HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda- 01-23-2018 12-6 - Information Item - Memorandum - SPOT 5.0 Local Input Point Process – TARPO and DCHC MPO1
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Administration 131 W. Margaret Lane
(919) 245 -2575 Suite 201
(919) 644 -3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181
www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director
Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor
Nishith Trivedi, Orange County Transportation Planner
DATE: January 23, 2018
SUBJECT: SPOT 5.0 Local Input Point Process — TARPO and DCHC MPO
This memorandum is to inform the Board of County Commissioners of the Triangle Area
Rural Planning Organization ( TARPO) Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metropolitan Planning
Organization (DCHC MPO) and Burlington Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization
(BG MPO) unique local input point processes for Strategic Transportation Prioritization
(SPOT). These processes must first be adopted by their corresponding boards before they
are submitted to North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) for state approval.
State law requires a 21 day public comment period prior to DCHC MPO and TARPO board
adoption.
In an effort to satisfy the quantitative prioritization portion of the local input point process,
TARPO, DCHC MPO and BG MPO have elected to accept NCDOT quantitative scores and
project data. Member jurisdiction agencies will accept the raw scores, scheduled for
release late March 2018, as determined by NCDOT. However, because the qualitative
portion varies between the three agencies, a brief summary describing their unique
processes is provided below.
TARPO Local Input Point Process
Orange County transportation projects will be ranked according to NCDOT scores. Within
each county, the top two scoring projects will be allocated 100 points each (Region and
Division). Subsequently ranked projects (regardless of County) will also be allocated 100
points each until 1,400 points, for TARPO as permitted by NCDOT, have been distributed.
Example:
County
Quantitative Points
Total Score (100)
Recommended for 100 Local
Project
County
Rank
50)
Points
Regional
Division
Regional
Division
Regional
Division
ID
Points
(50)
A000001
County
50
N/A
40.59
N/A
90.59
Yes — County
8
B#1
8000003
County
50
N/A
34.14
N/A
84.14
Yes — County
D
D #1
H000001
County
50
29.34
32.35
79.34
82.35
Yes — County
Yes — County
A
A #1
A #1
H000002
County
45
33.36
33.19
78.36
78.19
Yes — County
Yes — County
C
C #1
C #1
E
The final list and point allocation will be provided to the TARPO Board for final approval.
TARPO will also post the list on its website at.http://www.tarpo.org/topics/spot5.shtml and a
public hearing will be conducted by the TARPO Board.
Attachment 1 - TARPO process - provides additional details.
DCHC MPO Local Input Point Process
Points will be allocated to the projects that help achieve the adopted Metropolitan
Transportation Plan goals and align with the MPO's priorities. Public involvement and
collaboration with NCDOT also play an important part in the qualitative process.
Coordination with NCDOT Division Engineers will help ensure priority projects in the MPO
have the best funding opportunity in the next Strategic Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP).
DCHC MPO has already received NCDOT guidance for crafting an approvable input point
process which involves two qualitative criteria to determine how points will be allocated.
The first step is ranking DCHC MPO projects based on the following six -point scale:
W
300 Highway
500 Public Transit
I w Lm
500 any mode /project
MTP Prioritization
1!!7
500 any mode /project
Project planned for near -term (by MTP 2025 Threshold)
2
Project planned for mid -term (by MTP 2035 Threshold)
1
Project planned for long -term (by MTP 2045 Threshold)
0
Consistent with Adopted Regional or Local Plan
2
Preliminary Engineering or Engineering Study Completed or
Underway
1
Allocation of local tax revenues through a DCHC- member
jurisdiction voter supported referendum
1
1
DCHC- member jurisdiction demonstrates local funding
towards progress in project
1
Project complements non - highway transportation facility
1
1
Project supports Environmental Justice Community of
Concern
1
1
TOTAL MAXIMUM
6
6
NCDOT has been granted 1,800 points to allocate for Regional Impact and Divisional
Needs and is allowed to assign a minimum of 4 points to a maximum of 100 points to each
project. The point distribution below is designed to reflect the MPO's adopted MTP funding
goals.
