SMART SCALE Technical Guide prepared for Commonwealth Transportation Board date REVISED May 2020
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
prepared for
Commonwealth Transportation Board
date
REVISED May 2020
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 SMART SCALE Legislation Requirements ................................................ 2 Funding Programs ......................................................................................... 2 1.2 Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................................ 3 Commonwealth Transportation Board....................................................... 3 Office of the Secretary of Transportation ................................................... 4 Technical Evaluation Team .......................................................................... 4 Applicant Responsibilities............................................................................ 4 1.3 Stakeholder Input .......................................................................................... 6 1.4 Biennial SMART SCALE Cycle .................................................................... 6
2.0 Project Eligibility and Application Process .................................................... 10 2.1 Eligibility Requirements ............................................................................. 10 Eligible Types of Projects............................................................................ 12 Transit and Rail Project Eligibility ............................................................ 12 Other Considerations .................................................................................. 13 Funding Programs ....................................................................................... 15 Entities Eligible to Submit Projects ........................................................... 16 2.2 Project Readiness Planning Requirements............................................ 17 Minimum Planning Requirements............................................................ 18 Detailed Project Description Requirements ........................................ 18 Sketch Requirements .............................................................................. 18 Planning Study Requirements .............................................................. 18 Cost Estimates ......................................................................................... 19 Grade Separation Projects .......................................................................... 19 Grade Separation on Limited Access Facilities................................... 19 Grade Separation of at-grade Intersection........................................... 19 New Traffic Signals ..................................................................................... 19 Adaptive Signal Controllers....................................................................... 19 New Location Facilities............................................................................... 20 New Access Point(s) Adjacent to an Interchange ................................... 20 Major Widening Projects ............................................................................ 20 Park & Ride Project Readiness ................................................................... 20 Transit Project Readiness............................................................................ 21
i
Major Capital Projects (+$2M)............................................................... 21 Minor Capital Projects (<$2M) .............................................................. 21 Public Support.............................................................................................. 21 NEPA and Alternatives Analysis .............................................................. 22 2.3 Screening Process......................................................................................... 22 VTrans Needs Screening............................................................................. 22 2.4 Application and Validation Process.......................................................... 24 Project Preparation ...................................................................................... 25 Pre-Application Coordination and Submission ...................................... 26 Screening and Validation (Pre- and Post-Application Submittal) ........ 29
3.0 Evaluation Measures ........................................................................................... 32 3.1 Safety Measures ........................................................................................... 32 3.2 Congestion Mitigation Measures............................................................... 33 3.3 Accessibility Measures ................................................................................ 33 3.4 Environmental Quality Measures ............................................................. 34 3.5 Economic Development Measures ............................................................ 34 3.6 Land Use Coordination Measures............................................................. 35
4.0 Project Evaluation and Rating ........................................................................... 37 4.1 Calculation of SMART SCALE Measures ................................................ 37 4.2 Internal/External Review........................................................................... 38 4.3 Factor Weighting ......................................................................................... 38 4.4 Project Cost ................................................................................................... 41 4.5 Project Scoring.............................................................................................. 41 Key Terms ..................................................................................................... 42 Methodology ................................................................................................ 42 Everything is Relative ................................................................................. 44 Project Segmentation Fixed Guideway Projects (Transit and Rail Only) ...................................................................................................... 44
5.0 CTB Prioritization and Programming .............................................................. 46 5.1 Public Comment Period.............................................................................. 48 5.2 Process Issues ............................................................................................... 48 Changes in Project Scope/Schedule/Cost ............................................... 49 Funding Sources .......................................................................................... 50 Fully Funded Project Applications............................................................ 51 Re-Submittal of Projects .............................................................................. 51 Program Funding Changes ........................................................................ 52
ii
5.3 Improvements to Process and Measures .................................................. 53
6.0 Appendix A: Safety Measures .......................................................................... 54 Measures Approach .................................................................................... 54 S.1 Equivalent property damage only (EPDO) of Fatal and Injury crashes........................................................................................... 54 S.2 Equivalent property damage only (EPDO) Rate of Fatal and Injury crashes reduced ................................................................... 58
7.0 Appendix B: Congestion Mitigation Measures............................................. 60 Measures Approach .................................................................................... 60 C.1 Person Throughput .......................................................................... 60 C.2 Person Hours of Delay .................................................................... 64
8.0 Appendix C: Accessibility Measures .............................................................. 69 Measures Approach .................................................................................... 69 A.1 Access to Jobs.................................................................................... 69 A.2 Access to Jobs for Disadvantaged Populations ........................... 71 A.3 Access to Multimodal Choices ....................................................... 72
9.0 Appendix D: Environmental Quality Measures ........................................... 74 Measures Approach .................................................................................... 74 E.1 Air Quality and Energy Environmental Effect ............................. 74 E.2 Impact to Natural and Cultural Resources ................................... 76
10.0 Appendix E: Economic Development Measures........................................... 79 Measures Approach .................................................................................... 79 ED.1 Project Support for Economic Development ............................. 79 ED.2 Intermodal Access and Efficiency ............................................... 87 ED.3 Travel Time Reliability ................................................................. 89
11.0 Appendix F: Land Use Coordination Measure.............................................. 94 Measures Approach .................................................................................... 94 L.1 Future Transportation Efficient Land Use ................................... 94 L.2 Increase in Transportation Efficient Land Use ............................. 96
12.0 Appendix G: List of Acronyms......................................................................... 98
iii
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Table 1.2 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 5.1 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 7.1 Table 8.1 Table 8.2 Table 9.1 Table 9.2
Table 9.3
Funding Program Eligibility...................................................................... 3 Application Cap Limits by Population .................................................... 5 Project Types Eligible for SMART SCALE Funding ............................ 15 Eligibility to Submit Projects ................................................................... 17 SMART SCALE Measure Data Responsibility...................................... 31 Safety Measures......................................................................................... 33 Congestion Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 33 Accessibility Measures ............................................................................. 34 Environmental Quality Measures........................................................... 34 Economic Development Measures ......................................................... 35 Transportation Efficient Land Use Measure ......................................... 36 PDC-MPO Factor Weighting Typology ................................................. 40 Factor Weights by Category .................................................................... 41 Normalization of Measure Weights ....................................................... 43 Applying Measure Weights..................................................................... 43 Applying Factor Weights ......................................................................... 43 Calculate SMART SCALE Score ............................................................. 45 Project Budget Change Thresholds for CTB Action ............................. 50 Safety Factor Measures Summary ....................................................... 54 EPDO Crash Value Conversion .............................................................. 56 Congestion Mitigation Factor Measures Summary........................... 60 Accessibility Factor Measures Summary ............................................ 69 Access to Multimodal Choices Scoring Approach ............................ 73 Environmental Quality Factor Measures Summary ......................... 74 Air Quality and Energy Environmental Effect Scoring Approach.................................................................................................... 75 Example of Potentially Impacted Acres by Type of Environmental Document........................................................................ 77
iv
Table 9.4 Example of Potentially Impacted Acres by Type of Environmental Document........................................................................ 78
Table 10.1 Economic Development Factor Measures Summary ........................ 79 Table 10.2 Site Eligibility by Transportation Project Tier....................................... 82 Table 10.3 Site Scaling Points ..................................................................................... 83 Table 10.4 Transportation Project Scaling Points .................................................... 84 Table 10.5 Adjustments for Access and Distance .................................................... 85 Table 10.6 Example Calculating Building Square Footage .................................... 86 Table 10.7 Support for Economic Development Final Measure Value ................ 87 Table 10.8 Intermodal Access and Efficiency Scoring Approach....................... 88 Table 10.9 Incident, Weather and Work Zone Impact Scoring.............................. 92 Table 11.1 Land Use Factor Measure Summary ................................................... 94 Table 11.2 Local Non-Work Access Value................................................................ 95
v
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Anticipated SMART SCALE Biennial Cycle ........................................... 8 Figure 2.1 Eligibility, Readiness, and Needs Screening Process ........................... 11 Figure 2.2 VTrans Travel Markets (CoSS, RN, and UDA) ..................................... 24 Figure 4.1 SMART SCALE Project Evaluation Process .......................................... 37 Figure 4.2 PDC and MPO Factor Weighting Typology Map ................................ 39 Figure 5.1 Prioritization and Programming Process (Odd Years) ........................ 46 Figure 10.1 Flow Chart for Project Support for Economic Development
Measure Value ........................................................................................... 81
vi
1.0 Introduction
Transportation needs will almost always be greater than the funds available to address them. The signing of House Bill 2313 in 2013 created a more sustainable revenue source supporting transportation funding. While passage of this bill enabled the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) to add significant revenues to Virginia's transportation program, there are still many transportation needs that cannot be addressed with available revenues. To find a way to better balance transportation needs and prioritize investments for both urban and rural communities throughout the Commonwealth, new legislation House Bill 2 was signed into law in 2014. In 2016, the process was renamed "SMART SCALE, Funding the Right Transportation Projects in Virginia." SMART SCALE stands for System Management and Allocation of Resources for Transportation: Safety, Congestion, Accessibility, Land Use, Economic Development and Environment.
The purpose of SMART SCALE is to fund the right transportation projects through a prioritization process that evaluates each project's merits using key factors, including: improvements to safety, congestion reduction, accessibility, land use, economic development and the environment. The evaluation focuses on the degree to which a project addresses a problem or need relative to the requested funding for the project.
Prior to the implementation of SMART SCALE, the Commonwealth utilized a politically driven and opaque transportation funding process that included uncertainty for local communities and businesses. SMART SCALE requires the CTB to develop and implement a quantifiable and transparent prioritization process for making funding decisions for capacity enhancing projects within the Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP).
The ultimate goal in the implementation of SMART SCALE is investing limited tax dollars in the right projects that meet the most critical transportation needs in Virginia. Transparency and accountability are crucial aspects of delivering a process that project sponsors will support. SMART SCALE projects will be evaluated based on a uniform set of measures that are applicable statewide, while recognizing that factors should be valued differently based on regional priorities.
Beginning in 2017, the SMART SCALE process transitioned to a biennial schedule with applications accepted in March of even numbered years and final project selections made in June of the following odd numbered year. The SMART SCALE process does not cover all types of projects within the SYIP. There are other sources of funding including the State of Good Repair program, the Highway Safety Improvement Program, the Revenue Sharing Program, the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program, the Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Program, and Regional Surface Transportation Program funds. These are detailed later in this guidance document.
1
Three rounds of SMART SCALE prioritization have been successfully completed. Since implementing the SMART SCALE process in 2015, information has been collected on lessons learned in order to identify potential improvements to the application in-take, screening, validation, evaluation process, documentation and training. This updated Technical Guide reflects these recent improvements.
This Technical Guide document provides detailed information on the CTB's SMART SCALE policy including information on process, roles and responsibilities, project eligibility, project readiness requirements, the project application process, evaluation measure definitions, project cost and scoring, and prioritization programming considerations and rules.
1.1
SMART SCALE LEGISLATION REQUIREMENTS
Virginia House Bill 2, signed by Governor Terry McAuliffe on April 6, 2014 and effective as of July 1, 2014, (as defined in § 33.2-214.1) required the development of a prioritization process that the CTB was to use for project selection by July 2016. The prioritization process evaluates projects using following factor areas: congestion mitigation, economic development, accessibility, safety, environmental quality and land use coordination (in areas with over 200,000 population). Factor areas are weighted differently across the commonwealth based on certain characteristics and may be weighted differently within each district. Candidate projects are screened to determine if they meet an identified need in VTrans, the Commonwealth's mid- and long range transportation plan, and to determine if they meet eligibility requirements.
Projects are scored based on an objective and fair analysis applied statewide. SMART SCALE also requires that project benefits be analyzed relative to project cost. CTB policy requires the project benefits be analyzed relative to the amount of SMART SCALE funds requested, so the final SMART SCALE score is based on the project cost to the state.
In 2017, the General Assembly adopted HB2241/SB1331 (as defined in § 33.2214.2) updating several items related to SMART SCALE. These bills provide the responsibility for the implementation of the SMART SCALE process to the Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment (OIPI), which reports to the Secretary of Transportation in their role as the Chairman of the CTB. It also requires that the scores be released at least 150 days prior to the CTB action to include SMART SCALE projects in the SYIP, or January of odd-numbered years. This will ensure there is always 5 months for public discussion of the results of the project evaluations.
Funding Programs
In February 2015, the General Assembly adopted HB1887, which established a new transportation funding formula with funding, after specialized programs, distributed as follows: 45% for the State of Good Repair Program (SGR); 27.5% for
2
the District Grant Program (DGP); and 27.5% for the High-Priority Projects Program (HPPP). Both the HPPP and the DGP are subject to SMART SCALE (see Table 1.1).
The DGP (as defined in § 33.2-371) refers to projects and strategies solicited from local governments that address a need for a corridor of statewide significance, regional network, improvements to promote urban development areas, or safety improvements identified in VTrans, Virginia's Transportation Plan. In this program, candidate projects and strategies from localities within a highway construction district compete for funding against projects and strategies within the same construction district.
The HPPP (as defined in § 33.2-370) refers to projects of regional or statewide significance that address a transportation need identified for a corridor of statewide significance or a regional network in VTrans, Virginia's Transportation Plan. In this program, projects and strategies compete for funding against projects and strategies submitted statewide.
For both programs, projects and strategies are to be screened, evaluated, and selected according to the process established pursuant to SMART SCALE.
Table 1.1 Funding Program Eligibility
Project Type
Addresses Need on Corridor(s) of Statewide Significance Addresses Need on Regional Network(s) Improvement to Support Urban Development Area(s) Addresses Identified Safety Need
High Priority Projects Program Yes Yes No No
* Only projects submitted by localities are eligible.
District Grant Program* Yes Yes Yes Yes
1.2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Commonwealth Transportation Board
The CTB establishes the policy and oversees the SMART SCALE project evaluation process. The CTB reviews the scored project list once the evaluation has been released, and uses the scoring, along with other information submitted to the CTB about each project to inform their funding decisions regarding the allocation of funds for the HPPP and the DGP in the SYIP. The CTB is not required to fund the highest-scoring projects and may use other considerations, in addition to the SMART SCALE process, to make final funding decisions. However, if the CTB makes modifications to the staff recommended funding scenario, then the member seeking such change must provide a rationale for such modification and seek approval, by majority vote, of the Board.
3
Office of the Secretary of Transportation
Under the Secretary of Transportation's Office, OIPI manages the implementation of the SMART SCALE process. Both VDOT and DRPT assist the office in the screening and evaluation of applications under the guidance of the Office. The Office provides the final evaluation to the CTB, makes the final evaluation public, and develops the staff-recommended funding scenario for the Board's consideration.
Technical Evaluation Team
A technical evaluation team is responsible for conducting the measure calculations and making qualitative rating assessments for each factor area, for each of the submitted, screened projects in the SMART SCALE process. This evaluation team is comprised of technical staff from OIPI, DRPT, and VDOT. The staff appointed to the technical evaluation team includes subject matter experts from both the District and Central Office that are experienced with the data, analytical tools, and qualitative content reported for each measure. Duties of the internal technical evaluation team include:
Validating project information;
Evaluating project preparation; and
Calculating evaluation measures and scores for submitted projects according to the methodologies set out in Appendices A-F.
