• Like
  • Save
Patel hansen rpo2012
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Patel hansen rpo2012

on

  • 359 views

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.

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.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
359
Views on SlideShare
273
Embed Views
86

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

1 Embed 86

http://www.nado.org 86

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Patel hansen rpo2012 Patel hansen rpo2012 Presentation Transcript

    • Our Prioritization Story North Carolina`s Perspective Alpesh Patel, North Carolina Department of Transportation Bjorn Hansen, Lake Norman Rural Planning OrganizationApril 26, 2012 - NADO Conference, Burlington, VT
    • Today’s OutlineBest way to communicate complex information is through a STORY• Focus on a single theme - transformation• Well developed plot - smoke filled room vs. sunshine• Word pictures/visual aids - or as engineers/planners say…a graph!• Faithful to source - Same data, informed results; “eyewitness” account
    • Transportation ReformPublic wanted politics removed from transportation decision-makingGovernor 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 2009Completed Prioritization 2.0 (P2.0); started P3.0
    • North Carolina Department of Transportation Map shows MPOs, RPOs, and DivisionsResponsible 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 illustrates MPOS, RPOs, and NCDOT Divisions (black outline)Key Partners • 17 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) • 20 Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs) • 14 Field Offices (Divisions)
    • How it All Fits Together: NCDOT Policy to Projects Strategic Prioritization
    • Strategic Prioritization and Programming Process 1. Score 2. Strategize 3. SchedulePrioritize Projects using Set Investment Strategy Program Projects• Data • Conduct • Develop STIP using Scenario/Trade-off Project Rankings &• Local Input Analysis with DOT & Investment Strategy Partners• Multimodal • Apply Constraints Characteristics • Constrained only by Total Available • Compare Selected• Classify ranked Revenue Strategy vs. Applied Projects into Buckets Constraints (Mode, Goal, Tier)
    • 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 longerProjects 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
    • P2.0 - Scoring Highway Projects QUANTITATIVE LOCAL INPUT Tier Data Division Rank MPO/RPO Rank Statewide 70% 20% 10% Regional 50% 25% 25%Subregional 30% 30% 40%
    • Local InputEach MPO/RPO & Division receives equal # of points  1,300Can choose between Top 25 project ranking or Control Total Top 25 OR Control Total#1 = 100 Can rank projects as desired#2 = 96 Max 100 pts per project#3 = 92 Min 4 pts per project…#25 = 4 Can transfer points to other areas** Must be agreement between giving and receiving organizations
    • 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 sheltersNote: 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.
    • Bicycle and Pedestrian - Scoring Same scoring for Bicycle or Pedestrian Projects 18 pts max. 35 pts max. Rank Top 5 Projects: Right-of- 15 pts max. Direct access to #1 = 35 pts Way transit / school / CBD / high- #2 = 28 pts Acquired density residential or linkage to #3 = 21 pts a large system of #4 = 14 pts MPO/RPO interconnected bicycle / Connectivity #5 = 7 pts Ranking multiuse facilities Crashes Inclusion 5 pts max. Three of more in Adopted bicycle/vehicle or Plan 15 pts max. Recognition of a pedestrian/vehicle crashes Demand / project in an adopted bicycle / within last 5 years Density pedestrian plan 12 pts max. Greater densities = higher points
    • Public Transportation - ScoringExpansion – 25 points max. # of new services hours provided due to capital investmentConnections – 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 timeAge of Fleet – 27 points max. Ability of the project to reduce the age of the fleetImproved Facilities – 20 point max. Ability of project to extend life and service spaceLocal Input (MPO only Ranking) – 550 points/area; max 100 points per project.
