HB-2 & HB-1887 Briefing to the Richmond Regional TPO. June 4, 2015 Luck Stone Headquarters Rob Cary, PE, LS Richmond District Engineer

Transcription

1 HB-2 & HB-1887 Briefing to the Richmond Regional TPO June 4, 2015 Luck Stone Headquarters Rob Cary, PE, LS Richmond District Engineer

2 Life Cycle of a Candidate Project How it s planned. How it s scored. How it s funded. 2

3 VTrans2040 How it s planned? 3

4 How it s planned VTrans2040 VTrans is the long-range, statewide multimodal policy plan that lays out overarching Vision and Goals for transportation in the Commonwealth It identifies transportation investment priorities and provides direction to transportation agencies on strategies and programs to be incorporated into their plans and programs 4

5 How it s planned VTrans2040 Needs Assessment: VMTP will identify future needs for all modes of travel across the Commonwealth not project specific Policy and recommendations of the plan will focus on: Corridors of Statewide Significance Identified regional networks Local designated growth areas 5

6 VMTP Needs Assessment UNDER DEVELOPMENT Note: Map includes all locally designated growth areas that appear consistent with the intent of OIPI is asking that localities who want their growth areas to qualify for HB2 funding to add a code reference ( ) by October 1, 2015 to ensure that projects submitted to promote these areas meet the HB2 screening requirement. Projects promoting UDA-like designated growth areas with the proper code reference submitted after October 1 will not be considered in the first round of HB2 project screening.

7 HB1887 How it s funded? 7

8 How HB2 is funded HB1887 removes the formula put in place in by the 1986 Special Session legislation New construction formula established, effective in FY 2021: State of Good Repair 45% High-Priority Projects Program (Statewide) * 27.5% District Grant Programs* 27.5% *To be programmed according to HB 2 in FY17 8

9 How HB2 is funded In the interim (FY17-20): Funds not programmed to projects are to be distributed 50/50 to: High-Priority Projects Program (Statewide) District Grant Programs 9

10 Funds Available for HB 2 (in millions) Based on Draft SYIP (Subject to Revision) HB 1887 Grant Programs Percentage 6-Year Total District Grant Program Bristol 7.0% $27.7 Culpeper 6.2% 24.4 Fredericksburg 6.9% 26.9 Hampton Roads 20.2% 79.2 Lynchburg 7.1% 28.0 Northern Virginia 20.7% 81.4 Richmond 14.4% 56.7 Salem 9.6% 37.7 Staunton 7.8% 30.6 High Priority Projects Program (Statewide) Total 100.0% $

11 Funds Available for State of Good Repair (in millions) - Based on Draft SYIP (Subject to Revision) District Percentage 6-Year Total Bristol 11.7% $40.1 Culpeper 6.0% 20.5 Fredericksburg 12.1% 41.4 Hampton Roads 14.8% 50.6 Lynchburg 7.6% 26.0 Northern Virginia 10.6% 36.1 Richmond 17.4% 59.7 Salem 12.1% 41.4 Staunton 7.9% 26.9 Total 100.0% $

12 12 Who can apply?

13 Applicant Eligibility Project System Regional Entity (MPOs, PDCs) Locality (Counties, Cities, Towns) Public Transit Agencies Corridor of Statewide Significance Yes Yes, with a resolution of support from relevant regional entity Yes, with resolution of support from relevant regional entity Regional Network Yes Yes Yes, with resolution of support from relevant entity Urban Development Area No Yes No 13

14 HB2 Overview How it s scored 14

15 HB2 Timeline- What s Happened to Date HB2 law becomes effective - July 1, 2014 July 2014 Secretary establishes Executive Working Group to begin addressing HB2 impacts and requirements August Subcommittees for Measures and Programming February Draft Measures presented to CTB February - May 2015 Detailed measures methodologies developed March 2015 Draft process presented to CTB May 2015 Revised process presented to CTB Numerous outreach sessions and CTB presentations made over this time period detailing progress and soliciting input 15

16 Funding Subject to HB2 What funds are subject to HB2? Funds that are subject to HB2 include state and federal highway funds Legislation excluded the following projects and types of funding from the prioritization process: Asset management Revenue sharing Regional revenues CMAQ federal funds Highway Safety federal funds Transportation Alternatives funding 16