Regional
800 Highway
300 Highway
500 Public Transit
500 Public Transit
500 any mode /project
500 Bicycle & Pedestrian
500 any mode /project
3
NCDOT allows deviation from adopted and approved methodology provided it is
documented. The MPO allows deviation only if any of the following occur:
• A project costs more than the funding available in that category
• A project will not be competitive within its Region or Division even with the application of
Local Input Points
• Coordination with the Division Engineer or a neighboring MPO or RPO deems a project
should not receive points, or will receive points from another MPO, RPO, or Division
• The DCHC MPO Board, based on a recommendation from the Technical Committee
(TC), determines that a lower ranking project is of greater priority and therefore should
be assigned points (or more points than assigned through application of the
Methodology)
• The DCHC MPO Board determines that a higher ranking project is of lesser priority and
therefore should be assigned fewer, or no, points than assigned through application of
the Methodology
• The DCHC MPO Board determines that projects in another mode are of higher priority
• The DCHC MPO Board determines that points should be awarded to a particular project
to support geographic equity
• Based on public input, the DCHC MPO Board decides to deviate from the project
rankings
Using the above process, the MPO Board will release the draft priority ranking and local
input point allocation for public comment and hold a public hearing at an MPO Board
meeting in accordance with the MPO Public Involvement Policy. The MPO Board will
approve the final allocation based on the following:
• The final score and list of initial projects using the process described above;
• The likelihood of receiving funding through STI considering the amount of funding
available within each Division or Region, historical funding levels for the mode, and the
normalization limitations that NCDOT has adopted;
• The number of eligible projects within the MPO within each funding mode, project type,
category;
• The priorities of the current MTP including the adopted distribution of funding between
modes and the air quality horizon year of projects;
• The effect that receiving funding for a project may have on the likelihood of other
projects being funded in the Division or Region considering the limitations set by the STI
legislation;
• If the project is located within an area of overlapping Environmental Justice
Communities of concern identified in the MPO's 2014 Environmental Justice Report;
• Geographic and jurisdictional balance
• Coordination with the Division Engineers and neighboring MPOs and RPOs on the
assignment of points;
• Public input and support as evidenced through public comments submitted to the MPO,
the MPO's public hearing, public involvement efforts of local governments, and local
referenda;
• The MPO Board members' knowledge of the urban area and the policies of their
communities; and
• Other factors as identified. If the MPO Board varies from the recommended allocation of
points, MPO staff will document the rationale and will post the documentation on the
MPO's website.
n
Attachment 2 - DCHC MPO process - provides additional details.
BG MPO Local Input Point Process
The Burlington- Graham MPO is allocated a total of 1,300 points to allocate to each Region
and Division project. The final point assignment will be made by the BGMPO Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC) after public review and recommendation by the Technical
Coordinating Committee (TCC). The TAC will consider projects for local input point
assignment based on the following criteria:
1. Prioritization scoring results — Candidate projects will be rank ordered based on their
respective NCDOT prioritization scoring results.
2. Consistency with local and regional plans — Candidate projects must be consistent and
included within locally adopted comprehensive plans and the adopted Comprehensive
Transportation Plan (CTP) and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP).
3. Public Involvement — Consideration of public comments by the TAC before assigning
local input points to the rank ordered project list.
4. Point Assignment — The TAC will assign the maximum 100 points to the top ranked
projects.
Per the NCDOT and STI regulations, 1,300 points is available to assign to Region level
projects and Division level projects.
The TAC may exercise its option of sharing or allocating unassigned local input points to
increase the "scoring" of regional transportation projects (regional being more than one
county) with an adjacent MPO. This process is accomplished via an informal agreement
between the MPOs and notification to NCDOT.
The ranked list of the highest scoring projects will be submitted to NCDOT for further
evaluation. Final project submittal will also occur via online process with NCDOT.
Attachment 3 - BG MPO process - provides additional details.
Attachment 1
Prioritization 5.0 Local Point
Methodology for Triangle Area RPO
DRAFT — January 2, 2018
Introduction
The following methodology has been developed by the Triangle Area Rural Planning
Organization ( TARPO) for the purpose of determining regional priorities for transportation
funding, as carried out through the State of North Carolina's Strategic Transportation
Investments (STI) law and the associated Prioritization 5.0 process. This methodology is
intended to incorporate both measurable data and information about priorities from local
jurisdictions, to ensure a process that is both data - driven and responsive to local needs. The
Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization serves Lee and Moore Counties, as well as the
portions of Chatham and Orange Counties that are not within the planning area of a
Metropolitan Planning Organization. This methodology has been developed to meet the
requirements of Session Law 2012 -84, which requires that MPOs and RPOs have a process for
determining project prioritization.
STI divides available state and federal transportation funding into three categories: Statewide
Mobility, Regional Impact, and Division Needs. For each category, NCDOT calculates
quantitative scores based on a variety of criteria. In the Statewide Mobility category, projects
are selected for funding based entirely on the NCDOT quantitative score. However, in the
Regional Impact and Division Needs categories part of the final score is based on local points
assigned by the MPO or RPO and /or the NCDOT Division Engineer in that area. The local input
points assigned by TARPO (and other MPOs and RPOs) represent 15% of the final score for
Regional Impact projects and 25% of the final score for Division Needs projects. Points
assigned by NCDOT Division Engineers are also worth 15% of the Regional Impact score and
25% of the Division Needs score.
