Prioritization 4.0

NCDOT Strategic Prioritization Office of Transportation July 2015 Agenda

• Background • General Overview of Changes From P3.0 To P4.0 • Scoring and Scaling • Peak ADT • In-Depth Review of P4.0 Highway Criteria, Measures and Weights • In-Depth Review of P4.0 Non-Highway Criteria, Measures and Weights • Timeline/Schedule • SPOT On!ine • Local Input Methodologies and Best Practices

2 Background

NCDOT is 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

Annual Budget of approx. $4.1 B (federal dollars account for 25% of total budget)

3 Background Key Partners, as shown on colorful map below, include: • 19 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) • 18 Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs) • 14 Field Offices (Divisions)

*Unifour RPO has dissolved into adjacent MPOs 4 Strategic Transportation Investment (STI)

New funding formula for NCDOT’s Capital Expenditures • Focus on Mobility/Expansion and Modernization projects for all modes

House Bill 817 signed into Law June 26, 2013

Most significant transportation legislation in NC since 1989

Prioritization Workgroup charged with providing recommendations to NCDOT on weights and criteria. Reps include: • MPOs • RPOs • Division Engineers • Local Government Advocacy Groups

5 STI Legislation

New funding formula for all capital expenditures, regardless of mode. All modes must compete for the same funds

Funds come from NC Highway Trust Fund (primarily highway use tax)

Operations and Maintenance expenditures are funded from separate NC Highway Fund (primarily gas tax)

Projects (regardless of mode) will be scored on a 0‐100 point scale

Incentive For Local funding (highway projects only) • 50% of local commitment of non‐State/Federal funds will be returned to local area for other high scoring projects in that area

6 How the STI Works

40% of Funds = $6B 30% of Funds = $4.5B 30% of Funds = $4.5B Estimated $15B in Funds for SFY 2016-2025 Statewide Mobility

Focus  Address Significant Congestion and Bottlenecks Regional Impact Eligible Projects - Statewide type Projects (such as Focus  Improve Connectivity Interstates) within Regions Division Needs • Selection based on 100% Data Eligible Projects • Projects Programmed prior to - Projects Not Selected in Focus  Address Local Needs Local Input Ranking Statewide Mobility Category Eligible Projects - Regional Projects - Projects Not Selected in Statewide or • Selection based on 70% Data & Regional Categories 30% Local Input - Division Projects • Funding based on population • Selection based on 50% Data & 50% within Region (7) Local Input • Funding based on equal share for each Division (14) = ~$25M / yr 7 STI Legislation

Project Cap –No more than 10% of Statewide Mobility funds over 5 years (~$300M) may be assigned to a single project or contiguous projects in the same corridor in a single Division or adjoining Divisions

Funds included in the applicable category (Statewide, Regional, Division) but not subject to prioritization criteria: • Bridge Replacement • Interstate Maintenance • Highway Safety Improvements

Funds included in the computation of Division equal share but will be evaluated through separate prioritization processes: • STP‐DA (if funds used on Regional category eligible project, funds come from Regional) • Transportation Alternatives • Rail‐highway crossing program

8 regions & divisions

9 Eligibility Definitions ‐ Highways

Statewide Regional Division • Interstates and Future Interstates • Routes on the NHS as of July 1, 2012 • Routes on Department of Defense Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET) • Other US and NC Routes • All SR Routes Highway • Appalachian Development Highway System Routes ~10,500 miles • ~65,000 miles • Uncompleted Intrastate projects • Designated Toll Facilities

~4,500 miles

10 STI Law Highway Project Scoring Overview

Statewide Mobility Regional Impact Division Needs Insert Table of Eligibility • Statewide Eligible • Statewide • Statewide • Regional Projects: • Regional • Division

Overall 70% Quantitative Data / 50% Quantitative Data / 100% Quantitative Data Weights: 30% Local Input 50% Local Input

• Benefit‐cost • Benefit‐cost • Benefit‐Cost • Congestion • Congestion. • Congestion • Safety • Safety Eligible • Economic Comp. • Freight • Freight Quant. • Safety • Multimodal • Multimodal Criteria • Freight • Pavement Condition • Pavement Condition (per • Multimodal • Lane Width • Lane Width legislation) • Pavement Condition • Shoulder Width • Shoulder Width • Lane Width • Accessibility and connectivity to • Accessibility and connectivity to • Shoulder Width employment centers, tourist employment centers, tourist destinations, or military installations destinations, or military installations

Quant. Criteria can be different for each Quant. Criteria can be different for each Notes: Projects Selected Prior to Local Input Region Division 11 P4.0 Highway Criteria P4.0 Highway Scoring Criteria and Weights

Funding QUANTITATIVE LOCAL INPUT Category Data Division Rank MPO/RPO Rank Congestion = 30% Benefit‐Cost = 25% Safety = 15% Statewide Economic Competitiveness = 10% ‐‐ ‐‐ Mobility Freight = 15% Multimodal = 5% Total = 100% Congestion = 20% Benefit‐Cost = 20% Safety = 10% Regional Impact Accessibility/Connectivity = 10% 15% 15% Freight = 10% Total = 70% Congestion = 15% Benefit‐Cost = 15% Safety = 10% Division Needs Accessibility/Connectivity = 5% 25% 25% Freight = 5% Total = 50% Note: Div. ____ have agreed to use different criteria for Regional Impact and/or Division Needs projects. 13 Highway Criteria Changes

What are the most influential criteria measure changes that will impact scores in P4.0 vs. P3.0?

• Scaling –affects all modes • Peak ADT –affects several highway criteria • Statewide Travel Demand Model (NCSTM) • Local contribution • Safety benefits

14 How Projects are Scored

1. Projects entered into SPOT On!ine –existing/modified and new projects

2. Data derived for each project –GIS data, travel time savings, safety, cost, etc.

3. Criteria measure values calculated –some measure values=derived GIS data

4. Criteria measure values scaled – scaling will occur relative to other projects

5. Criteria scores calculated from scaled measure values –using approved weights

6. Quantitative score calculated from criteria scores –using approved weights

7. Local Input Points entered –by MPOs/RPOs and Divisions

8. Total project score calculated –Sum of quantitative score and weighted local

input points 15 Scaling Scores Why scale scores in P4.0? Address P3.0 biggest statistical issues of small range of values, low values, and criteria that have a disproportional impact on the total score (from Cambridge)

How will scaling be applied in P4.0? Using a relative distribution approach, based on the % of projects with higher, lower, or equal values for each criteria measure • Measure = portion of the criteria score that has defined % weight (e.g., V/C ratio = 60%) • Highest raw measure value = 100 • Lowest raw measure value = 0 • Median raw measure value = 50 (meaning 50% of raw values are higher, 50% are lower)

Scaling is essentially grading the measure values on a curve  comparing an individual project measure value against all other project measure values

In P3.0, the criteria scores were based on the raw measure values without a comparison to other projects 16 17 18 Criteria Scaling Measure Criteria Measure Notes Weight 60% (Statewide) Volume/Capacity 80% (Regional) 100% (Division) Congestion 40% (Statewide) Volume 20% (Regional) 0% (Division) Scaling based on raw (Benefit/Cost to NCDOT) ratio only and not extra % for local funds/tolls. Extra % added to Scaled B/C score with total Benefit‐Cost Benefit/Cost 100% Benefit‐Cost criteria score not to exceed 100. Travel Time and Safety Benefits are summed in Benefits (numerator) Crash Density (segments) 33% Crash Severity (segments) 33% Safety Critical Crash Rate (segments) 33% Crash Frequency (intersections) 50% Severity Index (intersections) 50% Economic % Change in Value Added 50% Competitiveness Long‐term Jobs 50% 19 Criteria Scaling (continued) Measure Criteria Measure Notes Weight County Economic Indicator 50% Accessibility / Upgrade Roadway Travel Time Scaling based only on projects that are eligible Connectivity 50% Savings for this component Truck Volume 50% Volume/Capacity on Non‐ Scaling based only on projects that are eligible Interstate STRAHNet or Future 30% Freight for this measure Interstate Route Scaling based only on projects within 20 miles Distance to Freight Terminal 20% of Freight Terminal Distance to Multimodal Scaling based only on projects within 5 miles of 60% Passenger Terminal Multimodal Passenger Terminal Multimodal Volume/Capacity on Route near Scaling based only on projects that are eligible 40% Multimodal Passenger Terminal for this measure Scaling based only on projects where difference Lane Width Lane Width Difference 100% is greater than 0 Paved Shoulder Paved Shoulder Width Scaling based only on projects where difference 100% Width Difference is greater than 0 Pavement Pavement Condition Rating 100% Condition 20 Scaling Scores ‐ Examples Congestion Criteria Two Measures: Volume/Capacity Ratio (60% of score) and Volume (40% of score)

