Wednesday, February 5, 2020from 9:00 00A Full Agenda.pdf · Tammy Rosario, JC . Bridgjette Parker, NN : Ellen Roberts, PQ . Michael Johnson, SH ... Keith Nichols Leo Pineda Jeff Raliski

Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr. Chair, John L. Rowe, Vice Chair

The Regional Building 723 Woodlake Drive Chesapeake, Virginia 23320 757-420-8300

Robert A. Crum, Jr., Executive Director

January 28, 2020 Memorandum #2020-17 TO: LRTP Subcommittee BY: Dale M. Stith, HRTPO Principal Transportation Planner RE: LRTP Subcommittee Meeting, February 5, 2020 Attached is the agenda with related materials for the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Subcommittee meeting scheduled for Wednesday, February 5, 2020 from 9:00 a.m. – 9:30 a.m. (prior to TTAC) in the Regional Building Board Room, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, VA. DMS/nb LRTP Subcommittee: Members Troy Eisenberger, CH C. Earl Sorey, Jr., CH Carol Rizzio, GL Donald Goodwin, FR Michael Hayes, HA Jamie Oliver, IW Paul Holt, JC Bryan Stilley, NN Deborah Mangiaracina, NO Brian Fowler, NO Carl Jackson, PO James Wright, PO Dannan O’Connell, PQ Beth Lewis, SH Robert Lewis, SU

Jason Souders, SU Tara Reel, VB Katie Shannon, VB Carolyn Murphy, WM Timothy C. Cross, YK Grant Sparks, DRPT Ivan P. Rucker, FHWA Ray Amoruso, HRT Michael S. King, NAVY Dawn Odom, VDOT Eric Stringfield, VDOT Chris Voigt, VDOT Barbara Nelson, VPA Joshua Moore, WATA

LRTP Subcommittee: Other Benjamin Camras, CH Anne Ducey-Ortiz, GL Tammy Rosario, JC Bridgjette Parker, NN Ellen Roberts, PQ Michael Johnson, SH

LJ Hansen, SU Christopher Lowie, FWS Keisha Branch, HRT Jamie Jackson, HRT Kevin Page, HRTAC Barbara Creel, WATA

HRTPO Staff: Theresa Brooks Leo Pineda Steve Lambert

Mike Kimbrel Keith Nichols Kendall Miller

AGENDA

HRTPO LRTP SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 5, 2020

CALL TO ORDER 9:00 A.M.

The Regional Building, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia

1. Call to Order

2. Public Comment Period (Limit: 3 minutes per individual)

3. Submitted Public Comments

4. Approval of Agenda

5. Minutes of January 8, 2020

6. HRTPO Project Prioritization Tool: Recommended Enhancements

7. For Your Information

8. Old/New Business

9. Next Meeting Adjournment

AGENDA ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER

The meeting will be called to order by the Chair at approximately 11:30 a.m. AGENDA ITEM #2: PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

Members of the public are invited to address the LRTP Subcommittee. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. AGENDA ITEM #3: SUBMITTED PUBLIC COMMENTS

There are no written submitted public comments. AGENDA ITEM #4: APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Members are provided an opportunity to add or delete items from the agenda. Any item for which a member desires an action from the LRTP Subcommittee should be submitted at this time, as opposed to under “Old/New Business”. AGENDA ITEM #5: MINUTES OF JANUARY 8, 2020

Summary minutes of the January 8, 2020 LRTP Subcommittee meeting are attached. Attachment 5

Summary Minutes

HRTPO Long-Range Transportation Plan Subcommittee

Meeting of January 8, 2020

1. Call to Order Chair Robert Lewis called the meeting to order at 11:25 a.m. in the Regional Building Board Room, with the following in attendance: Members in Attendance: Troy Eisenberger (CH) Tiffany Dubinsky (DRPT) Ivan Rucker (FHWA) Carol Rizzio (GL) Jamie Oliver (IW) Paul Holt (JCC) Bryan Stilley (Vice Chair, NN) Robert Lewis (Chair, SU)

Jason Souders (SU) Katie Shannon (VB) Dawn Odom (VDOT) Eric Stringfield (VDOT) Barbara Nelson (VPA) Joshua Moore (WATA) Timothy Cross (YK)

HRTPO/HRPDC Staff: Theresa Brooks Steve Lambert John Mihaly Keith Nichols

Leo Pineda Jeff Raliski Dale Stith

Others Recorded Attending: Ben Camras (CH) Grant Sparks (DRPT) Angela Rico (HM) Keisha Branch (HRT) Karen McPherson (McPherson Consulting) Robert Brown (NO) Deborah Mangiaracina (NO)

Angela Biney (VDOT) Robin Grier (VDOT) Sonya Hallums-Ponton Ray Hunt (VDOT)

2. Public Comment Period There were no public comments. 3. Submitted Public Comments There were no submitted public comments.

Attachment 5

4. Approval of Agenda Chair Lewis asked for additions or deletions to the LRTP Agenda. Hearing none, Mr. Bryan Stilley Moved to approve the agenda as written; seconded by Mr. Eric Stringfield. The Motion Carried. 5. Approval of July 1, 2019 Minutes Chair Lewis reported that the LRTP summary minutes from the July 1, 2019 meeting were

included in the January 8, 2020 LRTP Subcommittee Agenda. Chair Lewis asked for any

additions or corrections to the minutes. Hearing none, Mr. Joshua Moore Moved to approve

the minutes as written; seconded by Mr. Stilley. The Motion Carried.

6. 2045 LRTP - Draft Vision and Goals Ms. Dale Stith briefed the LRTP Subcommittee on this agenda item, detailing the sources

used and the regional coordination with technical stakeholders and the public in

developing the draft vision, goals, and objectives for the 2045 LRTP. Feedback received

through these efforts was compiled and refined to ensure consistency with Federal and

State guidelines. Ms. Stith also reminded the group that HRTPO staff presented the draft

vision statement, goals, and objectives at the July 1, 2019 LRTP Subcommittee meeting,

seeking additional feedback (no additional comments received).

With no further discussion occurring, Mr. Moore moved to recommend TTAC approval of

the Draft 2045 LRTP Vision Statement, Goals and Objectives; seconded by Mr. Troy

Eisenberger. The Motion Carried.

As part of the development process, HRTPO staff will make the Draft 2045 LRTP Vision

Statement, Goals, and Objectives available for public review and comment.

7. 2045 LRTP - Draft Candidate Projects Ms. Stith and Ms. Theresa Brooks briefed the LRTP Subcommittee on this item,

summarizing the collection process from various sources, including the 2040 LRTP, the

2040 Vision Plan, Regional Priority Projects Round 2 Candidates, HRTPO studies, input

from HRTPO advisory committees, and the public via a web-based public survey. In total,

HRTPO staff collected over 500 potential candidate projects.

Ms. Brooks also summarized the two-part screening process applied to the projects

collected to ensure projects were applicable for LRTP evaluation and compatible with

locality comprehensive plans. In addition, HRTPO staff checked for sufficient project

information to ensure the candidate project could be evaluated, and for

duplication/overlap with other candidate project submissions. After applying the LRTP

project screening process, the draft list reduced to approximately 300 candidate projects to

be evaluated for inclusion in the 2045 LRTP.

Attachment 5

Ms. Brooks also briefed the LRTP Subcommittee on a small set of draft candidate projects

that were not reflected on the list that was sent with the agenda. Most of these draft

candidate projects need further locality/stakeholder input regarding their inclusion for the

2045 LRTP candidate projects evaluation. Ms. Brooks stated she would contact the

localities for further input following the meeting.

