LRTP Project Selection and Prioritization Presentation Objective Provide

LRTP Project Selection and Prioritization

Presentation Objective Provide Background of an Approach to Project Selection / Prioritization within Context of Long-Range Transportation Plan

Importance of a Sound Process Decisio n Makers Public • Residents • Travelers • Interest Groups Action Staff • City Council • County Commission • MPO • State Legislature • Federal Delegation Not All Participants Are Inclined to Logically Approach Decisions

Multidimensional Evaluation • Each Group Will Have Certain Preferences • Many Preferences will be in Conflict • Limited/No Specific Criteria: Influence Wins Out • Increase Criteria Breadth: Balance Group Specific Preferences • Typically More Defensible Product/Outcome

Study Incremental Decision. Making/Managing Conflict Improvements/ Modifications Needed? No Conclude Study Ye s When are Improvements/ Modifications Needed? Long Term Short/Mid Term What are the Options? Evaluate Study Timing Alternatives Analysis Requirement Tests: ü Meets Transportation Needs? ü Reasonable Impacts? ü Feasible Costs Meets Requirement Tests Does Not Narrow Meet Requirement • Add Intersection Turn Lanes Options • Signalization Tests • • Management Expansion/New Lanes Regional Improvements (Divert Traffic) NOTHING Funding/ Prioritization/ Implementati on

Development of Study Goals Common Goal Themes: • Safety • Efficiency • Economic Development

Summary of Steering Committee Identified Issues

Summary of Stakeholders Group Identified Issues

Summary of Public Meeting Identified Issues

Summary of Stakeholders and Rotary Group Spending Priorities Rotary Club Stakeholders Averaged $100 Allocation on Transportation Improvements Respondents Averaged $100 Allocation on Transportation Improvements

Summary of Stakeholders Group Ranking of Identified Issues

Future Traffic Volumes and Deficiencies

Study Incremental Decision. Making/Managing Conflict Improvements/ Modifications Needed? No Conclude Study Ye s When are Improvements/ Modifications Needed? Long Term Short/Mid Term What are the Options? Evaluate Study Timing Alternatives Analysis Requirement Tests: ü Meets Transportation Needs? ü Reasonable Impacts? ü Feasible Costs Meets Requirement Tests Does Not Narrow Meet Requirement • Add Intersection Turn Lanes Options • Signalization Tests • • Management Expansion/New Lanes Regional Improvements (Divert Traffic) NOTHING Funding/ Prioritization/ Implementati on

Development of Study Goals Common Goal Themes: • Safety • Efficiency • Economic Development

Evaluation Criteria (SEE Methodology) • Social Perspective – Number of Impacted Residences – Number of Impacted Commercial / Industrial Sites – Acres of Undeveloped Land Needed for Improvement – Consistency with Comprehensive Plan – Consistency with Other Agency Plans – Public Feedback – Existing Development Sites Served by Improvement – Development Sites Served by System Improvements • Engineering Perspective – – – Reduction in Accidents Reduction in Congestion Transit Ridership Access Points/Driveways Pedestrian Accommodation Connectivity to Existing System • Environmental Perspective – Change in VMT – Change in VHT – Additional Miles of Bike/Pedestrian Facilities – Traffic Noise Impacts – Incorporation of Mitigation – Costs in Relation to: • • Congestion Relief Reduction in Accidents Reduction in Travel Time Reduction in Vehicle Trips

Study Incremental Decision. Making/Managing Conflict Improvements/ Modifications Needed? No Conclude Study Ye s When are Improvements/ Modifications Needed? Long Term Short/Mid Term What are the Options? Evaluate Study Timing Alternatives Analysis Requirement Tests: ü Meets Transportation Needs? ü Reasonable Impacts? ü Feasible Costs Meets Requirement Tests Does Not Narrow Meet Requirement • Add Intersection Turn Lanes Options • Signalization Tests • • Management Expansion/New Lanes Regional Improvements (Divert Traffic) NOTHING Funding/ Prioritization/ Implementati on

Alternatives Analysis Screening Process SCREEN 1 SCREEN 2 • Start with Universe • Fatal Flaws • Consistency with Local Plans/Policies • Public/Committee/ Staff/Agency Input • • Selection of Preferred Alternatives “Feasible” Alternatives More Detailed Review Conceptual Drawings Project/Program Apply Evaluation Criteria Prioritization • Social • Environmental • Engineering • Concept Packages • Public/Committee/Staff/Agency Input

Example Alternatives Analysis Summary

Alternatives Analysis Screening Process SCREEN 1 SCREEN 2 • Start with Universe • Fatal Flaws • Consistency with Local Plans/Policies • Public/Committee/ Staff/Agency Input • • Selection of Preferred Alternatives “Feasible” Alternatives More Detailed Review Conceptual Drawings Project/Program Apply Evaluation Criteria Prioritization • Social • Environmental • Engineering • Concept Packages • Public/Committee/Staff/Agency Input

Example Prioritization Scoring by Criterion

Example Roadway Prioritization Results

Example Prioritization Results (Continued)

Prioritization Approach: Benefits • Reduces the Potential Impacts of Special Interests: – Criteria Drawn from Broad Perspective – Number of Equally Weighed Criteria • Scoring Metrics Consistent with Criteria Used in: – – Identification of Deficiencies/Issues Locally Developed Goals and Objectives Initial Level of the Screening Process USDOT Metropolitan Planning Requirements • Can Act as Final Screening Metric for “Borderline” / Low Priority Projects that Emerge from Screening Process

Prioritization Approach: Limitations • Difficult to Quantify Local Input / Priorities in Prioritization Scoring • No Purely Analytical Approach Exists and Projects will Surface Earlier than Warranted • Non-roadway Improvements (trail / bike routes, sidewalk, transit elements) can be Difficult to Integrate into Process