Top Banner
Our Prioritization Story North Carolina`s Perspective Alpesh Patel, North Carolina Department of Transportation Bjorn Hansen, Lake Norman Rural Planning Organization April 26, 2012 - NADO Conference, Burlington, VT
36

Patel hansen rpo2012

Dec 20, 2014

Download

Business

RPO America

Alpesh Patel, of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and Bjorn Hansen, of the Centralina Council of Governments, at the 2012 National Rural Transportation Conference.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Patel hansen rpo2012

Our Prioritization StoryNorth Carolina`s Perspective

Alpesh Patel, North Carolina Department of TransportationBjorn Hansen, Lake Norman Rural Planning Organization

April 26, 2012 - NADO Conference, Burlington, VT

Page 2: Patel hansen rpo2012

Today’s Outline

Best way to communicate complex information is through a STORY

• Focus on a single theme -

• Well developed plot -

• Word pictures/visual aids -

• Faithful to source -

transformation

smoke filled room vs. sunshine

or as engineers/planners say…a graph!

Same data, informed results; “eyewitness” account

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Focus on where we’ve been and where we are going Basic steps involved in our prioritization process and why it has transformed the way we use information and our relationship with locals Who are players that have been involved – from a State and Local perspective Dazzle you with some pictures and an interactive graph to help visualize my points Explain how we made this transformation by using the same data we’ve collected for years and Bjorn will give an eyewitness account of the change he has seen from NCDOT
Page 3: Patel hansen rpo2012

Public wanted politics removed from transportation decision-making

Governor Purdue issued Executive Order #2“The Secretary of the Department of Transportation shall implement throughout the Department a professional approval process for all highway construction programs, highway construction contracts, highway construction projects, and plans for the construction of projects.”

Strategic Planning Office created (3 founding members)

Implemented NCDOT’s first strategic prioritization process in 2009

Completed Prioritization 2.0 (P2.0); started P3.0

Transportation Reform

Presenter
Presentation Notes
SPOT spear headed the Department’s first strategic prioritization process in 2009 which included Prioritizing over 1100 highway projects and 900 non-highway projects totaling over $54B These prioritization results directly fed the last five years of the 10 Year Work Program, in 2016-2020. The first five years of projects are considered committed and are not subject to prioritization. So today the Department is currently in the middle it’s second prioritization effort, Prioritization 2.0, also known as P2.0, which is what I’ll be focusing on today. P2.0 builds upon success of P1.0 and continues to mature the process with expanded the criteria based on stakeholder input All modes of transportation now have incorporated a data-driven methodology for prioritizing projects Occurs every two years
Page 4: Patel hansen rpo2012

Responsible for 6 modes of transportation:• Aviation (74 publicly-owned airports)• Bicycle and Pedestrian• Ferries – 2nd largest system in US (behind Washington)• Highways – Maintains 80,000 miles of highways (2nd only to Texas)• Public Transportation• Rail

North Carolina Department of Transportation

Map shows MPOs, RPOs, and Divisions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
This shows the depth and breadth of NCDOT. Be sure to emphasize the prioritized projects are for the 74 general aviation airports not the nine commercial airports. Charlotte- Douglas Raleigh- Durham Asheville Piedmont Triad Wilmington Fayetteville Albert J. Ellis – Jacksonville Coastal Carolina - New Bern Pitt-Greenville
Page 5: Patel hansen rpo2012

Key Partners• 17 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)• 20 Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs)• 14 Field Offices (Divisions)

North Carolina Department of Transportation

Map illustrates MPOS, RPOs, and NCDOT Divisions (black outline)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Quick background on NCDOT
Page 6: Patel hansen rpo2012

How it All Fits Together: NCDOT Policy to Projects

Strategic Prioritization

Presenter
Presentation Notes
This is the Vision that NCDOT is striving towards STIP and 5-year Work Program are Project- documents We are lining up projects on a conveyor belt as they move down the line and into a 5 year window for delivery 10-year Program and Resource Plan is where we transition from Policy to Projects- We want to identify projects from the long-range plan and get them lined up in the project delivery pipeline so we can deliver 95% in the 5-year Work Program.
Page 7: Patel hansen rpo2012

Strategic Prioritization and Programming Process

1. Score

Prioritize Projects using

• Data

• Local Input

• Multimodal Characteristics

• Classify ranked Projects into Buckets (Mode, Goal, Tier)