Scaled Volume / Prioritization Raw Volume / Scaled Volume Congestion Capacity Ratio Raw Volume Version Capacity Ratio Value (40%) Criteria Score Value (60%) P4.0 (using Scaling) 1.29 89 40,000 53 74.6 P3.0 1.29 N/A 40,000 N/A 93.4

Benefit‐Cost Criteria

Benefits / Cost to Benefit‐Cost Criteria Prioritization Version Scaled B/C Value Local Funds/Toll % NCDOT Score

P4.0 (using Scaling) 2.4 64.8 25% 89.8 P3.0 2.4 N/A 25% 2.4

Example does not account for differences in travel time saving calculation or safety benefits which will be incorporated in P4.0

21 Peak ADT

PADT = AADT x PADT Factor

Primary Routes –factor based on continuous counts and coverage counts Secondary Routes –factor based on default values

PADT to be used in the following: • Congestion (volume/capacity and volume) • Freight (volume/capacity) • Multi‐modal (volume/capacity)

P5.0+  Explore expanding coverage counts to provide a more accurate PADT for additional locations

22 GIS ANDContinuous GEOGRAPHICAL Count StationsANALYSIS GIS Analysis (Fac_month)

http://www.itre.ncsu.edu 23 Coverage Count Stations with Peak ADT Factor >1.2

http://www.itre.ncsu.edu PADT Factor and AADT

http://www.itre.ncsu.edu 25 Peak ADT Primary Routes –factor based on continuous counts and coverage counts

Need to fill in the gaps along a corridor

26 Highway Scoring – Eligible Quantitative Criteria

Criteria Existing Project Benefits Conditions (Future Conditions) ‐ Congestion (Volume/Capacity + Volume) ‐ Benefit/Cost (Travel Time Savings + Safety Benefits / Cost to NCDOT) ‐ Safety Score (Critical Crash Rates, Density, Severity)

‐ Economic Competitiveness (Jobs + Value Added in $) ‐ Accessibility / Connectivity (County Economic Indicator, Upgrade Roadway) ‐ Freight (Truck Volumes, STRAHNet/Future Interstate, Freight Terminals) ‐ Multimodal (Passenger Terminals)

‐ Lane Width (Existing Width vs. Standard Width)

‐ Shoulder Width (Existing Width vs. Standard Width)

‐ Pavement Score (Pavement Condition Rating) 27 Highway – Congestion

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility 30% Regional Impact 20% Division Needs 15%

Purpose –Measure existing level of mobility along roadways by indicating congested locations and bottlenecks

Statewide Mobility 60% ‐ Existing Volume/Capacity Ratio 40% ‐ Existing Volume

Regional Impact 80% ‐ Existing Volume/Capacity Ratio 20% ‐ Existing Volume

Division Needs 100% ‐ Existing Volume/Capacity Ratio

Peak ADT will be used as the Existing Volume 28 Highway –Benefit‐Cost

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility 25% Regional Impact 20% Division Needs 15%

Purpose –measure the expected benefits of the project over a 10 year period against the estimated project cost to NCDOT

((Travel Time Savings over 10 years in $ + Safety Benefits over 10 years in $) / Project Cost to NCDOT) + ((Other Funds) / Total Project Cost) x 100)

• Travel Time Savings: - Statewide Mobility and Regional Impact projects calculated using Statewide Travel Model (NCSTM) - Division Needs projects calculated using before & after project accounting for growth from NCSTM • Safety benefits calculated using crash reduction factors multiplied by existing crashes • Project Cost to consists of Construction, Right‐of‐Way, and Utilities costs • Cost can be lowered and score increased if other funds (non‐federal or non‐state funds) are committed to project by locals 29 Travel Time Savings (TTS)

Statewide Mobility and Regional Impact categories Use North Carolina Statewide Travel Demand Model (NCSTM) to calculate travel time savings over 10 years (direct benefits) • Inputs to Benefit‐Cost and Economic Competitiveness criteria

Since NCSTM is still relatively new, NCDOT is continuing to review/refine/improve the model over the summer prior to evaluating projects for P4.0

All project inputs will be reviewed to ensure they are correct and model outputs will be reviewed for reasonableness

30 Travel Time Savings (TTS)

Division Needs category Use formula based approach that incorporates 10 year growth from NCSTM 1. Calculate TTS using current volume 2. Calculate TTS with current volume grown 10 years 3. Calculate area under the curve to capture total TTS - Growth based on VMT Growth Rates by county, facility type, and area type

• Use for all Division Needs eligible projects • Update Congestion Factor (VDF curves) to match NCSTM –Cambridge Recommendation • Eliminate use of ideal speed –Cambridge Recommendation Notes: • Similar concept used for intersection/interchange projects evaluated in TransModeler

31 Travel Time Savings (TTS)

For P4.0 –TTS would be calculated for entire area under curve (all green)

32 Highway –Safety

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility 15% Regional Impact 10% Division Needs 10%

Purpose –measure existing crashes along/at the project

Segments 33% ‐ Crash Density 33% ‐ Crash Severity 33% ‐ Critical Crash Rate

Intersections 50% ‐ Crash Frequency 50% ‐ Severity Index

•All data provided by Mobility & Safety Division (3 year moving average) •Higher scores indicate poorer performance

33 Highway – Economic Competitiveness

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility 10% Regional Impact N/A Division Needs N/A

Purpose –measure the economic benefits the transportation project is expected to provide in economic activity (GDP) and jobs over 10 yrs

Score based on Output from (Economic Impact Model) •Primary input is Travel Time Savings • Output is # of long‐term jobs created (50%) + Value added in $ (50%) based on % change in County Economy - Includes wages increased, increased productivity - Accounts for current economic conditions (includes use of labor statistics) - Results based on 10 year forecast using Moody’s Analytics data •Does NOT include contingent (prospective) development • Criteria is not intended to evaluate projects for recruiting purposes 34 Highway – Accessibility / Connectivity

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 10% Division Needs 5%

Purpose –Improve access to opportunity in rural and less‐affluent areas and improve interconnectivity of the transportation network.