In the TARPO area, the following types of projects are eligible for each category of project:
Statewide
Highway: Improvements to US 1, US 64, US 15 -501 (only the portion north
Mobility
of US 64), US 421 (only the portion north of or overlapping NC 87), NC 87
(only the portion south of or overlapping US 421), NC 24 -27*
Rail: Improvements to NS or CSX freight lines
All Other Modes: None
Regional
Highway: Improvements to any NC or US Routes
Impact
Rail: Improvements to NS or CSX freight lines, non - station passenger rail
projects
Transit: Multi- county transit routes
All Other Modes: None
Division Needs
All Modes: All projects
*NC 24 -27 is only eligible at the Statewide Mobility level for four -lane widening projects. Other
types of projects on NC 24 -27 are only eligible for Regional Impact and Division Needs.
TARPQTriangle Area Rural Planning Organization - A program of Triangle J Council of Governments
4 ,=
It should be noted that projects from higher categories are able to "cascade down" for eligibility
in lower categories as well, should they be unsuccessful in getting selected for funding at the
higher category. Thus all Statewide projects are also eligible in the Regional and Division
competitions, and all Regional projects are also eligible in the Division competition.
TARPO has 1400 local input points to assign in both the Regional Impact and Division Needs
categories. This document describes the method for selecting projects to which to assign these
points.
The local prioritization process consists of three parts: (1) ranking of projects at the countywide
level; (2) quantitative scoring of projects; and (3) ranking of scored projects for assignment of
points. Each of these is discussed in more detail below.
uescripuon of Criteria and Weights
Countywide Ranking of Projects
Within each TARPO county, all the local jurisdictions (including the county and any
municipalities within the county) must work together to develop a single ranked list of projects
in all modes to submit to TARPO for use in the prioritization process. This list must be based on
the list of projects that have been previously submitted to NCDOT —new projects cannot be
added at this point in the process. These projects should be ranked in order from highest
priority ( #1) to lowest ( #10). If there are more than ten projects within a county, then only the
top ten should be ranked. It is up to the local jurisdictions, working together, to determine the
best method for achieving this within each county; however, the following general rules apply:
All jurisdictions should be given an opportunity to participate in the development of their
county's ranked project list if they choose
The process must include at least one meeting open to the public that allows for public
comment
There must be written documentation stating the reasoning behind the selected project
ranking (this must be submitted to TARPO and will be posted online along with the
project list)
These local ranked priority lists should be developed and submitted to TARPO by May 15,
2018, after NCDOT releases its draft quantitative scores for projects. Once submitted to
TARPO, the local priority lists will be posted online and made available for additional public
comment prior to the TARPO RTAC's approval of local input points on projects.
All projects will receive 50% of their total TARPO score based on the ranking assigned to that
project by local officials in the above - described countywide rankings. This applies to all modes.
These points will be assigned as follows:
# 1 Priority in County
50 points
# 6 Priority in County
25 points
# 2 Priority in County
45 points
# 7 Priority in County
20 points
# 3 Priority in County
40 points
# 8 Priority in County
15 points
# 4 Priority in County
35 points
# 9 Priority in County
10 points
# 5 Priority in County
30 points
#10 Priority in County
5 points
* All other projects (ranked lower or unranked) receive 0 points for this item.
TARPQ1/2/2018 Draft Prioritization 5.0 Local Point Methodology for Triangle Area RPO — Page 2
a + -W
The remaining 50% of the TARPO score is based on the NCDOT quantitative score. The
elements that make up these quantitative scores are defined by NCDOT as follows for each
mode and category (see NCDOT's Prioritization Resources website for more information):
Regional Impact
Because all NCDOT regional quantitative scores are on a 70 point scale, the final results are
multiplied by 0.7143 to convert them to a 50 point scale for use in TARPO scoring.