As next steps, HRTPO proposed a public review and comment period for the Draft 2045

LRTP Candidate Projects (tentatively January 15, 2020 – February 12, 2020). HRTPO staff

will be seeking TTAC and HRTPO Board approval of the draft list in February. Candidate

project evaluations using scenario planning and the updated Project Prioritization Tool will

begin shortly after.

Following a group discussion on the draft candidate projects, Mr. Moore moved to

recommend TTAC approval of the Draft 2045 LRTP Candidate Projects; seconded by Mr.

Stilley. The Motion Carried.

8. 2045 LRTP - Draft CAV Modeling Assumptions

Ms. Stith briefed the LRTP Subcommittee on the CAV capabilities of the new regional travel

demand model. As the recommended action for this item, HRTPO staff is seeking to form a

working group that will assist in the review of the CAV modeling parameters. The

following LRTP Subcommittee members volunteered for the working group:

Tiffany Dubinsky, DRPT

Paul Holt, JCC

Bryan Stilley, NN

Tara Reel, VB (volunteered by Katie Shannon)

VDOT Planning Staff

Barbara Nelson, VPA

Joshua Moore, WATA

9. For Your Information Ms. Dale Stith briefed the group on the status of testing projects with the enhanced Project

Prioritization Tool. She informed the group that a Doodle Poll would be sent out for dates

to schedule the Prioritization Task Force to review the results and finalize the proposed

measures/weights for the Tool. The group also discussed when the LRTP Subcommittee

could meet again, prior to the February TTAC, to review the forthcoming recommendation

from the Prioritization Task Force. It was decided to tentatively mark February 5, 2020 at

9:00 AM as the next LRTP Subcommittee Meeting to review recommendations from the

Prioritization Task Force.

Attachment 5

10. Old/New Business Ms. Stith informed the LRTP Subcommittee members that Steve Lambert, HRTPO Planner II, is now part of the LRTP team. 11. Next Meeting The next LRTP Subcommittee meeting is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday February 5, 2020 at 9:00 AM (to be held prior to TTAC). ADJOURNMENT 12:30 P.M.

Attachment 5

AGENDA ITEM #6: HRTPO PROJECT PRIORITIZATION: RECOMMENDED ENHANCEMENTS

The HRTPO Project Prioritization Tool was developed to assist regional decision-makers in prioritizing transportation projects based off technical merits and regional benefits, evaluating projects based on Project Utility, Economic Vitality, and Project Viability. The Tool, which has been used in the past two Long-Range Transportation Plan updates and in the identification of the Regional Priority Projects, was designed to be updated periodically to reflect current conditions, regional priorities, and new data sources. On April 5, 2017, the LRTP Subcommittee unanimously voted for HRTPO staff to initiate the process of updating the Project Prioritization Tool based on recommendations received. Since that time, HRTPO staff has been conducting research and soliciting additional feedback from regional stakeholders to refine potential measures to incorporate or enhance in the Tool, and adjust weighting factors based on these recommended improvements. Feedback received through multiple stakeholder meetings has been incorporated into the Tool and a small group of test projects has been scored. On January 24, 2020, the Project Prioritization Task Force met to review and discuss remaining comments and the results of the scoring of test projects incorporating the proposed enhancements and updated weighting factors (attachment 6A includes summary slides from this meeting). After much discussion, the Project Prioritization Task Force recommends the LRTP Subcommittee approve the recommended enhancements to the HRTPO Project Prioritization Tool, including adjusted weighting factors. Recommended modifications will be put out for public review and comment before seeking Board approval. As next steps, HRTPO staff will evaluate/score the 2045 LRTP Candidate Projects using the enhanced Project Prioritization Tool. Ms. Dale Stith, Principal Transportation Planner, will brief the LRTP Subcommittee on this agenda item.

Attachment 6A: Prioritization Task Force Summary Slides

Attachment 6B: Updated Draft Prioritization Weighting Factors

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Recommend TTAC approval of the enhancements to the HRTPO Project Prioritization Tool, including adjusted weighting factors.

HRTP

O PR

OJEC

T PR

IORI

TIZA

TION

PO

TENT

IAL M

ODIF

ICAT

IONS

AN

D SC

ORIN

G W

EIGH

TS

Sum

mar

y of

Prio

ritiza

tion

Task

For

ce M

eetin

g fr

om Ja

nuar

y 24

, 202

0

Atta

chm

ent 6

Attachment 6A

PR

OJE

CT

PR

IOR

ITIZ

ATI

ON

DIRE

CTIO

N FR

OM L

RTP

SUBC

OMM

ITTE

E

Co

nven

e a

smal

l tas

k fo

rce

to fi

naliz

e pr

opos

ed

enha

ncem

ents

and

revi

ew te

st sc

ores

Revi

ew:

•Fe

edba

ck o

n sc

orin

g w

eigh

ts (r

ecei

ved

from

HRT

PO

Com

mitt

ees:

TTA

C, C

AC, F

TAC,

TPS

, and

ATS

) •

Out

stan

ding

com

men

ts/q

uest

ions

N

ext S

teps

: •

LRTP

app

rova

l (Fe

brua

ry 5

, 202

0 at

9:0

0 AM

) •

TTAC

app

rova

l (Fe

brua

ry 5

, 202

0)

•Pu

blic

Rev

iew

and

Com

men

t Per

iod

•HR

TPO

Boa

rd A

ppro

val (

Febr

uary

or M

arch

202

0)

2 Attachment 6A

PR

OJE

CT

PR

IOR

ITIZ

ATI

ON

TASK

FOR

CE M

EETI

NG R

ECOM

MEN

DATI

ON

Ta

sk F

orce

Mee

ting

– 1/

24/2

020

Re

com

men

datio

n –

Task

For

ce re

com

men

ds L

RTP

appr

oval

of t

he e

nhan

cem

ents

to th

e HR

TPO

Pro

ject

Pr

iorit

izatio

n To

ol, i

nclu

ding

adj

uste

d w

eigh

ting

fact

ors

3 Attachment 6A

PR

OJE

CT

PR

IOR

ITIZ

ATI

ON

SUM

MAR

Y OF R

ECOM

MEN

DED

ENHA

NCEM

ENTS

Bala

nce

Thre

e Co

mpo

nent

s (Pr

ojec

t Util

ity, E

cono

mic

Vita

lity,

Pro

ject

Vi

abili

ty)

•Mor

e ro

bust

Eco

nom

ic V

italit

y an

d Pr

ojec

t Via

bilit

y m

easu

res

Add

Econ

omic

Vita

lity

to A

ctiv

e Tr

ansp

orta

tion

and

”Oth

er” (

smal

ler s

cope

) pr

ojec

ts

Impr

oved

alig

nmen

t with

Fed

eral

Per

form

ance

Mea

sure

s

Impr

oved

alig

nmen

t with

SM

ART

SCAL

E M

easu

res (

cong

estio

n, sa

fety

, en

viro

nmen

tal c

onsid

erat

ions

)

Inco

rpor

ated

Res

ilien

cy

Enha

nced

Acc

essib

ility

and

Soc

ial E

quity

con

sider

atio

ns th

roug

hout

cat

egor

ies

Impr

oved

Inte

rmod

al/F

reig

ht, T

rans

it, a

nd A

ctiv

e Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Mea

sure

s

Impr

oved

“Oth

er” c

ateg

ory

to u

se in

RST

P sc

orin

g pr

oces

s (pr

ojec

ts n

ot

eval

uate

d as

par

t of t

he L

RTP)