To ensure consistency and quality control ten percent of projects are selected at random for a second evaluation. A member of the technical evaluation team not involved in the initial analysis conducts the blind independent evaluation to ensure consistency in the development of assumptions and application of analytical methods.
Applicant Responsibilities
Applicants are responsible for ensuring that all SMART SCALE application requirements are understood. Projects submitted for SMART SCALE funding will be held to a basic standard of development to guarantee they can be evaluated reliably throughout the application process. Beginning in 2018, the SMART SCALE application process is comprised of two parts: (1) A pre-application containing sufficient information for project screening and eligibility review; and (2) the remaining sections needed to complete the validation and evaluation steps. More information on the schedule for application intake can be found in Section 1.4.
To ensure the submittal of complete applications, it is strongly recommended that applicants complete the following tasks:
Reach out to VDOT, DRPT and OIPI staff early in the process
4
Complete a Pre-Application in March (no new applications may be created after April 1)
Ensure project meets a VTrans Mid-term (0-10 years) Need
Ensure project and applicant eligibility requirements have been met
Ensure project readiness requirements have been met
Ensure project is properly defined in terms of scope, schedule, and cost estimate
Submit a completed application by August 1, preferably earlier
Applicants are expected to prioritize the applications they submit. Beginning in 2020, there will be a limit on the number of pre-applications and applications allowed per applicant, based on population thresholds as shown in the table below:
Localities with a population below 200,000, and MPOs/PDCs/Transit agencies that serve a population below 500,000, may submit a maximum of four applications and five pre-applications;
Localities with a population above 200,000, and MPOs/PDCs/Transit agencies that serve a population above 500,000, may submit a maximum of ten applications and twelve pre-applications; or
A Board member may allow one additional application from a county within their district if (1) the project is located within a town that is ineligible to submit projects and (2) the county in which the town is located will submit the maximum number of applications allowed. Only one such additional application is allowed per district.
Table 1.2 Application Cap Limits by Population
Localities
Less than 200,000 Greater than or equal to
200,000
MPOs/PDCs/Transit Agencies
Less than 500,000
Greater than or equal to 500,000
Pre-Application Cap 5 12
Full Application Cap 4 10
The source of population data for localities, MPOs and PDCs is the last preceding United States Census (2010). Application limits for transit agencies were determined based on service area population in the 2010 National Transit Database (NTD). If service area population was not available in NTD, Census 2010 population was used to determine population in jurisdictions served by transit agency.
The listing of eligible entities, population data and tier/maximum number of applications is available in a spreadsheet that can be downloaded in the Resources section of the webpage at http://smartscale.org/resources/.
5
For information on the required inputs to the SMART SCALE application, please refer to the SMART SCALE Application Guide (also available at http:// smartscale.org/resources/).
1.3
STAKEHOLDER INPUT
To develop a fair and informed SMART SCALE project prioritization process that would work across all modes and throughout the Commonwealth, extensive stakeholder input was considered in its initial development. Numerous meetings were held to obtain the input of jurisdictions, agency stakeholders and the public body across the Commonwealth.
Stakeholder engagement continues to be essential for each biennial implementation of the SMART SCALE submission process and evaluation. Collaboration and involvement continues throughout the entire process. At a minimum, the opportunities for stakeholder input include the following:
Pre-Application and Application phase: Stakeholders have the opportunity to provide input as to what projects the jurisdictions/MPOs/PDCs/transit agencies should consider moving forward in the process through the development of an application for SMART SCALE funds as well as by providing feedback to the CTB during the annual Fall Transportation Meetings. Stakeholders may work with the state to ensure that projects are defined in sufficient detail for SMART SCALE evaluation. All of the applications and supporting analysis will be posted on the SMART SCALE web site (smartscale.org) and made available for public review prior to scoring.
Analysis and Scoring phase: By January of each SMART SCALE cycle, the evaluation of projects selected for SMART SCALE prioritization evaluation will be complete, and results will be made public. Stakeholders have the opportunity to review assumptions and calculations and see each project's score.
Results and Programming phase: Every year, during the development of the SYIP, stakeholder input is received during public meetings held following the release of the draft SYIP in April. Stakeholders have the opportunity to provide input upon the projects that were selected for funding for both grant programs.
Lessons Learned and Process Improvement Evaluation: Each cycle, applicants are invited to provide feedback on opportunities for improvement to the process. Additionally, as enhancements are considered for process improvements, stakeholder input is requested prior to adoption by the CTB.
1.4 BIENNIAL SMART SCALE CYCLE
Each year that funding is available, SMART SCALE is planned to operate according to the biennial cycle illustrated in Figure 1.1. Applicants now have more than five months to complete their SMART SCALE applications, a significant
6
increase from two months available in previous rounds. Eligible entities can begin creating candidate project applications starting March 1st in even numbered years from eligible entities, with complete project applications due August 1st of the same year. All candidate project applications must be created by June 1st with a required minimum level of information to be provided by that date (the pre-application). No new applications will be created after June 1st. However, once applications are created, applicants will be able to continue editing applications in the system until the August 1, 2018 submission deadline. Applicants have no limit to the number of applications that can be created in the portal; but applicants are limited on the number that can be submitted by August 1st, based on the adopted application limits. Project sponsors are encouraged to coordinate well before August working with VDOT and DRPT staff. From there, OIPI, VDOT and DRPT screen, review/validate, and evaluate the projects per the SMART SCALE process over a five month period from August through December. At the January CTB meeting the results of the evaluation are released along with the staff-recommended funding scenario. In the spring, the draft SYIP is released by the CTB, followed by public hearings to gather input. In June, the revised final SYIP is released and considered for adoption by the CTB. Any changes to the staff recommended scenario require affirmative action by the CTB prior to the June meeting.
7
Figure 1.1 Anticipated SMART SCALE Biennial Cycle
As currently identified, the application and evaluation process timeline will generally proceed as follows (if day does not fall on business day, the first business day after will be used): Winter/Spring: Early coordination with DRPT and VDOT prior to
application submissions. March 1st - Call for applications and notification of estimated amount of
funding available. March 1st through March 31st - Applicants create pre-application containing
sufficient basic project information for project screening and eligibility review. April 1st Deadline to complete pre-application. No new applications will be
allowed after April 1st. April 1st through May 31st - Pre-screening to see if project meet VTrans Mid-
term Need and are eligible for SMART SCALE funding. June 1 through July 30th - Application refinement. August 1st Final applications due. All applications will be made public after
the deadline to submit has passed. August through December Submitted projects are screened, evaluated and
scored. January CTB Meeting Results of SMART SCALE screening and evaluations
are made public along with the staff recommended funding scenario.
8
January through June SMART SCALE-funded projects will follow existing public comment period and SYIP approval process. The CTB may modify the staff recommended funding scenario through formal action.
9
2.0 Project Eligibility and Application Process
This section summarizes project eligibility, readiness, needs screening, and application process considerations for SMART SCALE implementation. Prospective projects must meet or exceed certain qualifications to be considered for evaluation in the SMART SCALE process, and sponsors must provide specific information for eligible projects. Figure 2.1 illustrates the overall screening process for determining whether a project has been developed enough to assess its benefits according to the SMART SCALE evaluation and scoring process.
2.1
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
The types of projects and entities eligible for consideration are described in this section, along with a listing of funding sources not affected by SMART SCALE, and characterizations of entities eligible to submit projects. SMART SCALE projects may be submitted by a range of entities including:
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and Planning District Commissions (PDCs);
Counties;
Cities;
Towns that maintain their own infrastructure and qualify to receive payments pursuant to §33.2-319; and
Transit agencies that receive state operating assistance from the Mass Transit Trust Fund, as established in § 58.1-638(A)(4)(b)(2) of the Code of Virginia, are also eligible to submit projects.
The responsibility for transportation in those towns that do not receive maintenance payments is with the County. Counties are encouraged to coordinate with towns and prioritize candidate projects for submission similar to the Secondary Six-Year Plan process. Counties, cities, and towns that maintain their own infrastructure are eligible to submit applications regardless of the roadway system. Maintenance of the specific roadway system is not a requirement of eligibility.
An eligible entity can submit an application as long as a portion of the project is located within the boundary of the qualifying entity. An applicant cannot submit an application for a project entirely outside of the boundary of their jurisdictional authority. For an application submitted by one jurisdiction that crosses into one or more other jurisdictions, a resolution of support is needed from the other affected jurisdiction(s)..
10
Figure 2.1 Eligibility, Readiness, and Needs Screening Process
11
Eligible Types of Projects
There are several types of projects that are considered for SMART SCALE funding. Highway, transit, rail, road, operational improvements and transportation demand management projects and strategies will be considered. The following project types are (1) not eligible or (2) will not be considered eligible to be evaluated and rated for SMART SCALE:
Stand-alone studies;
Projects where a majority of the SMART SCALE funding request is related to "in-kind" repair or replacement of existing traffic control devices, asset management (bridge rehabilitation, "bridge-only" bridge replacement projects, pavement repair/replacement, guardrail repair/replacement) or other activities eligible for State of Good Repair funding;
Projects that are fully funded through other committed funding sources such as local funding or proffers. In general projects that are fully funded in a capital improvement program, a metropolitan planning organization's transportation improvement program, VDOT/DRPT or NVTA SYIP, or committed by a developer through local zoning approval process will be excluded from consideration in evaluating and rating for SMART SCALE. However, the Board recognizes that there are unique circumstances for large projects that require flexibility. Accordingly, a fully funded project may be considered under SMART SCALE if the total project cost is reasonably expected to exceed $1 billion and will start procurement prior to the award of the next round of SMART SCALE but was ineligible for the most recent previous round of SMART SCALE due to project readiness; and
Projects where a project components or feature is not contiguous or proximate, or of the same improvement type (e.g., signal improvements, transit stations, etc.). For the purposes of this policy, contiguous means adjacent or together in a sequence. Transit stops or stations along a transit route or intersections or spot improvements along a corridor meet the definition of contiguous for the purposes of the project eligibility policy.
Transit and Rail Project Eligibility
Eligible SMART SCALE transit and rail projects are capital projects that demonstrate expanded capacity and increase ridership. State of Good Repair (SGR) projects, such as asset rehab or replacement, are not eligible under this program.
Applicants should be aware that SMART SCALE project funding is generally programmed in the out years of the subsequent SYIP. For example, if an applicant was awarded SMART SCALE project funds in FY20, funding may not become available until FY26.
Eligible transit projects under SMART SCALE include, but are not limited to, the following:
12
Rolling stock and necessary infrastructure for new or expanded transit or intercity passenger rail service.
Transit stations, intercity passenger rail stations, transfer facilities, and other passenger facilities that increase ridership or system capacity.
New or expanded platforms, platform access, and circulation infrastructure at rail stations to accommodate longer trains or increased train service.
Multimodal facilities, such as those that accommodate some combination of services (i.e. intercity bus and Amtrak).
Park and ride facilities with transit service.
Technology improvements that provide enhanced transit services in highpriority corridors, such as ITS and signal prioritization.
Enhanced modal connections, such as trails, sidewalks and bike lanes leading to major transit stations, provided they have a transit connection and enhance transit ridership.
Maintenance and administrative facilities that are part of a larger service expansion project are also eligible. Agencies that utilize this provision must clearly describe the new transit or rail service that the facility will support. The following projects do not provide expanded capacity or increase ridership and therefore are ineligible under this program:
Maintenance equipment and supplies
Support vehicles
Administrative technologies
Applicants are encouraged to reach out to DRPT staff if they have questions about transit or rail project eligibility.
Other Considerations
If an applicant submits an existing fully funded or committed project with independent utility for SMART SCALE funding with intention of requesting additional funds to add additional project component such as landscaping, streetscaping, and/or bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, then the benefits associated with the fully funded or committed project element(s) will be excluded from consideration in evaluating and rating the project for SMART SCALE.
For a project phase or element with independent utility that is expected to be funded or accomplished through proffers, the costs and benefits associated with that project element will be excluded from consideration in evaluating and rating the project for SMART SCALE. Non-project specific cash proffers are not subject to this policy and may be used as other committed funding in the SMART SCALE project application. If the applicant desires to submit a
13
project with proffered conditions and seeks to obtain SMART SCALE funding for, or in lieu of the proffer, the proffer must have been legally rescinded or terminated before the applicant may submit an application for the project.
If an applicant leverages the same funding on more than one request for funding (SMART SCALE, Revenue Sharing, TAP, etc.) and more than one project is selected for funding, then the applicant is responsible for covering the difference. A letter of commitment to fund the leveraged amount is required for each project.
All projects submitted for funding must be developed in accordance with all applicable policies and procedures (CTB, VDOT, DRPT, FHWA, FTA). For example, the CTB's policy regarding bicycle and pedestrian accommodations applies to all candidate projects.
Signal controller/software upgrades should be considered eligible for SMART SCALE funds if they meet the following standards:
Applicants shall provide documentation for the proposed improvement(s) to justify the proposed project.
Documentation should include analysis with supporting models and/or simulation outputs from a VDOT accepted software (HCS, Synchro, VISSIM, etc.). The documentation should also demonstrate operational or safety benefits from the proposed improvements.
Proposed projects shall only be for specific locations where the need is justified. No locality systematic upgrades will be considered for Smart Scale scoring.
VDOT Maintained Upgrade to an existing traffic signal system shall conform to the latest VDOT Standards and Specifications (VDOT approved controller, cabinet, communication system and detection system) Request for a new traffic signal shall conform to the latest VDOT Standards and Specifications (VDOT approved controller, cabinet, communication system and detection system) D4 software shall be used with VDOT approved controllers where the signal is maintained by VDOT. (Per TED policy)
Non-VDOT Maintained Upgrade to an existing traffic signal system should consider conforming to the latest VDOT Standards and Specifications (VDOT approved controller, cabinet, communication system and detection system) Request for a new traffic signal should consider conforming to the latest VDOT Standards and Specifications (VDOT approved controller, cabinet, communication system and detection system) Non-D4 software can be used with Non-VDOT controllers where the signal is maintained by locality. D4 software shall be used in specific locations where locality signal is communicating and coordinated with VDOT maintained signals.
14
Table 2.1 shows the general project types that are eligible to receive SMART SCALE funds.
Table 2.1 Project Types Eligible for SMART SCALE Funding
Project Types Included within SMART SCALE (Capacity and Operational Improvements only)
Highway Improvements (Widening, Operational Improvements, Access Management, Intelligent Transportation Systems, Technology Operational Improvements)
Transit and Rail Capacity Expansion
Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
Transportation Demand Management (Vanpool, carpool, trip reduction programs, and park & rides - including new, expanded, or designated spaces on publicly-owned property).
Project Types Excluded from SMART SCALE
Studies, Asset Management (bridge rehabilitation, "bridge-only" bridge replacement projects, pavement repair/replacement, guardrail repair/replacement)*
Planning studies
Systemwide improvements
Transit maintenance facilities without capacity
expansion
* Asset Management projects excluded from SMART SCALE may be eligible for funding under the State of Good Repair program as pursuant to 33.2-369 of the Code of Virginia.
In addition, projects must meet a need identified in VTrans as defined in SMART SCALE legislation;
"Candidate projects and strategies shall be screened by the Commonwealth Transportation Board to determine whether they are consistent with the assessment of capacity needs for all corridors of statewide significance, regional networks, and improvements to promote urban development areas established pursuant to § 15.2-2223.1, undertaken in the Statewide Transportation Plan in accordance with § 33.2-353."