Highway
Congestion
Benefit -cost
Safety
Freight
Accessibility/
Connectivity
Total (multiply sum
by 0.7143
20 pts max
20 pts max
10 pts max
10 pts max
10 pts max
50 pts max
Rail IL
Benefit -cost
IL
Benefit -cost
System
Opportunities
Safety
Capacity and
Diversion
Economic
Competitiveness
Total (multiply sum
by 0.7143
25 pts max
10 pts max
15 pts max
10 pts max
10 pts max
50 pts max
Transit — Mobilit
Impact Demand/ Density
Efficiency
Cost Effectiveness
Total sum
Total (multiply sum
by 0.7143)
15 pts max 20 pts max
10 pts max
25 pts max
50 pts max
_
Transit — Demand Response
Impact
Demand/ Density
Efficiency
Cost Effectiveness
Total (multiply sum
by 0.7143
10 pts max
20 pts max
15 pts max
25 pts max
50 pts max
Transit — Facilities IN _
Impact
Demand/ Density
Efficiency
Cost Effectiveness
Total (multiply sum
by 0.7143
20 pts max
I 10 pts max
15 pts max
25 pts max
50 pts max
Note: No ferry projects or regional - eligible aviation projects are located in the TARPO area, and bicycle /pedestrian projects are
ineligible for the Regional Impact category.
Division Needs
NCDOT division quantitative scores are reported on a 50 point scale, so unlike the regional
category above, no rescaling of scores is necessary.
Highway
Congestion
Benefit -cost
Safety
Accessibility/
Connectivity
Total (sum)
15 pts max
15 pts max
15 pts max
5 pts max
50 pts max
Rail
Benefit -cost
System
Opportunities
Safety
Capacity and
Diversion
Economic
Competitiveness
Total (sum)
10 pts max
15 pts max
10 pts max
10 pts max
5 pts max
50 pts max
Transit — Mobility
Impact
Demand/ Density
Efficiency
Cost Effectiveness
Total sum
10 pts max
10 pts max
10 pts max
20 pts max
50 pts max
Transit — Demand Response
Impact
Demand/ Density
Efficiency
Cost Effectiveness
Total sum
10 pts max
15 pts max
10 pts max
15 pts max
50 pts max
Transit — Facilities
Impact
Demand/ Density
Efficiency
Cost Effectiveness
Total sum
15 pt s max
10 pts max
10 pts max
15 pts max
50 pts max
Bicycle & Pedestrian
Safety
Access
Demand/ Density
Connectivity
Cost Effectiveness
Total sum
15 pts max
10 pts max
10 pts max
10 pts max
5 pts max
50 pts max
Aviation
NCDOA Project
Rating
FAA ACIP Rating
Non -state
Contribution Index
Benefit -cost
Total (sum)
25 pts max
10 pts max
5 pts max
10 pts max
50 pts max
TARPO1/2/2018 Draft Prioritization 5.0 Local Point Methodology for Triangle Area RPO — Page 3
W_- * -4-. + W
Note: TARPO is located in Divisions 7 and 8, both of which use the same "alternative" scoring
criteria that differ from NCDOT's standard scoring criteria for the highway mode in the Division
Needs category. These alternative criteria will also be used for TARPO's scoring of projects.
Total Score and Project Ranking Approach /Point Assignment
Process
Once all projects in each mode have been scored according to the criteria above, TARPO staff
will develop a ranked list of projects within each county and within the region as a whole based
on the outcome of the scoring. This ranked list of all projects in all modes will be used to
develop the recommended point assignments that are presented to the public for comment and
to the RTCC and RTAC for approval. There will be separate rankings for the Regional Impact
category and the Division Needs category.
The recommendation will call for the two top- scoring projects within each county (regardless of
mode) to be allocated 100 points each. Additionally, the six next - highest scoring projects within
the region (regardless of county and mode) will also be allocated 100 points each, to reach
TARPO's total point allocation of 1400 points. In the event that a county does not have at least
two eligible projects, then additional projects will be selected from the top of the list of remaining
projects in the other counties. This allows for geographic equity of projects in the region.
No projects with a DOT quantitative score less than 10 will be recommended for points.
Any project that local jurisdictions specifically request not be assigned points during the
countywide project ranking process will not be recommended for points.
An example of the ranking process is shown on the next page.
