Project Selection Advisory Council

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Project Selection Advisory Council"

Jodie Atkins
6 years ago
Views:

1 Project Selection Advisory Council March 13, 2014 Sheri Warrington, Manager of MPO Activities Office of Transportation Planning 1

2 Project Selection Criteria Best Practices Degree of implementation in other states varies widely and is ongoing NH, Michigan, Oregon, Utah Highlights from newly-implemented comprehensive prioritization processes North Carolina, Nevada, Florida and Delaware Trend toward looking across all modes The goal in funding projects is to consider all the needs, all the available funding, the agencies' strategic plan and the established performance measures, in the end providing a balanced program which best helps reach the established goals and is measured and adjusted with each annual iteration. -- Tom Greco, Asst. Dir. Nevada DOT Planning 2

3 New Hampshire DOT In first iteration of the new process Focused only on FHWA funded projects. Review with 9 Regional Planning Commissions (4 of which also serve as MPOs) to develop standard project evaluation and prioritization criteria. Realization that first draft criteria were not well chosen to fairly represent multi-modal projects Regions can weight their criteria differently to match their regional long range priorities. All parties communicate their weighted criteria prior to soliciting for new project needs. 3

4 New Hampshire DOT Prioritization Tool 4

5 Has evaluated tools in NCDOT, Virginia DOT, Missouri DOT and Wisconsin DOT Early stages of visioning process internally Considering purchase of a tool for prioritization Michigan DOT 5

maximum flexibility in the use of limited funds for the best multi-modal solutions.

6 Divides STIP into two parts: Oregon DOT Enhance: Activities that enhance, expand, or improve the transportation system Fix-It: Activities that fix or preserve the transportation system Seeks to achieve maximum flexibility in the use of limited funds for the best multi-modal solutions. Designed to identify most effective projects based on community and state values, rather than how they fit into prescribed programs. 6

7 Utah DOT UDOT's ranking process is required by Utah State Code, an administrative rule has been written to fulfill the code directive. The Utah Transportation Commission (UTC) is the approving authority for all programs and projects. UDOT's ranking process is a decision support process intended to help the UTC prioritize and rank projects in order of their importance. However, the UTC can override the process as long as it is discussed in a public meeting and a reason for the decision is documented. 7

Existing process ties to the Department s strategic goals and is the same for urban and rural projects Working on new prioritization process that attempts to rank across modes to develop a list of

8 Existing process ties to the Department s strategic goals and is the same for urban and rural projects Working on new prioritization process that attempts to rank across modes to develop a list of urbanized area priorities Objectives of the process include: Combined UDOT Region and MAG TIP process One comprehensive list of needs Criteria reflect UDOT goals, Utah Transit Authority goals and local priorities Data driven where possible Utah DOT 8

North Carolina - Strategic Mobility Formula Statewide Level: Projects of statewide significance will receive 40% of the available revenue, totaling $6 billion over 10 years. 100% data-driven.

9 North Carolina - Strategic Mobility Formula Statewide Level: Projects of statewide significance will receive 40% of the available revenue, totaling $6 billion over 10 years. 100% data-driven. Regional Level: Projects of regional significance will receive 30% of the available revenue, equaling $4.5 billion over a decade based on regional population. Data will comprise 70% of the decision-making process and local rankings by area planning organizations and the NCDOT Transportation Divisions will round out the remaining 30% at this level. Division Level: Projects that address local concerns such as safety, congestion and connectivity will receive 30% of the available revenue, or $4.5 billion, shared equally over NCDOT s 14 Transportation Divisions. The department will choose projects based 50% on data and 50% on local rankings. 9

10 North Carolina scoring example 10

11 Nevada DOT Nevada DOT asks each discipline, to create their own priority list of needs (based on relevant data), then, using performance based measures, funding % are assigned to each list, keeping in mind funding designation definitions. The Connecting Nevada Plan is a 50-year look ahead, originating from a need to plan for Nevada s long-term transportation needs. The Plan is for all of Nevada, urban and rural including local, regional, and state partners who make decisions about future transportation investments. A total of eight Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings, five Steering Committee meetings, two rounds of stakeholder meetings, and numerous briefings at regularly scheduled meetings of transportation partners were conducted to gather guidance and input resulting in the Plan. 11

Florida DOT In 2003, the Florida Legislature and Governor established

transportation mobility and economic competitiveness.

transportation facilities, including the State s largest and most

terminals, passenger rail and intercity bus terminals, rail corridors,

12 Florida DOT In 2003, the Florida Legislature and Governor established the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) to enhance Florida s transportation mobility and economic competitiveness. Mutli-modal: The SIS is a statewide network of high priority transportation facilities, including the State s largest and most significant airports, spaceports, deepwater seaports, freight rail terminals, passenger rail and intercity bus terminals, rail corridors, waterways, and highways. Objective criteria and thresholds based on quantitative measures of transportation and economic activity. 12

13 Delaware DOT (DelDOT) Each year develops a 6-year Capital Transportation Plan (CTP) that identifies anticipated capital investments. The CTP contains five general types of projects and programs 1. Projects that represent system preservation that are excluded from the prioritization process (SOGR) 2. Projects and programs that receive a dedicated funding source from the FHWA or FTA that can only be spent on those types of projects (DED) 3. Projects and programs that provide the ability to make small improvements that allow for the improved management and operation of the system (MGT) 4. Projects that are mandated for DelDOT to complete either through a regulatory requirement, contractual obligation, legislative action or a judicial action (REQ) 5. Projects that are prioritized using the methods established under TITLE 29 CHAPTER of the Delaware Code. These remaining projects are evaluated and ranked according to how the elements of the project meet the priorities established by the MPOs, Sussex County and DelDOT s mission, vision and goals. 13

14 Delaware DOT (DelDOT) Delaware s Development of the 6-year CTP This is a multi step process that considers several factors including: 1. Project Technical Score evaluates the individual projects based on a separate document entitled DelDOT Statewide Prioritization Criteria and Weighting Summary 2. Project Readiness assess the current phase of the project and when the next phase can begin along with the establishment of a project schedule from concept design through to construction. 3. Project Funding Eligibility determine what types or Federal or State funding each project is eligible to use. The process of applying the funding then works down the list generated from the technical score and assigns the most restricted funding categories first utilizing the most flexible categories towards the end of the process. 4. Assemble the Plan 14

Requirements for Massachusetts Section 11: The project selection criteria developed under this section shall include a project priority formula or other data driven process that

15 Requirements for Massachusetts Section 11: The project selection criteria developed under this section shall include a project priority formula or other data driven process that shall include, but not be limited to, the following factors: Engineering Condition of existing assets Safety Economic impact Regional priorities Anticipated cost of a project 15

2009 and Chapter 46 of the Acts of 2013 MassDOT Comprehensive

16 Requirements for Massachusetts USDOT MAP-21 Performance Measures and 3C Requirements Massachusetts Legislature Chapter 25 of the Acts of 2009 and Chapter 46 of the Acts of 2013 MassDOT Comprehensive Strategic Plan WMM/CIP/PMT MPOs LRTPs & Regional Priorities TIPS & STIP 16

17 Next Steps Agenda for first public hearing Agenda items for next Council meeting Presentations from T4America, other State DOTs, or consultants (Decision Lens) WeMoveMA (WMM) presentation 17

Falling Forward: A Guide to the FAST Act

Falling Forward: A Guide to the FAST Act August 18, 2016 www.t4america.org @t4america Today s Presenter Joe McAndrew Policy Director Transportation for America joe.mcandrew@t4america.org 202-955-5543 x