    • Prioritization 2.0 AccomplishmentsGenerated scores and ranked almost 2000 projects • 1200 Highway projects • 600 Bicycle & Pedestrian projects • 100 Public Transportation projectsIncorporated new performance-based criteria for highway projectsIncreased flexibility of local input with use of 1300 control pointsLaunched new web portal devoted to continuous conversation with planning partners (Partner Connect)Results at http://www.ncdot.org/performance/reform/prioritization/
    • Prioritization 2.0 SummaryHighways Non-Hwy Transportation• Approx. $9.0B in available revenue • Approx. $1.0B in avail. revenue• Data-driven • Data Driven• MPO and RPO ranked projects • MPO and RPO ranked public transit and bike/ped. projects• $51.5B in needs • $11.5B in needs  1,200 projects = $44.5B  700 Projects = $4.4B  Other needs = $7B  Other needs = $7.1B $63 Billion in Total Transportation Needs $10 Billion in Revenue (Years 2018-2022)
    • Strategic Prioritization and Programming Process 1. Score 2. Strategize 3. SchedulePrioritize Projects using Set Investment Strategy Program Projects• Data • Conduct • Develop STIP using Scenario/Trade-off Project Rankings &• Local Input Analysis with DOT & Investment Strategy Partners• Multimodal • Apply Constraints Characteristics • Constrained only by Total Available • Compare Selected• Classify ranked Revenue Strategy vs. Applied Projects into Buckets Constraints (Mode, Goal, Tier)
    • How to Divide the Pie? - Determining the Investment StrategyHow to Divide the Pie? - Determining the Investment Strategy ?% ?% ?% ?%
    • Investment Strategy SummitsSummits held throughout NC every 2 years• Partner and public input opportunityPurpose: 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, unconstrainedUse 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”
    • Performance Level of Service (LOS)Quality of service provided to the userDifferent than Highway Capacity ManualCriteria 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 updateDetermine existing LOS and baseline LOS for 10 years in futureTranslate LOS into $$ needed to maintain and improve performanceLOS
    • Performance Level of Service (LOS) – Example 100 Optimal Target LOS 90 A 10 YR Target 80 BLevel of Service LOS You are Here $$ Additional achieve 10 Yr. Target needed to Revenue/Funding 70 C $ Additional Revenue/Funding needed to maintain current LOS 60 D 50 E Current Year 10 Future Year Year LOS based on Do-Nothing Maintain Current LOS Achieve Target LOS
    • LOS – Current Grades (Highways) GOAL Performance Measure Current Desired Level Level of Service of Service % of miles with uncongested Mobility roadways B ? Infrastructure Health % of miles with “Good” rating or better C ? (Pavement) Infrastructure Health % of miles meeting DOT paved shoulder width standards D ? (Modernization) Safety Fatal Crash Rates C ? Infrastructure Health % of bridges with “Good” rating (Bridges) or better C ? Overall Average for Highways C ?*Note: letter grades reflect an average across Tiers
    • LOS – Current Grades (Non-Highways) MODE GOAL Performance Current Desired Measure Level of Level of Service Service Aviation All 3 Goals # of unfunded Projects D ? Bicycle - Pedestrian Mobility Bike-Pedestrian Index D ? # of vehicles left behind Mobility / year Ferry # of terminals / vessels C ? Health meeting Coast Guard standards Passenger trips, age ofPublic Transportation All 3 Goals fleet, dollars invested in C ? safety/security Rail Mobility Mobility Index D ? Overall Average for Non-Highways D ?*Note: letter grades reflect an average across Tiers
    • Strategic Prioritization and Programming Process 1. Score 2. Strategize 3. SchedulePrioritize Projects using Set Investment Strategy Program Projects• Data • Classify ranked • Develop STIP using Projects into Buckets Project Rankings &• Local Input (Mode, Goal, Tier) Investment Strategy• Multimodal • Conduct • Apply Constraints Characteristics Scenario/Trade-off Analysis with DOT & • Compare Selected Partners Strategy vs. Applied Constraints • Constrained only by Total Available Revenue
    • Factors Influencing TIP Project Priority Development Ranking TimeConstruction Investment Sequence TIP Strategy Funding Equity Formula ConstraintsPrioritization Results ≠ Programming
    • Questions?
    • Local Perspective on Input into the North CarolinaDOT Transportation Improvement ProgramProject Ranking Process2012 National Rural Transportation ConferenceApril 2012