50% ‐ County Tier Designation –Points are based on economic distress indicators from Dept. of Commerce (includes rankings of: property tax base per capita, population growth, median household income, unemployment rate) 50% ‐ Does project upgrade how the roadway functions? –Points are based on whether the project upgrades the roadway to one which provides a higher level of mobility by enhancing traffic flow, eliminating/bypassing signalized sections, increasing control of access, and accounting for the travel time savings per user

35 Highway – Accessibility / Connectivity

Facility Type Upgrade (Does project upgrade the roadway) • Focus on improving how the roadway functions, with emphasis on enhancing traffic flow, removing/bypassing traffic signals, and increasing access control • Eligibility based on combination of Existing Facility Type and Project Facility Type (see below)

Existing Facility Type (From) Project Facility Type (To) Two Lane Highway Freeway Two Lane Highway Multilane Highway Two Lane Highway Superstreet Multilane Highway Freeway Arterial (Signalized Roadway) Freeway Arterial (Signalized Roadway) Multilane Highway Arterial (Signalized Roadway) Superstreet Superstreet Freeway Superstreet Multilane Highway

New Location (Freeway, Multilane Highway, Superstreet) and Upgrade Intersection to Interchange/Grade separation projects also eligible) • If project is eligible, use travel time savings per user 36 Highway –Freight [+ Military]

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility 15% Regional Impact 10% Division Needs 5%

Purpose –measure congestion along routes that provide connection to freight intermodal terminals and that have high truck volumes

50% ‐ Truck volumes along route 30% ‐ Volume [Peak ADT] /capacity if project is on non‐Interstate STRAHNET route or designated future Interstate 20% ‐ (20 miles –distance project is to nearest freight intermodal terminal)

Freight terminals (includes facilities within 20 miles of NC): • Public freight intermodal terminals (truck/rail/pipeline) –as defined in NHS • Seaports and inland ports • Statewide Mobility eligible airports which handle large movement of freight (CLT, RDU, GSO) • Major military bases • Major ferry terminals • Large private freight intermodal terminals (truck to rail) 37 Highway – Multimodal [+ Military]

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility 5% Regional Impact ‐ Division Needs ‐

Purpose –measure congestion along routes that provide a connection to multimodal passenger terminals

40% ‐ Volume [Peak ADT] / Capacity ratio along route if project is within 5 miles of a multimodal passenger terminal 60% ‐ (5 miles –distance project is to nearest multimodal passenger terminal)

Multimodal passenger terminals: • Amtrak stations (bus and rail stations run by Amtrak) • Major transit terminals • Commercial service airports • Red & blue general aviation airports • Major military bases • Ferry terminals 38 Highway –Lane Width

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility ‐ Regional Impact ‐ Division Needs ‐

Purpose –measure the existing lane width vs. DOT design standard

Existing Lane Width –DOT design standard Lane Width

• Greater the difference, the higher points the project receives - 1 ft difference = 25 pts - 2 ft difference = 50 pts - 3 ft difference = 75 pts - 4+ ft difference = 100 pts •Does NOT mean that project will be constructed to design standard

39 Highway –[Paved] Shoulder Width

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility ‐ Regional Impact ‐ Division Needs ‐

Purpose –measure the existing paved shoulder width vs. DOT design standard

Existing Paved Shoulder Width –DOT design standard Paved Shoulder Width

40 Highway – Pavement Condition

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility ‐ Regional Impact ‐ Division Needs ‐

Purpose –measure the existing pavement condition along the project

100 – Pavement Condition Rating

• Based on 2014 Pavement Condition Survey • Higher scores indicate poorer pavement condition

41 Alternate Criteria ‐ Regional Impact / Division Needs

Requirements: 1. All MPO/RPO/Division Engineers unanimously agree on Alternate Criteria and % weights by funding category • Alternate Criteria/Weights from P3.0 will not carry to P4.0 • Within respective Paired Funding Region(s) or Division(s)

2. Memo to SPOT from each MPO/RPO/Division Engineer – reference TAC Chair(s) agreement • Can begin process once Workgroup agrees to weights • Memo must be received by October 1, 2015

42 P4.0 Non‐Highway Criteria STI –Non‐Highway Criteria

Separate prioritization processes for each mode • Must have minimum of 4 quantitative criteria • Criteria based on 0‐100 point scale with no bonus points and not favoring any particular mode of transportation

44 Eligibility Definitions –Non‐Highways

Statewide Regional Division Large Commercial Service Other Commercial Service All Airports without Commercial Airports. Funding not to exceed Airports not in Statewide. Service. Funding not to exceed Aviation $500K per airport project per Funding not to exceed $300K per $18.5M for airports within this year airport project per year category

Bicycle‐ N/A N/A All routes Pedestrian

Service spanning two or more Service not included on counties and serving more than Public Regional. Multimodal terminals N/A one municipality. Funding Transportation and stations serving passenger amounts not to exceed 10% of transit systems regional allocation.

State maintained routes, Ferry N/A Replacement of vessels excluding replacement vessels

Rail service spanning two or Freight Capacity Service on Class Rail service not included on Rail more counties not included on I Railroad Corridors Statewide or Regional Statewide

45 P4.0 Aviation Criteria STI – Eligibility for Airports

Statewide Mobility– Commercial Service Airports • Airport is in the Federal Aviation Administration's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) • International Service or 375,000 enplanements • $500,000 cap per airport per project per year • Charlotte Douglas International Airport, Raleigh Durham International Airport, Piedmont Triad International Airport, Wilmington International Airport, Asheville Regional Airport Regional Impacts – Commercial Service Airports • NPIAS airports that are not included in subdivision (1) of this section • $300,000 cap per airport per project per year • Albert J. Ellis Airport, Coastal Carolina Airport, Concord Regional Airport, Pitt- Greenville Airport, Fayetteville Regional Airport Division Needs – General Aviation Airports • NPIAS airports that are not included in subdivision (1) or (2) • General Aviation airports • Statewide total funding not to exceed $18,500,000

47 Airports by STI Classification

*Asheville is now Statewide

48 48 Airports are Unique

• Locally owned = Airport Sponsor • Project must be on an FAA approved Airport Layout Plan in order to be considered • Minimum of 10% match is required • Sponsor must request project (also tied to the FAA NPIAS requirements) • Federally Obligated to follow FAA guidelines

49 Definition for Capital Projects P3.0 vs P4.0

P3.0 considered all projects that changed the ‘footprint’ of the airport’s infrastructure.

P4.0 will consider only projects that exceed the system objectives or regulatory requirements for the airport’s infrastructure.

50 P4.0 Aviation Criteria

Statewide Regional Division Criteria Measure Weight Weight Weight

NCDOA Project NCDOA Project Rating 40% 30% 25% Rating

Federal Aviation Administration FAA ACIP Rating Airport Capital Improvement Plan 10% 5% 10% (ACIP) rating Non‐State % of local funds compared to Contribution 30% 20% 5% state funds toward the project Index [ ( Total $ Econ. Contribution of Tier / Total # of IFR Ops of Tier ) * Benefit/Cost 20% 15% 10% NCDOA Capital Project Rating ] / Project Cost

51 Aviation –NCDOA Project Rating

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility 40% Regional Impact 30% Division Needs 25%

Purpose: Assigns point values based on priority and need of the project. Utilizes the North Carolina Division of Aviation (DOA) Master Project Categories from the recently completed NC Airports System Plan

Measure: NCDOA Project Rating

Sources: –NC Airport System Plan –NC Airport Development Plan –Airport’s FAA approved Airport Layout Plan –Scoring based on points assigned to project as evaluated by NCDOA recommended criteria

52 Aviation –FAA ACIP Rating

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility 10% Regional Impact 5% Division Needs 10%

Purpose: The ACIP rating serves as the primary planning tool for the FAA for systematically identifying, prioritizing and assigning funds to critical airport development and associated capital needs for the National Airspace System (NAS)

Measure: Federal Aviation Administration Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) rating

Sources: – Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Order 5100.39 –Airport Capital Improvement Plan

53 Aviation –Non‐State Contribution Index

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility 30% Regional Impact 20% Division Needs 5%

Purpose: Provides greater points for those projects that have a higher % of non‐state funding sources, such as local, federal, and private funding

Measure: % of local funds compared to state funds toward the project

Importance: Lessens burden on state capital dollars and measures financial commitment of the airport to the project

Source: Quantified at project request stage by the airport sponsor

54 Aviation –Benefit Cost

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility 20% Regional Impact 15% Division Needs 10%

Purpose: Measures total economic contribution

Measure: [ ( Total $ Econ. Contribution of Tier / Total # of IFR Ops of Tier ) * NCDOA Capital Project Rating ] / Project Cost

Notes: Includes direct, indirect and induced economic contributions for each airport Uses averaged Economic Contribution for all airports within each Tier Uses average number of total IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) operations by Tier