The process for screening projects based on VTrans needs is described in more detail in Section 2.2.
Funding Programs
A variety of funding sources are subject to allocation according to the SMART SCALE process. Projects seeking funding from most state and Federal discretionary fund categories are required to go through the SMART SCALE process. However, the following funding categories are exempt from the SMART SCALE process: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program funds, Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Regional Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG), Transportation Alternatives (TA) Set-Aside funds (previously known as Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) under MAP-21), and the Revenue Sharing program. Regional funds for Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads are also exempt from the SMART SCALE process. Funds not subject to SMART SCALE may be allocated to projects and used to leverage/reduce the SMART SCALE fund request.
15
As described in Section 1, HB1887 established two new funding programs; the HPPP and the DGP. These programs, and the State of Good Repair Program also established by HB1887, replace the previous 40-30-30 system formula and the CTB alternate formula. The HPPP addresses projects of regional or statewide significance and projects will compete statewide for funding. The HPPP (as defined in § 33.2-370) can fund projects that address a transportation need identified for a CoSS) or a Regional Network in VTrans. The DGP can fund projects that address CoSS and RN needs, as well as needs identified for UDAs and safety issues. The DGP sets aside funds for each district and projects will compete for funding only with projects submitted by other localities within the same district. Although both state and Federal funds are expected to be available through the SMART SCALE process, all projects selected for funding that can qualify for Federal funds shall be developed as federally eligible projects.
Entities Eligible to Submit Projects
While many stakeholders across the Commonwealth have an interest in projects that are considered for funding, only a select group of entities are eligible to submit projects for consideration. Public transit agencies, and regional entities, including Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO), the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, and Planning District Commissions (PDCs) are eligible to submit projects, along with counties, cities, and those towns that maintain their own infrastructure. To support local and regional planning efforts and consistency with the Constrained Long Range Plans (CLRP), a resolution of support from the MPO is needed for all projects within the MPO study area that are not included in or consistent with the adopted CLRP. If project is included in or consistent with the CLRP, then a resolution is not required. A summary of the entities eligible to submit projects for SMART SCALE is presented below in Table 2.2.
16
Table 2.2 Eligibility to Submit Projects
Project Type Corridor of Statewide Significance
Regional Network Urban Development Area Safety
Regional Entity (MPOs, PDCs)
Yes
Yes No No
Locality (Counties, Cities, and Towns)
Yes, with a resolution of support from relevant regional entity
Yes, with a resolution of support from relevant MPO*
Yes, with a resolution of support from relevant MPO*
Yes, with a resolution of support from relevant MPO*
Public Transit Agencies
Yes, with resolution of support from relevant regional entity*
Yes, with resolution of support from relevant regional entity*
No
No
*
Projects within established MPO study areas that are not identified in or consistent with the regionally
adopted Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP) must include a resolution of support from the
respective MPO Policy Board.
Applications for funding through either the HPPP or the DGP must relate to projects located within the boundary of the qualifying entity. Localities and regional planning bodies may submit joint applications for projects that cross boundaries.
By majority vote, the CTB may choose to submit up to two projects for evaluation each application cycle.
2.2
PROJECT READINESS PLANNING REQUIREMENTS
In order to reduce risk to changes in project scope or budget and to ensure that a project can advance to construction, projects must demonstrate a certain level of readiness. This section provides guidance on the required level of planning and supporting documentation needed for projects to be considered and evaluated for SMART SCALE funding. All projects must include a detailed description for each project feature that focuses on the scope of the project and not the benefits of the project.
The following guidelines will be used to assist the applicant in providing a complete and accurate application regarding specific project types. Applicants are encouraged to coordinate with VDOT and DRPT staff for assistance in determining and/or supporting development of project readiness analysis and documentation. If the required level of planning and supporting documentation has not been completed, then the project application will be excluded from consideration in the evaluating and rating of SMART SCALE. Supporting documentation will be required for application submission. If such documentation is required to be updated this would be considered an eligible project expense and should be included in the cost estimate.
17
Minimum Planning Requirements
Detailed Project Description Requirements
The project description must reflect all project features associated with a project. The description should focus on the scope of the project and not why the project is being pursued or the benefits of the project.
Any elements not clearly defined will not be considered for scoring and the addition of such features could be considered as a scope addition if the project is selected for funding.
Sketch Requirements
All projects are required to have a conceptual sketch that displays and locates the project elements described in the detailed project description. The sketch should show a plan view of the project in its completed form but clearly articulate any new features that are proposed. Detailed design plans (construction documents) prepared with land survey are not required; however, the sketch should be drawn to-scale and over the latest available aerial imagery. Bicycle and pedestrian elements, including crosswalks, must be shown in the sketch to receive scores in those categories.
Detailed construction plans that have previously prepared can be used for the project sketch; however, the construction plans must reflect the project that is described in the detailed project description. Any changes to the design project from the design plans should be reflected in a sketch.
Planning Study Requirements
At a minimum, a planning assessment/study, operational analysis, and/or safety assessment should be prepared prior to applying for SMART SCALE funds. The provided assessment/analysis should reflect the candidate project.
Projects that are proposed to address an operational issue should have an assessment/study that includes a purpose and need statement, recent count data (within the last 10 years), operational analysis, alternatives considered, preferred alternatives, expected benefits and a brief summary of conclusions.
Projects that are proposed to address a safety issue not identified as a VTrans safety need shall include a safety analysis/study that includes a purpose and need statement, AADT traffic data, field review observations, geometric design review, alternatives considered, preferred alternative, expected benefits and a brief summary of conclusions.
The size of the analysis/study will vary based on the complexity of the project; however, project types with greater requirements are detailed later in this section.
18
Cost Estimates
Project cost estimates will be developed per cost estimating guidance and requirements and reflect all items in the detailed project description and project sketch.
Grade Separation Projects
Grade Separation on Limited Access Facilities
Proposed new grade separated interchanges on existing limited access facilities require a draft or final Interchange Justification Request (IJR) study or interchange feasibility study with a warranted and feasible preferred alternative identified that is consistent with the scope described in the application. An Interchange Justification Report is only required for new access points on limited access facilities. Modifications to existing access points do not require a formal IJR or Interchange Modification Report (IMR) a planning study is sufficient. For all interchange projects, new or modifications to existing, VDOT needs to understand the specific interchange configuration or modifications proposed for funding in order to calculate the benefits.
Grade Separation of at-grade Intersection
Proposed grade separations of existing at-grade intersections requires a planning level study or analysis that includes the evaluation of at-grade alternatives and identifies a warranted and feasible preferred alternative that is consistent with the scope described in the application.
New Traffic Signals
Proposed new traffic signals must meet VDOT spacing standards and require an approved traffic signal justification report to justify their use as the appropriate traffic control method at the proposed location and the applicant must provide evidence that innovative intersection improvements have been considered and evaluated. The signal justification (including warrants analysis and evaluation of alternatives to signalization) must be uploaded to the SMART Portal as part of the project documentation. If a justification report has not been conducted to show that a signal is the appropriate traffic control method, then the project will be excluded from consideration in scoring and rating for SMART SCALE.
Adaptive Signal Controllers
Proposed installation of adaptive signal controllers must include a corridor study or operational analysis to meet readiness requirements. The planning study or operational analysis must be uploaded to the SMART Portal as supporting documentation. If a planning study or operational analysis has not been conducted then the project will be screened out for readiness and will be excluded from consideration in scoring and rating for SMART SCALE.
19
New Location Facilities
An applicant that proposes construction of a new roadway must demonstrate that alternatives to improve the existing transportation network have been evaluated as part of the planning process, and that the alternatives analysis results were used in making the decision on the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative must be consistent with the scope described in the application. In addition to completion of alternatives analysis, the applicant must provide information on NEPA approval status (see section below on NEPA).
New Access Point(s) Adjacent to an Interchange
Minimum spacing standards for a commercial entrances and intersections on crossroads near an interchange are defined in Appendix F of the VDOT Road Design Manual. The minimum distance required is 750 feet to the first crossroad entrance on the right from the end of the off ramp. Additionally, 750 feet is required from the last crossroad entrance on the right to start of an on-ramp terminal. The minimum distance for a four-legged intersection is 1320 feet from the end of the ramp terminal on the crossroad. There are additional standards for offset entrances and crossovers on the crossroad, and can be obtained in Appendix F. If access management standards are not met, an operational assessment following VDOT's Traffic Operations and Safety Analysis Manual is required to demonstrate that interchange operations and safety are not impaired by the proposed improvement.
Major Widening Projects
In general, a major widening is defined as the addition of two or more general purpose through lanes. An applicant that proposes a major widening of an existing roadway must demonstrate that alternatives to optimize the existing capacity have been evaluated as part of the planning process, and that the alternatives analysis results were used in making the decision on the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative must be consistent with the scope described in the application. The intention of this proposed requirement is not to force applicants to spend extensive time and resources conducting detailed studies. Instead it is meant to require applicants to show that they have considered options to maximize the performance and operation of existing capacity.
Park & Ride Project Readiness
Projects that include park & ride lot(s) should include a project sketch that clearly depicts the lot location, lot boundaries, entry and exit points, parking space layout, transit circulation, and amenities where applicable.
20
Transit Project Readiness
Major Capital Projects (+$2M)
Proposed transit projects that request $2 million or more in SMART SCALE funding must demonstrate readiness by providing a copy of any completed corridor plan, site plan, Transit Development Plan (TDP), comprehensive plan, long-range transportation plan, detailed cost estimate, or federally required planning documents such as NEPA and Section 106. A locally preferred alternative (LPA) must be identified for all fixed guideway service projects prior to application submission. A feasibility or site selection study must be provided for any passenger facility projects that seek funding for land purchases. A feasibility study must be provided for any proposed new transit service.
FTA CIG (new starts, small starts, core capacity) program funding will be considered as part of the project funding package if the following conditions have been met: FTA has approved the project to enter the formal project development process, or if the applicant can demonstrate that they are in the process with FTA to enter project development. Such documentation should demonstrate that FTA is fully engaged with the applicant on the project in anticipation of the project formally entering the project development process. No SMART SCALE funding should be released (by agreement) for any project activities until FTA participation is formally secured by FTA approval of the project to enter the CIG pipeline.
Minor Capital Projects (<$2M)
Proposed transit projects that request less than $2 million in SMART SCALE funding must demonstrate readiness by referencing the project and providing a copy of the agency's Transit Development Plan (TDP). A feasibility study, which examines ridership potential and identifies optimal routing, stops, and timetables, must be provided for any proposed new transit service. Proposed new transit service projects must also provide documentation confirming availability of operating funds.
Public Support
Applicants must demonstrate that a project has the support of key stakeholders that the public has been afforded the opportunity to provide comments and input at the time of application submittal to SMART SCALE. A resolution of support from the relevant governing body or policy board, approved in a public forum with adequate public notice, is required at the time of application. The resolution of support must be uploaded in the SMART Portal as part of the project documentation. There are two elements of public support eligibility:
Public Support: Every application must have a resolution of support from its governing body; In the case of an application that traverses the submitting entity's boundaries, the submitting entity must provide resolution(s) of
21
support from the affected jurisdiction(s) or regional planning organization(s); and
Eligibility to Submit Applications/Regional Support: For locality and transitsubmitted project applications located within an MPO area, the project must have a resolution for support from the MPO. Projects within established MPO study areas that are identified in or consistent with the regionally adopted Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP) do not require a resolution of support from the respective MPO Policy Board.
NEPA and Alternatives Analysis
Applicants should provide documentation that the appropriate level of planning, including alternatives analysis, and environmental review (NEPA) have been or are being conducted:
If NEPA is complete, the FHWA approval letter (CE, FONSI, ROD), and (if available) a link to the document on-line, shall be uploaded in the SMART Portal as part of the project documentation;
If NEPA is not complete then VDOT/DRPT will assess the anticipated level of NEPA document required and the current status;
In the situation where it is determined that the project requires analysis of alternatives then there must be an identified locally preferred alternative. The applicant must provide the draft NEPA document, if available, along with the anticipated level of NEPA class of action required. The NEPA Concurrence form approval by FHWA must be uploaded to the SMART SCALE Portal.
The preferred alternative must be identified in the application. If more than one alternative is listed, then the State will request the applicant to modify the application to identify the preferred alternative. If the applicant is unable to identify preferred alternative, then the State will deem project not ready and will screen project out from consideration.
In the situation where it is determined that an alternatives analysis is not required, VDOT/DRPT will provide the applicant with documentation of such determination prior to application submission.
2.3 SCREENING PROCESS
VTrans Needs Screening
Screening for VTrans Needs is a critical component of SMART SCALE as it links the planning process to the programming process to ensure that the overarching transportation goals of the Board are advanced. All project funding applications submitted for the SMART SCALE process must be consistent with one or more Mid-term Needs identified in VTrans, Virginia's Transportation Plan (§ 33.2-353)
22
which identifies critical safety and capacity related needs for the following four travel markets:
Corridor of Statewide Significance (CoSS) 12 corridors that include highways, railroads, and seaport and airport facilities that move people and goods within and through Virginia, serving primarily interregional and longdistance travel;
Regional Networks (RN) multimodal infrastructure within 15 Regional Network that are based on designated Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) within the Commonwealth, serving primarily intraregional travel;
Urban Development Areas (UDA) this travel market includes: (1) multimodal infrastructure within over 200 designated growth areas based on local initiatives pursuant to § 15.2-2223.1; and (2) locally-identified Industrial and Economic Development Areas (IEDA) included in Virginia Economic Development Partnership's (VEDP) Virginia Business Ready Sites Program (VBRSP) (§ 2.2- 2238 C); and,
Statewide Safety entire roadway network in the Commonwealth.
The 2019 Update of VTrans Mid-term Needs were adopted by the CTB in January 2020. The VTrans website (http://www.vtrans.org/mid-term-planning/midterm-needs) provides the three methods to access the Needs:
Option 1: Print-ready documents compiled by VDOT Construction Districts, includes maps depicting the Mid-term Needs;
Option 2: ArcGIS Map Package, which includes a description of the Needs data; and,
Option 3: InteractVTrans, an interactive mapping application developed for viewing, downloading, and querying VTrans Mid-term Needs as well as other relevant datasets.
Per Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) policy, for the purposes of screening for SMART SCALE, identified UDA Needs within the following Regional Networks with all also be considered Regional Network (RN) Needs: (1) Bristol; (2) Charlottesville; (3) Danville; (4) Harrisonburg; (5) Kingsport; (6) New River Valley; (7) Staunton-Augusta-Waynesboro; and, (8) Winchester.
The same CTB policy also directs that, for the purposes of screening for SMART SCALE, identified Safety Needs on CoSS roadways will also be considered CoSS Needs.
Project applicants are required to include the following components in their application and demonstrate how their proposed project meets one or more VTrans Mid-term Needs:
1. Identify one of the four relevant travel markets; 2. Identify one or more VTrans Mid-term Needs associated with one or more
nodes or segments; and,
23
3. Describe how the project purpose meets one or more identified VTrans Mid-term Needs.
Each project funding application is reviewed by sets of reviewers: (1) VDOT District or DRPT staff; and, (2) OIPI VTrans Team to ensure that the proposed improvement(s) meet one or more relevant VTrans Mid-term Needs. If a project does not address an identified need in VTrans, it is screened out and not considered for validation or scoring.