17 HB2 Project Types Examples of eligible project types include: Highway improvements Widening projects Operational improvements Access management Transit and rail capacity expansion projects Transportation demand management Van Pools Park & Ride facilities Telecommuting Passenger Rail 17

18 HB2 Project Types Project types excluded: Asset Management Structurally deficient bridges Reconstructive paving Routine maintenance Transit and Rail State of Good Repair projects 18

19 HB2 Factors 19 For more details see: sentation_agenda_item_1.pdf

20 Factor Areas Goals that guided measure development Safety reduce the number and rate of fatalities and severe injuries Congestion reduce person hours of delay and increase person throughput Accessibility increase access to jobs and travel options Economic Development support economic development and improve goods movement Environmental Quality improve air quality and avoid impacts to the natural environment Land Use support transportation efficient land development patterns 20

21 Measuring SAFETY 50% of score Expected reduction in total fatalities and severe injuries (100% of score for transit projects) 50% of score Expected reduction in the rate of fatalities and severe injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 21

22 Measuring CONGESTION MITIGATION 50% of score Change in peak period (multimodal) person throughput in the project corridor 50% of score - Change in the amount of peak period person hours of delay in the project corridor 22

23 Measuring ACCESSIBILITY 60% of score Change in cumulative job accessibility (within 45 minutes) (within 60 minutes for transit projects) 20% of score - Change in cumulative job accessibility for disadvantaged populations (within 45 minutes by automobile and 60 minutes by transit) 20% of score Assessment of the project support for connections between modes, and promotion of multiple transportation choices 23

24 Measuring ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 50% of score Potential of project to reduce criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions 50% of Score Potential impacts to natural and cultural resources 24

25 Measuring ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 70% of score Assessment of progress made towards new economic development (new and expansion of existing) 30% of score - Rate projects based on the extent to which the project is deemed to enhance access to critical intermodal locations, interregional freight movement, and/or freight intensive industries Travel time reliability measure under development 25

26 Measuring LAND USE 100% of score Degree to which project will support transportation efficient land use patterns and local policies 26

27 How Scoring Works Let s say height is a measure

28 28 Project cost will be an equalizer

29 Factor Weighting Framework (May 2015) Many PDCs/MPOs requested a change in weighting frameworks B to C, C to D Suggested revisions to weighting percentage for some typologies Suggestions that land use should be available as a measure statewide Many small and medium size areas requested increased weight for economic development Suggestions to include additional weighting frameworks Want the ability to change frameworks over time 29

30 Factor Weighting Framework by MPO and PDC (March 2015) 30

31 Revised Factor Weighting Framework by MPO and PDC (May 2015) 31

32 Factor Weighting Framework (March 2015 to May 2015) 32

33 33 HB2 Pilot Findings

34 Summary of Findings from Pilot Projects Test Pilot scoring of sample projects conducted to test the application of the evaluation measures, factor weights, and overall prioritization process 38 projects were selected representing typical projects expected to apply for HB2 funding including 2 transit projects Projects had already been funded and are either in construction or completed VDOT and DRPT staff provided inputs to the evaluation based on local knowledge 34

35 Summary of Findings from Pilot Projects Test All scores are relative based on the other available projects being evaluated Does not appear to be any clear biases based on area type or size of project Projects with low raw scores can have high relative scores when cost is considered Projects tend to score well in a few but not all of the factors Refinement of criteria for ratings-based measures is necessary to improve consistency 35

36 Scope/ Schedule/ Estimates HB2 project applications must include the following information: Scope - The scope should define the limits of the project, its physical and operational characteristics, and physical and/or operational footprint. Cost Estimate - Cost estimate should be as realistic as possible considering known information and should account for possible risk and contingencies. Schedule Anticipated schedule should be realistic and reflect complexity of project and identify phase durations (PE, RW, CN) 36

37 Project Readiness Projects that are conceptual in nature and not well defined may need additional planning/pre-scoping level work before the project can be submitted and scored under HB2 In these cases, District/DRPT POCs may recommend to applicant the need for additional study prior to HB2 submittal 37

38 38 Draft HB 2 Process Timeline for implementation

39 Additional Resources Presentations to the CTB HB2 Implementation Guide and Appendices MeasuresAppendices_ pdf HB2 Website 39

40 HB-2 & HB-1887 Briefing to the Richmond Regional TPO June 4, 2015 Luck Stone Headquarters Rob Cary, PE, LS Richmond District Engineer