Sources: Number of IFR Operations reported by FAA per airport

55 P4.0 Bicycle/Pedestrian Criteria P4.0 Bicycle/Pedestrian Criteria

Criteria Measure Division Weight

(Number of crashes x 40%) + Safety (Posted speed limit x 40%) + 15% (Project safety benefit x 20%) (Destination Type within 1 mile (pedestrian) or 3 miles (bicycle) Access of facility x 50%) + 10% (Distance to Prime Destination x 50%) # of households and employees per square mile within 1 ½ mile (bicycle) or ½ mile (pedestrian) of facility Demand 10% (includes factor for unoccupied housing units (second homes) + group housing, excluding prisons)

Score per each SIT, based on degree of bike/ped separation Connectivity from roadway, ADA compliance, and connectivity to a similar or 10% better project type

(Safety + Access + Demand + Connectivity) / Cost Effectiveness 5% Estimated Project Cost to NCDOT

57 Bicycle/Pedestrian –Safety

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact N/A Division Needs 15%

Purpose: Projects or improvements where bicycle or pedestrian accommodations are non‐existent or inadequate for safety of users

Measure: Number of crashes * 40% + Posted speed limit * 40% + Project safety benefit * 20%

Sources: – Division of Bike and Pedestrian Transportation (DBPT) 2007‐2011 geocoded crash data –NCDOT (Road Characteristics Data or Other) –Safety benefit score based on lookup table

58 Bike/Ped Criteria – Safety Calculation

Proposed Scoring Scale: 0-100 Bicycle/Pedestrian Crashes: 40% weight: (0-100 points) • Bicycle or pedestrian crashes within last 5 years along the corridor • For multi-use projects, both bicycle and pedestrian crash data will be used • For new off-road facilities, crash data for parallel routes will be used Crashes will be scaled, not capped Posted Speed Limits: 40% weight (0-100 pts.) • Posted speed limit Posted Speed Limit 50% Weight x Total Pts 55 and over 100 40 to 50 50 Project Safety Benefit: 20% weight (0-100 pts) 30 to 40 25 . Creates score for each Specific Improvement 25 10 Type (SIT)- see Table 1

59 Safety Benefit Lookup Table

Proposed Project Type Facilities Included: Safety Improvement Points Multi‐use Path; Cycle Track; Side Path; Off‐Road/Separated Linear Bicycle Facility Buffered Bicycle Lane; Bridge/Tunnel 100 Bicycle Lane or Other Designated On‐ On‐Road; Designated Bicycle Facility Road Space 75 Shared Lane Markings; Paved Shoulder; On‐Road Bicycle Facility Route Signage 50 Bicycle Parking; Bicycle Share Stations; Multi‐Site Bicycle Facility Bicycle Signals; Intersection Improvements 25 Sidewalks; Multi‐Use Path; Side Path; Protected Linear Pedestrian Facility Bridge/Tunnel 100 Multi‐Site Pedestrian Facility; ADA Curb Ramps; Accessible Pedestrian Compliance Signals; Streetscape/Corridor Improvements 75 Pedestrian signals; Curb extensions; Multi‐Site Pedestrian Facility Crosswalks; 50 Trail Improvement; Sidewalk Widening; Improved Pedestrian Facility Paved Shoulder; Streetscape/Corridor Improvements; Wayfinding signage 25

60 Bicycle/Pedestrian – Access

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact N/A Division Needs 10%

Purpose: Destinations that draw or generate high volumes of bikes/pedestrians

Measure: Destination Type within 1 mile (pedestrian) or 3 miles (bicycle) of facility * 50% + Distance to Prime Destination * 50%

Source: Local input regarding destinations and distances

61 Bicycle/Pedestrian – Demand

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact N/A Division Needs 10%

Purpose: Areas with access to multiple destinations

Measure: # of households and employees per square mile within 1 ½ mile (bicycle) or ½ mile (pedestrian) of facility (includes factor for unoccupied housing units (second homes) + group housing, excluding prisons)

Sources: 2010 US Census

62 Bicycle/Pedestrian – Connectivity

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact N/A Division Needs 10%

Purpose: Measure impact of project on reliability and quality of network

Measure: Score per each SIT, based on degree of bike/ped separation from roadway, ADA compliance, and connectivity to a similar or better project type Creates “Community Quality of Service (CQoS)” Index)

Formula: (CQOSendA+CQOSendB…..)/n

Sources: Local Input –score based on lookup table

63 Connectivity Lookup Table

Continuity‐Quality of Service Index

Existing Facility at End Point A/B (Project connects to or adds to…) Existing Facility at End Point A/B Bicycle Lane or Other Designated On‐Road Space; Sidewalks; Bicycle Signals or Multi‐Use Paved Intersection Path; Side Shoulder; Improvements; Shared Lane Path; Crosswalk; Bicycle Parking; Markings; Paved Bridge/Tunnel; Pedestrian Multi‐use Path; Cycle Bicycle Share Shoulder; Route Curb Ramps; Signal; Bus Track; Side Path; Stations; Along Signage; Bus stop Accessible Stop or Buffered Bicycle Lane; regional or state‐ or passenger Pedestrian Passenger Proposed Project Type Bridge/Tunnel designated route terminal None Signal Terminal None Multi‐use Path; Cycle Track; Off‐Road/Separated Linear Side Path; Buffered Bicycle Bicycle Facility Lane; Bridge/Tunnel 100 75 50 25 On‐Road; Designated Bicycle Bicycle Lane or Other Facility Designated On‐Road Facility 75 50 25 15 Shared Lane Markings; Paved On‐Road Bicycle Facility Shoulder; Route Signage 50 25 15 10 Bicycle Parking; Bicycle Share Multi‐Site Bicycle Facility Stations; Bicycle Signals; Intersection Improvements 35 15 10 5 Protected Linear Pedestrian Sidewalks; Multi‐Use Path; Facility Side Path; Bridge/Tunnel 100 50 25 Multi‐Site Pedestrian Facility; Curb Ramps; Accessible ADA Compliance Pedestrian Signals 50 25 15 Pedestrian signals; Curb Multi‐Site Pedestrian Facility extensions; Crosswalks 25 15 10 Trail Improvement; Sidewalk Widening; Paved Shoulder; Improved Pedestrian Facility Streetscape/Corridor Improvements; Wayfinding Signage 15 1064 5 Connectivity Examples

Description: Greenway Trail connecting two parks, with bridge or tunnel needed to TOTAL = 100 cross the rail line. Two intersection improvements needed. Connecting two greenways.

Using Formula:

[(CQOSendA+CQOSendB…..)/n:

[(100+100/2)]

65 Connectivity Examples

Description: Lane reduction from TOTAL = 60 four to three lanes including on‐ road bicycle lanes for 3 miles, shared‐lane markings for 1.3 miles.

Connects at point A to a side path, point B to a bicycle lane, point C to A no facilities and point D to a greenway.

Using Formula:

[(CQOSendA+CQOSendB+CQOSendC+CQ OSendD)/n]:

[(75+75+15+75)/4]

66 Connectivity Examples

Description: Construct 10 TOTAL = 100 curb ramps within downtown area. Intersections all have existing sidewalks.

Using Formula:

[(CQOSendA+CQOSendB…..)/n]/:

[(100+100+100+100+100+100 +100+100+100+100)/10]

67 Bicycle/Pedestrian – Cost Effectiveness

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact N/A Division Needs 5%

Purpose: Ratio of calculated user benefit divided by NCDOT project cost

Measure: (Access + Safety + Demand + Connectivity)/ Estimated Project Cost to NCDOT

68 Ferry Eligibility Definitions – Ferry Division

Types of Ferry Division Eligible Projects: Statewide Regional Division Not Eligible • New Installation of Ramp & • New (Capacity Gantry (Capacity Expansion) Expansion) Ferry (River • Bulkhead Expansion (associated or Sound Class) with Capacity Expansion) • Replacement of Ferry • Additional Mooring Slips (to (River, Hatteras, or accommodate capacity Sound Class) expansion) • Replacement of Support Vessels (Barges, Tugs, etc.)