Figure 2.2 VTrans Travel Markets (CoSS, RN, and UDA)
Source: The 2019 Update of VTrans Mid-term Needs Note: Regional Networks are focused on the MPO areas plus the full county boundaries surrounding them. In some cases needs were identified beyond the county boundaries, in order to reflect needs addressing the connection between exurban and rural areas into the Regional Network. Those needs will also be considered in the screening process.
2.4 APPLICATION AND VALIDATION PROCESS
To support the success of the evaluation process, project sponsors are encouraged to coordinate with VDOT and DRPT early in the process to share information on prospective applications. This coordination phase will allow project descriptions
24
and scopes of work, cost estimates, and potential benefits to be developed and refined and will facilitate the application and evaluation process.
Applicants are required to create a pre-application within the on-line application tool by April 1. Project applications created by April 1 will be reviewed for eligibility, project readiness and screened to determine if the project meets a VTrans Mid-term Need adopted by the CTB. This will provide the project sponsor with screening and eligibility determination. No new applications may be created after April 1. VDOT and DRPT will be available to assist in application preparation.
Project Preparation
Projects submitted as candidates for SMART SCALE funding will be held to a basic standard of development to assure that meet basic readiness criteria and have sufficient detail to be evaluated and scored. Additionally, all project submissions must comply with relevant federal, state and CTB policies. VDOT and DRPT intend to provide support to project sponsors prior to application submission to help project sponsors understand and meet expectations. Project sponsors are encouraged to initiate coordination with VDOT and DRPT staff prior to the application period to ensure that candidate projects are adequately developed.
SMART SCALE project applications must include the following information:
Scope At a minimum, the scope should define the limits of the project, its physical and operational characteristics, and physical and/or operational footprint.
Schedule At a minimum, the schedule should clearly define the expected process for further project development including key milestones, work activities, related activities, and approvals/approval timelines. The schedule should be realistic and reflect the complexity of the project. For any future planned phase start date for which funding is requested, the applicant should assume a start date of no earlier than August 1st of the first available fiscal year of funding - this is typically the second to last fiscal year of the subsequent SixYear Improvement Program (SYIP) following application intake. This information will be used in validating project costs and schedules. Actual dates may be earlier or later depending on several project specific factors such as federal and/or state phase authorization requirements (ex. required TIP/STIP actions, project administration agreements) and the availability of funding by fiscal year
Cost At a minimum, the cost estimate should be as realistic as possible and should account for applicable risk and contingencies based on the size and complexity of the project. Projects should not be divided/segmented to the extent that they no longer have logical termini or independent utility. Cost estimates provided in the base year specified in the SMART Portal. The applicant also enters contingency assumptions.
25
If federally eligible and where applicable, projects must meet the relevant federal requirements for consistency with adopted Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP) in order to make use of funding received through SMART SCALE and to advance in project development.
Projects with an estimated total cost greater than $100 million are required by both state and federal code to have a financial plan. If selected for funding, the initial project financial plan will be required prior to federal authorization of construction phase funding. The financial plan document provides reasonable assurance that there will be sufficient funding available to implement and complete the entire project as planned. Additional information on financial plan requirements can be found at http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/financial_plans.asp.
The estimated cost of the project is a critical input used to determine each project's SMART SCALE score and ranking. Prior to submitting project applications, applicants should work in conjunction with VDOT and DRPT staff to develop reliable cost estimates as part of the application process. Increases in project cost and SMART SCALE funding requests, could result in reevaluation of the project and potentially a loss of funding as described in Section 5.2.
Phase estimates should account for the total cost of the phase to include costs of any previous work or accomplishments to date on existing phases. To the extent possible, right of way phase costs should attempt to exclude the value of donated land or easements or other right of way phase related in-kind contributions. If such aspects are included as a part of the phase's cost estimate, the applicant should denote that the value of such items are reflected as "Local Funds" in the Project Funding Sources described below. The base cost estimate will be escalated pursuant to the scheduled phase start date included in the application.
For projects in which the applicant requests VDOT/DRPT to administer the project, VDOT will be responsible for providing the applicant with a cost estimate for each project application. If the applicant has provided an estimate, VDOT/DRPT will be required to validate the estimate for use on each project application.
For projects in which the applicant requests to locally administer the project (and for all DRPT oversight projects), the applicant must provide a cost estimate for each project application, however VDOT and/or DRPT staff will validate the estimate for use on each project application
Pre-Application Coordination and Submission
VDOT and DRPT strongly encourage early coordination with VDOT and DRPT as they consider projects for application submission. The on-line application tool (SMART Portal) will open on March 1, allowing project sponsors to begin application development. All candidate project applications must be created by April 1st and no new applications will be allowed after April 1st. There is a cap on the number of candidate project applications that can be submitted, and are defined in Table 1.2. To further facilitate VDOT and DRPT assistance in
26
developing project applications, an applicant must submit basic information by April 1st to guarantee technical assistance from the two agencies. The preapplication will identify if projects meet a VTrans Mid-term need, are eligible and ready before submission and provide advance knowledge of the number and type of applications. Project Sponsors will be notified prior to submission if their application meets a VTrans Mid-term Need and is eligible. VDOT and DRPT will strive to complete VTrans screening and eligibility determinations early depending on when information is provided in the SMART Portal. Refer to Table 1.2 for pre-application and full application cap limits.
The pre-application requires minimum inputs be provided by the applicant to include the following:
General Project Information
o POC Name
o POC Phone Number
o POC Email
o Project Title
o Principal Improvement
o Project Description - Short Description (describing the project details, not the project history or objectives)
Project Eligibility
o Project Type and other basic project features needed to understand the general project scope
o Verify not a standalone study
o Verify contiguous improvement
o Verify project is not fully funded
o If in a MPO study area, ensure project is in CLRP
Project Readiness
o If project feature is a Bus Transit, Rail Transit, Passenger Rail, or Freight Rail project cost over $2 million, provide details of corridor plan, site plan, Transit Development Plan (TDP), comprehensive plan, longrange transportation plan, detailed cost estimate, or federally required planning documents such as NEPA and Section 106
o If project feature is a new grade-separated interchange on an existing limited access facility, provide details relating to required Interchange Justification Report (IJR)
o If project feature is a new grade separation of at-grade intersection on a non-limited access roadway, provide details relating to planning
27
level study or analysis that includes the evaluation of at-grade alternatives and identifies grade separation as the preferred alternative o If project feature is a modification(s) to an existing grade-separated interchange, provide details relating to required Interchange Modification Report (IMR) o If project feature is a new traffic signal, provide details relating to VDOT spacing standards, required signal warrant analysis and signal justification report, and assessment of unsignalized or innovative intersection alternatives o If project feature is a roadway on new alignment, provide details of assessment that includes alternatives to improve the existing transportation network o If project feature is adding two or more general purpose through lane(s), provide details of planning assessment that includes evaluation of alternatives to optimize the existing capacity o NEPA Status Delivery and Funding o Identify all prior work completed for the project including
Constrained Long Range Plan (MPO) Preferred Alternative (NEPA or Planning Level) Vision Long Range Plan (MPO) Rural Long Range Plans Other Regional Plan Transportation Element of Local Comprehensive Plan Planning/Safety Study State Transportation Plan Transit Development Plan (TDP) NEPA Study o Provide cost estimate information for PE (Survey, Environmental, Design) RW (Right of Way and Easement Acquisition, Utility
Relocation) CN (Construction, Oversight, Contingencies) VTrans Need Selection and Location Mapping
28
Supporting Documents based on features checked, but at a minimum including project sketch
Screening and Validation (Pre- and Post-Application Submittal)
Due to the implementation of pre-application cap limits in 2020, all submitted preapplications will be screened based on the following three items: 1) project eligibility, 2) project readiness and 3) project meeting a VTrans Mid-term Need adopted by the CTB. Depending on the completeness of available data, the VDOT and DRPT staff may request additional information or identify issues that need to be resolved. Final submitted applications are reviewed by internal technical staff and must be fully validated to move forward into the evaluation and evaluating process. Validation helps to ensure information in the application is accurate, reasonable and consistent with CTB policies.
If there is disagreement concerning the cost estimate or other application data that impacts the evaluation that cannot be resolved between the applicant and VDOT/DRPT SMART SCALE Point of Contact (POC), the applicant may request resolution from the VDOT District Engineer/Administrator or the DRPT Director.
Based on the review and validation by internal technical staff, a project application may be recommended to not advance to evaluation since the project type of applicant is not eligible for SMART SCALE or the project has been determined to not meet project readiness requirements or lacks sufficient detail to calculate project benefits.
Certain projects that are based on conceptual planning-level recommendations and have not been formally scoped or defined may require additional planning/pre-scoping level work before their benefits can be adequately assessed according to the SMART SCALE factors and measures. Planning and pre-scoping resources exist within VDOT, DRPT, localities, regional planning bodies, and some other entities (e.g., SPR, PL, Pre-scoping, FTA 5303, FTA 5304, etc.). However, resources are unlikely to be sufficient to fund every potential request for assistance for project development related to the SMART SCALE process. Additional information on project eligibility and project readiness are included in Section 2.2.
Application Submittal
The CTB's goal is to maintain an application process that remains simple and straightforward for applicants but also provides enough information to estimate project benefits and minimize project development risks. Once the applicant is ready, the online application can be completed and submitted through the SMART Portal link at: https://smartportal.virginiahb2.org/. Additionally, staff from VDOT and DRPT are available for support throughout the process. It is important for applicants to reach a consensus with VDOT and DRPT staff on the scope, schedule and estimate for project submissions. A key guiding principal was to develop a process that does not require applicants to invest significant time and resources for submission of project information, or require the use of consultants
29
to develop an eligible application. Early application coordination and submission is encouraged to mitigate discrepancies throughout the process. The SMART Portal allows applicants to submit applications for other VDOT programs to include Revenue Sharing, Transportation Alternatives (TA) Set-Aside funds (previously known as Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) under MAP-21), and Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds. State of Good Repair forms for bridges and paving are also available through the on-line application tool (pending). The ability to apply for additional programs may be added in the future. Applications submitted through other applications programs or from a prior round may be cloned for use in SMART SCALE. The SMART Portal is continually enhanced based on feedback and lessons learned. VDOT and DRPT staff provide regular training and are available to provide support and tools for applicants in compiling data and information needed for application development. Table 2.3 lists the types of information needed to calculate the prioritization measures and highlights which items are calculated based on information provided by the applicant and which items are compiled or calculated by the Commonwealth. The on-line application tool is electronic and map-based to facilitate automated population of key data elements. This has the potential to reduce the likelihood of data entry errors and improve consistency with VDOT's current scoping form. Note that if an applicant submits more than one project for consideration, as part of the application process, applicants may be asked to rank order their submitted projects based on priority. Applicants are encouraged to focus on their highest priority needs as each applicant is limited in the number of applications it can submit.
30
Table 2.3 SMART SCALE Measure Data Responsibility
Responsibility
All Measures Detailed description of improvement Project location Safety S.1 - Reduction in number of Fatal and Injury crashes S.2 - Reduction in Fatal and Injury crash Rate Congestion Mitigation C.1 - Increase in Person Throughput C.2 - Decrease in Person Hours Delay Accessibility A.1 - Increase Access to Jobs A.2 - Access to jobs for disadvantaged population A.3 - Checklist of multimodal elements included in the project (transit, bike/ped, park&ride, etc.) A.3 - Number of non-SOV users Environment E.1 - Checklist of project elements that contribute to reduced pollutant emissions and/or energy use (transit, bike/ped, park&ride, energy-efficient facilities, etc.) E.1 - Location of improvement on roadways with truck use > 8%
E.1 - Improvements that benefit freight rail or intermodal facilities E.2 - Acres of natural and cultural resources potentially impacted Economic Development ED.1 - Transportation project consistency with Local Comprehensive Plan or Local Economic Development Strategy ED.1 - Transportation project consistency with Regional Economic Development Strategy ED.1 - List of Development projects supported by the transportation improvement (up to 3 miles away depending on project type) including description, square footage, distance from the transportation project, and directness of access that the transportation improvement provides ED.1 - Development project consistency with locality Comprehensive Plan/Zoning ED.1 - Development project site plan status ED.2 - Improves access to distribution, intermodal and manufacturing facilities ED.2 - Improves STAA truck route ED.2 - Enhances access or reduces congestion at ports/airports ED.2 - Tonnage (1000s) per day ED.3 - Travel time reliability Land Use and Transportation Coordination L.1 - Transportation efficient land use L.2 Increase in transportation efficient land use
State
X X X X X X
X
X
X
X X X X X X X
Applicant X X
* * *
X * X
X
X X X
X X
* On non-VDOT roadway facilities, the applicant will need to provide study traffic data (existing turning movement counts). For non-roadway (transit, park&ride, bike/ped) projects, applicant will need to provide existing year peak period usage. For roadway improvements on segments with significant transit use, bus ridership counts should also be provided.
* Applicants are encouraged to provide supplemental data and analysis, but will not be required.
31
3.0 Evaluation Measures
This section summarizes the evaluation measures used in the SMART SCALE evaluation process, and the methods by which those evaluation measures are calculated. SMART SCALE legislation requires that the measures be quantifiable and objective, that the analysis of a project's benefits is relative to its cost and that the CTB consider all modes of transportation. The law requires that the measures fall into six factor areas, listed below:
Safety;
Congestion Mitigation;
Accessibility;
Environmental Quality;
Economic Development; and
Land Use Coordination (for areas over 200,000 populations).
Using the framework of the six factor areas, VDOT and DRPT used an extensive process to develop the measures for SMART SCALE. The team researched best practices from other state DOTs and MPOs, established a work group focused on measures, held a peer exchange workshop, and conducted lessons learned tasks from the initial rounds of SMART SCALE. From these working groups and activities, the team gained a key understanding of some guiding principles that should be included in SMART SCALE, formalized into six guiding principles:
Analyze what matters to people and has a meaningful impact;
Ensure fair and accurate benefit-cost analysis;
Be both transparent and understandable;
Work for both urban and rural areas;
Work for all modes of transportation; and
Minimize overlap between measures.
3.1
SAFETY MEASURES
The SMART SCALE safety measures evaluate how each project addresses multimodal transportation safety concerns through implementation of best practice crash reduction strategies. Listed below in Table 3.1 are brief summaries of the two measures. Additional information about the measures, methodologies, and other details are available in Appendix A.
32
Table 3.1 Safety Measures
ID
Measure Name Measure Description
Measure Objective
S.1 EPDO of Fatal
Equivalent property Estimate number of fatalities and injury
and Injury crashes damage only (EPDO) crashes (weighted by EPDO) at the project
of fatal and injury
location and the expected effectiveness of
crashes expected to project specific counter-measures in
be avoided due to
reducing crash occurrence
project implementation
S.2 EPDO Rate of
EPDO of fatal and
Similar to S.1, but by focusing on the
Fatal and Injury injury crashes per 100 change in fatality and injury crashes
crashes
million vehicle miles (weighted by "EPDO" per VMT. The
traveled (VMT)
measure considers projects that address
expected to be
areas with a high rate of crashes that may
avoided due to project be outside of high-volume roadways
implementation
* Weighted at 100% for Transit and Transportation Demand Management projects.
Measure Weight 70%*
30%
3.2
CONGESTION MITIGATION MEASURES
The SMART SCALE congestion mitigation measures evaluate how each project addresses the ability of the transportation system to move people and reduce travel delay across the State. Listed below in Table 3.2 are brief summaries of the measures. Additional information about the measures, methodologies, and other details are available in Appendix B.