Mod

ified

calc

ulat

ion

of C

ost E

ffect

iven

ess

4 •Th

ese

enha

ncem

ents

hav

e be

en v

ette

d th

roug

h LR

TP S

ubco

mm

ittee

, Pro

ject

Pr

iorit

izat

ion

Wor

king

, and

oth

er re

leva

nt co

mm

ittee

s/st

akeh

olde

r gro

ups

(bet

wee

n 20

18-2

019)

Attachment 6A

PR

OJE

CT

PR

IOR

ITIZ

ATI

ON

FEED

BACK

ON

WEI

GHTS

In

put r

ecei

ved

from

: •

Tran

spor

tatio

n Te

chni

cal A

dviso

ry

Com

mitt

ee (T

TAC)

•

Com

mun

ity A

dviso

ry C

omm

ittee

(CAC

) -

Road

way

s, T

rans

it, a

nd A

ctiv

e Tr

ansp

orta

tion

•Fr

eigh

t Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Advi

sory

Co

mm

ittee

(FTA

C)

-In

term

odal

•

Activ

e Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Subc

omm

ittee

(A

TS)

-Ac

tive

Tran

spor

tatio

n •

Tran

spor

tatio

n Pr

ogra

mm

ing

Subc

omm

ittee

(TPS

) -

Oth

er R

STP

TT

AC R

espo

nses

: •

New

port

New

s •

Nor

folk

•

Virg

inia

Bea

ch

•W

illia

msb

urg

•W

inds

or

•Fr

ankl

in a

nd S

outh

ampt

on

Coun

ty

•Gl

ouce

ster

Cou

nty

•HR

T •

WAT

A

5 Attachment 6A

PR

OJE

CT

PR

IOR

ITIZ

ATI

ON

COM

MEN

TS R

ECEI

VED

Th

e co

mm

ents

on

the

follo

win

g sli

des w

ere

rece

ived

fr

om re

gion

al st

akeh

olde

rs d

urin

g th

e so

licita

tion

of

inpu

t on

wei

ghtin

g fa

ctor

s

Com

men

ts a

nd re

spon

ses w

ere

disc

usse

d w

ith th

e Pr

iorit

izatio

n Ta

sk F

orce

at i

ts 1

/24/

2020

mee

ting

6 Attachment 6A

PR

OJE

CT

PR

IOR

ITIZ

ATI

ON

COM

MEN

TS R

ECEI

VED

(CON

TINU

ED)

Co

nges

tion

•Th

e LR

TP P

roje

ct P

riorit

izatio

n To

ol sh

ould

not

iden

tical

ly

refle

ct th

e cr

iteria

of S

MAR

T SC

ALE.

The

re a

re o

ther

gra

nt

prog

ram

s out

ther

e th

at d

o no

t pla

ce su

ch a

hig

h pr

iorit

y on

co

nges

tion.

The

LRT

P ne

eds t

o re

flect

all

gran

t pro

gram

s,

not j

ust S

MAR

T SC

ALE.

•

Our

Pro

ject

Prio

ritiza

tion

Tool

is ta

ilore

d to

our

regi

on a

nd is

m

ore

robu

st th

an th

e cr

iteria

for S

MAR

T SC

ALE

(incl

udin

g m

any

non-

cong

estio

n re

late

d cr

iteria

)

Co

nges

tion:

40/

300

pts (

13%

)

Trav

el T

ime

Relia

bilit

y: 1

5/30

0 (5

%)

Re

gion

al T

rave

l Tim

e an

d De

lay

Impa

cts:

30/

300

(10%

)

7 Attachment 6A

PR

OJE

CT

PR

IOR

ITIZ

ATI

ON

COM

MEN

TS R

ECEI

VED

(CON

TINU

ED)

Sa

fety

and

Sec

urity

•

Hist

oric

al c

rash

dat

a lo

ses e

ffect

iven

ess w

hen

proj

ectin

g 20

+ ye

ars,

esp

ecia

lly c

onsid

erin

g th

e ra

te o

f saf

ety

deve

lopm

ent

•Ev

alua

tion

fact

ors s

houl

d in

clud

e m

ore

than

just

fata

l and

se

rious

inju

ries (

loca

l roa

ds w

ith lo

wer

spee

ds h

ave

less

se

vere

inju

ries a

nd p

rope

rty

dam

age

from

cra

shes

) •

Safe

ty is

bot

h a

prio

rity

of th

e tr

ansp

orta

tion

plan

ning

pr

oces

s and

a fa

ctor

that

is in

clud

ed in

mos

t fun

ding

pr

ogra

ms,

incl

udin

g SM

ART

SCAL

E •

We

plan

on

usin

g th

e SM

ART

SCAL

E pr

oces

s, w

hich

app

lies

wei

ghts

to c

rash

es th

at in

volv

e fa

talit

ies,

serio

us in

jurie

s,

visib

le in

jurie

s, a

nd n

on-v

isibl

e in

jurie

s

8 Attachment 6A

PR

OJE

CT

PR

IOR

ITIZ

ATI

ON

COM

MEN

TS R

ECEI

VED

(CON

TINU

ED)

La

bor M

arke

t Acc

ess

•Ca

tego

ry a

ppea

rs to

ent

irely

focu

s on

the

dest

inat

ion

with

litt

le

cons

ider

atio

n to

trav

el d

elay

s and

impa

cts a

t orig

in si

tes (

maj

or

resid

entia

l are

as)

•Tr

avel

del

ays a

re c

aptu

red

thro

ugh

Trav

el T

ime

Relia

bilit

y an

d Re

gion

al T

rave

l Tim

e an

d De

lay

Impa

cts

Ke

y/Ba

sic S

ecto

r Ind

ustr

ies

•Ac

cess

to D

efen

se In

stal

latio

ns a

nd S

TRAH

NET

sho

uld

be

cons

olid

ated

as t

hey

are

gene

rally

the

sam

e •

Our

Tool

mak

es a

dist

inct

ion

on th

e ty

pe o

f roa

dway

pro

vidi

ng

acce

ss to

Def

ense

Inst

alla

tions

(with

mor

e w

eigh

t giv

en to

ST

RAHN

ET fa

cilit

ies d

ue to

thei

r im

port

ance

in m

ilita

ry

mob

iliza

tions

). F

HWA/

SDDC

are

enc

oura

ging

stat

es a

nd M

POs t

o in

corp

orat

e ST

RAHN

ET c

onsid

erat

ions

into

pro

ject

prio

ritiza

tion.

9 Attachment 6A

PR

OJE

CT

PR

IOR

ITIZ

ATI

ON

COM

MEN

TS R

ECEI

VED

(CON

TINU

ED)

Ad

dres

ses

the

Nee

ds o

f Bas

ic S

ecto

r Ind

ustr

ies

•Ex

pand

Tru

ck Z

ones

to In

dust

rial Z

ones

•

Our

Tru

ck Z

ones

are

hea

vy in

dust

rial z

ones

(ide

ntifi

ed b

y HR

TPO

st

aff w

ith V

PA a

ssist

ance

). T

his i

s a d

ata

inpu

t in

our r

egio

nal

trav

el d

eman

d m

odel

.