2. Strategize

Set Investment Strategy

• 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

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Department has a three-part Prioritization and Programming Process, based on the 3 SSS’s: First Scoring the projects using data, local input, and how projects incorporate multimodal characteristics Then Strategizing where Investment Strategy Summits are held to best determine in what areas should transportation dollars be spent using a Return-on-Investment trade-off analysis And finally Scheduling the projects in the STIP, based on the results of the first two steps
Page 8: Patel hansen rpo2012

Project Classification – P2.0Projects classified/scored by NCDOT Goal• Mobility – make our transportation network move people and goods more efficiently• Safety – make our transportation network safer• Infrastructure Health – make our transportation infrastructure last longer

Projects classified/scored by NCDOT Tier• Statewide – Interstates, Major US Routes, Commercial Service Airports, CSX, NS • Regional – commuter routes, regional transit systems• Subregional – low volume secondary roads (80% of NC system), fixed bus route

systems

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Hang everything off of NCDOT’s Mission and Tiers Across modes Hiearchiery system 3 goals 3 Tiers
Page 9: Patel hansen rpo2012

QUANTITATIVE LOCAL INPUT

Tier Data Division Rank MPO/RPO Rank

Statewide 70% 20% 10%

Regional 50% 25% 25%

Subregional 30% 30% 40%

P2.0 - Scoring Highway Projects

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Scoring Matrix for highway projects Rule of Thumb is the “Higher the Tier the higher the Traffic” therefore Data represents a higher % of the overall score for the project Interstates, US Highways, etc…up to 70% of the score is based on data Opposite approach for lower order Tier roadways (SR 2 lane, low volume roads…64000 miles ~80% of our system), majority of the score for projects is based on Local Input – split between Division Engineers and local leaders
Page 10: Patel hansen rpo2012

Each MPO/RPO & Division receives equal # of points 1,300

Can choose between Top 25 project ranking or Control Total

Local Input

Top 25 Control Total

#1 = 100#2 = 96#3 = 92…#25 = 4

Can rank projects as desiredMax 100 pts per projectMin 4 pts per project

Can transfer points to other areas*

OR

* Must be agreement between giving and receiving organizations

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Shifting gears, we’ll now focus on the Local Input. In P1.0, each MPO, RPO, and Division ranked their top 25 projects, with the #1 project receiving 100 points, the #2 project receiving 96 points, the #3 project receiving 92 points and so on. If you total all the points you have 1300 points. In P2.0, each area can now use the 1300 points as they wish. For simplicity or tradition, they can stick with the top 25 approach, or they can divide the 1300 points amongst however many projects they wish, with the following caveats: No project can receive more than 100 points If you allocate points to a project, the minimum it can receive is 4 points With the use of the 1300 Control Total points, areas can also transfer points to a project outside their area, as long as there is agreement between the two entities.
Page 11: Patel hansen rpo2012

Multimodal Bonus Points for Highway Projects

Multimodal Options 8 points:HOV / HOT, light rail, bus rapid transit, or bus-on-shoulder within highway ROW

Multimodal Connections 5 points:Direct connection (property line) to a transportation terminal (airport, seaport, rail depot, ferry terminal, transit terminal, freight intermodal terminal, or park and ride lot)

Military Base Connections 5 points:Direct connection (property line) to a major military base.

Multimodal Design Features 3 points:Sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, striped bicycle lanes, wide outside shoulders (greater than or equal to two feet), bus pullouts, transit bypass lanes, transit signal prioritization, bus shelters

Note: Multimodal Projects must be ranked and must be included in an adopted Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Long Range Transportation Plan, or a mode-specific plan to receive pts.

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Bonus Points if the highway project includes one or more of the following new or additional multimodal components (select all that apply). After all the quantitative scoring and local input points have been calculated for each project, multimodal bonus points are awarded based on the degree the projects helps improve integration with other modes of transportation. Projects which help provide additional transportation options and move more people, such as HOV or HOT lanes, receive 8 additional points Projects which improve connections to transportation terminals, such as an airport or seaport receive 5 additional points Projects which improve connections to a military base or seaport, receive an additional 5 points (for a total of at least 10 bonus points) And Projects which include multimodal design features such as sidewalks or wide shoulders, receive an additional 3 points. In order for projects to receive these extra bonus points, they must be included in an adopted Plan and be ranked or be assigned local input points
Page 12: Patel hansen rpo2012

Same scoring for Bicycle or Pedestrian Projects

Bicycle and Pedestrian - Scoring

Right-of-Way

Acquired

Connectivity

Inclusion in Adopted

PlanDemand / Density

Crashes

MPO/RPO Ranking

18 pts max.