Table 3.2 Congestion Mitigation Measures
ID
Measure Name
C.1 Person Throughput
C.2 Person Hours of Delay
Measure Description
Measure Objective
Increase in corridor total (multimodal) person throughput attributed to the project
Assess the potential benefit of the project in increasing the number of users served within the peak-period.
Decrease in the number of person hours of delay in the corridor
Assess the potential benefit of the project in reducing peak-period person hours of delay.
Measure Weight
50%
50%
3.3
ACCESSIBILITY MEASURES
The SMART SCALE accessibility measures evaluate how each project addresses worker and overall household access to jobs and other opportunities, as well as multiple and connected modal choices. Listed below in Table 3.3 are brief summaries of the measures, and additional information is available in Appendix C.
33
Table 3.3 Accessibility Measures
ID
Measure Name Measure Description
Measure Objective
Measure Weight
A.1 Access to Jobs
Change in average
Measure assesses the average change in
60%
(Total Population) jobs accessibility
access to employment opportunities as a result
within 45 minutes
of project implementation based on the GIS
(within 60 minutes for accessibility tool.
transit projects)
A.2 Access to Jobs (Disadvantaged Populations)
Change in average
Measure assesses the average change in
20%
jobs accessibility for access to employment opportunities as a result
disadvantaged
of project implementation based on the GIS
populations within 45 accessibility tool.
minutes (within 60
minutes for transit
projects)
A.3 Access to
Assessment of the
Measure assigns more points for projects that
20%
Multimodal Choices project support for
enhance interconnections among modes,
connections between provide accessible and reliable transportation
modes, and promotion for all users, encourage travel demand
of multiple
management, and potential to support
transportation choices emergency mobility.
3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MEASURES
The two SMART SCALE environmental quality measures evaluate how projects address the reduction of pollutant emissions and energy consumption, and minimize the impact on natural and cultural resources. Listed below in Table 3.4 are brief summaries of the measures, and additional information is available in Appendix D.
Table 3.4 Environmental Quality Measures
ID
Measure Name Measure Description
Measure Objective
Measure Weight
E.1 Air Quality and Energy Environmental Effect
Potential of project to improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Measure rates a project's potential benefit to air quality and ability to increase energy efficiency or alternative energy use weighted by the total number of users served.
100%
E.2 Impact to Natural Potential of project to Measure evaluates how much sensitive land
(*)
and Cultural
minimize impact on would be affected within project buffer around
Resources
natural and cultural the project. Points are subtracted from final
resources located
score based on total potential sensitive
within project buffer acreage impacted.
*
Up to 5 points subtracted from final score based on the total potential
sensitive acreage impacted
3.5 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEASURES
The SMART SCALE economic development measures evaluate how each project addresses regional and local economic development plans and new development
34
activity, as well as improvements to intermodal freight movement access and efficiency, and travel time reliability to support the movement of goods and people. Listed below in Table 3.5 are brief summaries of the measures. Additional information about the measures, methodologies, and other details are available in Appendix E.
Table 3.5 Economic Development Measures
ID
Measure Name Measure Description
Measure Objective
Measure Weight
ED.1 Project Support for Economic Development
Project consistency This measure assesses whether the project is
60%
with regional and local supporting new economic development and the
economic
progress made toward development in the
development plans
project corridor at the local level. The scoring
and policies and
value is scaled by square footage of sites being
support for local
developed in the area of influence of the project
development activity (up to a maximum of 10 million square feet of
development).
ED.2 Intermodal Access Rate projects based This measure assesses the:
20%
and Efficiency
on the extent to which the project is deemed to enhance access to critical intermodal locations, interregional freight movement, and/or freight intensive industries
Level to which the project enhances access to distribution centers, intermodal facilities, manufacturing industries or other freight intensive industries;
Level to which the project supports enhanced efficiency on a primary truck freight route (or high volume/ high value
truck or rail freight corridor);
Level to which the project enhances access or reduces congestion at or adjacent to VA ports/ airports
The scoring value is scaled by the length of the project.
ED.3 Travel Time Reliability
Improvement in travel This measure determines the project's
20%
time reliability
expected impact on improving reliability which
attributed to the
supports efforts to retain businesses and
project
increase economic activity.
3.6
LAND USE COORDINATION MEASURES
The coordination between transportation and land use is an important issue within jurisdictions throughout Virginia. SMART SCALE legislation mandates the use of this factor area for metropolitan areas in the Commonwealth with a total population of 200,000 or more. Localities with a population beneath that threshold were given the opportunity to voluntarily choose to use this factor area as well. The goals of the SMART SCALE land use coordination measures are to improve the consistency of the connection between local comprehensive plan goals for transportation-efficient land use and transportation infrastructure design, multimodal accommodation, and system operations. Listed in Table 3.6 is a brief
35
summary of the land use measures, and additional information is available in Appendix F.
Table 3.6 Transportation Efficient Land Use Measure
ID
Measure Name Measure Description
Measure Objective
Measure Weight
L.1 Transportation
Amount of population This measure determines the degree to which
50%
Efficient Land Use and employment
the project supports population and
located in areas with employment that on averages has a reduced
high non-work
impact on the transportation network
accessibility
L2 Increase in
Increase in amount of This measure determines the degree to which
50%
Transportation
population and
the project supports population and
Efficient Land Use employment located in employment that on averages has a reduced
areas with high non- impact on the transportation network
work accessibility
between present day
and the horizon year
of 2030
36
4.0 Project Evaluation and Rating
This section summarizes how projects are evaluated once submitted and screened in for consideration in the SMART SCALE process. The CTB's goal is to ensure a transparent process that allows the public and stakeholders to understand how the project benefit for each project is determined and hold decision makers accountable. The flowchart in Figure 4.1 below illustrates the general process of SMART SCALE project evaluation and rating, and will be explored in more detail within this section.
Figure 4.1 SMART SCALE Project Evaluation Process
4.1 CALCULATION OF SMART SCALE MEASURES
The technical evaluation team collects and calculates measures listed in Section 3, spanning the six factor areas. This is an open process that involves state agency collaboration and review from an external team of stakeholders to ensure transparency and improve consistency. Methodologies and specific evaluating methods are listed in Appendix A-F for each of the factor areas.
37
4.2
INTERNAL/EXTERNAL REVIEW
A key step in the rating process is to perform quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC) review of the calculated measures for each project. This review will be conducted by internal and external technical groups. Measures generated through a GIS-based analysis (i.e., environmental factor) or based on responses from the applicant are not subject to the QA/QC review.
The internal technical evaluation team led by OIPI in cooperation and coordination with VDOT and DRPT staff, is responsible for calculating and evaluating submitted projects in the SMART SCALE process. Duties of this group include:
Validating and screening projects;
Calculating measure values for submitted projects according to the methodologies set out in the Appendices; and
Identifying any inconsistencies.
Once initial analysis is done a blind secondary analysis is performed on a minimum of 10 percent of the applications. Projects are randomly chosen for a blind secondary evaluation. A member of the technical evaluation team not involved in the initial analysis conducts the blind independent evaluation to ensure consistency in the development of assumptions and application of analytical methods and to identify process improvements.
4.3
FACTOR WEIGHTING
The SMART SCALE legislation recognized the diversity of transportation needs in different areas of the Commonwealth. It states:
"The Commonwealth Transportation Board shall weight the factors used in subdivision 1 for each of the state's highway construction districts (9). The Commonwealth Transportation Board may assign different weights to the factors, within each highway construction district, based on the unique needs and qualities of each highway construction district"
"The Commonwealth Transportation Board shall solicit input from localities, metropolitan planning organizations, transit authorities, transportation authorities, and other stakeholders in its development of the prioritization process pursuant to this section. Further, the Board shall explicitly consider input provided by an applicable metropolitan planning organization or the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority when developing the weighting of factors pursuant to subdivision 3 for a metropolitan planning area with a population over 200,000 individuals."
"The Commonwealth Transportation Board, pursuant to subdivision B.3 of § 33.2-214.1 as created by this act, shall ensure that congestion mitigation, consistent with § 33.2-257 of the Code of Virginia, is weighted highest among the factors in the prioritization process."
38
Based on a robust public involvement process, it was determined that needs within each construction district are often diverse as well. The CTB decided to create four weighting frameworks and assign frameworks by planning district commission (PDC) and metropolitan planning organization (MPO) boundaries. Table 4.1 and Figure 4.2 present the final factor weighting categories assigned to each MPO and PDC area.
Figure 4.2 PDC and MPO Factor Weighting Typology Map
39
Table 4.1 PDC-MPO Factor Weighting Typology
Name
Accomack-Northampton PDC Bristol MPO Central Shenandoah PDC* Central Virginia MPO Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Commonwealth RC Crater PDC* Cumberland Plateau PDC Danville MPO Fredericksburg Area MPO (FAMPO) George Washington RC* Hampton Roads PDCi Hampton Roads TPO (HRTPO)i,ii Harrisonburg-Rockingham MPO Kingsport MPO Lenowisco PDC Middle Peninsula PDCii Mount Rogers PDC* New River Valley MPO New River Valley PDC* Northern Neck PDC Northern Shenandoah Valley RC* Northern Virginia RC (NVRC) Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (NVTA)/ Transportation Planning Board (TPB)iii Rappahannock-Rapidan RCiii Region 2000 LGC* Richmond Regional PDC* Richmond Regional TPO (RRTPO) Roanoke Valley TPO (RVTPO) Roanoke Valley-Alleghany PDC* Southside PDC Staunton-Augusta-Waynesboro MPO Thomas Jefferson PDC* Tri-Cities MPO West Piedmont PDC* WinFred MPO
Typology
Category D Category D Category D Category C Category B Category D Category D Category D Category D Category B Category D Category D Category A Category C Category D Category D Category D Category D Category C Category D Category D Category D Category A Category A Category D Category D Category D Category B Category B Category D Category D Category C Category C Category C Category D Category C
*Note:
PDC defined as the remainder of the region outside the MPO boundary. In many cases, these regions include partial counties (e.g., Goochland County is partially within RRTPO and the Richmond Regional PDC). If a project is within the MPO boundary in a partial county, the project shall use the weighting associated with the MPO with the following exceptions:
i. The portion of Southampton County and the City of Franklin within the Hampton Roads TPO boundary shall use the weighting associated with the Hampton Roads PDC.
ii. Gloucester County portion of HRTPO included within Middle Peninsula PDC typology.
40
iii. Fauquier County portion of TPB included within Rappahannock-Rapidan RC typology.
For projects that cross multiple typology boundaries, the project shall use the weighting associated with the typology for which the majority of the project is located.
The final weighting scheme by category is presented in Table 4.2. Where MPO boundaries cover a partial county, the assumption is that any project partially or wholly within the MPO boundary will use the assigned MPO weighting approach unless noted otherwise in Table 4.1. For projects that cross multiple typologies, the weighting framework from the typology for which the majority of the footprint of the project is located will be utilized.
Table 4.2 Factor Weights by Category
Factor Category A Category B Category C Category D
Congestion Mitigation
45%b 15% 15% 10%
Economic Development
5% 20% 25% 35%
Accessibility 15% 25% 25% 15%
Safety 5% 20% 25% 30%
Environmental Quality 10% 10% 10% 10%
Land Use
20%a
10%a
a For metropolitan planning areas with a population over 200,000, the prioritization process shall also include a factor based on the quantifiable and achievable goals in VTrans. TPB, HRTPO, RRTPO, FAMPO and RVTPO all meet this definition.
b For Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads construction districts, congestion mitigation is weighted highest among the factors in the prioritization process.
4.4
PROJECT COST
SMART SCALE (§ 33.2-214.1) mandates that the prioritization process be based on benefit of a project relative to the cost of the project. In accordance with the CTB policy, the SMART SCALE score is based on the benefit of the project relative with the requested SMART SCALE funds.
For purposes of determining the SMART SCALE score, only the funds requested from SMART SCALE programs the High Priority Projects Program and the District Grant Program are considered. Information on a project's benefits relative to total cost will be provided to the CTB for comparison purposes.
Using only the funds requested from SMART SCALE programs directly accounts for the benefit of private, local, or other leveraged funding, and helps augment limited state and federal funding sources.
This policy encourages applicants to bring resources to the table.
4.5 PROJECT SCORING
SMART SCALE requires an analysis of the project benefits, considering each applicable factor, relative to the cost of the project. Each project's benefit is
41
determined by calculating values for each of the evaluation measures, converting those values into a normalized value for each factor (0 to 100 scale), and then by weighting the factor values according to one of several potential weighting frameworks approved by the CTB. Ultimately, a Project Benefit is divided by the amount of funds requested from the SMART SCALE programs to obtain the final SMART SCALE score used to rank projects and develop the staff-recommended funding scenario. In addition, the Project Benefit is divided by the total cost of the project and this figure is provided to the CTB for information purposes.
Key Terms
Measure Value Data calculated for the project that describes the characteristics of the project. Wherever possible, the SMART SCALE measure values should be calculated so they are proportional to the size or impact of the project, even for qualitative measures. Normalized Measure Value Numerical value given to each measure based on the Measure Value as a percentage of the maximum or best Measure Value in the state (in other words, scoring based on proportion of the highest Measure Value). Weighted Normalized Measure Value Normalized Measure Values within a factor area multiplied by their measure weights. Factor Value Sum of the Weighted Relative Measure Values within a factor area. Weighted Factor Value Factor Value multiplied by the factor weight of the appropriate weighting framework based on the project location. Project Benefit Sum of the Weighted Factor Values for each factor area. This represents the total benefits of the project relative to other project's benefits. SMART SCALE Score (Project Benefit / SMART SCALE Cost) Project Benefit divided by the SMART SCALE-funded cost of the project. This index allows projects to be compared to each other in terms of their benefit per SMART SCALE dollar invested. Project costs are applied in units of tens of millions of dollars ($10 million).
Methodology
Step 1 Within each factor, for each measure, the highest Measure Value is determined after calculating the measures for each project. The highest Measure Value is given a value of 100. Other Measure Values are compared to the highest Measure Value, and the Normalized Measure Value is then established by taking the project Measure Value as a percentage of the highest value. An example of normalization is shown in Table 4.3 below.
42
Table 4.3 Normalization of Measure Weights
Measure Value Measure Value
Project 1 11.62 hours
0.05
Project 2 166.45 hours
0.79
Project 3 1332.85 hours
6.31
Project 4 21131.65 hours
100.00
Step 2 - Once each Normalized Measure Value has been assigned for a factor, the measure weighting is applied. Each measure within the five or six factors has a measure weight which determines the proportion of the Factor Value carried by each measure. Once the measure weighting has been applied, the sum of the Weighted Normalized Measure Values produces the Factor Value. Table 4.4 presents an example for the Congestion Mitigation factor area.
Table 4.4 Applying Measure Weights
C.1: Person Throughput
C.2: Reduction in Person Hours of
Delay
Raw Factor Value: Congestion
Measure Weight
50%
50%
Value Value Value
Value
Project 1
5
0.01
11
0.05 (50% * .01) + (50% * .05) = .03
Project 2
747
1.40
166
0.80 (50% * 1.4) + (50% * .80) = 1.1
Project 3
182
0.34
1,332
6.30 (50% * .34) + (50% * 6.31) = 3.32
Project 4
53,200 100.00 21,131
100 (50% * 100) + (50%*1000)= 100
Step 3 - The Factor Value is then multiplied by the weighting percentage assigned to that factor by the predetermined weighting typology. Table 4.5 demonstrates this factor weighting using example project 2 and the Category A weights. This process is repeated for all applicable factors their sum producing the Project Benefit.