Econ

omic

Dist

ress

Fac

tors

•

Sugg

estio

n to

incl

ude

econ

omic

ally

dist

ress

ed a

reas

•

FHW

A de

fines

eco

nom

ical

ly d

istre

ssed

are

as a

s hav

ing

“a p

er

capi

ta in

com

e of

80%

or l

ess o

f the

nat

iona

l ave

rage

or t

he a

rea

has a

n un

empl

oym

ent r

ate

that

is a

t lea

st 1

% g

reat

er th

an th

e na

tiona

l ave

rage

(FH

WA

prov

ides

map

s of t

hese

are

as)

•Ca

ptur

ed u

nder

Pro

vide

s acc

ess t

o ar

eas w

ith h

igh

unem

ploy

men

t – c

an re

wor

d to

“eco

nom

ical

ly d

istre

ssed

are

as”

10

Attachment 6A

PR

OJE

CT

PR

IOR

ITIZ

ATI

ON

COM

MEN

TS R

ECEI

VED

(CON

TINU

ED)

Tr

ansit

•

Disc

uss a

ny p

ropo

sed

chan

ges t

o w

eigh

ts fo

r tra

nsit

proj

ects

w

ith tr

ansit

age

ncie

s •

No

addi

tiona

l wei

ght c

hang

es h

ave

been

mad

e to

tran

sit

crite

ria.

Pote

ntia

l cha

nges

to P

roje

ct V

iabi

lity

for a

ll ca

tego

ries (

desc

ribed

in la

ter s

lide)

. •

Chan

ge “

Perc

ent o

f trip

s rem

oved

from

hig

hway

s” to

“P

erce

nt o

f trip

s rem

oved

from

road

way

s”

•M

odifi

ed.

Data

to b

e pr

ovid

ed b

y tr

ansit

age

ncie

s. F

or te

st

proj

ects

, use

d co

nges

tion

on p

aral

lel r

oadw

ay fa

cilit

y as

a

prox

y.

11

Attachment 6A

PR

OJE

CT

PR

IOR

ITIZ

ATI

ON

COM

MEN

TS R

ECEI

VED

(CON

TINU

ED)

Pr

ojec

t Via

bilit

y •

Envi

ronm

enta

l sta

tus a

ppea

rs to

be

coun

ted

unde

r bot

h Pr

ojec

t Rea

dine

ss a

nd E

nviro

nmen

tal C

onsid

erat

ions

Proj

ect R

eadi

ness

Env

ironm

enta

l Doc

umen

ts/D

ecisi

ons c

riter

ia re

late

d to

NEP

A pr

oces

s; E

nviro

nmen

tal C

onsid

erat

ions

is e

valu

atin

g po

tent

ial

envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

•

Conc

ern

over

Env

ironm

enta

l doc

umen

ts/p

erm

its e

xpiri

ng

(whe

n pr

ojec

t not

fully

fund

ed) –

pre

fer t

o se

e ad

ditio

nal

poin

ts fo

r des

ign

com

plet

enes

s and

per

cent

of a

dditi

onal

fu

ndin

g

The

loca

lity/

VDO

T de

term

ines

whe

n N

EPA

is in

itiat

ed, n

ot o

ur

LRTP

/Prio

ritiza

tion

proc

ess,

ther

efor

e ex

pira

tion

of sa

id d

ocum

ents

is

an u

nrel

ated

issu

e. T

he E

nviro

nmen

tal D

ocum

ents

/Dec

ision

stat

us is

a

mea

sure

to e

valu

ate

how

read

y th

e pr

ojec

t is t

o pr

ocee

d to

co

nstr

uctio

n (p

roje

cts c

anno

t pro

ceed

unt

il th

ese

deci

sions

are

ob

tain

ed)

12

Attachment 6A

PR

OJE

CT

PR

IOR

ITIZ

ATI

ON

COM

MEN

TS R

ECEI

VED

(CON

TINU

ED)

Pr

ojec

t Via

bilit

y (c

ontin

ued)

•

Exist

ing

proj

ects

and

thos

e w

ith o

utsid

e fu

ndin

g sh

ould

be

reco

gnize

d

Thes

e m

easu

res a

re c

aptu

red

unde

r Pro

ject

Rea

dine

ss (P

erce

nt o

f Ad

ditio

nal F

undi

ng a

nd P

rior C

omm

itmen

t)

•Co

nsid

er la

nd u

se c

ompa

tibili

ty u

nder

Incr

ease

d O

ppor

tuni

ty

Th

ere

is a

fact

or u

nder

Incr

ease

d O

ppor

tuni

ty m

easu

ring

Supp

ort f

or

Futu

re G

row

th (m

easu

ring

the

abili

ty o

f a p

roje

ct to

enc

oura

ge

econ

omic

dev

elop

men

t thr

ough

exp

andi

ng o

r att

ract

ing

new

bus

ines

s an

d th

e ro

le o

f the

pro

ject

loca

lity’

s lon

g-te

rm d

evel

opm

ent p

lans

)

13

Attachment 6A

PR

OJE

CT

PR

IOR

ITIZ

ATI

ON

COM

MEN

TS R

ECEI

VED

(CON

TINU

ED)

Pr

ojec

t Via

bilit

y (c

ontin

ued)

•

4(f)

Inte

rfere

nce

is us

eful

in d

eter

min

ing

com

patib

ility

with

la

nd u

se

•

Sinc

e no

t all

proj

ects

will

hav

e in

itiat

ed E

nviro

nmen

tal

revi

ew, w

e ca

n us

e bo

th th

e Lo

calit

y Co

mpr

ehen

sive

Plan

an

d/or

Sec

tion

4(f)

to h

elp

mak

e th

is de

term

inat

ion.

•

Sugg

est r

epla

cing

Env

ironm

enta

l Mea

sure

s of E

ffect

iven

ess

(take

n fr

om S

MAR

T SC

ALE)

with

a m

ore

basic

env

ironm

enta

l re

view

(3pt

s).

Exam

ple

ques

tions

:

Is th

ere

a fa

tal f

law

for p

erm

ittin

g?

Is

the

intr

usio

n in

to se

nsiti

ve a

reas

just

ified

?

Does

the

proj

ect s

igni

fican

tly re

duce

em

issio

ns?

•Ag

reed

14

Attachment 6A

PR

OJE

CT

PR

IOR

ITIZ

ATI

ON

COM

MEN

TS R

ECEI

VED

(CON

TINU

ED)

Pr

ojec

t Via

bilit

y (c

ontin

ued)

•

“Pro

ject

incl

udes

impr

ovem

ents

to fr

eigh

t rai

l net

wor

k or

in

term

odal

(tru

ck to

rail)

faci

litie

s/po

rts/

term

inal

s” a

ppea

rs

to d

oubl

e di

p fr

om th

e Ec

onom

ic V

italit

y se

ctio

n •

Sugg

est r

emov

ing

mea

sure

15 En

viro

nmen

tal (

pote

ntia

l im

pact

s) C

riter

ia

10 P

oint

s

Envi

ronm

enta

l MO

Es E

nviro

nmen

tal P

erm

itabi

lity

3

Acre

s of N

atur

al a

nd C

ultu

ral R

esou

rces

3

Proj

ect R

educ

es T

raffi

c De

lay

at a

Con

gest

ed In

ters

ectio

n,

Inte

rcha

nge,

or O

ther

Bot

tlene

ck w

ith a

hig

h pe

rcen

tage

of

truc

k tr

affic

2

Proj

ect i

nclu

des

impr

ovem

ents

to th

e fr

eigh

t rai

l net

wor

k or

in

term

odal

(tru

ck to

rail)

faci

litie

s/po

rts/

term

inal

s 2

Attachment 6A

PR

OJE

CT

PR

IOR

ITIZ

ATI

ON

COM

MEN

TS R

ECEI

VED

(CON

TINU

ED)

Pr

ojec

t Via

bilit

y (c

ontin

ued)