15 pts max. Direct access to transit / school / CBD / high-density residential or linkage to a large system of interconnected bicycle / multiuse facilities

15 pts max. Recognition of a project in an adopted bicycle / pedestrian plan

12 pts max. Greater densities = higher points

5 pts max. Three of more bicycle/vehicle or pedestrian/vehicle crashes within last 5 years

35 pts max. Rank Top 5 Projects:

#1 = 35 pts#2 = 28 pts#3 = 21 pts#4 = 14 pts#5 = 7 pts

Presenter
Presentation Notes
As I mentioned earlier all modes of transportation now have data-driven prioritization processes. While I won’t get into the details, scoring for Bicycle and Pedestrian projects is based on 6 different data points: Right-of-way Acquired Connectivity Inclusion in an Adopted Plan Demand/Density Crashes MPO/RPO Ranking
Page 13: Patel hansen rpo2012

Expansion – 25 points max. # of new services hours provided due to capital investment

Connections – 12 points max. # of new synchronized connections (to other modes or other transit services)

Technology/Safety – 16 points max. Surveillance cameras, security measures, real time info on bus arrival time

Age of Fleet – 27 points max. Ability of the project to reduce the age of the fleet

Improved Facilities – 20 point max. Ability of project to extend life and service space

Local Input (MPO only Ranking) – 550 points/area; max 100 points per project.

Public Transportation - Scoring

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Similarly, Public Transportation’s prioritization process incorporates criteria for Expansion Connections Technology/Safety Age of Fleet Improvement Facilities As well as input from the MPOs N.C. Public Transportation Systems include: 15 – Urban – Single City 3 – Fixed Route in Small Cities 68 – Community – � Single County/Tribal 4 – Consolidated Urban-� Community 2 – Regional urban 7 – Regional community
Page 14: Patel hansen rpo2012

Generated scores and ranked almost 2000 projects• 1200 Highway projects• 600 Bicycle & Pedestrian projects• 100 Public Transportation projects

Incorporated new performance-based criteria for highway projects

Increased flexibility of local input with use of 1300 control points

Launched new web portal devoted to continuous conversation with planning partners (Partner Connect)

Results at

Prioritization 2.0 Accomplishments

http://www.ncdot.org/performance/reform/prioritization/

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Benefit – Cost- travel time savings divided by cost to construct Economic Competitiveness- Value added (jobs) to the area by the project. Use TREDIS – an economic model that is nationally accepted. Lane width- Shoulder Width Local Input- also mention transfer of points- there were 40 transfers in P2.0
Page 15: Patel hansen rpo2012

Highways• Approx. $9.0B in available revenue• Data-driven• MPO and RPO ranked projects

• $51.5B in needs 1,200 projects = $44.5B Other needs = $7B

Non-Hwy Transportation • Approx. $1.0B in avail. revenue• Data Driven • MPO and RPO ranked public

transit and bike/ped. projects

• $11.5B in needs 700 Projects = $4.4B Other needs = $7.1B

$63 Billion in Total Transportation Needs$10 Billion in Revenue (Years 2018-2022)

Prioritization 2.0 Summary

Presenter
Presentation Notes
This is a snapshot of Years 2018 to 2022 Needs broken out by Highway and Non-Highway projects Highway needs (including Bridges, resurfacing and safety projects) totaled to $51.5 Billion Non Highway Needs totaled to $11.5 Billion Our Cash Model in the Dept projects available revenue of: $9 Billion for Highways $1 Billion for Non Highways Therefore the total Needs vs. Rev picture is greater than 6 to 1: $63 B in Needs and $10 B in Revenue. (If asked the numbers in P1.0 were $54 Billion in needs ($45 B highways and $9 B in non-highways) and $10.5 in revenues ($9 B in Highways and $1.5 B in Non-Highways for years 2015-2020 (six years) OR just greater than 5 to 1.)
Page 16: Patel hansen rpo2012

Strategic Prioritization and Programming Process

1. Score

Prioritize Projects using

• Data

• Local Input

• Multimodal Characteristics

• Classify ranked Projects into Buckets (Mode, Goal, Tier)