70 P4.0 Ferry Criteria

Criteria Measure Regional Weight Division Weight

Asset Condition 100 ‐ Asset Condition Rating 15% 15%

Monetized value of number of hours Benefits 10% 10% saved

The number of POI within 3 concentric rings of the route is Accessibility/ determined, scaled by a multiplying 10% 10% Connectivity factor (75% for Ring 1, 50% for Ring 2, 25% for Ring 3), and totaled 3‐year maintenance cost / Asset Efficiency 15% 15% pro‐rated 3‐year replacement cost Percentage of the number of vehicles left behind at each departure Capacity/ compared to the total number of 20% ‐ Congestion vehicles loaded and carried by the route (in a year time frame) 71 Ferry – Asset Condition

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 15% Division Needs 15%

Purpose: Integrity of asset condition

Measure: 100 ‐ Asset Condition Rating

Source: Ferry Division (Vessel Health Ratings)

Note: Vessels reviewed annually, full inspections completed every three years

72 Ferry –Benefits

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 10% Division Needs 10%

Purpose: Project benefits based on monetized travel time savings due to VMT reduction

Measure: Monetized value of number of hours saved

Source: Ferry Division Via National Mapping Software

73 Ferry Criteria – Benefits

Mins Time Total Time Time Via Saved Avg Number Total Time Monitized Total Monetized Total Total Monetized Via Number of Number of Savings for Route Main Highway Routes Land in Per of Vehicles Savings for Time Savings for Time Savings for Savings for Ferry in Cars Trucks Trucks (in Mins Vehicle Per Year* Cars (in Hrs) Cars Trucks Utilizing the Ferry Mins Hrs) Trip

Hatteras Inlet US 264 366 59 307 294,412 250250 44162 1280446.75 225961.19 $ 28,169,828 $ 878,053,554 $ 906,223,383 Cherry Branch – Minnesott NC 101–NC 306 – US 70 62 21 41 227,199 204479 22720 139727.51 15525.28 $ 3,074,005 $ 483,923 $ 3,557,928 NC 101-US 70 Cedar Island – Ocracoke 393 168 225 59,749 54969 4780 206132.67 17924.58 $ 4,534,919 $ 558,709 $ 5,093,628 -US264 Southport – NC 133–NC 211 - US13 76 31 45 178,890 164579 14311 123434.24 10733.41 $ 2,715,553 $ 334,560 $ 3,050,114 Ft. Fisher Bayview - Aurora US 264-NC 99 70 39 31 67,389 61998 5391 32032.05 2785.40 $ 704,705 $ 86,821 $ 791,526 Swan Quarter – Ocracoke US 264 234 158 76 29,852 27762 2090 35165.42 2646.86 $ 773,639 $ 82,503 $ 856,142 Currituck – Knotts Island NC 168–NC 615 53 47 6 23,303 19808 3495 1980.76 349.55 $ 43,577 $ 10,895 $ 54,472

Totals = 783,844 96,949 $ 40,016,227 $ 879,610,966 $ 919,627,192

Fleet Average 111,978 13,850 $ 5,716,604 $ 125,658,709 $ 131,375,313

Note: * These traffic values are the per year totals based on an average of FY09‐10 thru FY13‐14 Monetized Time Values as Provided by SPOT Office: Cars =$ 22.00 per hour Trucks = $ 31.17 per hour

74 Ferry – Accessibility/Connectivity

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 10% Division Needs 10%

Purpose: Accessibility to jobs, services, and other points of interest

Measure: The number of POI within 3 concentric rings of the route is determined, scaled by a multiplying factor (75% for Ring 1, 50% for Ring 2, 25% for Ring 3), and totaled

Source: Points of Interest as counted from maps of the important destination within the pre‐determined circles of influence. These maps are generated in collaboration between NCDOT and NC Department of Commerce GIS personnel.

75 Ferry – Asset Efficiency

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 15% Division Needs 15%

Purpose: Cost effectiveness of maintenance for the asset vs. replacement of the asset. Maintenance costs at 60% of replacement cost is critical.

Measure: 3‐year maintenance cost / pro‐rated 3‐year replacement cost

Source: SAP/BSIP and like purchase histories

76 Ferry – Capacity/Congestion

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 20% Division Needs ‐

Purpose: Evaluation of traffic left and number of trips. Indicates need to enhance capacity and reduce congestion.

Measure: Percentage of the number of vehicles left behind at each departure compared to the total number of vehicles loaded and carried by the route (in a year time frame)

Sources: Based on monthly traffic report

77 Public Transportation Eligible Project TypesProject by Types Funding Funding Category Expansion Vehicle Facility Fixed Guideway

Statewide Not Eligible Not Eligible Not Eligible (100% Criteria Score) Regional Fleet Vehicle Bus Administrative/ Operations Commuter Rail, Light Rail, (70% Criteria Fleet Vehicle Van Facility, Bus Shelter, Park Street Car, Bus on Shoulder, Score) Fleet Vehicle Light Transit and Ride, Property Bus Rapid Transit, Track Fixed Guideway Vehicle Acquisition/Design/Construct Improvement/Extension, ion, Paving/Resurfacing, Transfer Facility, Maintenance Facility, Passenger Facility Division Fleet Vehicle Bus Administrative/Operations Commuter Rail, Light Rail, (50% Criteria Fleet Vehicle Van Facility, Bus Shelter, Park Street Car, Bus on Shoulder, Score) Fleet Vehicle Light Transit and Ride, Property Bus Rapid Transit,Track Fixed Guideway Vehicle Acquisition/Design/Construct Improvement/Extension, ion, Paving/Resurfacing, Transfer Facility, Maintenance Facility, Passenger Facility Note: Minimum Cost of $40,000 total project cost. Bus shelters must be bundled along route corridors. Note: No phasing of project submittals. All phasing of projects will be handled by the Program Development Branch 79 P4.0 Public Transportation Criteria (Vehicle)

Criteria Measure Regional Weight Division Weight

Annual OpStat Reported Hours / Access 10% 5% Vehicles in Fleet OpStat Reported Miles / System Safety 10% 10% 3 Year Average of Incidents (Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips + Projected New Unlinked Annual Impact 20% 15% Passenger Trips ) / Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips Projected New Annual Unlinked Passenger Cost Effectiveness Trips for the Life of the Vehicle / 20% 15% Cost to the State (Unlinked Passenger Trips + Projected New Market Share Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips) / 10% 5% Service Area Population

80 Public Transportation (Vehicle) – Access

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 10% Division Needs 5%

Purpose: Considers the availability of the vehicle fleet for passenger service

Measure: Annual OpStat Reported Hours / Vehicles in Fleet

Importance: If existing fleets are not being well‐utilized, there is no need for expansion vehicles

Note: 2400 hours per vehicle is considered optimum

81 Public Transportation (Vehicle) –System Safety Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 10% 5% Division Needs 10% 5%

Purpose: Examines the safety record over 3 year period

Measure: OpStat Reported Miles / 3 Year Average of Incidents

Importance: If safety records are poor, expansion vehicles may be abused

82 Public Transportation (Vehicle) –Impact

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 20% Division Needs 15%

Purpose: Considers the relative impact of the proposed service measured by the total of expected trips divided by existing trips

Measure: (Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips + Projected New Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips ) / Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips

Importance: Measures the impact of the proposed project to overall service

83 Public Transportation (Vehicle) – Cost Effectiveness Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 20% Division Needs 15%

Purpose: Measure of the number of trips to be provided over the life of the expansion vehicle compared to the amount of state investment

Measure: Projected New Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips for the life of the vehicle / Cost to State

Importance: Compares the return on state investment to other projects in terms of people served

84 Public Transportation (Vehicle) –Market Share Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 10% 15% Division Needs 5% 10%

Purpose: Effectiveness of the transit system with the proposed new trips

Measure: (Unlinked Passenger Trips + Projected New Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips) / Service Area Population

Importance: Measures the impact of the proposed project on the system and areas served

Note: Service Area Population Definitions: Fixed Route = Population within ¾ mile of route Demand Response = Population within entire system area

85 P4.0 Public Transportation Criteria (Facility – Passenger)

Criteria Measure Regional Weight Division Weight

(Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips Impact + Projected New Unlinked Annual (Expansion projects only) Passenger Trips ) / Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips 20% 15% Age Age / 45 years (Non‐expansion projects) Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips / Cost Effectiveness 20% 15% Cost to the State (Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips + Projected Annual Unlinked Market Share 15% 10% Passenger Trips) / Service Area Population Ridership Growth Trend for the Ridership Growth 15% 10% Previous 5 Years Note: Weights are the same for Passenger Facility and Administrative/Maintenance/Operations Facility. All definitions are also the same, with the exception of Impact. 86 Public Transportation (Facility – Passenger) – Impact Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 20% Division Needs 15%

Purpose: Relative impact of the proposed expansion or new facility compared to the existing facilities. Measures improvement to current system performance.