TARPQ1/2/2018 Draft Prioritization 5.0 Local Point Methodology for Triangle Area RPO — Page 4
a + -W
Example - The projects in the Example RPO are ranked as follows:
Project
ID
County
County
Rank
Points
50
Quantitative Points
50
Total Score (100)
Recommended for 100 Local Points
Regional
Division
Regional
Division
Regional
Division
A000001
County B
50
N/A
40.59
N/A
90.59
Yes - County B #1
8000003
County D
50
N/A
34.14
N/A
84.14
Yes - County D #1
H000001
County A
50
29.34
32.35
79.34
82.35
Yes - County A #1
Yes - County A #1
H000002
County C
45
33.36
33.19
78.36
78.19
Yes - County C #1
Yes - County C #1
B000001
County C
50
N/A
26.23
N/A
76.23
Yes - County C #2
H000008
County D
45
26.02
28.73
71.02
73.73
Yes - County D #1
Yes - County D #2
8000002
County B
45
N/A
27.86
N/A
72.86
Yes - County B #2
A000002
County C
40
N/A
32.67
N/A
72.67
Yes - Rem. #1
H000003
County A
45
25.65
27.15
70.65
72.15
Yes - County A #2
Yes - County A #2
H000010
County D
40
30.59
31.65
70.59
71.65
Yes - County D #2
Yes - Rem. #2
A000003
County C
35
N/A
32.67
N/A
67.67
Yes - Rem. #3
8000004
County D
35
N/A
29.16
N/A
64.16
Yes - Rem. #4
B000007
County B
40
N/A
24.06
N/A
64.06
Yes - Rem. #5
8000005
County C
25
N/A
38.00
N/A
63.00
Yes - Rem. #6
H000005
County A
40
N/A
20.63
N/A
60.63
H000006
County B
35
21.04
23.02
56.04
58.02
Yes - County B #1
A000004
County D
30
N/A
27.35
N/A
57.35
H000011
County A
25
29.18
31.34
54.18
56.34
Yes - Rem. #1
H000004
County C
30
23.74
25.77
53.74
55.77
Yes - County C #2
H000007
County A
35
N/A
18.17
N/A
53.17
8000006
County B
30
N/A
22.41
N/A
52.41
H000017
County D
25
24.87
27.21
49.87
52.21
Yes - Rem. #2
8000010
County C
20
N/A
31.69
N/A
51.69
8000008
County C
15
N/A
36.60
N/A
51.60
H000019
County D
20
25.31
26.22
45.31
46.22
Yes - Rem. #3
H000012
County B
25
N/A
20.59
N/A
45.59
H000020
County A
20
23.42
24.96
43.42
44.96
Yes - Rem. #4
H000009
County A
30
N/A
13.06
N/A
43.06
B000009
County B
20
N/A
20.44
N/A
40.44
H000021
County D
15
21.89
24.15
36.89
39.15
Yes - Rem. #5
8000011
County C
10
N/A
24.88
N/A
34.88
H000015
County B
15
14.81
16.75
29.81
31.75
Yes - County B #2
H000024
County D
10
19.51
20.63
29.51
30.63
Yes - Rem. #6
H000014
County C
0
27.85
28.72
27.85
28.72
A000005
County C
0
N/A
24.97
N/A
24.97
H000026
County D
5
20.14
19.89
25.14
24.89
H000025
County B
0
23.52
23.70
23.52
23.70
H000016
County C
0
23.06
23.07
23.06
23.07
B000012
County B
10
N/A
11.79
N/A
21.79
H000028
County D
0
20.69
20.92
20.69
20.92
H000027
County D
0
18.46
19.72
18.46
19.72
H000013
County C
5
N/A
12.57
N/A
17.57
H000022
County B
5
9.55
11.27
14.55
16.27
B000013
County D
0
N/A
15.71
N/A
15.71
H000023
County C
0
13.89
13.70
13.89
13.70
H000018
County C
0
N/A
12.19
N/A
12.19
H000029
ounty D
0
13.17
11.76
13.17
11.76
H000028
County D
0
N/A
11.67
N/A
11.67
In this example:
County A would receive points on 4 Regional Impact projects and 2 Division Needs projects.
County B would receive points on 2 Regional Impact projects and 3 Division Needs projects.
County C would receive points on 2 Regional Impact projects and 5 Division Needs projects.
County D would receive points on 6 Regional Impact projects and 4 Division Needs projects.
TARPO1/2/2018 Draft Prioritization 5.0 Local Point Methodology for Triangle Area RPO - Page 5
W-- * -4-. + W
Deviations from Methodolo
These recommended point assignments will be presented to the RTCC and RTAC for their
review and approval. The RTCC retains the discretion to make recommendations to the RTAC
regarding changes to the list. The RTAC 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 to
the public via the TARPO website.
Cascading Protects
TARPO will submit its Regional Impact local point assignments separately from its Division
Needs local point assignments, and will be able to learn which projects are funded in the
Regional Impact category before assigning points in the Division Needs category. As a result, if
there are projects funded in the Regional Impact category that would otherwise be in line to
receive Division Needs points as a result of this methodology, those Division Needs points will
instead be assigned to the next - highest scoring eligible project that has not received points
(subject to the rules requiring that at least two projects from each county receive points). This
process will be clearly explained as part of the public outreach process, and the list of "next in
line" projects that could potentially be affected by this rule will be presented at the same time the
initial point assignment recommendations are presented.