2. Strategize

Set Investment Strategy

• 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

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We’ve made it through Step 1. As you can see, a lot of work went into scoring projects and providing local input. At the end of Step 1, all projects have now been ranked within their respective buckets. We’ll now turn to Step 2 to essentially answer the following question-
Page 17: Patel hansen rpo2012

How to Divide the Pie? - Determining the Investment StrategyHow to Divide the Pie? - Determining the Investment Strategy

? %? %

? %? %

Presenter
Presentation Notes
How to divide the transportation revenue and determine the Department’s investment strategy. We are not here to debate whether the $10 Billion is exactly right over the 2018-2022 timeframe. We obtain our numbers from NCDOT fiscal folks who project our future budgets, we talk to our lobbyist in Washington D.C who are watching the Federal program and we talk to our lobbyists watching the State legislature and potential capping of the gas tax. The numbers are close. Just focus on limited dollars for extensive needs.
Page 18: Patel hansen rpo2012

Summits held throughout NC every 2 years• Partner and public input opportunity

Purpose: provide input on 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

Use Level of Service (LOS) analysis 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

Presenter
Presentation Notes
So how are the decisions made to divide the pie? The Department holds a series of investment summits to gather partner and public input on how to allocate the total revenue into each of the buckets. The revenue is constrained based on the expected 10 year total; however additional constraints aren’t considered. At the summits, participants allocate dollars into each bucket and see the expected return on investment in terms of the Level of Service grade. For example, if $X are allocated to Bucket “Y”, then the expected 10 Year LOS is “Z”. At the end of the day, the outcome from each Summit is a picture of where transportation dollars should be spent.
Page 19: Patel hansen rpo2012

Quality of service provided to the user

Different than Highway Capacity Manual

Criteria for determining LOS• Measures are reliable, repeatable, and affordable• Current measure and targets are realistic (graded on A-F scale)• Data is readily available, easy to collect and update

Determine existing LOS and baseline LOS for 10 years in future

Translate LOS into $$ needed to maintain and improve performanceLOS

Performance Level of Service (LOS)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Within each bucket, we’ve developed a Level of Service or LOS of the existing and future conditions. Each of the major buckets has a different LOS measure. These measures must be reliable and repeatable, and should have realistic values using a A-F grading scale. Example measures are: Highway Mobility – % of uncongested highway miles Highway Pavement – % of miles rated “good” or better Bicycle / Pedestrian – bike-pedestrian index Ferry – # of vehicles left behind at terminals per year Transit – passenger trips per year In addition the data used for the measure should be readily available and easy to collect and update as needed. Once an existing LOS for each bucket is determined, a baseline LOS for 10 years in the future is developed. Using these values, we can then determine how much it will cost to maintain the current LOS and the additional cost to improve the letter grade
Page 20: Patel hansen rpo2012

Performance Level of Service (LOS) – Example

50

60

70

80

90

100

Leve

l of S

ervi

ce

LOS based on Do-Nothing Maintain Current LOS Achieve Target LOS

A

B

C

D

ECurrent

YearYear 10 Future

Year

10 YR TargetLOS

OptimalTargetLOS

You are Here Additional Revenue/Funding needed to achieve 10 Yr. Target$$Additional Revenue/Funding needed to maintain current LOS$

Presenter
Presentation Notes
As an engineer, it’s customary to include a graph in my presentation whenever possible. This slide is an illustrative example of how LOS is used to determine funding needs for a bucket. In this example, the current LOS is a C. The red line indicates what may happen to service or quality of the facility within that bucket if no additional improvements are made. For example, if we don’t resurface any roadways over the next 10 years, then the pavement will deteriorate from use and begin to fall apart. As a result, the Level of Service will drop. Therefore, additional revenue will be needed to maintain the current level of service, as shown on the green line. If we’d like to improve the Level of Service to a target of B- shown on the blue line, even more revenue will be needed.
Page 21: Patel hansen rpo2012

LOS – Current Grades (Highways)GOAL Performance Measure Current

Level of ServiceDesired Level

of Service

Mobility % of miles with uncongested roadways B ?

Infrastructure Health (Pavement)

% of miles with “Good” rating or better C ?

Infrastructure Health (Modernization)

% of miles meeting DOT paved shoulder width standards D ?

Safety Fatal Crash Rates C ?