•

“Pro

ject

incl

udes

impr

ovem

ents

to fr

eigh

t rai

l net

wor

k or

in

term

odal

(tru

ck to

rail)

faci

litie

s/po

rts/

term

inal

s” a

ppea

rs

to d

oubl

e di

p fr

om th

e Ec

onom

ic V

italit

y se

ctio

n •

Sugg

est r

emov

ing

mea

sure

16 En

viro

nmen

tal (

pote

ntia

l im

pact

s) C

riter

ia

10 P

oint

s

Envi

ronm

enta

l MO

Es E

nviro

nmen

tal P

erm

itabi

lity

3

Acre

s of N

atur

al a

nd C

ultu

ral R

esou

rces

3

Proj

ect R

educ

es T

raffi

c De

lay

at a

Con

gest

ed In

ters

ectio

n,

Inte

rcha

nge,

or O

ther

Bot

tlene

ck w

ith a

hig

h pe

rcen

tage

of

truc

k tr

affic

2

Proj

ect i

nclu

des

impr

ovem

ents

to th

e fr

eigh

t rai

l net

wor

k or

in

term

odal

(tru

ck to

rail)

faci

litie

s/po

rts/

term

inal

s 2

- w

ith a

hig

h pe

rcen

tage

of t

ruck

traf

fic

2

Attachment 6A

PR

OJE

CT

PR

IOR

ITIZ

ATI

ON

COM

MEN

TS R

ECEI

VED

(CON

TINU

ED)

Pr

ojec

t Via

bilit

y (c

ontin

ued)

•

55 p

oint

s see

ms e

xces

sive

for P

roje

ct R

eadi

ness

•

Proj

ect R

eadi

ness

was

pre

viou

sly w

eigh

ted

100

poin

ts (a

lread

y ca

ptur

ing

a sig

nific

ant d

ecre

ase

with

pro

pose

d To

ol

mod

ifica

tions

) •

Cost

Effe

ctiv

enes

s mea

sure

pro

vide

s the

bes

t “is

it w

orth

do

ing”

mea

sure

and

shou

ld th

eref

ore

carr

y ex

tra

wei

ght

•M

any

proj

ects

at t

his s

tage

are

still

con

cept

ual (

no re

al d

esig

n,

alig

nmen

t ide

ntifi

ed, e

tc.)

and

thus

hav

e pl

anni

ng le

vel c

osts

. Th

eref

ore,

cau

tion

assig

ning

too

muc

h w

eigh

t to

prel

imin

ary

cost

s.

17

Attachment 6A

PR

OJE

CT

PR

IOR

ITIZ

ATI

ON

FEED

BACK

ON

WEI

GHTS

18

Av

erag

ed F

eedb

ack

on

Wei

ghts

Base

d on

feed

back

re

ceiv

ed, r

ecom

men

d:

•Re

duci

ng P

roje

ct R

eadi

ness

to

50

poin

ts (f

rom

55)

-

Sugg

est r

emov

ing

“Add

ition

al

Envi

ronm

enta

l Per

mits

O

btai

ned”

mea

sure

•

Incr

easin

g Co

st

Effe

ctiv

enes

s to

20 p

oint

s (fr

om 1

5)

High

way

Pro

ject

s

Attachment 6A

PR

OJE

CT

PR

IOR

ITIZ

ATI

ON

TEST

PRO

JECT

S

Purp

ose:

ens

ure

new

mea

sure

s an

d th

e re

dist

ribut

ion

of m

easu

res/

wei

ghts

are

reas

onab

le a

nd c

ohes

ive

Cate

gory

N

umbe

r of

Test

Pro

ject

s

High

way

17

Inte

rcha

nge

3

Brid

ge/T

unne

l 3

Inte

rmod

al

5

Tran

sit (F

ixed

G

uide

way

) 2

Activ

e Tr

ansp

orta

tion

5

Se

lect

ed p

roje

cts f

rom

204

0 LR

TP

Prio

ritiza

tion

•Re

tain

ed d

ata

prev

ious

ly su

bmitt

ed

•U

sed

read

ily a

vaila

ble

data

for s

ome

mea

sure

s •

Staf

f bes

t est

imat

e on

oth

er

mea

sure

s (m

easu

res t

hat w

ould

be

prov

ided

by

loca

lity/

VDO

T or

with

up

date

d da

ta)

•Te

st sc

ores

DO

NO

T re

pres

ent d

raft

20

45 L

RTP

prio

ritiza

tion

scor

es

19

Attachment 6A

PR

OJE

CT

PR

IOR

ITIZ

ATI

ON

TEST

PRO

JECT

S CO

NCLU

SION

S

Hig

hway

Pr

ojec

ts

Proj

ect U

tility

Ec

onom

ic

Vita

lity

Proj

ect

Viab

ility

To

tal S

core

Orig

inal

Av

erag

e 66

44

21

13

0

Aver

age

with

En

hanc

emen

ts

55

47

52

153

Ab

le to

inco

rpor

ate

mos

t rec

omm

enda

tions

Mor

e ba

lanc

ed c

ompo

nent

s (Pr

ojec

t Util

ity, E

cono

mic

Vita

lity,

Pr

ojec

t Via

bilit

y)

Hi

gher

Pro

ject

Via

bilit

y sc

ores

(few

er “

zero

” sc

ores

)

Aver

age

chan

ge in

Pro

ject

Sco

re:

+23

Re

min

der:

Tool

is in

tend

ed to

be

DYN

AMIC

. W

e ca

n st

ill a

djus

t as

nec

essa

ry a

s we

eval

uate

204

5 ca

ndid

ate

proj

ects

20

Attachment 6A

30.00 40.0010.00 10.0010.00 10.0010.00 Person Throughput 5.00

Person Hours of Delay 5.0010.00

25.00 25.00Degree of Regional Impact 15.00

3.00Resiliency 5.00Addresses a gap 2.00

Safety and Security: 15.00 Safety and Security: 15.00Crash Ratio 8.00 Reduction of EPDO of Fatal and Serious Injury crashes 5.00Improvement to Incident Management or Evacuation Routes 7.00 Reduction of EPDO Rate of Fatal and Serious Injury crashes 5.00

5.00

Cost Effectiveness (Cost/VMT) 15.00 N/ATotal Cost ($)/VMT

Land Use/Future Development Compatibility 10.00 N/AProject Compatible with Existing Land Use Patterns and Future Plans/Development

Modal Enhancements: 5.00 5.00Enhances Other Categories 3.00 3.00Improve Access to Freight Distribution Facilities, Ports, Major Industrial Clients, or Major Employment and Population Centers 2.00 2.00

Improves Vehicular Access (moved to System Continuity and Connectivity)

15.00Level of Travel Time Reliablity (LOTTR) 10.00Truck Travel Time Reliablity (TTTR) 5.00

PROJECT UTILITY TOTAL 100.00 100.00

ECONOMIC VITALITYTotal Reduction in Travel Time 30.00 Travel Time and Delay Impacts 30.00

Total Reduction in Regional Travel Time 15.00Improved Delay (Cost of congestion) 15.00

Labor Market Access 20.00 Labor Market Access* 10.00Increase Travel Time Reliability 10.00 Increase Travel Time Reliability (move to Project Utility)Increased Access for High Density Employment Areas 10.00 Increased Access for High Density Employment Areas

Addresses the Needs of Basic Sector Industries 30.00 Addresses the Needs of Basic Sector Industries* 30.00Increases Access for Port Facilities 10.00 Increases Access for Port Facilities 5.00Increases Access to Tourist Destinations 10.00 5.00Increases Access for Defense Installations 6.00 10.00Facility part of STRAHNET 4.00 6.00Facility part of "Roadways Serving the Military" 3.00 4.00/3.00

Increased Opportunity 20.00 Increased Opportunity* 20.00Provides New or Increased Access 10.00 Provides New or Increased Access 5.00Supports Plans for Future Growth 10.00 Supports Plans for Future Growth 5.00