Table 4.5 Applying Factor Weights
Project 2 (Category A Weights)
Congestion Economic
Environmental Land
Mitigation Development Accessibility Safety
Quality
Use
Weight
45%
5%
15%
5%
10%
20%
Factor Value
1.1
2.6
0.2
4.1
0.3
4.5
Weighted Value
0.50
0.13
0.03
0.2
0.03
0.89
Final Project Benefit
1.78
Step 4 - The Project Benefit is then divided by the SMART SCALE-funded cost of the project (in $10 millions) to determine the value of benefit for every dollar invested. For example, assume that Project 2 is requesting $12.4 million in SMART SCALE funds out of a total cost of $20 million. The Project Benefit is 1.78, the SMART SCALE Score would be 1.43 (i.e. 1.78/1.24 = 1.43).
43
The Project Benefit is also divided by the total project cost to provide supplemental information on the cost-effectiveness of each project. If the total project costs were used, instead of SMART SCALE funds only, the cost-effectiveness of Project 2 would be 0.89 (i.e. 1.78/2 = 0.89).
Everything is Relative
Under this process, the maximum measure values may change on a year-to-year basis depending on the characteristics of the projects that are submitted. The aim of this method is to score each project on a scale proportional to its benefits and relative to its cohort of projects rather than an arbitrary scale that defines whether a project does well or not.
In the first round of SMART SCALE, the Transform66: Outside the Beltway project received the highest measure value in the congestion factor with a 100. In that same round the I-64 High Rise Bridge and Widening project received a 24.3. In the second round of SMART SCALE without the Transform66: Outside the Beltway project, the I-64 High Rise Bridge and Widening project received a 94.5 measure value for the congestion factor the highest value. The benefits of the I-64 High Rise Bridge and Widening project did not quadruple, rather as the evaluation is done on a relative basis the benefit increased because it did the most to reduce congestion of the projects submitted in the second round of SMART SCALE.
Table 4.6 summarizes the calculation of the SMART SCALE Score for the Project 2 example described above. This shows how the measure values and weights, combined with the factor weights, can be used to calculate the Project Benefit. The SMART SCALE Score is the Project Benefit divided by the SMART SCALE cost. Once all projects have been evaluated, they are sorted (ranked) based on the highest scored to lowest scored projects.
Project Segmentation Fixed Guideway Projects (Transit and Rail Only)
Some projects are submitted for SMART SCALE that are a segment of a larger project plan. The individual project may not deliver certain benefits but the larger project will have significant benefits if each of the individual components are built. For example, if a project is submitted to extend a platform at a rail station to allow longer trains to be utilized, the benefits for just the extended platform will be very limited. To account for future benefits of projects that are segmented, a percentage of the benefits derived from all segments of a larger plan will be used in the evaluating of a specific segment. In our example, assuming the rail platform cost $10 million, and the future purchase of railcars cost $90 million for a total cost of $100 million, benefits would be measured for the total project and the segmented component would receive a pro-rata percentage of the benefits relative to the component's cost to the total project's cost. In this instance, 10% ($10 million/$100
44
million) of the benefits would be used for evaluating the platform project as this component represents 10% of the overall cost of the total project. 1
Table 4.6 Calculate SMART SCALE Score
1 This has very limited applicability and does not apply to roadway widenings
45
5.0 CTB Prioritization and Programming
This final section summarizes CTB prioritization and programming methods that are used in the SMART SCALE process, specifically how SMART SCALE scored projects are reviewed, and ultimately, incorporated into the SYIP. The flowchart in Figure 5.1 below illustrates the basic process of the final stages of the SMART SCALE Biennial Process, in which the CTB begins with the results from the SMART SCALE evaluation and rating process, and the staff recommended funding scenario, to inform funding decisions for the draft SYIP.
Figure 5.1 Prioritization and Programming Process (Odd Years)
First, the SMART SCALE technical review team presents the screening and scoring results to both the CTB and the public. Pursuant to Section 33.2-214.2 of the Code of Virginia, project values will be made publicly available no later than 150 days prior to the CTB's vote to adopt the Six-Year Improvement Plan. Under current
46
practices this requires that the results be released at the January CTB meeting. The CTB gives guidance on program development, and begins to narrow down their funding decisions for projects that will be funded in the draft SYIP. Their decisions are represented in the draft SYIP. After the draft SYIP is presented, the CTB holds a public comment period that allows eligible entities to comment on the process, on screening decisions, and on the evaluating of individual projects. The CTB takes into account public comments based on the draft SYIP, ultimately approving the final SYIP in June.
Funding Decisions for Draft SYIP
Pursuant to Section 33.2-214 of the Code of Virginia, each year the CTB must approve a capital improvement program that outlines planned spending for transportation projects for proposed construction development or study for the next six years. The SYIP covers all surface transportation projects, including highway, transit, rail, roadway, technology operational improvements and transportation demand management strategies. Project funding is programmed in accordance with project schedules and cash flow requirements. The CTB updates the SYIP each year as revenue estimates are updated, priorities are revised, project schedules and costs change, and study results are known.
Information from the fall transportation meetings and results of the evaluation process are utilized by the CTB to direct the development of a draft SYIP. The draft SYIP is presented to the CTB each spring. At that time the draft SYIP is made available for public comment. A final SYIP is presented to the CTB in June each year for approval. To meet its statutory obligation, the CTB will adopt a SYIP in June of each year effective July 1st, though SMART SCALE will only happen every other year (see Section 1.4, Biennial SMART SCALE Cycle).
Once the scoring is complete, OIPI develops a staff-recommended funding scenario based on guidance from the CTB.
The CTB may modify the staff-recommended funding scenario. Additional considerations that may be used by the CTB include:
Public feedback from Fall Transportation Meetings and Spring public meetings;
SMART SCALE scores;
Project segmentation starting the next phase of a multi-segment roadway improvement, e.g., to complete a major multi-segment project; and
Other information on project status.
The prioritization process does not require that the CTB fund projects in order of their scores. Further, the CTB is not required to select the highest scoring project. The process is a means to assist the CTB in evaluating and comparing proposed improvements. The CTB continues to retain final decision-making authority on improvements to be included in the SYIP.
47
5.1
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
The CTB provides numerous opportunities for the public to provide input on transportation projects and priorities as part of the continuing transportation planning process. The CTB holds annual Fall Transportation Meetings in the construction districts, providing public and elected officials with an opportunity to identify transportation priorities and to review and comment on the current SYIP. VDOT and DRPT also hold an annual planning and programming meeting inviting representatives from all MPOs and PDCs to attend and provide their transportation priorities prior to the annual development of the SYIP.
Stakeholders have the opportunity to provide input as to what projects the jurisdictions/MPOs/PDCs/transit agencies should consider moving forward in the process through the development of an application for SMART SCALE funds as well as by providing feedback to the CTB during the annual Fall Transportation Meetings. Stakeholders may work with the state to ensure that projects are defined in sufficient detail for SMART SCALE evaluation. All of the applications and supporting analysis will be posted on the SMART SCALE web site (www. smartscale.org) and made available for public review prior to scoring. Public input at this stage is critical to ensuring that no pertinent issues or options are overlooked in the development of a project application. By January of each SMART SCALE cycle, the evaluation of projects selected for SMART SCALE prioritization evaluation will be complete, and results will be made public. Stakeholders have the opportunity to review assumptions and calculations and see each project's score.
Each spring, the draft SYIP is made available for public comment and CTB hosts a public hearing in each construction district. Attendance at the Fall Transportation Meetings and spring public meetings generally includes elected state officials, city and town officials, members of County Boards of Supervisors, representatives of advocacy groups, representatives from MPOs and PDCs, and the general public. Comments are accepted both verbally and in writing at the meeting or via regular mail or email after the meeting.
5.2
PROCESS ISSUES
The CTB adopted an updated SYIP policy on December 7, 2016 with changes to the programming process intended to: 1. improve transparency in the programming process, 2. increase certainty for local project sponsors, citizens and businesses, and 3. accelerate delivery of selected projects. This policy document outlines key provisions in the following areas:
Frequency of updates to the SYIP and to HPPP and DGP;
Changes relating to modification of the amounts of funds previously committed and programmed to projects under certain programs;
48
All SMART SCALE projects selected for funding under the HPPP and the DGP must be fully funded and demonstrate the Board's commitment to advance the project through construction;
The Board will select a preferred prioritization scenario to guide allocation of funds and consider modifications to the preferred prioritization scenario;
Some of the specific process issues pertaining to SMART SCALE are outlined below.
Changes in Project Scope/Schedule/Cost
In general, once a project has been screened, evaluated, and selected for funding, it will remain in the SYIP as a funding priority. However, certain circumstances may warrant review of the project's SMART SCALE score or funding decision. More specifically, any changes to a project's scope or budget may require engagement in the SMART SCALE project change process.
The project change process was developed to ensure the integrity of the SMART SCALE scoring process, the original intent/benefits of evaluated projects, and the CTB's allocation decisions. Changes to basic project elements, such as scope or cost could result in funding projects that are not as cost effective as others.
The project change process was designed to be flexible, allowing for most project modifications to be addressed through business rules without requiring CTB action, thereby avoiding potential project delays. More information about SMART SCALE project changes can be found in the SMART SCALE Project Change Guide.
A project that has been selected for funding must be reviewed through the project change process if there are significant changes to either the scope or cost of the project:
1. If proposed project scope changes will change the nature of the project as presented in the project's SMART SCALE application, then a preliminary review of the proposed changes will be conducted to determine if there is an impact to project benefits. If the project benefits may be impacted, then a quantitative assessment will be conducted to determine the level of impact. If warranted the project will be re-scored utilizing the same methodology and maximum measure values for the round of SMART SCALE in which the project was selected for funding. In this case, if the revised score is less than the lowest ranked funded project in the district for that round of SMART SCALE, CTB action is required to approve the change in scope.
In the event the CTB does not approve such changes, they may choose to cancel the project. In such cases, the remaining SMART SCALE funds will be reserved to address budget adjustments on existing SMART SCALE projects or reserved for allocation in the next solicitation cycle for SMART SCALE. The CTB may also choose to advance the original scope of the
49
project. Results of SMART SCALE project scope changes reviewed by the CTB will be made publicly available.
If the proposed scope change is an increase in scope, then the applicant is responsible for the additional cost attributable to the increase in scope regardless of budget impact.
2. If an estimate increases prior to project advertisement or contract award that exceeds the following thresholds shown in Table 5.1, and the applicant is not funding the increased cost with other funds, CTB action is required to approve the budget increase:
Table 5.1 Project Budget Change Thresholds for CTB Action
Total Project Budget Less than $5,000,000 From $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 Greater than $10,000,000
Change from original SMART SCALE requested amount 20% or greater increase in funding requested $1,000,000 or greater increase in funding requested
10% or greater increase in funding requested; $5,000,000 maximum increase in funding
3. If there is a significant reduction in the locally/regionally leveraged funds available for the project, in cases where a project has been selected for funding which identified other sources of funding, the qualifying entity is committed to pay the difference if other sources of funding are not provided. An applicant may only identify State of Good Repair, Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside, Highway Safety Improvement Program and Revenue Sharing funds as committed funds, if the funding has already been approved by the CTB. Applicants must have an approved or pending application for other sources of committed funds, such as local/regional or other federal funds, at the time of the SMART SCALE application submission.
Funding Sources
Other sources of funding may include previous applications for VDOT or DRPT funding programs (State of Good Repair, Revenue Sharing, Transportation Alternatives (TA) Set-Aside funds, FTA Programs, MERIT), regional funding (CMAQ/RSTP), or local funds requested from the BOS or City/Town Council. An explanation of the source of the requested funding must be provided. The applicant must provide documentation of other requested funds; such as resolutions of support, letter, applications, etc. In the cases where a project has been selected for funding which identified other sources of funding, the applicant is committed to pay the difference if other sources of funding are not provided.
A project that has been selected for funding must be initiated and at least a portion of the programmed funds expended within one year of the budgeted year of allocation or funding may be subject to reprogramming to other projects selected through the prioritization process. In the event the Project is not advanced to the
50
next phase of construction when requested by the CTB, the locality or metropolitan planning organization may be required, pursuant to § 33.2-214 of the Code of Virginia, to reimburse the Department for all state and federal funds expended on the project.
Fully Funded Project Applications
Committed funds are funds committed to cover the difference in total project cost and SMART SCALE request so that the project is fully funded through construction. Applicants are encouraged to identify other sources of funding (local, regional, proffers, other stated/federal funds) to reduce the amount of SMART SCALE funding. However, since committed funds are used to leverage and reduce the SMART SCALE requested amount forming the basis of SMART SCALE Score, applicants must submit a letter of commitment that they are responsible for such committed funds even if the original source of the funds is no longer available.
SMART SCALE funding is not intended to replace other committed funding sources such as local/regional funding, proffers, and/or other committed state or federal funding sources. In general, projects that are fully funded in a capital improvement program, a metropolitan planning organization's transportation improvement program, VDOT/DRPT or NVTA SYIP, or required to be paid by a developer as a result of a local zoning process will be excluded from consideration in evaluating and rating for SMART SCALE. To ensure that a proffer is accepted as other committed funds, it needs to be void of language that references a specific project (or project element with independent utility) and instead should only apply to a general area or corridor.
1. The CTB may waive this requirement for projects that: a. have an anticipated total cost in excess of $1 billion; and b. were not eligible for submission in the previous round of SMART SCALE due to readiness considerations, but initiated procurement prior to award of the current round of SMART SCALE.
2. If a fully funded project is submitted with additional features that are not yet funded, the benefits associated with the fully funded or committed project element(s) will be excluded from consideration in evaluating and rating the project benefits for SMART SCALE.
3. Other committed funds must have at least been applied for at the time of the SMART SCALE application submission. a. Future applications for State of Good Repair, Transportation Alternatives, Safety, Revenue Sharing, CMAQ, RSTP, NVTC, HRTAC, FTA New Starts, etc. cannot be considered other committed funds.
Re-Submittal of Projects
If a submitted project is not selected for funding during a cycle, the CTB will allow eligible entities to re-submit the project the next cycle.
51
Other considerations regarding resubmittal of projects include the following:
A project that has been selected for funding cannot be resubmitted to address cost increases or loss of other sources of funding.
Once a project is selected for funding, an entity must wait for two rounds of SMART SCALE following the end date of construction before submitting a new project application for the same location that meets the same need as the project that was selected for funding.
Once a project is selected for funding, an entity may not resubmit the project with a revised scope in a subsequent round unless the previously selected project has been cancelled.
Program Funding Changes
In order to cover estimate increases, funds will be reprogrammed from projects with surplus allocations due to estimate decreases, contract award savings, schedule changes, etc. or from future SMART SCALE funds from the applicable grant program (DGP or HPPP). Regular reviews will be conducted to ensure that the scope and benefit of selected projects has not changed significantly. Project estimates will also be monitored to determine if the thresholds need to be adjusted.
