Intersection ImprovementsDurham52.58 10.NCVA Railroad Mainline Track Improvements Northampton, Bertie, Hertford 50.75

27 Mobility Fund Project Scores ProjectCounty(s)Points 11.Pembroke Northeast Rail ConnectorRobeson47.88 12.US 70 / Brier Creek Parkway InterchangeWake47.87 13.I-40 / Aviation Parkway Interchange ImprovementsWake42.75 14.I-295 (Fayetteville Loop) from Cliffdale Road to Yadkin RoadCumberland40.67 15.NC 54 Widening from I-40 to Barbee Chapel RoadDurham, Orange39.18 16.US 70 / Slocum Road Intersection ImprovementsCraven36.27 17.US 74 (Independence Blvd) Upgrade from NC 27 to Idlewild RdMecklenburg35.92 18.I-40 Widening from US 70 Bus. to US 70 BypassWake34.57 19.Wallace to Castle Hayne Rail Improvements New Hanover, Pender 34.46 20. US 70 (Glenwood Ave) Widening from Duraleigh Road to Triangle Drive Wake33.02

28 Program Development Branch scheduling top projects Considering: Project readiness (i.e. when project can be let) Available Mobility Fund dollars Programmed projects included in Draft STIP in Summer Mobility Fund Next Steps

29 Contact Information


Download ppt "Investment Strategy Summits, Prioritization 3.0 & Mobility Fund Prioritization NCDOT Strategic Planning Office May 3, 2012 – NC AMPO Conference."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google