Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

ARC’s Project Evaluation Framework Atlanta Regional Commission

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "ARC’s Project Evaluation Framework Atlanta Regional Commission"— Presentation transcript:

1 ARC’s Project Evaluation Framework Atlanta Regional Commission
AMPO Conference October 19, 2017 David D’Onofrio Principal Planner Atlanta Regional Commission

2 Outline Performance Based Planning ARC’s Project Evaluation Task Force
Project Evaluation Decision-Making Framework Outcomes Lessons Learned

3 Performance Based Planning
ARC has a rich history of performance-based regional planning Focused in 2016 on translating federal/state/regional goals to performance measures and metrics for use in TIP project solicitations Incorporated SHRP2 C02 framework into a 6-month TIP Project Evaluation Taskforce

4 Major Policy Guidance Comprehensive Transportation Plans (CTPs) 2007
2008 2013 2014 2010 2009 2015 2007 2011 N/A Comprehensive Transportation Plans (CTPs) We also looked at peer region’s for ideas about methodologies and metrics

5 SHRP2 – C02 Performance Measures
Transportation Environment Economics Community Cost Mobility Ecosystems/Habitat Economic Impact Land Use Reliability Water Quality Economic Development Cultural & Archeological Resources Cost-Effectiveness Accessibility Wetlands Social Safety Air Quality Environmental Climate Change Environmental Health ARC has addressed the blue items in past performance measures

6 The Atlanta Region’s Plan Policy Goals
Objectives and Policies from the Atlanta Region’s Plan Policy Framework are directly incorporated into the project evaluation through the use of Key Decision Points (KDP) Some objectives are incorporated as policy filters Some objectives are incorporated as performance measures and metrics

7 Key Decision Points (KDP) Framework
Points along the planning process where the evaluation of funding applications occurs Three KDPs in the Atlanta process: KDP 1 – Policy Filters KDP 2 – Project Evaluation KDP 3 – Final Factors & Project Selection

8 KDP1 – Policy Filters

9 KDP2 – Technical Evaluation
ARC evaluates all projects submitted on technical grounds Projects are broken out into distinct “project types” and scored compared to similar projects Criteria, measures and metrics were established as part of ARC’s Project Evaluation Taskforce in 2016 Projects are placed into tiers based on a combination of performance and cost-effectiveness measures

10 KDP2 Project Evaluation Matrix
Performance Criteria Bike Road Expansion Etc… World Class Infrastructure Mobility & Congestion Reliability Network Connectivity Multimodalism Asset Management & Resiliency Healthy Livable Communities Air Quality & Climate Change Safety Cultural/Environmental Resources Social Equity Land Use Compatibility Competitive Economy Goods Movement Employment Accessibility Cost Cost Effectiveness or Benefit-Cost

11 KDP2 – Tools & Data Activity Based Travel Model / VISUM Modeling
CMAQ Calculator / AREES Model / MOVES Emissions Model Real-World Megadata (INRIX/HERE) Walk! Bike! Thrive! GIS data Regional Priority Networks GIS files Regional UGPM GIS files SHRP2 Ecological GIS data FHWA Safety Countermeasures Database / GEARS Safety Data GDOT Traffic Counts and Asset Management Data Project Sponsor Data

12 KDP2 – Weights Criteria Bike/P ed/Trail Roadway Asset Management Road
Expansion & TSM&O Transit 1 Asset Management & Resiliency - 14.9 % 22.0 % / 19.2 % Mobility & Congestion 13.7 % 13.8 % 13.0 % 13.5 % Safety 14.5 % 14.4 % 13.4 % 8.5 % Network Connectivity 12.9 % 12.4 % Reliability 12.1 % 12.0 % Multimodalism 12.6 % 11.8 % 11.3 % 10.2 % Employment Accessibility 10.4 % 10.3 % 11.6 % 24.3 % / 21.2 % Land Use Compatibility 11.5 % 10.5 % Social Equity 9.7 % 8.3 % 7.0 % 9.5 % 20.8 % / 18.2 % Air Quality & Climate Change 6.3 % 7.3 % 6.5 % 0.0 % / Goods Movement 8.1 % 7.8 % Cultural & Environmental Sensitivity 6.8 % 5.5 % 5.3 % 4.1 % 11.0 % / 9.6 % The 2 nd number is the weights for projects that replace transit buses and have an associated air quality benefit