The Board may adjust the timing of funds programmed to projects selected in previous SMART SCALE cycles to meet the cash flow needs of the individual projects, but will not (1) reduce the total amount of state and federal funding committed to an individual project unless it is no longer needed for the delivery of the project or the project sponsor is unable to secure permits and environmental clearances for the project or (2) increase the total amount of state and federal funding committed to an individual project beyond the thresholds requiring CTB action identified in the SMART SCALE policy.
In cases where programmed funds are no longer needed for delivery of a project due to estimate decreases, contract award savings, schedule changes, etc., the unexpended surplus funds are reallocated within the SMART SCALE program, unless superseded by the terms of a signed project agreement, as follows:
Surplus DGP funds no longer needed for delivery of a project will remain with the district and may not be used in other districts;
Surplus HPPP funds will be transferred to a statewide balance entry account and may be used on a statewide basis on other High Priority projects; or
Such funds will be reserved to address budget adjustments on existing SMART SCALE projects or reserved for allocation in the next solicitation cycle for SMART SCALE.
In the event that revenue reductions decrease the amount of actual funding available for a particular SMART SCALE cohort, two approaches are envisioned:
52
Delaying timing of projects to out years where future funding may be available; or
Utilizing SMART SCALE funds from future years to fund the project.
5.3
IMPROVEMENTS TO PROCESS AND MEASURES
SMART SCALE represented a new step forward for the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the CTB broke new ground in moving towards a prioritized transportation funding structure. As the process moves into future cycles, SMART SCALE will continue to evolve and improve. Advances in technology, data collection, and reporting tools will upgrade and modernize SMART SCALE for a growing Virginia, and the CTB looks forward to using these tools to provide a more balanced and equitable distribution of the Commonwealth's transportation funds.
53
6.0 Appendix A: Safety Measures
Table 6.1 Safety Factor Measures Summary
ID
Measure Name
S.1 EPDO of Fatal and Injury crashes
S.2 EPDO Rate of Fatal and Injury crashes
Weight 70%a
30%
Measure Description Equivalent property damage only (EPDO) of fatal and injury crashes expected to be avoided due to project implementation
Equivalent property damage only (EPDO) of fatal and injury crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) expected to be avoided due to project implementation
Measure Objective
Estimate number of fatalities and injury crashes (weighted by "equivalent property damage only" crash value reported by FHWA) at the project location and the expected effectiveness of project specific counter-measures in reducing crash occurrence
Similar to S.1, but by focusing on the change in fatality and injury crashes (weighted by "equivalent property damage only" crash value reported by FHWA) per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT), the measure considers projects that address areas with a high rate of crashes that may be outside of high-volume roadways
a 100% for Transit and Transportation Demand Management projects
Measures Approach
S.1 Equivalent property damage only (EPDO) of Fatal and Injury crashes
Definition: EPDO-weighted fatal and injury crashes expected to be reduced due to project implementation.
Data Source(s)
Most recent five years of crashes from VDOT Roadway Network System (RNS) geospatial (GIS) data prepared by Traffic Engineering Division.
FHWA report on crash cost estimates by severity of the injuries sustained adjusted to the mid-year of the analysis period as modified by VDOT2.
SYIP to determine if and when improvements have been implemented in proximity to the project in the last five years.
2 Council, F., Zaloshnja, E., Miller, T., and Persaud, B., Crash Cost Estimates by Maximum Police-Reported Injury within Selected Crash Geometries, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), October 2005, Washington, DC.
54
SMART SCALE project expected crash reduction percentage developed using FHWA's Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse website and Virginia crash summaries and models published in the Resource page.3
For park and ride projects, data from the U.S. Census Bureau's OnTheMap tool will be used to indicate the most common primary direction(s) and average distances of commute(s) for those living within the catchment area of the proposed improvement. Additionally, when available, lot user surveys or other applicable information (conducted within the past five years) of existing park and rides within reasonable proximity of the proposed improvement can supplement OnTheMap data. Common directions of travel and average distances from OnTheMap, as well as any available origin-destination information from lot users surveys, are used to apply logical routing. The number of new park & ride users is determined using existing park & ride utilization in the area and/or projected demand based upon established methodology that factors in demographic data and travel patterns.4
Methodology
The methodology varies by project type, as described below.
Roadway
Step 1: VDOT will compile the latest 5 years of fatal (F) and injury (I by severity) crashes for the roadway segments within the project limits. The project limits are defined by the begin and end milepost for roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, inroadway transit service (e.g., bus rapid transit), in-roadway freight service corridor improvements; the ends of the turn bays on all approaches for intersection improvements; the nearest intersection(s) on the cross street for a new interchange as well as adjacent ramps on the freeway within 1,600 feet of any proposed interchange ramp; and the begin and end milepost on key parallel roadway(s) (facilities where vehicles may shift from) for transit and freight improvement projects. The SYIP will be reviewed and local VDOT staff will determine if and when improvements have been implemented within the project limits during the 5 year analysis period. When identified the analysis period will be shortened to the post improvement years as necessary.
Step 2: Weight the number of crashes by severity using the "equivalent property damage only" (EPDO) crash value scale reported by FHWA and adjusted to the mid-year of the analysis period. Research has shown that many factors unrelated to the design or condition of a roadway play a role in whether a crash results in fatality or severe injury, such as age of the individual and age of the vehicle, VDOT has developed an average weighted EPDO value for crashes that involve either a fatality or a severe injury. The EPDO values used in the SMART SCALE process are shown in Table 6.2 below.
3 http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/ and http://smartscale.org/resources/
4 http:onthemap.ces.census.gov/
55
Table 6.2 EPDO Crash Value Conversion
Accident Type Fatal + Severe Injury Moderate Injury Minor Injury
Rounded Value $850,000 $100,000 $50,000
Weight 85 10 5
Step 3: Select the most appropriate expected crash reduction (PECR) percentage (PECR=1-CMF) for each of the project segments based on targeted (crash specific) or all crash CMFs applicable to SMART SCALE project types.
Step 4: Multiply the average annual EPDO weighted fatal and injury crash frequency by the PECR to estimate the number of EPDO crashes expected to be reduced.
For roadway widening (capacity) projects, the previously described steps are applied using crashes on the highway segment from the beginning and end mile points of the project plus influence areas of intersections at the terminals.
For intersection related improvement projects, crashes in the influence area of the minor roadway approaches to the major roadway, which is defined as the highest volume facility, will be included for those minor roadways recorded in VDOT's RNS roadway inventory. The minor roadway approach improvement influence area is considered to be 250 feet or the length of existing turn lanes, whichever is greater.
For projects on roadways on new location, crashes on the most reasonable alternative route(s) would be compiled. The statewide 5-year average fatal and injury crash rate for the new roadway, using the facility type and number of lanes of the new roadway, would represent the build condition. Based on travel demand model estimates of VMT for the build versus no-build scenarios, percent changes in VMT on each alternate route segment equates to the CMF applied. The net total of the expected EPDO crashes on the alternative route(s) and the expected EPDO crashes on the build corridor equals the overall project crash reduction. The alternate routes with expected changes in traffic volumes may be identified by the applicant.
New interchanges and interchange ramp modifications on the freeway will consider freeway and crossing route crashes depending on the specific ramp improvements in proposed projects.
Transit/Freight Rail/TDM
The methodology described for roadway projects is not used for transit infrastructure projects. Rather the safety benefits for transit projects will be estimated based on reduced vehicle miles traveled from expected shift from auto to transit with the assumption that dedicated transit vehicles have minimal crash frequencies. The same approach as described for transit projects would be applied to freight rail projects, except the focus will be on the 5-year average of truck-
56
related fatal and injury crashes in the parallel corridor. For TDM projects like park and ride lots, the same approach as described for transit projects would be applied taking into account the traffic reductions on adjacent highways.
Transit/Freight Rail/TDM service safety analysis includes the following steps:
Step 1: Highway segments predicted to experience primary travel shifts by the proposed improvement(s) will be provided by the transit project applicant (transit) or determined with U.S. Census data to determine the most common directions of travel and average distance traveled in each direction. Park and ride lot user origin-destination surveys may be provided by the applicant when available. In addition, for each highway and fixed-guideway transit segment with new service, the applicant sponsor shall provide the daily and hourly ridership, and/or the increase in parking spaces for projects increasing park and ride capacity. The highway segments impacted by a mode shift will be assessed to determine the percent VMT change on the network; that is, the expected percent modal shift from highway (VMT) to transit/ride-sharing due to the project. The after project VMT will be one minus the percent model shift (VMT After = 1 %VMT Reduced).
Step 2: Compile all fatal and injury crashes by severity from segments of highway predicted to experience primary travel shifts.
Step 3: Weight the number of crashes by severity using the "equivalent property damage only" (EPDO) crash value scale reported by FHWA and adjusted to the mid-year of the analysis period.
Step 4: Compute the 5-year annual average F+Injury EPDO crash frequencies for the on-road segments and impacted parallel roadways.
Step 5: Calculate the expected reduction of annual F+Injury EPDO crash frequencies for segments of highway predicted to experience primary travel shifts by multiplying the existing crash frequency by the after-project percent VMT reduction.
Bicycle/Pedestrian
The methodology described for roadway projects will be used for bicycle and/or pedestrian projects based on the proposed segment and/or intersection improvement CMFs. CMFs from FHWA and other sources were developed based on the associated roadway element improvement CMF targeting bicycle and pedestrian crashes. Other alternative sources of information may be developed to assess the safety benefit of these project types based on bicycle facility classification or facility separation from travel lanes.
Scoring Value
Total change in EPDO of fatal and injury (F+I) crash frequency.
57
S.2 Equivalent property damage only (EPDO) Rate of Fatal and Injury crashes reduced
Definition: Number of Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) weighted fatal and injury crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) expected to be reduced due to project.
Data Source(s)
Most recent five years of crashes from VDOT RNS geospatial GIS data maintained by Traffic Engineering Division. Driving while under the influence of alcohol crashes will be removed from the data set used for safety scoring.
FHWA report on crash cost estimates by severity of the injuries sustained adjusted to the mid-year of the analysis period5.
SYIP to determine if and when improvements have been implemented in the last five years.
Existing AADT by roadway segment from VDOT RNS, available studies, Congestion Measure analysis or the applicant/jurisdiction, and segment(s) length to calculate annual VMT.
SMART SCALE project expected crash reduction percentage developed using FHWA's CMF Clearinghouse website and Virginia crash summaries and models published in the Resource page.6
Methodology
The methodology varies by project type, as described below.
Roadway and Bicycle/Pedestrian
Step 1: Collect and use the most recent years AADT to calculate the annual VMT for the same segment(s) used for crash data collection for the S.1 measure.
Step 2: Match the project location segment VMT with the expected F+I EPDO of F+I crashes reduced by the project from the S.1 measure.
Step 3: Compute the existing F+I EPDO crash rate based on EPDO per 100 million VMT.
Step 4: Compute the expected F+I EPDO crash rate reduction as a result of the project improvements - the S.1 reduced annual average F+I EPDO crashes divided by the segment 100 million VMT. For longer projects covering several segments
5 Council, F., Zaloshnja, E., Miller, T., and Persaud, B., Crash Cost Estimates by Maximum Police-Reported Injury within Selected Crash Geometries, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), October 2005, Washington, DC.
6 http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/ and http://smartscale.org/resources
58
with different AADT values, the average annual crash rate reduction is the sum of the segment reduced crashes over the sum of the segment VMTs. The methodology varies by project type, as described above for S.1 crash frequency reduction assessments. Transit/Freight Rail/TDM The methodology described for roadway projects cannot be used for transit projects. For on-road and off-road (dedicated guideway) transit projects, only the S.1 measure of the total F+I EPDO crash frequency reduction will be used so the transit safety score will be based on the S.1 result. The same approach as described for transit would be applied for Freight Rail types of project except the focus will be on the 5-year average of truck-related fatal and injury crashes in the parallel corridor. Scoring Value Expected reduction in fatal and injury (F+I) EPDO crash rate.
59
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
7.0 Appendix B: Congestion Mitigation Measures
Table 7.1 Congestion Mitigation Factor Measures Summary
ID
Measure Name
C.1 Person Throughput
C.2 Person Hours of Delay
Weight 50%
50%
Measure Description
Increase in corridor total (multimodal) person throughput attributed to the project
Decrease in the number of person hours of delay in the corridor
Measure Objective
Assess the potential benefit of the project in increasing the number of users served within the peak period.
Assess the potential benefit of the project in reducing peak period person hours of delay.
Measures Approach
C.1 Person Throughput
Definition: Change in corridor total (multimodal) person throughput attributed to the project.
Data Source(s)/Analytical Tools
Latest available 24-hour traffic count data summarized by hour, direction, and roadway segment, including vehicle classification, where applicable, from VDOT TMS, or jurisdiction.
Latest available regional travel demand model encompassing the influence area only for projects consisting of new transportation facilities. The project is tested with the regional travel demand model using the SYIP highway network.
Existing AADT by roadway segment from VDOT TMS or jurisdiction.
Lane capacity is set by the current functional classification of the roadway. In the case of a new location roadway, the planned functional classification is used. Lane capacities were established based on an average of the capacities outlined in the ENTRADA User's Guide, February 2014 and the Virginia Travel Demand Modeling Policies and Procedures Manual Version 2.0.
Obtain lane capacities for different facility types (i.e., freeway, collector, etc.) and area types from the ENTRADA User's Guide, February 2014. The urban threshold for capacity will be used statewide and is generally based on LOS D/E.
For park and ride projects, data from the U.S. Census Bureau's OnTheMap tool will be used to indicate the most common primary direction(s) and average distances of commute(s) for those living within the catchment area of the
60
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
proposed improvement. Additionally, when available, lot user surveys or other applicable information (conducted within the past five years) of existing park and rides within reasonable proximity of the proposed improvement can supplement OnTheMap data. Common directions of travel and average distances from OnTheMap, as well as any available origin-destination information from lot users surveys, are used to apply logical routing. The number of new park & ride users is determined using existing park & ride utilization in the area and/or projected demand based upon established methodology that factors in demographic data and travel patterns.
For transit projects, Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) will provide estimated daily ridership and hourly ridership for the proposed service.
For new managed lane projects, assumed occupancy rates will be provided by VDOT.
For roadway projects, SPS will be used to determine number of lanes, lane widths, speed limit, terrain (e.g., level, rolling, mountainous), lateral clearance, number of driveways on arterials, interchange density on freeways, and median type on arterials.
Latest available aerial imagery used to determine merge, diverge, and weaving lengths on freeways and verify other data from SPS.
FHWA Cap-X: evaluation tool that uses critical lane volumes (CLV) to evaluate the efficiency of intersections and interchanges.
Potential traffic growth rate sources include VTrans, SPS, and travel demand model.
Highway Capacity Software (HCS) 2010 Freeway Facilities Module.
Modified Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) spreadsheet.
Methodology
The methodology is a quantitative, corridor-based analysis that requires an estimate of future no-build (without the project) and build (with the project) person throughput. It is anticipated that project corridor will consist of an intersection or segment within the corridor depending on the project type. The segment within the corridor with calculated person throughput increase above zero is used for analysis purposes.
The methodologies to determine person throughput for roadway, bicycle/pedestrian, transit, TDM (including park and ride lots), and freight projects are described below, starting with roadway projects.