Infrastructure Health (Bridges) % of bridges with “Good” rating

or better C ?

Overall Average for Highways C ?

*Note: letter grades reflect an average across Tiers

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Explain that subject matter experts in the Department and the public- through road rally’s helped us determine where we are today and where we want to be .
Page 22: Patel hansen rpo2012

LOS – Current Grades (Non-Highways)MODE GOAL Performance

MeasureCurrentLevel of Service

Desired Level of Service

Aviation All 3 Goals # of unfunded Projects D ?

Bicycle - Pedestrian Mobility Bike-Pedestrian Index D ?

FerryMobility # of vehicles left behind

/ yearC ?

Health# of terminals / vessels meeting Coast Guard

standards

Public Transportation All 3 GoalsPassenger trips, age of fleet, dollars invested in

safety/securityC ?

Rail Mobility Mobility Index D ?

Overall Average for Non-Highways D ?*Note: letter grades reflect an average across Tiers

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Again, Aviation is not the 9 commercial service airports.
Page 23: Patel hansen rpo2012

Strategic Prioritization and Programming Process

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

Presenter
Presentation Notes
After completion of the third step, the Department takes the results of the scoring and the investment summits to develop the 10 year schedule for programming. This is the step where fiscal reality takes hold and the cold shower occurs. The Department’s Program Development Branch attempts to apply funding to projects in ranked order within each bucket, within the given funding constraints. These constraints include: Equity formula State and Federal funding sources (NHS, STP, Intrastate System, FTA, etc.) Delivery schedules Air Quality conformity While every attempt is made to fund high scoring projects, the limited funding and funding restrictions may not allow this to happen. Wherever programming cannot follow project rankings, the Department provides a publicly available reason. With this being the case, it’s important to remember that prioritization does not equal programming.
Page 24: Patel hansen rpo2012

TIP

Project Development

Time

PriorityRanking

Equity Formula Funding Constraints

Investment Strategy

Construction Sequence

Factors Influencing TIP

Prioritization Results ≠ Programming

Presenter
Presentation Notes
If we lived in a world with no constraints (Legislative requirements) we could go down the SPOT list and program. However, it isn’t that easy. Project Development Time – The Planning process is complex and make take many years just to go through the NEPA process and design a project. Construction Sequence – Need to ensure project is being constructed in the right sequence to ensure it is built logically and works from a traffic control standpoint – an example may be we do not want to have a work zone that is too long on an existing widening so we segment the project. Equity Formula – 1989 state law that distributes funding throughout the state. Funding Constraints – We receive funds in various buckets –Interstate Maintenance, Bridge Replacement, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, State Intrastate, State Loops, Earmarks, etc. These different categories have restrictions on what you can use these funds for. Investment Strategy – Purpose of today’s meeting to determine where funds should be distributed by goal, tier, mode. Priority Ranking – Result from SPOT data version 2.0 budgets and project costs.
Page 25: Patel hansen rpo2012

Questions?

Page 26: Patel hansen rpo2012

Local Perspective on Input into the North Carolina DOT Transportation Improvement Program Project Ranking Process

2012 National Rural Transportation Conference

April 2012

Page 27: Patel hansen rpo2012

Page 27

Background of Transportation Planning in North Carolina

Page 28: Patel hansen rpo2012

Page 28

Lake Norman RPO Facts

360,000 people

Northern and western edges of Charlotte region

Report to NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch

Made up of four counties and eight municipalities

Intermediary between local governments and the NCDOT for plan development, project identification, prioritization, design review, and grant submittal

Staffed by “about” two people within the Charlotte region’s COG

Page 29: Patel hansen rpo2012

Page 29

North Carolina STIP Development Process and MPO/RPO Input

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

Updated on a two-year cycle

Five year funding document, with a second five-year planning document (for a total 10-year document)

Subject to many limitations on the use of funds

RPO Input

Previously NCDOT accepted project rankings, but also accepted projects from local communities outside of the MPO/RPO system

Since 2009 NCDOT only accepts project rankings from within the MPO/RPO system

Page 30: Patel hansen rpo2012

Page 30

Lake Norman Project Ranking History

2003: First time RPO develops priority list

Projects solicited from RPO members (five per member)