Measure: (Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips + Projected New Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips ) / Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips

Importance: Identifies the how much the project could improve current conditions. Focuses on additional passengers.

Note: Used only for expansion passenger facilities

87 Public Transportation (Facility – Passenger) – Age Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 20% Division Needs 15%

Purpose: Compares the age of facility to the useful life based on definitions provided by Ernst &Young and FTA

Measure: Age / 45 years

Importance: Identifies need based on current conditions of the facility

Notes: Used for non‐expansion passenger facilities in need of updates 45 year useful life is the same as in P3.0 Age is calculated since last major renovation (major renovation = Improvement was at least 50% of the value of the facility)

88 Public Transportation (Facility – Passenger) – Cost Effectiveness Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 20% Division Needs 15%

Purpose: Effectiveness of state dollar output

Measure: Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips / Cost to the State

Importance: Measures the effectiveness of state dollars in terms of trips

89 Public Transportation (Facility – Passenger) – Market Share Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 15% Division Needs 10%

Purpose: Effectiveness of the transit system with the proposed new trips

Measure: (Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips + Projected Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips) / Service Area Population

Importance: Measures the impact of the proposed project on the system and areas served

Note: Service Area Population = ADA Service area population (for fixed route system) or county population (for demand response)

90 Public Transportation (Facility – Passenger) – Ridership Growth Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 15% Division Needs 10%

Purpose: Examines a transit system’s need to expand

Measure: Ridership Growth Trend (% growth) for the Previous 5 Years

Importance: Growth in ridership is one indicator of need for larger or additional facilities

91 P4.0 Public Transportation Criteria (Facility – Administrative/Maintenance/Operations)

Criteria Measure Regional Weight Division Weight

(Additional Capacity + Impact Existing Capacity) / (Expansion projects only) Existing Capacity 20% 15% Age Age / 45 years (Non‐expansion projects)

Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips / Cost Effectiveness 20% 15% Cost to the State

(Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips + Projected Annual Unlinked Market Share 15% 10% Passenger Trips) / Service Area Population Ridership Growth Trend for the Ridership Growth 15% 10% Previous 5 Years Note: Weights are the same for Passenger Facility and Administrative/Maintenance/Operations Facility. All definitions are also the same, with the exception of Impact. 92 Public Transportation (Facility – Admin/ Maint/Op) –Impact Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 20% Division Needs 15%

Purpose: Relative impact of the proposed expansion or new facility compared to the existing facilities

Measure: (Additional Capacity + Existing Capacity) / Existing Capacity

Importance: Focuses on increased workspace which would create efficiencies

Notes: Used only for expansion admin/maint/op facilities For every 10 buses, 1 service bay and 2 mechanics are needed

93 Public Transportation (Facility – Admin/ Maint/Op) – Age Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 20% Division Needs 15%

Purpose: Compares the age of facility to the useful life based on definitions provided by Ernst &Young and FTA

Measure: Age / 45 years

Importance: Identifies need based on current conditions of the facility

94 Public Transportation (Facility – Admin/ Maint/Op) – Cost Effectiveness Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 20% Division Needs 15%

Purpose: Effectiveness of state dollar output

Measure: Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips / Cost to the State

Importance: Measures the effectiveness of state dollars in terms of trips

95 Public Transportation (Facility – Admin/ Maint/Op) – Market Share Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 15% Division Needs 10%

Purpose: Effectiveness of the transit system with the proposed new trips

Measure: (Unlinked Annual Passenger Trips + Projected Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips) / Service Area Population

Importance: Measures the impact of the proposed project on the system and areas served

Note: Service Area Population = ADA Service area population (for fixed route system) or county population (for demand response)

96 Public Transportation (Facility – Admin/ Maint/Op) – Ridership Growth Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 15% Division Needs 10%

Purpose: Examines a transit system’s need to expand

Measure: Ridership Growth Trend (% growth) for the Previous 5 Years

Importance: Growth in ridership is one indicator of need for larger or additional facilities

97 P4.0 Public Transportation Criteria (Fixed Guideway)

Criteria Measure Regional Weight Division Weight

Estimated Annual Trips Mobility 20% 15% (1 point for every 250,000 Trips) Cost of the Trip Over the Life of the Project Cost Effectiveness (100 points for a cost of $1 or less 15% 15% per trip; decreasing by 1 point for every $0.03 increase per trip) Economic 1 point per 1,000 new employees 20% 10% Development and 1 point per 500 new residents ((Guideway Passengers/Day) x 290 Days x 30 Years x Avg Time of Trip x Congestion Relief 15% 10% Value of Time) / $10,000,000

98 Public Transportation (Fixed Guideway) – Mobility Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 20% Division Needs 15%

Purpose: Impact of new fixed guideway to area served

Measure: Estimated Annual Trips (1 point for every 250,000 Trips)

Importance: Identifies how much the project could improve current conditions

99 Public Transportation (Fixed Guideway) – Cost Effectiveness Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 15% Division Needs 15%

Purpose: Cost per trip over the life of the project

Measure: Cost of the Trip Over the Life of the Project (100 points for a cost of $1 or less per trip, decreasing by 1 point for every $0.03 increase per trip)

Importance: Reflects actual cost of project

100 Public Transportation (Fixed Guideway) – Economic Development Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 20% Division Needs 10%

Purpose: Measures the new employment and population growth in the fixed guideway corridor over 20 years

Measure: 1 point per 1,000 new employees and 1 per 500 new residents within ½ mile of the project stations/stops

Importance: Identifies potential economic impacts along project corridor

101 Public Transportation (Fixed Guideway) – Congestion Relief Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility N/A Regional Impact 15% Division Needs 15%

Purpose: Travel time benefit savings to the fixed guideway passenger over a 30 year period

Measure: (Projected Guideway Passengers/Day * 290 Days * 30 Years * Avg. Time of Trip * Value of Time) / $10,000,000

Importance: Measures benefit to users

Notes: Avg Time of Trip (hours) based on project submitted Value of time based on 50% median wage of the MSA Divide by $10,000,000 to bring score down to a 0 to 100 range, since not a sufficient number of projects are available to scale

102 Rail P4.0 Rail Project Types and Eligibility Project Types Funding Categories Freight Rail Passenger Rail

Class I Freight Capacity and Not Eligible Statewide Safety Improvements

Class I Freight Capacity and Passenger Infrastructure Regional Safety Improvements Improvements

Passenger Infrastructure Class I Freight Capacity and Improvements (including Division Safety Improvements multimodal terminals and stations) 104 P4.0 Rail Criteria

Statewide Regional Division Criteria Measure Weight Weight Weight (Freight only*)

(Return on Investment Index * 75%) + Cost (Regional Job Creation Index * 35% 25% 20% Effectiveness 25%)

(Capacity Index * 75%) + System Health (Accessibility/Connectivity Index * 35% 20% 10% 25%)

Safety and Safety Index 20% 15% 10% Suitability

Project Funding Leverage Index 10% 10% 10% Support

*Passenger Rail only eligible for Regional Impact and Division Needs

105 Rail – Cost Effectiveness

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility 35% (freight only) Regional Impact 25% Division Needs 20%

Purpose: Takes into account return on investment (ROI) and long‐term job creation for project scoring, and incorporates the P3.0 Benefit‐Cost and Economic Competitiveness criteria

Measure: (Return on Investment Index * 75%) + (Regional Job Creation Index * 25%)