    • Background of Transportation Planning inNorth Carolina Page 27
    • 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 plandevelopment, project identification, prioritization, design review, and grantsubmittalStaffed by “about” two people within the Charlotte region’s COG  Page 28
    • North Carolina STIP Development Process and MPO/RPOInputStatewide 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 fundsRPO InputPreviously NCDOT accepted project rankings, but also accepted projectsfrom local communities outside of the MPO/RPO systemSince 2009 NCDOT only accepts project rankings fromwithin the MPO/RPO system  Page 29
    • Lake Norman Project Ranking History2003: First time RPO develops priority list  Projects solicited from RPO members (five per member)  All 100+ projects submitted to NCDOT2005: Refinement of 2003 priority list  Projects are broken into phases  List is broken into “high-priority” and “other” projects  Top 50 projects submitted2007: First time cost-effectiveness is quantified by RPO  Submitted project list further limited to reflect available funds  Top 25 projects submitted2009: NCDOT moves to formal quantitative statewide projectranking process (SPOT 1.0), similar to the RPO’s process  Top 25 projects submitted2011: RPO revises ranking process to include infrastructure health and submitsprioritized project list under SPOT 2.0 process  Top 25 projects submitted  Page 30
    • Common Ranking Process Variables and LNRPOWeightingTravel Demand (4.5) Cost-benefit (2)Safety (2.5) Natural environment impact (1)Consistency with existing Human environment impact (1)local transportation plans (2.5) Project already in STIP (1)Consistency with local land Air quality impact (1)use plans (2.5) Environmental JusticeOn NC strategic corridor (2) considerations (1)Supports economic Infrastructure healthdevelopment initiatives (2)Multi-modal (2)  Page 31
    • Lake Norman RPO 2011 Ranking Results LAKE NORMAN RPO RANKING PROCESS RESULTS Points Assigned SPOT Ranking within Division 12 Points Assigned by Division 12Ranking Project (and RPO Ranking Score) by RPO (OUT OF 96 PROJECTS) (Out of 1300) (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 I-40 widening from Catawba County to Statesville 5 84 48 0 (81.75 points) US 74 Bypass from Long Branch Road to west of 6 80 14 100 Stoney Point Road (80 points) US 74 Bypass from west of NC 150 to Long Branch 7 76 17 100 Road (79.25 points) 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 Existing US 74 Bypass- widening to six lanes (73.25 10  Page 32 64 53 0 points)
    • MPO/RPO Responses to NCDOT SPOT Program Issue Pre-SPOT Post-SPOT No format (lists, memos, resolutions Submittal format Web-based submittal portal used) Number of Projects No limit- some organizations Up to 25 per RPO/ MPO Allowed submitted 50+ projects Bike/ped, transit, and road projects Project ranking and submittal Project Type could be co-mingled separated by mode Cost Limits Unlimited Unlimited Who can submit Anyone- private, public, MPO/RPO MPO/RPO only candidate projects? Increased reliance on “SPOT”Prioritization Process Highly variable local processes scores Cause for confusion- Projects were Significance of Two five-year categories. occasionally added with little near- Inclusion in STIP Inclusion has significance Page 33 term potential for funding
    • Results of SPOT Process on MPO/RPORankings and SubmittalsReduced MPO/RPO highway project submittals (over 1,000reduced to ~600). Projects cost a total of $27 billionMPO/RPOs now focus on projects with “momentum”. Lessfocus on aspirational projectsIncrease in Bicycle and Pedestrian project submittals (beforethere was no formal process soliciting projects)- 229 projectssubmitted costing $177 millionApples to Apples Comparisons: MPOs and RPOs now knowhow their projects score relative to their peersNCDOT Division staff priorities known- scores areshown in project database Page 34
    • Further Refinement and MPO/RPOResponse 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 35
    • NC Prioritization StoryAlpesh PatelNorth Carolina Department of Transportationhttp://www.ncdot.org/performance/reform/prioritization/email – agpatel@ncdot.govBjorn HansenLake Norman Rural Planning Organizationhttp://lakenormanrpo.org/email – BHansen@centralina.org