Point Sharing
On projects that cross outside of the TARPO planning boundary, TARPO must coordinate with
its neighboring organizations on the allocation of points. By right, TARPO may only assign the
number of points equal to the percentage of the project that is located within the TARPO
boundary —for example, TARPO could assign a project that was 48% located within its
boundary only 48 points by right. However, TARPO will coordinate with its neighboring
organizations to "share" points to ensure that these projects reach a point total of 100 points —in
the example above, TARPO would share 52 points with its neighbors to ensure the project
receives 100 points. In the event that point sharing is not necessary on these projects, either
because the neighboring organization already plans to assign its full amount of points for the
project or because the neighboring organization rejects TARPO's offer to share points, TARPO
will only assign the points for the portion within its boundary and the remaining points will be
allocated to the next - highest scoring project on the project list that did not already receive full
points.
Schedule and Public Outreach /Material Sharing
Public Participation in Protect Scoring Process
As part of this project scoring process, TARPO will post the list of projects being submitted for
Prioritization 5.0, the county -level priority lists, the results of the quantitative analysis, the
recommended draft local input point assignments, and the final approved local input point
assignments at the following website: www.tarpo.org /topics /spot5.shtml. The public is invited to
submit comments via the website, email, phone, or mail, as well as in person at RTCC and
RTAC meetings at any point throughout the process. Additionally, at least one public meeting
will be held to gather comments at a time after the initial staff - recommended scoring is
TARPQ1/2/2018 Draft Prioritization 5.0 Local Point Methodology for Triangle Area RPO — Page 6
a + -W
developed based on this scoring methodology, but before the RTCC and RTAC vote on the
assignment of points. Any comments provided by the public will be reviewed by the RTCC and
RTAC before the vote on the assignment of points and those discussions will be documented in
the meeting minutes.
Proposed Schedule for Implementation of Policy in Prioritization 5.0
RTCC & RTAC adoption of project list to submit to NCDOT — occurred on August 17, 2017
Adoption of this policy — February 8, 2018 (with public hearing at beginning of RTAC meeting)
NCDOT provides quantitative scoring information to TARPO — end of March 2018 (this
information will be posted on the TARPO website once available)
Each county, working jointly with its municipalities, approves a ranked list of its top ten projects
and submits this list to TARPO — April /early May 2018 (due to TARPO no later than May 15,
2018; this information will be posted on the TARPO website once available)
TARPO staff calculates scores for local point assignment and posts the scores and draft
recommended point assignments on the TARPO website — late May 2018
Public workshop(s) to present local point assignments and gather input — late May /early June
2018
RTCC & RTAC adoption of Regional Impact category local point assignments — June 14, 2018
(final point assignments will be posted on the TARPO website following meeting)
RTCC & RTAC adoption of Division Needs category local point assignments — October 11, 2018
(final point assignments will be posted on the TARPO website following meeting)
NCDOT releases Draft Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) — January 2019
(this information will be posted on the TARPO website once available)
Adoption
A motion was made by and seconded by
adoption of this policy, and upon being put to a vote it was duly adopted on
Chair, Triangle Area RPO RTAC Secretary, Triangle Area RPO RTAC
TARPQ
* .- + -W
for the
1/2/2018 Draft Prioritization 5.0 Local Point Methodology for Triangle Area RPO — Page 7
12
RECOMMENDED ALLOCATION OF THE MPO'S LOCAL INPUT POINTS
Overview
As previously explained in this Methodology, DCHC MPO will utilize the NCDOT Prioritization 5.0 scoring
criteria to preliminarily rank MPO projects for submission to NCDOT for quantitative evaluation. Upon
submission to NCDOT, projects within the MPO will be evaluated according to NCDOT's quantitative
ranking methodology.
DCHC MPO will receive the results of the NCDOT quantitative evaluation scoring process and the project
data used by NCDOT to develop the scores. NCDOT's raw quantitative scores will be reviewed by the
DCHC MPO and staff of MPO member jurisdictions and agencies. The NCDOT's raw quantitative scores
serve as the quantitative basis for the MPO's prioritization of projects.
The allocation of the DCHC MPO's Local Input Points to high priority projects serves as the qualitative
component of the prioritization process. The DCHC MPO's Local Input Points will be allocated to projects
that aim to achieve the goals of the adopted Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and align with the
priorities of the DCHC MPO.
The DCHC MPO's project ranking process and subsequent allocation of Local Input Points must capture
the goals of DCHC MPO and not just be purely based on the results of data - driven processes. The
process and results should also capture input received from citizens, elected officials, and stakeholders
in the DCHC MPO area. It is important to consider the needs of all communities that are located in the
DCHC MPO area in the allocation of Local Input Points to priority projects.