All 100+ projects submitted to NCDOT

2005: Refinement of 2003 priority list

Projects are broken into phases

List is broken into “high-priority” and “other” projects

Top 50 projects submitted

2007: First time cost-effectiveness is quantified by RPO

Submitted project list further limited to reflect available funds

Top 25 projects submitted

2009: NCDOT moves to formal quantitative statewide project ranking process (SPOT 1.0), similar to the RPO’s process Top 25 projects submitted

2011: RPO revises ranking process to include infrastructure health and submits prioritized project list under SPOT 2.0 process

Top 25 projects submitted

Page 31: Patel hansen rpo2012

Page 31

Common Ranking Process Variables and LNRPO Weighting

Travel Demand (4.5)Safety (2.5)Consistency with existing local transportation plans (2.5)Consistency with local land use plans (2.5) On NC strategic corridor (2)Supports economic development initiatives (2)Multi-modal (2)

Cost-benefit (2)Natural environment impact (1)Human environment impact (1)Project already in STIP (1)Air quality impact (1)Environmental Justice considerations (1)Infrastructure health

Page 32: Patel hansen rpo2012

Lake Norman RPO 2011 Ranking Results

Page 32

LAKE NORMAN RPO RANKING PROCESS RESULTS

SPOT Ranking within Division 12 (OUT OF 96 PROJECTS)

Points Assigned by Division 12 (Out of 1300)Ranking Project (and RPO Ranking Score)

Points Assigned by RPO

(Out of 1300)

1 1-40/1-77 Interchange (97.25 points) 100 5 100

2 I-77 from West Catawba to US 21 (91.5 points) 96 1 100

3 I-77 from NC 115/ US 21 to I-40 (87.25 points) 92 9 100

4 I-77 from US 21 to NC 115/US 21 (87 points) 88 7 100

5I-40 widening from Catawba County to Statesville

(81.75 points)84 48 0

6US 74 Bypass from Long Branch Road to west of

Stoney Point Road (80 points)80 14 100

7US 74 Bypass from west of NC 150 to Long Branch

Road (79.25 points)76 17 100

8 Williamson Road from I-77 to NC 150 (75.5 points) 72 3 0

9 NC 150 from Harvel Road to I-77 (74.25 points) 68 10 100

10Existing US 74 Bypass- widening to six lanes (73.25

points)64 53 0

Page 33: Patel hansen rpo2012

Page 33

MPO/RPO Responses to NCDOT SPOT Program

Issue Pre-SPOT Post-SPOT

Submittal format No format (lists, memos, resolutions used) Web-based submittal portal

Number of ProjectsAllowed

No limit- some organizations submitted 50+ projects Up to 25 per RPO/ MPO

Project Type Bike/ped, transit, and road projects could be co-mingled

Project ranking and submittal separated by mode

Cost Limits Unlimited Unlimited

Who can submit candidate projects? Anyone- private, public, MPO/RPO MPO/RPO only

Prioritization Process Highly variable local processes Increased reliance on “SPOT” scores

Significance ofInclusion in STIP

Cause for confusion- Projects were occasionally added with little near-

term potential for funding

Two five-year categories. Inclusion has significance

Page 34: Patel hansen rpo2012

Results of SPOT Process on MPO/RPO Rankings and Submittals

Page 34

Reduced MPO/RPO highway project submittals (over 1,000 reduced to ~600). Projects cost a total of $27 billionMPO/RPOs now focus on projects with “momentum”. Less focus on aspirational projectsIncrease in Bicycle and Pedestrian project submittals (before there was no formal process soliciting projects)- 229 projects submitted costing $177 million Apples to Apples Comparisons: MPOs and RPOs now know how their projects score relative to their peersNCDOT Division staff priorities known- scores are shown in project database

Page 35: Patel hansen rpo2012

Page 35

Further Refinement and MPO/RPO Response

Recognition of limited resources: Increased focus on smaller projects for highest and best use of resources Increased coordination with NCDOT Divisions: Greater

awareness of state priorities and desire to “maximize influence” Reduced project submittals: Further intent on “maximizing

influence” Common data sources: Safety, congestion, cost figures

typically rely on NCDOT SPOT office numbers

Page 36: Patel hansen rpo2012

NC Prioritization StoryAlpesh PatelNorth Carolina Department of Transportationhttp://www.ncdot.org/performance/reform/prioritization/email – [email protected]

Bjorn HansenLake Norman Rural Planning Organizationhttp://lakenormanrpo.org/email – [email protected]