13 TIP Project Evaluation Documentation
KDP2 Cookbook – TIP Project Evaluation Documentation Guide to the TIP Project Solicitation Documents the decisions made by the TIP Prioritization Taskforce Outlines how ARC will technically evaluate projects, and includes a list of measures and metrics Meant to be a companion document to the TIP application

14 KDP3 – Final Factors You can’t put a number on EVERYTHING
Preserves local decision-making, in line with SHRP C02 Another lens to account for geographic equity, social equity, jurisdictional preference

15 Project Evaluation Flowchart
Universal TIP Project Call Project Evaluation Flowchart Key Decision Point (KDP) 1 Policy Filters KDP 2 Project Evaluation Prioritized Lists of Regional Transportation Projects KDP 3 Final Factors CMAQ TAP STBGP

16 Outcomes Transit Trail Roadway Transit 1 Transit 2 Transit 3 Trail 1
Technical analysis of the performance of all submitted projects Projects are compared against similar projects to produce lists of the best projects by type Used to help inform decision-making, not supplant it

17 Outcomes

18 KDP2 Project Tiers Tier 2 Tier 1 Low Performance High Performance
High Cost-Effectiveness Tier 3 Low Cost-Effectiveness Tier 2 Low Performance High Cost- Effectiveness Median Performance Score Tier 4 Median Cost-Effectiveness Score

19 KDP2 Project Tiers Cost Effectiveness Score Performance Score

20 Draft 2017 Project Evaluation Sneak Peak
The following results are very preliminary and reflect scores for 137 projects from ARC’s 2017 project solicitation Only reflect completion of technical evaluation and a very preliminary staff first pass at recommendations These will likely change as we move through KDP3 process and meet with jurisdictions

21 Draft 2017 Project Evaluation Sneak Peak
Draft Funding Allocated by KDP2 Tier 51% of the funding is allocated towards projects in the top tier of performance 2nd biggest piece of the pie is high performance low cost-effectiveness tier Small slivers for tiers 2 and 4

22 Draft 2017 Project Evaluation Sneak Peak
Draft Funding Allocated by Local Priority Asked sponsors their priority for each project (ranked 1-5) 49% of funding is going towards top priority projects from local governments

23 Draft 2017 Project Evaluation Sneak Peak
Percent Change in Scores between Solicitation Full Sample and Draft List Sample % Change Criteria Mean Score Mobility 14% Reliability 6% Connectivity 39% Multi Modalism 34% Asset Management 11% Safety 5% Air Quality / Climate 25% Culture/Environment -3% Social Equity 12% Land Use Compat. Good Movement 30% Employment Access 20% Final Score 13% The bigger the percent the better the draft projects perform compared to the entire sample for each criteria KDP3 process should be careful about considering projects that impact: Reliability Safety Culture/Environment Land Use Compatibility

24 Draft 2017 Project Evaluation Sneak Peak
Draft Funding Allocated by Project Type Roadway projects = 51% Transit projects = 22% Active mode projects = 27% Asset Management = 13% System Expansion = 87%

25 Lessons Learned Make sure you have enough subject matter experts to establish logical, measurable, outcome-driven measures…too many qualitative or boolean measures cloud results Plan for this process to take a very long time and then even longer to implement the first time through Make sure you bring your policymakers and stakeholders along for the ride…you want everyone to “own” the process in some way to ensure buy-in Preserve a channel for local decision-making … even if the project scores come out bad, there are still reasons to build some projects Make sure all your metrics are backed by reliable/easy-to-access data sources Setting weights is hard. Prepare for that.

26 Difficult Trade-Offs Mobility vs. Safety Maintenance vs. Expansion
Highly congested now vs. congested in the future Cost effectiveness vs. high performance

27 Contacts Questions/Comments:
David D’Onofrio – Kofi Wakhisi – Kyung-Hwa Kim –


Download ppt "ARC’s Project Evaluation Framework Atlanta Regional Commission"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google