Collaboration with NCDOT Divisions is also an important component of DCHC MPO's allocation of Local
Input Points. Projects that receive the MPO's Local Input Points and Division Engineer Points will have an
overall better score than projects that don't receive points from both the MPO and a Division Engineer.
Coordinating with NCDOT Division Engineers will ensure that priority projects in the DCHC MPO area
have the best possible chance to be funded in the next NCDOT STIP and MPO TIP.
It should be noted that projects in the Statewide Mobility category are not eligible for DCHC MPO Local
Input Points, and therefore will not be reviewed and prioritized by DCHC MPO as part of the process for
allocation of Local Input Points. DCHC MPO will prioritize and allocate Local Input Points to eligible
projects in the Regional Impact and Division Needs funding categories.
Ranking Processes for the Allocation of Local Input Points
Per the guidance that was provided by the NCDOT SPOT Office, at least two qualitative criteria will be
used for the purpose of allocation of local points. The table below shows the criteria to be used to rank
projects for assignment of local points. Projects will be ranked based on a six -point scale.
R9
13
Criteria
Maximum Points
Points
MTP Prioritization
(Highway)
(Non-Highway)
Project planned for near -term (by MTP 2025 Threshold)
2
Project planned for mid -term (by MTP 2035 Threshold)
1
Project planned for long -term (by MTP 2045 Threshold)
0
Consistent with Adopted Regional or Local Plan
2
Preliminary Engineering or Engineering Study Completed or
1
Underway
Allocation of local tax revenues through a DCHC- member
1
1
jurisdiction voter supported referendum
DCHC- member jurisdiction demonstrates local funding towards
1
progress in project
Project complements non - highway transportation facility
1
1
Project supports Environmental Justice Community of Concern
1
1
TOTAL MAXIMUM
6
6
All projects will be ranked based on their score using the rubric above. The rankings will be used to
inform TC and Board members regarding allocation points using the method described in the next
section.
Allocation of Local Input Points
Projects deemed to be of top priority to the MPO will be assigned the requisite amount of points
necessary in order to maximize the project's chances of receiving funding through the SPOT process.
NCDOT assigns the number of local prioritization points for each MPO, RPO, and Division based on the
area's population. DCHC MPO has been allocated 1,800 points for both the Regional Impacts (Regional)
and Division Needs (Division) categories for Prioritization 5.0. Each MPO, RPO, and Division can assign a
maximum of 100 points and a minimum of 4 points to each project.
For the MPO's 1,800 Regional Local Input Points, DCHC MPO will assign points to Regional projects
among modes and project types according to the distribution below. The distribution below has been
structured to reflect the funding goals of the MPO's adopted MTP and the number of eligible Regional
category projects in each mode. Statewide projects that cascade down to the Regional category will
generally not be assigned Regional Local Input Points unless the project cost is less than $5 million. The
MPO Board and TC may deviate from this policy on a case -by -case basis.
• 800 points to Highway
• 500 points to Public Transit
• 500 points could be assigned to any mode and project type
For the MPO's 1,800 Division Local Input Points, DCHC MPO will assign points among modes and project
types according to the distribution below. The distribution below has been structured to reflect the
funding goals of the MPO's adopted MTP and the number of eligible Division category projects in each
mode. Statewide and Regional projects that cascade down to the Division category will generally not be
assigned Division Local Input Points unless the project cost is less than $5 million. The MPO Board and
TC may deviate from this policy on a case -by -case basis.
2 Use designations in 2045 MTP as it will be adopted by the time local allocation points are assigned.
3 For the purposes of this Methodology, an Environmental Justice Community of Concern is an Overlapping
Community of Concern as identified in the 2014 DCHC MPO Environmental Justice Report.
15
14
• 300 points to Highway
• 500 points to Public Transit
• 500 points to Bicycle and Pedestrian
• 500 points could be assigned to any mode and project type
Deviations from this methodology may be made if any of the following occur:
• A project costs more than the funding available in that category
• A project will not be competitive within its Region or Division even with the application of Local
Input Points
• Coordination with the Division Engineer or a neighboring MPO or RPO deems a project should
not receive points, or will receive points from another MPO, RPO, or Division
• The DCHC MPO Board, based on a recommendation from the Technical Committee (TC),
determines that a lower ranking project is of greater priority and therefore should be assigned
points (or more points than assigned through application of the Methodology)
• The DCHC MPO Board determines that a higher ranking project is of lesser priority and therefore
should be assigned fewer, or no, points than assigned through application of the Methodology
• The DCHC MPO Board determines that projects in another mode are of higher priority
• The DCHC MPO Board determines that points should be awarded to a particular project to
support geographic equity
• Based on public input, the DCHC MPO Board decides to deviate from the project rankings
Should a project receive Local Input Points through a deviation, the Board will note the reason for the
deviation and that reason shall be published after final adoption.