Access to Institutions of Higher Education (includes work force development sites) 5.00Urban Development Areas/ Governor's Opportunity Zones 5.00

Economic Distress Factors* 10.00Provides access to low income areas 5.00Provides access to areas with high unemployment 5.00

100.00 100.00*In terms of Economic Vitality, these measures are dependent on improved congestion and/or travel time

with cost effectiveness incorporated into Project Viability

Percent of Additional Funding (sliding scale 0-50)50.00 50.00

Prior Commitment (project included in the currently adopted LRTP?) 10.00 Percent of Additional Fundin g (sliding scale 0-15) 15.00Percentage of Project Design Complete (sliding scale 1-10) 10.00 10.00Environmental Documents Complete 15.00Environmental Decisions Obtained 5.00 Project alignment status (5 pts)ROW Obtained/Utilities Coordinated 5.00

5)

5.00 5.005.005.005.00

20.00Environmental: 10.00

Environmental MOEs/Basic Environmental Review 3.00Acres of Natural and Cultural Resources 3.00

2.002.00

Cost Effectiveness (Estimated Cost/(Project Utility + Economic Vitality scores)20.00

100.00 100.00

CURRENT RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS

PROJECT VIABILITY

Improved Access to Truck ZonesIncreases Access to Tourist DestinationsIncreases Access for Defense InstallationsFacility part of STRAHNET or "Roadways Serving the Military"

% Reduction in Existing and Future V/C Ratios (Daily Delay)

Criteria and Sub-criteria

Congestion Level:

Existing Peak Period Congestion/Level of Service

Weighting

Impact to Nearby Roadways


ECONOMIC VITALITY

Land Use/Future Development Compatibility (moved to Project Viability)

Project Readiness

ECONOMIC VITALITY TOTAL

PROJECT VIABILITY TOTAL

Project Design

Environmental Documents CompleteEnvironmental Decisions ObtainedROW Obtained/Utilities CoordinatedAdditional Environmental Permits Obtained

Land Use/Future Development Compatibility

Project reduces traffic delay at a congested intersection, interchange, or other bottleneck with high percentage of truck traffic

Project bottlenect has high percentage of truck traffic

Additional Environmental Permits Obtained


Highway Projects Weighting Factors Highway Projects Weighting Factors

PROJECT UTILITY



PROJECT UTILITYCongestion Level:


Weighting

10.00

System Continuity and ConnectivityDegree of Regional Impact

System Continuity and Connectivity:

Improves Access to Major Employment and Population Centers

Cost Effectiveness (moved to Project Viablity)

PROJECT VIABILITY

Prior Commitment (project included in the currently adopted LRTP)

Travel Time Reliability:

Modal Enhancements:

Access to Multimodal Choices

PROJECT UTILITY TOTAL

Enhances Other Categories

Improvement to Incident Management or Evacuation Routes


Attachment 6B



25.00 25.00 Degree of Regional Impact Degree of Regional Impact 15.00


15.00 Safety and Security: 15.008.00 Reduction of EPDO of Fatal and Serious Injury crashes 5.007.00 Reduction of EPDO Rate of Fatal and Serious Injury crashes 5.00

Improvement to Incident Management or Evacuation Routes 5.00


Land Use/Future Development Compatibility 10.00 Land Use/Future Development Compatibility (moved to Project Viability) N/AProject Compatible with Existing Land Use Patterns and Future Plans/Development

Modal Enhancements: 5.00 5.00Enhances Other Categories 3.00 3.00

2.00 2.00

Travel Time Reliability: 15.00Level of Travel Time Reliablity (LOTTR) 10.00Truck Travel Time Reliablity (TTTR) 5.00


ECONOMIC VITALITYTotal Reduction in Travel Time 30.00 Travel Time and Delay Impacts 30.00

Total Reduction in Regional Travel Time 15.00 Improved Delay (Cost of congestion) 15.00

Labor Market Access 20.00 Labor Market Access* 10.00 Increase Travel Time Reliability 10.00 Increase Travel Time Reliability (move to Project Utility) Increased Access for High Density Employment Areas 10.00 Increased Access for High Density Employment Areas 10.00

Addresses the Needs of Basic Sector Industries 30.00 Addresses the Needs of Basic Sector Industries* 30.00 Increases Access for Port Facilities 10.00 Increases Access for Port Facilities 5.00 Increases Access to Tourist Destinations 10.00 Improved Access to Truck Zones 5.00 Increases Access for Defense Installations 6.00 Increases Access to Tourist Destinations 10.00 Facility part of STRAHNET 4.00 Increases Access for Defense Installations 6.00 Facility part of "Roadways Serving the Military" 3.00 4.00/3.00

Increased Opportunity 20.00 Increased Opportunity* 20.00 Provides New or Increased Access 10.00 Provides New or Increased Access 5.00 Supports Plans for Future Growth 10.00 Supports Plans for Future Growth 5.00

Access to Institutions of Higher Education (includes work force development sites) 5.00 Urban Development Areas/ Governor's Opportunity Zones 5.00

Economic Distress Factors* 10.00 Provides access to low income areas 5.00 Provides access to areaswith high unemployment 5.00


with cost effectiveness incorporated into Project ViabilityPROJECT VIABILITY

50.00Project Readiness

50.00

10.00 Percent of Additional Fundin g (sliding scale 0-15) 15.0010.00 Prior Commitment (project included in the currently adopted LRTP) 10.0015.00 Project Design 10.005.00 Project alignment status (5 pts)5.00

5)

5.00 Environmental Documents Complete 5.00Environmental Decisions Obtained 5.00ROW Obtained/Utilities Coordinated 5.00Additional Environmental Permits Obtained 5.00

Land Use/Future Development Compatibility 20.00Environmental: 10.00


2.002.00


100.00 PROJECT VIABILITY TOTAL 100.00


Improve Access to Freight Distribution Facilities, Ports, Major Industrial Clients, or Major Employment and Population Centers

Modal Enhancements:Enhances Other CategoriesAccess to Multimodal Choices

Safety and Security: Crash Ratio Improvement to Incident Management or Evacuation Routes

Queue Improvements: Number of Approaches Improved

Congestion Level: Existing Queue Conditions: Number of Approaches with Queues

Queue Improvements


Interchange Projects Weighting FactorsWeighting


ECONOMIC VITALITY

Percent of Additional Funding (sliding scale 0-50)Prior Commitment (project included in the currently adopted LRTP?)Percentage of Project Design Complete (sliding scale 1-10)

Environmental Decisions ObtainedROW Obtained/Utilities CoordinatedAdditional Environmental Permits Obtained

PROJECT VIABILITY

Environmental Documents Complete

Interchange Projects Weighting FactorsWeighting

Facility part of STRAHNET or "Roadways Serving the Military"

Improves Vehicular Access (moved to System Continuity and Connectivity)

Number of Movements Added or Improved

System Continuity and Connectivity

Number of Movements Added or Improved

ECONOMIC VITALITY TOTALECONOMIC VITALITY TOTAL


PROJECT UTILITYCongestion Level: Existing Queue Conditions



PROJECT UTILITY


Project reduces traffic delay at a congested intersection, interchange, or other bottleneck with high percentage of truck trafficProject bottlenect has high percentage of truck traffic


Attachment 6B



20.00 15.00Bridges: Bridges:

20.00 5.50Tunnels: Condition Factor 4.50

6.50 Design Redundancy Factor 3.00Last Major Repair of Tunnel 6.75 Structure Capacity 2.00Costs for Necessary Repairs/Upgrades 6.75 Tunnels:

5.00Last Major Repair of Tunnel 5.00Costs for Necessary Repairs/Upgrades 5.00

10.00 15.00Degree of Regional Impact Degree of Regional Impact 5.00


Safety and Security: 10.00 10.00 Crash Ratio 4.50 Reduction of EPDO of Fatal and Serious Injury crashes 2.50 Improvement to Incident Management or Evacuation Routes 3.00 Reduction of EPDO Rate of Fatal and Serious Injury crashes 2.50 Failure Impact (Impact of Detour to Alternate Crossing) 2.50 3.00

2.00


Land Use/Future Development Compatibility 10.00 N/AProject Compatible with Existing Land Use Patterns and Future Plans/Development

Modal Enhancements: 5.00 Modal Enhancements: 5.00Enhances Other Categories 2.00 Enhances Other Categories 2.00Provides Continuous Maritime Crossing 1.50 Provides Continuous Maritime Crossing 1.00

1.50 2.00Improves Vehicular Access (moved to System Continuity and Connectivity)



Total Reduction in Travel Time 30.00 Travel Time and Delay Impacts 30.0015.0015.00

Labor Market Access 20.00 Labor Market Access* 10.00 Increase Travel Time Reliability 10.00 Increase Travel Time Reliability (move to Project Utility) Increased Access for High Density Employment Areas 10.00 Increased Access for High Density Employment Areas

Addresses the Needs of Basic Sector Industries 30.00 Addresses the Needs of Basic Sector Industries* 30.00 Increases Access for Port Facilities 10.00 5.00 Increases Access to Tourist Destinations 10.00 Improved Access to Truck Zones 5.00 Increases Access for Defense Installations 6.00 Increases Access to Tourist Destinations 10.00 Facility part of STRAHNET 4.00 Increases Access for Defense Installations 6.00 Facility part of "Roadways Serving the Military" 3.00 4.00/3.00



Economic Distress Factors* 10.00 Provides access to low income areas 5.00 Provides access to areaswith high unemployment 5.00



Percent of Additional Funding (sliding scale 0-50)50.00 50.00

Prior Commitment (project included in the currently adopted LRTP?) 10.00 Percent of Additional Fundin g (sliding scale 0-15) 15.00

Percentage of Project Design Complete (sliding scale 1-10) 10.00 10.00

Environmental Documents Complete 15.00Environmental Decisions Obtained 5.00 Project alignment status (5 pts)ROW Obtained/Utilities Coordinated 5.00

5)

Additional Environmental Permits Obtained 5.00 5.005.005.005.00

20.00Environmental: 10.00


2.002.00


100.00 100.00

Weighting

Project Design

Project Readiness

Prior Commitment (project included in the currently adopted LRTP)


Improvement to Incident Management or Evacuation Routes

ECONOMIC VITALITY

10.00



% Reduction in Existing and Future V/C Ratios (Daily Delay) Existing Peak Period Congestion/Level of Service


Importance Factor

Safety and Security:


Facility part of STRAHNET or "Roadways Serving the Military"

Environmental Decisions ObtainedROW Obtained/Utilities Coordinated

Bridge & Tunnel Projects Weighting Factors Bridge & Tunnel Projects Weighting Factors

Improve Access to Freight Distribution Facilities, Ports, Major Industrial Clients, or Major Employment and Population Centers

Weighting

PROJECT VIABILITY


Failure Impact (Impact of Detour to Alternate Crossing)


Infrastructure Condition


Bridge Sufficiency Rating


Infrastructure Condition (Bridge Sufficiency, Tunnel Condition, Obsolescence)






ECONOMIC VITALITY TOTAL ECONOMIC VITALITY TOTAL


ECONOMIC VITALITY

Age of Tunnel

Total Reduction in Regional Travel Time Improved Delay (Cost of congestion)

Increases Access for Port Facilities

Access to Multimodal Choices



Age of Tunnel



Project reduces traffic delay at a congested intersection, interchange, or other bottleneck with high percentage of truck trafficProject bottlenect has high percentage of truck traffic


Land Use/Future Development Compatibility

Attachment 6B

30.00 30.00

30.00 30.00

15.00Degree of Regional Impact 10.00Resiliency 3.00Address a Gap 2.00


15.00 10.006.004.00


100.00 100.00

ECONOMIC VITALITY ECONOMIC VITALITYTotal Reduction in Travel Time 20.00 Travel Time and Delay Impacts 30.00 Total Reduction in Regional Travel Time Total Reduction in Regional Travel Time 15.00

Improved Delay (Cost of congestion) 15.00

Labor Market Access 35.00 Labor Market Access* 20.00 Increase Travel Time Reliability 15.00 Increase Travel Time Reliability (move to Project Utility) Impact on Truck Movement 15.00 Impact on Truck Movement 15.00 Increased Access for High Density Employment Areas 5.00 Increased Access for High Density Employment Areas 5.00

Addresses the Needs of Basic Sector Industries 15.00 Improves Interaction Between Modes of Travel (Basic Sector) (20 Points)* 20.00 Increases Access for Port Facilities 5.00 Increases Access for Port Facilities 5.00 Improves Flow of Rail 5.00 5.00 Increases Access to Air 5.00 Increases Access to Air/Sea Ports 5.00

Improves Access to Truck Zones 5.00


Urban Development Areas/ Governor's Opportunity Zones 5.00100.00 100.00

*In terms of Economic Vitality, these measures are dependent on improved congestion and/or travel time

with cost effectiveness incorporated into Project ViabilityPROJECT VIABILITY PROJECT VIABILITY

Percent of Additional Funding (sliding scale 0-50)50.00 Project Readiness 50.00

Prior Commitment (project included in the currently adopted LRTP?) 10.00 Percent of Additional Fundin g (sliding scale 0-15) 15.00Percentage of Project Design Complete (sliding scale 1-10) 10.00 Prior Commitment (project included in the currently adopted LRTP) 10.00Environmental Documents Complete 15.00 Project Design 10.00Environmental Decisions Obtained 5.00 Project alignment status (5 pts)ROW Obtained/Utilities Coordinated 5.00 Percentage of Project Design Complete (sliding scale 1-5)Additional Environmental Permits Obtained 5.00 Environmental Documents Complete 5.00

Environmental Decisions Obtained 5.00ROW Obtained/Utilities Coordinated 5.00

5.00Land Use/Future Development Compatibility 20.00Environmental: 10.00

Environmental MOEs/Basic Environmental Review 3.00Acres of Natural and Cultural Resources 4.00Project reduces traffic delay at a congested intersection, interchange, or other bottleneck with high percentage of truck traffic 3.00

Cost Effectiveness (Estimated Cost/(Project Utility + Economic Vitality scores) 20.00

100.00 PROJECT VIABILITY TOTAL 100.00


Weighting


Better Accommodates Intermodal MovementsDegree of Conflict for Intermodal Movements

Improves Rail or Vehicular AccessImproves Access to Airports, Seaports, Major Employment and Population Centers, or Rail Stations/Terminals

Better Accommodates Intermodal MovementsDegree of Conflict for Intermodal Movements

Improves Access to Freight Distribution Facilities, Ports, Major Industrial Clients, or Major Employment and Population CentersImproves Rail/Vehicular Access


PROJECT UTILITY


PROJECT UTILITY

Intermodal Weighting FactorsWeighting

Intermodal Weighting Factors




Enhances Other Categories Access to Multimodal Choices

Modal Enhancements

PROJECT UTILITY TOTALPROJECT UTILITY TOTAL


ECONOMIC VITALITY TOTALECONOMIC VITALITY TOTAL

Improves Flow of Rail


Attachment 6B

10.00Percent of trips removed from highways

20.00 20.00

System Continuity and Connectivity: 20.00 25.00 Regional Significance 9.00 9.00 Improves access to employment and population centers 11.00 9.00