Notes: Return on Investment Index = Monetized Benefits / Cost to NCDOT Regional Job Creation Index= Long‐term Jobs Created in Year 20 * County Unemployment Rate

106 Rail – Cost Effectiveness

Return on Investment Index

Monetized Benefits • Travel Time • Modal Diversions • Value of Cargo / Supply Chain Effects • Environmental – Emissions • Safety –Crash Incidents

Cost to NCDOT • Right of Way + Construction Costs – Outside Contributions

Regional Job Creation Index

For projects crossing county lines, a weighted unemployment rate will be used 107 Rail –System Health

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility 35% (freight only) Regional Impact 20% Division Needs 10%

Purpose: Incorporates P3.0 Capacity/Congestion, Accessibility, and Connectivity criteria, and reflects Cambridge global and rail recommendations

Measure: (Capacity Index * 75%) + (Accessibility/Connectivity Index * 25%)

Notes: Capacity Index = Vexisting/Cexisting Accessibility/Connectivity Index = measured by GIS spatial analysis

108 Rail –System Health

Volume / Capacity Index

Passenger service and stations: based on Amtrak station design standards, track charts, and equipment specifications

Freight and passenger tracks and facilities: based on track charts, reported rail volumes, and capacity modeling

Grade crossings: based on peak average daily traffic (highway), reported traffic counts, roadway capacity, and the State Authoritative Rail and Highway database

109 Rail –System Health

Accessibility/Connectivity Index

Passenger station: POIs within 10 miles of a new passenger rail station / Average POIs within 10 miles of existing state‐supported stations

Freight improvements: Percentage of a project that improves the NC Transportation Network (NCTN) statewide rail system

Grade crossings: Employment density

110 Rail –System Health

Points of Interest for Passenger Stations

• Municipalities greater than 2500 people* • Airports * • Hospitals* • Military Bases* • Colleges and Universities* • County Seat* • Business Locations (Employing 100+)* • National Historic Places* • National Historic Districts* • Multimodal passenger terminals** • Managed Lands (recreation, culture) *Applied by Ferry Division **Under development by WG 111 Rail –System Health

NCTN for Freight Improvements

The NC Transportation Network (NCTN) models important corridors for the purpose of economic development and environmental stewardship

Freight projects are analyzed based on the percentage of the project that improves each of the 5 NCTN freight corridors: • Ports and terminal service • Double‐stack lines • Core mainlines • Strategic/emerging market service (namely, coal and nuclear) • The DOD’s Strategic Rail Corridor Network (STRACNET)

(NCTN passenger service is excluded from the freight analysis)

112 Rail –System Health

113 Rail –System Health

Employment Density for Grade Crossings

InfoUSA employment data provided by NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch

114 Rail –Safety and Suitability

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility 20% (freight only) Regional Impact 15% Division Needs 10%

Purpose: Represents the P3.0 Safety criterion, and is based on the Rail Division’s FHWA‐approved Investigative Index that measures crash potential at grade crossings

Measure: Safety Index

Notes: Safety Index = SARAH Investigative Index * Mitigation Factor Mitigation Factor = 1.0 for grade separations (eliminates risk), 0.5 for at‐ grade improvements

Rail Division developed the Investigative Index formula to rank potentially hazardous crossings; it is derived from level of crossing protection, highway traffic volume, train volume, train speed, track parameters, crash history, and sight distance 115 Rail – Project Support

Funding Category Criteria Weight Statewide Mobility 10% (freight only) Regional Impact 10% Division Needs 10%

Purpose: Leverages projects with alternative funding sources, and could include non‐ monetary measures of local support as metrics are established

Measure: Funding Leverage Index

Notes: Funding Leverage Index = Outside Contributions / Cost to NCDOT Outside contributions: railroads, local match, other funding sources Cost to NCDOT: ROW acquisition and capital costs minus outside contributions

116 P4.0 Additional Information Normalization

Intent of STI legislation is to fund best transportation projects regardless of mode

Definition – Methodology for comparing quantitative scores across all modes

vs vs vs vs vs

Challenges: • Different criteria and weights used for evaluating projects in each mode • No “best practice” from national review – Peer Exchange in Dec. 2014 confirms this • Cambridge Systematics recommends to allocate $ by mode in a transparent manner

118 Normalization

P4.0 (same as P3.0) • Statewide Mobility (only) –No normalization, scores are stand‐alone for comparison (highway, aviation, freight rail) • Regional Impact & Division Needs – Allocate funds to Highway and Non‐Highway modes based on minimum floor or %s

Workgroup & BOT Historical Historical Draft 2016‐2025 Mode Recommendation Budgeted Expenditures STIP Funding

Highway 90% (min.) 93% 96% 95%

Non‐ 4% (min.) 7% 4% 5% Highway

119 Existing Projects Projects automatically considered “Submitted/Existing” for P4.0 • Projects programmed for R/W or CON only in years 6‐10 based on Final STIP • Siblings of programmed projects (i.e., Section A is funded in year 3, Sections B, C, D –all unfunded –would remain in database) • Projects with a completed NEPA document or planning actively underway as of 12/31/14 • Any project that received any amount of local input points in P3.0

Modifications of Existing projects allowed without counting against new submittals (need agreement between MPO/RPO and Division) –Due Sept. 1st • Includes segmenting of projects, such as evaluating interchanges separately

All other projects to be removed (and put in SPOT On!ine holding tank) • Holding tank allows user to resubmit project, but keep some existing data (such as SPOT ID and mapping) • Holding tank projects not resubmitted for P4.0 will be deleted from database 120 New Project Submittals # of New Submittal Options for EACH of the 6 Modes • Each MPO/RPO gets a minimum of 10 new submittals + 1 additional based on every 100K in population, with max. of 20 (same approach as P3.0) • Each Division gets 7 new projects • 1 in, 1 out allowed as long as agreement between MPO/RPO and Division - Deletions of existing projects due October 1st • All new projects must be submitted by MPOs/RPOs/Division Engineers • New submittals may be a combination of brand new projects and removed projects that are in holding tank • If you segment a project in holding tank and submit both segments, this counts as two submittals

Note: 2013 Population figures will be used

121 Local Input Points

Use in Regional Impact & Division Needs categories only  All Modes

# of Points = 1000 points + additional points based on population (same as P3.0)

Separate Allocation of Points for Regional Impact Category and Division Needs Category • Point allocation is the same for each • 100 point max per project per category (e.g., project H123456 can receive 100 points max in Regional Impact and 100 points max in Division Needs)

MPOs/RPOs required to have NCDOT approved process for assigning local input points based on combination of quant. & qualitative data (per S.L. 2012‐84)

Division Engineers have formal process for assigning local input points based on combination of quantitative and qualitative data 122

Key dates

Date Activity • Project Modifications projects due September 1, 2015 • Anticipated Intersection/Interchange/Operational/Superstreet projects due

• Alternate Criteria for Regional Impact and Division Needs scoring due October 1, 2015 • Existing Project Deletions due for receiving extra new submittals (one out, one in)

October 2015 • SPOT On!ine available for Entering Projects for 1 month (exact date tbd)

• Quantitative Scores and Draft list of Programmed Statewide Mobility End of March 2016 Projects released

• Regional Impact Local Input Point window opens for 2 months April 1, 2016 • Deadline for Approval of Local Input Point Assignment Methodologies

End of July 2016 • Draft list of Programmed Regional Impact Projects released

August 1, 2016 • Division Needs Local Input Point window opens for 2 months

October 2016 • Final P4.0 Scores released

December 2016 • 2017‐2027 Draft STIP released STI Connect Site (to be updated for P4.0) ‐ https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/ResourcesMPO‐RPO.aspx

Project Scores/Data, MPO/RPO/Division Methodologies, presentations, etc.