Approval of the Allocation of Local Input Points
The DCHC MPO Board will release the draft Project Priority Ranking and application of Local Input Points
for public comment and hold a public hearing at an MPO Board meeting. The initial list of projects
proposed to receive Local Input Points will be based on the process described above. After review and
public comment, the MPO Board will approve the final application of Local Input Points. The MPO
Board's approval will be informed by the following:
• The final score and list of initial projects using the process described above;
• The likelihood of receiving funding through STI considering the amount of funding available
within each Division or Region, historical funding levels for the mode, and the normalization
limitations that NCDOT has adopted;
• The number of eligible projects within the MPO within each funding mode /project
type /category;
• The priorities of the current MTP including the adopted distribution of funding between
modes and the air quality horizon year of projects;
• The effect that receiving funding for a project may have on the likelihood of other projects
being funded in the Division or Region considering the limitations set by the STI legislation;
• If the project is located within an area of overlapping Environmental Justice Communities of
Concern identified in the MPO's 2014 Environmental Justice Report;
• Geographic and jurisdictional balance;
IU
15
• Coordination with the Division Engineers and neighboring MPOs and RPOs on the
assignment of points;
• Public input and support as evidenced through public comments submitted to the MPO, the
MPO's public hearing, public involvement efforts of local governments, and local referenda;
• The MPO Board members' knowledge of the urban area and the policies of their
communities; and
• Other factors as identified. If the MPO Board varies from the recommended allocation of
points, MPO staff will document the rationale and will post the documentation on the
MPO's website.
After the DCHC MPO Board approves the allocation of Local Input Points to projects in the DCHC MPO
area, MPO staff will submit the projects with the Local Input Points applied to NCDOT for use in
Prioritization 5.0.
Public Involvement
All public involvement for this process will be conducted in accordance with the DCHC MPO's Public
Involvement Policy. As is the MPO's standard practice for all DCHC MPO Board and TC agenda items, all
relevant materials, documentation of this process, and TC and MPO Board meeting materials and
minutes will be posted on the DCHC MPO's website, www.dchcmpo.org.
The DCHC MPO Public Involvement Policy sets a minimum 21 -day public comment period for this
process and requires a public hearing at an MPO Board meeting. This public comment period and public
hearing will be advertised in accordance with the Public Involvement Policy. Public comments will be
documented, summarized, and responses will be provided. In addition, all DCHC MPO Board and TC
meetings are public meetings and include the opportunity for public comment. Comments provided at
any meeting will be considered.
The DCHC MPO web site will include the following on its Local Methodology tab for the FY2020 -2029 TIP
web page:
• Link to the NCDOT STI Prioritization Resources web site
• Updated drafts of the Methodology as they are available
• Schedule for adoption of the Methodology and Local Points
• Schedule of milestones in the Methodology and Local Input Points adoption process
• Preliminary and final local input point assignment sheets
DCHC MPO will follow the schedule below for public comment and adoption of this Methodology:
December 2017 — Draft Methodology reviewed by the DCHC MPO TC (materials published online for
public review); TC recommends that DCHC MPO Board release Draft Methodology for public comment
January 2018 — DCHC MPO Board reviews Draft Methodology and releases for 21 -day public comment
period; TC has second review and makes recommendation to the Board
February 2018 — Board holds public hearing, reviews public comments, and adopts Methodology
(including any changes based on public comment); DCHC MPO staff submits the Methodology to NCDOT
17
16
Review Committee; TC reviews comments from NCDOT Review Committee and recommends changes to
Methodology, if necessary
March 2018 — Board adopts revised Methodology, if necessary
Comments on the DCHC MPO's Methodology for Identifying and Ranking TIP Project Requests or any
information contained within may be submitted in writing to the DCHC MPO using the contact
information below. Comments may also be offered during any DCHC MPO Board or DCHC MPO TC
meeting. All meetings are open to the public and meeting schedules are available on the DCHC MPO's
website www.dchcmpo.org.
Aaron Cain, AICP
Senior Transportation Planner
DCHC MPO
City of Durham DOT
101 City Hall Plaza
Durham, NC 27701
(919) 560 -4366 x36443
email: aaron.cain @durhamnc.gov