Resiliency 5.00 Addresses a gap 2.00

User Benefit (Annual Travel Time Savings per Rider) 15.00 User Benefit 35.00 Annual Travel Time Savings per Rider 10.00 Annual Travel Time Savings per Rider 10.00 Is the project new? 5.00 Is the project new? 5.00

Operating Efficiency 5.00Travel Time Reliability 5.00Accessibility (including ADA) and/or Customer Experience 5.00Safety and Security 5.00

Land Use/Future Development Compatibility 15.00 Land Use/Future Development Compatibility (moved to Project Viability) N/AProject Compatible with Existing Land Use Patterns and Future Plans/Development Project Compatible with Existing Land Use Patterns and Future Plans/Development

Cost Effectiveness 15.00 N/AAnnualized Capital Costs + Annualized Operating Costs)/Annual Riders Annualized Capital Costs + Annualized Operating Costs)/Annual Riders

Air Quality/Emissions Reduction (Tons of emissions (HC and NOx) reduced per year) 10.00 Air Quality/Emissions Reduction (moved to Project Viability) N/A

Enhances Other Categories 5.00 Modal Enhancements 10.006.004.00


ECONOMIC VITALITYLabor Market Access 45.00 Labor Market Access* 30.00 Increases Access for Major Employment Centers 20.00 Increases Access for Major Employment Centers 20.00 Increases Travel Time Reliability 10.00 Increases Travel Time Reliability (move to Project Utility) Increases Frequency of Service 10.00 Increases Frequency of Service 10.00 Provides Access to Institutions of Higher Education 5.00 Provides Access to Institutions of Higher Education (moved to Increased Opportunity below)

Addresses the Needs of Basic Sector Industries 20.00 Addresses the Needs of Basic Sector Industries* 20.00 Provides or Improves Access for Defense Installations 10.00 Provides or Improves Access for Defense Installations 10.00 Provides/Improves Access for Tourist Destinations 10.00 Provides/Improves Access for Tourist Destinations 10.00

Increased Opportunity - Provides New Access to the Network 20.00 Increased Opportunity - Provides New Access to the Network* 30.00 Provides New Access to the Network 5.00 Provides New Access to the Network 5.00 Supported by Plans for Increased Density and Economic Activity 15.00 Supported by Plans for Increased Density and Economic Activity 15.00


Economic Distress Factors 15.00 Economic Distress Factors* 20.00 Provides Access to Areas with High Unemployment 5.00 Provides Access to Areas with High Unemployment 10.00 Provides Access to Low Income Areas 10.00 Provides Access to Low Income Areas 10.00ECONOMIC VITALITY TOTAL 100.00 100.00

*In terms of Economic Vitality, these measures are dependent on improved congestion and/or travel time


50.00Project Readiness

50.00

10.00 Percent of Additional Fundin g (sliding scale 0-15) 15.0010.00 Prior Commitment (project included in the currently adopted LRTP) 10.0015.00 Project Design 10.005.00 Project alignment status (5 pts)5.00

5)

5.00 Environmental Documents Complete 5.00Environmental Decisions Obtained 5.00ROW Obtained/Utilities Coordinated 5.00



3.00


100.00 100.00



PROJECT UTILITY


PROJECT UTILITY

Weighting

Percentage of Project Design Complete (sliding scale 1-10)


PROJECT VIABILITY

Percent of Additional Funding (sliding scale 0-50)Prior Commitment (project included in currently adopted LRTP or documented by Transit Agency?)




Existing Usage and/or Prospective Ridership, Coverage Area/ Population Served


Congestion (Percent of trips removed from roadways)

Regional Significance Improves access to major employment and population centers


Air Quality/Emissions Reduction (Tons of emissions (HC and NOx) reduced per year)


Transit Projects Weighting Factors Transit Projects Weighting FactorsWeighting


PROJECT UTILITY TOTAL Access to Multimodal Choices

Existing Usage and/or Prospective Ridership, Coverage Area/ Population Served

ECONOMIC VITALITY


Environmental Decisions ObtainedROW Obtained/Utilities Coordinated

Attachment 6B

20.00

30.00 30.00 Access to Transit, Local, or Regional Destinations 11.00 Access to Transit or Local/ Regional Destinations Activity Centers 10.00 Connections to Existing Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities 8.00 Connections to Existing Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities 5.00 Elimination of Barriers to Major Destinations 7.00 Elimination of Barriers to Major Destinations/Addresses a Gap 5.00 Regional Significance 4.00 Regional Significance 5.00

Resiliency 5.00

Safety 30.00 30.00 Crash History 15.00 Crash History 15.00 Safety Improvement 15.00 Safety Improvement

Level of Separation/ Network Quality 10.00Associated with Safe Routes to School 5.00

Cost Effectiveness 20.00 N/A Cost/Population Served in 1.5 Mile Radius

Enhances Other Categories 10.00 20.00 Enhances Other Categories 10.00

4.006.00

Land Use/Future Development Compatibility 10.00 N/A100.00 100.00

ECONOMIC VITALITYLabor Market Access* 20.00 Increases Access for Major Employment CentersAddresses the Needs of Basic Sector Industries* 20.00 Provides or Improves Access for Defense Installations 10.00 Provides/Improves Access for Tourist Destinations 10.00Increased Opportunity - Provides New Access to the Network* 40.00 Provides New Access to the Network 10.00 Supports Plans for Future Growth 10.00 Access to Institutions of Higher Education (includes work force development sites) 10.00 Urban Development Areas/ Governor's Opportunity Zones 10.00Economic Distress Factors* 20.00 Provides Access to Areas with High Unemployment 10.00 Provides Access to Low Income Areas 10.00ECONOMIC VITALITY TOTAL 100.00*In terms of Economic Vitality, these measures are dependent on improved congestion and/or travel time

with cost effectiveness incorporated into Project ViabilityPROJECT VIABILITY PROJECT VIABILITY

Percent of Additional Funding (sliding scale 0-50)50.00

Project Readiness50.00

Prior Commitment (project included in the currently adopted LRTP?) 10.00 Percent of Additional Fundin g (sliding scale 0-15) 15.00Percentage of Project Design Complete (sliding scale 1-10) 10.00 Prior Commitment (project included in the currently adopted LRTP) 10.00Environmental Documents Complete 15.00 Project Design 10.00Environmental Decisions Obtained 5.00 Project alignment status (5 pts)ROW Obtained/Utilities Coordinated 5.00 Percentage of Project Design Complete (sliding scale 1-5)Additional Environmental Permits Obtained 5.00 Environmental Documents Complete 5.00

Environmental Decisions Obtained 5.00ROW Obtained/Utilities Coordinated 5.00


Acres of Natural and Cultural Resources (measures access to as a positive impact) 6.004.00

Cost Effectiveness (Estimated Cost/(Project Utility + Economic Vitality scores) 20.00

100.00 100.00


Active TransportationWeighting


Active Transportation


Safety


Existing Usage and/or User Demand

Access to Multimodal Choices (SMART SCALE)

Modal Enhancements

First Mile/ Last Mile


Weighting



PROJECT UTILITY


PROJECT UTILITY

Air Quality/Emissions Reduction (Tons of emissions (HC and NOx) reduced per year)



PROJECT VIABILITY TOTALPROJECT VIABILITY TOTAL Attachment 6B

AGENDA ITEM #7: FOR YOUR INFORMATION AGENDA ITEM #8: OLD/NEW BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM #9: NEXT MEETING

To be decided.