125 126 SPOT On!ine –P4.0

Vendor currently updating application for P4.0

Includes: • New Specific Improvement Types - Highway (6 new  23 total) - Bike & Ped (8 new/total) - Public Transportation (3 new/total) - Rail (4 new/total) - Aviation (16 new/total) • Ability to change base map • New/updated details screens for Bike & Ped and Public Transportation • Ability to put in cross‐streets for intersections • Improved cost estimation - Updated R/W and Construction costs and calculations - New intersection/interchange combinations - Detailed cost reports 127 SPOT On!ine –P4.0

SPOT On!ine will primarily be used to enter projects and derive some data

No criteria scores will be available (hopefully P4.0 only)

Some raw measure values may be automatically calculated (see next slide)

Scaling to be applied after all projects are scored (by end of March 2016) • Scaling applied to measures • Measures multiplied by weights = Criteria Scores • Scaling may be incorporated into SPOT On!ine in P5.0 using P4.0 scores

Other enhancements to be available in March (detailed summaries, exports)

128 SPOT On!ine Automated Hwy Raw Measures

May be Automatically Criteria Measure Calculated Volume/Capacity Yes Congestion Volume Yes Benefit‐Cost Benefit/Cost No Crash Density (segments) Yes Crash Severity (segments) Yes Safety Critical Crash Rate (segments) Yes Crash Frequency (intersections) No Severity Index (intersections) No

Economic % Change in Value Added No Competitiveness Long‐term Jobs No

Accessibility / County Economic Indicator No Connectivity Upgrade Roadway Travel Time Savings No Truck Volume Yes Freight Volume/Capacity on Non‐Interstate STRAHNet or Future Interstate Route Yes Distance to Freight Terminal Yes Distance to Multimodal Passenger Terminal Yes Multimodal Volume/Capacity on Route near Multimodal Passenger Terminal Yes

129 SPOT On!ine –P4.0

Developing project entry requirements (anticipated Aug/Sept)

SPOT On!ine training to occur 1st or 2nd week after new submittal window opens • Opening anticipated October 12th or 19th

Submit SPOT On!ine user info to Sarah

130 MPO/RPO Local Input Methodologies

Prioritization Process is now in Law

“The Department shall develop and utilize a process for selection of transportation projects that is based on professional standards in order to most efficiently use limited resources to benefit all citizens of the State. The strategic prioritization process should be a systematic, data‐ driven process that includes a combination of quantitative data, qualitative input, and multimodal characteristics, and should include local input. The Department shall develop a process for standardizing or approving local methodology used in Metropolitan Planning Organization and Rural Transportation Planning Organization prioritization.“ ‐ S.L. 2012‐84 MPO/RPO Local Input Methodologies

• All MPO/RPO methodologies need reaffirmation/approval from their TAC’s and approval from NCDOT prior to April 2016 (Assignment of Regional Impact points) - Reminder: two sixty‐day local input periods are now available - No public meeting required if no change

• One quantitative and one qualitative criteria

• Scoring methodology understandable to the public

• Preliminary point assignments guided by a scoring methodology

• Public comment period/review of preliminary point assignments

132 MPO/RPO Local Input Methodologies

• Final point assignments guided by public comment/review

• Any changes to point assignments clearly articulated for public consumption and posted on websites

• MPO/RPO staff enters TAC‐approved final point assignments in SPOT On!ine during local input point assignment window

• Review and approval of MPO/RPO methodologies will be coordinated by NCDOT with the SPOT office serving as the chair of the review committee

133 P4.0 Local Input Review Committee

Make recommendations to NCDOT on approval of local input methodology point assignment

Committee Members: • SPOT • Program Development Branch • Transportation Planning Branch • MPO representative –Advisory Member • RPO representative –Advisory Member • Chief Engineer’s Office –Advisory Member

134 Best Practices of Local MPO/RPO Methodologies

July, 2015 Local Input Methodologies

Most Importantly : These are a compendium of best practices from P3.0.

NCDOT Requirements were outlined in Mr. Trogdon’s October 15, 2013 letter to each MPO/RPO

For P4.0, the local input review committee will make recommendations to NCDOT on conditional approvals of MPO/RPO local input methodology.

Conditional approval means the MPO/RPO can proceed to complete their local input process and point assignment.

All Local Methodologies must be approved by NCDOT by the opening of local input point assignment period (April 1, 2016) 136 Local Input Methodology Development

Staff develops project scoring methodology across all modes based on the following criteria:

• At least one quantitative criteria - spell out criteria, measure(s) and weights - some MPOs/RPOs use the Department’s quantitative (not required)

• At least one qualitative criteria - spell out criteria, measure(s) and weights

137 Example Methodologies from P3.0

Some MPOs/RPOs allow each county/municipality to select one or more projects for full local input point assignment before any remaining points are assigned. This is a local decision.

Some MPOs/RPOs allocate a certain percentage of points to each mode “off the top”‐ This is a local decision.

Some MPOs/RPOs use “discretionary” points that are added to projects provided the TAC agrees and reasons why are made public.

Some MPOs/RPOs determine final “local input methodology scores” and then assign the highest scored project a 100, the second highest one a 99, the third a 98 etc. until they run out of points. This is to announce which project is truly the MPO/RPO highest priority.

138 Example Methodologies from P3.0

Some MPOs/RPOs use a methodology of targeting projects having the best potential to be funded. If used, it is imperative to view the project quantitative scores in your paired funding Region and Division.

• Obtain from Program Development the estimated available funding for the next ten years for your paired funding Region and your Division.

• Estimate how many projects could be funded within available funding IF every project in that category (paired Region or your Division) was given full local input points (MPO/RPO AND DE).

• Make an assumption on what you believe will be the lowest scoring project to receive funding in a draft STIP.

• Assign sufficient points to your projects to boost their final scores above what point level you assumed/estimated to be the lowest level that could be funded in a draft STIP.

139 Methodology Deviations

Include a statement in the MPO/RPO local input methodology to the effect that if the final point assignment is changed by the TAC, the reasons for the change will be clearly articulated to the public

The language used is something like one of these two statements: 1. “Any rationale for point assignments made by the TAC or via public input which deviate from this local methodology will be placed on the MPO/RPO website.” 2. “The TAC has the final discretion regarding assignment of local points, and retains the flexibility to make changes to these point assignments if it is able to document a reason for doing so.”

These changes must be documented and made available as information to the public

140 MPO/RPO Point Assignment Steps

1. MPO/RPO and Division staff meet to discuss priorities and the status of each project • Includes discussions with adjacent MPOs/RPOs • Projects reviewed for issues involving schedules, permits, and cost to determine which projects are feasible for local input, including point transfers

2. MPO/RPO staff prepares preliminary point assignment based on approved methodology • Preliminary scores and point assignment are posted on the MPO/RPO website

3. MPO/RPO follows their normal public comment requirements which allows public review and input on the proposed point assignment • This includes holding a public meeting/hearing

141 MPO/RPO Point Assignment Steps

4. MPO/RPO TCC and TAC reviews all public comments and revises point assignments as appropriate

5. MPO/RPO TAC approves local input point assignment • Final local input point assignments posted on the MPO/RPO website • Include clearly articulated reasons for changes to point assignment by TAC, if applicable

6. MPO/RPO staff assigns the approved local input points according the Prioritization schedule • Regional Impact (April‐May 2016) • Division Needs (August‐September 2016)

142 Next Steps for MPOs, RPOs, and Divisions

Prepare any modifications (due Sept. 1st)

Prepare any Anticipated Intersection/Interchange/Operational/Superstreet projects (due Sept. 1st)

Discuss any Alternate Criteria for Reg. Impact and Division Needs (due Oct. 1st)

Prepare for new project entry (anticipated Oct. 12th or 19th) • Discuss projects for all modes with appropriate parties and NCDOT modal staff • Collaborate, Coordinate, and Communicate project entry with appropriate MPOs, RPOs, and Divisions –be familiar with other partners’ projects.

Is there anything else SPOT can provide to assist?

143 Contact Information NCDOT Strategic Prioritization Office

Don Voelker (919) 707‐4740 [email protected]

David Wasserman, P.E. (919) 707‐4743 [email protected]

Sarah E. Lee (919) 707‐4742 [email protected] http://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/

144