For all project types described in this section, person throughput is only credited/ scored if the facility is over capacity in the no-build project condition (has a volume to capacity ratio greater than 1.0)
61
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
Roadway: There are four types of analyses used to quantify the change in person throughput as a result of a proposed roadway project: Basic roadway segment (freeway, rural multilane, rural two-lane), urban
arterial (segments between signals are combined with delay calculations from Cap-X to establish no-build versus build average travel speeds) Freeway facility (diverge, merge, weave) Intersection or interchange, and New/Complex facilities - Limited-access roadway capacity expansion projects greater than 2 miles in length are defined as complex. The methodology to compute the change in person throughput will be described for each of the four facility types listed above. The methodology for the analysis of first two facility types is the same. Basic Roadway Segment / Freeway Facility Basic segments represent uninterrupted-flow conditions and have no fixed causes of delay or interruption external to the traffic stream. This category includes twolane highways, multilane highways, and basic freeway segments as defined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. Freeway facilities also represent uninterruptedflow facilities consisting of continuously connected segments that include: basic freeway, weaving, merge, and diverge segments. In order to calculate average travel speeds along signalized arterial routes, basic roadway segment sheets are coded along the project length and are combined with the Cap-X analysis to compute the no-build and build average travel speeds. A modified BPR equation is used for the analysis of these types of facilities. Nationally, the BPR equation is the mostly widely used volume-delay function for road segments. The equation addresses the relationship between volume and capacity on the segment, with the result being the delay associated with traffic volumes. Capacity in the BPR equation is based on the area type and facility type. Step 1: Compile existing peak period traffic volumes within the project corridor using some of the aforementioned data sources, including existing peak period traffic count data from VDOT TMS. Step 2: Determine the peak period flow rate on the roadway segment without the project and with the project. Using the capacity values by functional classification, compute the vehicle throughput without the project and with the project. Step 3: Compute the change in peak period vehicle throughput by subtracting the no-build vehicle throughput from the build vehicle throughput. Step 4: Compute the peak period person throughput for no-build and build conditions by multiplying an average vehicle occupancy rate by the vehicle throughput.
62
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
Intersection / Interchange Intersections and interchanges represent interrupted flow conditions with features that create delay such as traffic signals. Step 1: Compile existing peak period traffic volumes within the project corridor using the aforementioned data sources, including existing peak period traffic count data from VDOT TMS. Step 2: Use FHWA CAP-X analysis tool to determine the intersection / interchange critical lane volumes and to estimate the vehicle throughput for the no-build and build conditions. Step 3: Compute the change in peak period vehicle throughput by subtracting the no-build vehicle throughput from the build project vehicle throughput. Step 4: Compute the peak period person throughput for without and with conditions by multiplying an average vehicle occupancy rate by the vehicle throughput. New/Complex Roadway Facilities Estimating vehicle throughput for new roadway facilities requires the use of a regional travel demand model. The project is added to the regional travel demand model, using the SYIP highway network, and model outputs are then used to summarize with project vehicle throughput. Step 1: Code the new facility into the regional travel demand model with assumed posted speed limit, facility type, and number of lanes. Step 2: Identify links in the regional network operating below the speed limit in future no-build scenario with greater than 10% reduction of traffic for the different alternative improvements compared to the no build scenario. Calculate total difference in VHT for these links between the no-build model and the build model. Step 3: Multiplying the difference between the no-build VHT from the build VHT by 30% to convert to peak period delay reduction (expressed in vehicle hours). Step 4: Compute the average system project throughput by multiplying the difference between the no-build VHT from the build VHT by 60 to convert to vehicles minutes traveled, and dividing this difference by the average trip length (expressed in minutes).
63
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
Transit / Bicycle/Pedestrian / Freight Rail / TDM
New service for alternative modes supports change in throughput both on the other mode and on highway network. For trips on other modes, estimate total person throughput for existing and new users in the peak period. The person throughput reduction for new users is associated with any throughput savings associated with a shift from auto to the other mode. For the highway network, total demand is reduced, which may lead to a reduction in vehicle demand on parallel facilities. For transit projects, compute the number of equivalent vehicles on roadway(s) within the impacted area using a forecasted ridership per hour and an assumed transit occupancy. Once the number of vehicles on impacted roadway(s) is computed, determine the peak period person throughput for no-build and build conditions by multiplying an average vehicle occupancy rate by the vehicle throughput.
Scoring Value
Total change in person throughput due to the project.
C.2 Person Hours of Delay
Definition: Decrease in the number of peak period person hours of delay in the project corridor.
Data Sources/Analytical Tools
Latest available 24-hour traffic count data summarized by hour, direction, and roadway segment, including vehicle classification, where applicable, from VDOT TMS, or jurisdiction.
Latest available regional travel demand model encompassing the influence area only for projects consisting of new location transportation facilities.
Existing AADT by roadway segment from VDOT TMS or jurisdiction.
Lane capacity is set by the current functional classification of the roadway. In the case of a new location roadway, the planned functional classification is used. Lane capacities were established based on an average of the capacities outlined in the ENTRADA User's Guide, February 2014 and the Virginia Travel Demand Modeling Policies and Procedures Manual Version 2.0.
For park and ride projects, data from the U.S. Census Bureau's OnTheMap tool will be used to indicate the most common primary direction(s) and average distances of commute(s) for those living within the catchment area of the proposed improvement. Additionally, when available, lot user surveys or other applicable information (conducted within the past five years) of existing park and rides within reasonable proximity of the proposed improvement can supplement OnTheMap data. Common directions of travel and average distances from OnTheMap, as well as any available origin-destination information from lot user's surveys, are used to apply logical routing. The number of new park & ride users is determined using existing park & ride
64
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
utilization in the area and/or projected demand based upon established methodology that factors in demographic data and travel patterns.
For transit projects, Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) will provide estimated daily ridership and hourly ridership for the proposed service.
For new managed lane projects, assumed occupancy rates will be provided by VDOT.
For roadway projects, SPS will be used to determine number of lanes, lane widths, speed limit, terrain (e.g., level, rolling, mountainous), lateral clearance, number of driveways on arterials, interchange density on freeways, and median type on arterials.
Latest available aerial imagery used to determine merge, diverge, and weaving lengths on freeways and verify other data from SPS.
FHWA Cap-X: evaluation tool that uses critical lane volumes (CLV) to evaluate the efficiency of intersections and interchanges.
Potential traffic growth rate sources include VTrans, SPS, and travel demand model.
Highway Capacity Software (HCS) 2010 Freeway Facilities Module.
Modified BPR spreadsheet.
Methodology
The methodology is a quantitative, corridor-based analysis that requires an estimate of future no-build (without project) and build (with project) person throughput and congested travel speeds.
The methodologies to determine person hours of delay for roadway, bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and freight projects are described below, starting with roadway projects. It is anticipated that project corridor length definition will vary by mode and project type. For example, the project length for a park and ride lot project is equal to the average commuting distance determined from the census data website identified in the data sources. On the other hand, the project length for a roadway corridor improvement project is established by extending the corridor to the next adjacent signalized intersection or interchange on both ends of the corridor. If there are no adjacent signalized intersections or interchanges within one mile of either end of the corridor, then one mile is added to both ends of the corridor.
Roadway: There are four types of analyses used to quantify the change in person hours of delay as a result of a proposed roadway project:
Basic roadway segment (freeway, rural multilane, rural two-lane, urban arterial)
Freeway facility (diverge, merge, weave),
65
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
Intersection or interchange, and
New facility.
Basic Roadway Segment
Basic segments represent uninterrupted-flow conditions and have no fixed causes of delay or interruption external to the traffic stream. This category includes twolane highways, multilane highways, and basic freeway segments as defined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. In order to calculate average travel speeds along signalized arterial routes, basic roadway segment sheets are coded along the project length and are combined with the Cap-X analysis to compute the no-build and build average travel speeds.
A modified BPR equation is used for the analysis of these types of facilities. Nationally, the BPR equation is the mostly widely used volume-delay function for road segments. The equation addresses the relationship between volume and capacity on the segment, with the result being the delay associated with traffic volumes. Capacity in the BPR equation is based on functional classification.
Step 1: Compile existing peak period traffic volumes within the project corridor using some of the aforementioned data sources, including existing peak period traffic count data from VDOT TMS.
Step 2: Collect and document all roadway geometric features using data from SPS and supplemented by field visits and/or aerial imagery.
Step 3: Convert the peak period traffic volumes to flow rates using methods from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual.
Step 4: Compute no-build and build travel speeds and delays using a modified BPR equation. Delay is calculated by calculating the difference between the predicted travel speed and the posted speed limit.
Step 5: Compute the change in vehicle hours of delay by subtracting the build (with project) delay from the non-build (without project) delay.
Step 6: Compute the peak period person hours of delay for no-build and build conditions by multiplying an average vehicle occupancy rate by the vehicle delay.
Step 7: Compute the change in person hours of delay by subtracting the build (with project) delay from the non-build (without project) delay.
Freeway Facility
Freeway facilities also represent uninterrupted-flow facilities consisting of continuously connected segments that include: basic freeway, weaving, merge, and diverge segments. The HCS Freeway Facility module is based on 2010 Highway Capacity Manual procedures.
Step 1: Compute existing peak period no-build and build traffic volumes within the project corridor using the aforementioned data sources, including existing peak period traffic count data from VDOT TMS.
66
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
Step 2: Compute volume-to-capacity ratio and travel speed using HCS methodologies for no-build and build conditions. Step 3: Compute no-build and build delay using the travel speed and segment length. Step 4: Compute the peak period person delay for no-build and build conditions by multiplying the average vehicle delay by an average vehicle occupancy rate by the vehicle delay. Step 5: Compute the change in person hours of delay by subtracting the build (with project) delay from the non-build (without project) delay. Intersection / Interchange Intersections and interchanges represent interrupted flow conditions with features that create delay such as traffic signals. Corridor travel speed and delay will be calculated based on intersection/interchange delay and segment speed and delay. Apply a capacity check for intersection/interchange and roadway segment. Use the least improved bottleneck to calculate throughput change between the nobuild (without project) and the build (with project) conditions. Step 1: Compute existing peak period traffic volumes within the project corridor using the aforementioned data sources, including existing peak period traffic count data from VDOT TMS. Step 2: Determine the critical lane volume for each approach to the intersection, which is defined as the movements with the maximum traffic volume per lane. Step 3: Use FHWA CAP-X analysis tool to estimate the vehicle delay for the nobuild and build conditions. Step 4: Compute the peak period person delay for no-build and build conditions by multiplying the average vehicle delay by an average vehicle occupancy rate by the vehicle delay. Step 5: Compute the change in peak period delay by subtracting the build (with project) delay from the non-build (without project) delay. New Roadway Facilities Estimating vehicle delay for new facilities requires the use of a regional travel demand model. The project is added to the regional travel demand model and model outputs are then used to summarize project build vehicle delay. The total vehicle delay reduction is the cumulative effect at a system level (total trips). Step 1: Code the new facility into the regional travel demand model with assumed posted speed limit, facility type, and number of lanes. Step 2: Identify links in the regional network operating below the speed limit in future no-build scenario with greater than 10% reduction of traffic for the different alternative improvements compared to the no build scenario. Calculate total difference in VHT for these links between the no-build model and the build model.
67
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
Step 3: Multiplying the difference between the no-build VHT from the build VHT by 30% to convert to peak period delay reduction (expressed in vehicle hours) Step 4: Compute the person peak period delay by multiplying the average vehicle delay by an average vehicle occupancy rate. Transit / Freight Rail / TDM New service from alternative modes supports change in delay both on the other mode and on the highway network. For trips from other modes, estimate total person travel time savings for existing and new users in the peak hour. The person travel time savings for existing users is associated with any improvement in frequency or travel time associated with the project. The person travel time savings for new users is associated with any travel time savings associated with a shift from auto to the other mode. For the highway network, total demand is reduced, which may lead to a reduction in delay on parallel facilities. Bicycle/Pedestrian No reduction in person hours of delay is assumed for a stand-alone bicycle and/or pedestrian project. Scoring Value Total peak-period person delay reduction.
68
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
8.0 Appendix C: Accessibility Measures
Table 8.1 Accessibility Factor Measures Summary
ID
Measure Name
A.1 Access to Jobs
A.2 Access to Jobs for Disadvantaged Populations
A.3 Access to Multimodal Choices
Weight 60%
20%
20%
Measure Description
Measure Objective
Change in average job accessibility per person within 45 minutes (within 60 minutes for transit projects)
Measure assesses the average change in access to employment opportunities in the region as a result of project implementation based on the GIS accessibility tool.
Change in average jobs accessibility per person for disadvantaged populations within 45 minutes (within 60 minutes for transit projects)
Measure assesses the average change in access to employment opportunities in the region as a result of project implementation based on the GIS accessibility tool.
Assessment of the project support for connections between modes, and promotion of multiple transportation choices
Measure assigns more points for projects that enhance interconnections among modes, provide accessible and reliable transportation for all users, encourage travel demand management, and potential to support incident management.
Measures Approach
A.1 Access to Jobs
Definition: The GIS accessibility tool analyzes the existing average accessibility to jobs within 45 minutes per person at the individual U.S. Census block group level statewide. For transit projects, accessibility will be calculated to jobs within 60 minutes. The tool calculates the average accessibility to jobs by mode (auto and transit). The jobs are weighted based on a travel time decay function, where jobs within a shorter travel time are weighted more than jobs farther away. The decay function was developed based on travel survey data. The average accessibility represents the total number of jobs reachable in a 45 minute travel time from each block group to every other block group.
The tool calculates the improvement in number of jobs reachable within that travel shed resulting from a proposed transportation improvement. Therefore, the average number of jobs reachable represents the total jobs accessible from each block group to every other block group, weighted by the population in each block group. The actual metric relevant for SMART SCALE prioritization purposes is the increase in average job accessibility resulting from a proposed project. Travel
69
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
times are based on congested roadway travel times, real transit operating schedules, and an assessment of pedestrian network connectivity.
As part of the estimation of change in project corridor person hours of delay (Measure C.2), an estimate of the project build congested speed is developed. The project build congested speed is entered into the underlying congested network within the accessibility tool, and the difference between the build and no build congested speeds is used to calculate the change in cumulative accessibility by block group for auto.
Data Source(s)
Accessibility tool.
Change in project corridor congested speed, transit operations, and pedestrian system connectivity (as it relates to last mile connections to transit service).
Methodology
The accessibility tool reports an average accessibility to jobs by mode for each Census block group (for auto, or Census block for transit) in region. The analysis of project benefits considers how an improvement in travel time expands accessibility to jobs at the block group or block level (without consideration of regional or State boundaries). By default, 2030 land use forecasts will be used. Applicants may also provide modified land use density assumptions from a locally or regionally approved market study to be used for Build versus No-Build analysis.
Step 1: Update congested roadway speeds, transit network, or pedestrian system connectivity. Based on analysis conducted in the congestion factor for measure C.2, post-project implementation congested speeds are generated and applied to the roadway network underlying the accessibility tool. For transit projects, the project corridor and basic operational information (peak period frequency and travel times) are coded into the transit network (based on General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) data, which is a common format for public transportation schedules and associated geographic information) underlying the accessibility tool. For the non-motorized mode, the tool reflects improvements in connectivity provided by new sidewalk or path connections or meaningful pedestrian elements that substantially improve quality of service on routes providing access to transit service.
Step 2: Use the accessibility tool to calculate the current (no build) accessibility by mode for a project. The accessibility is the average access to jobs from each block group to every other block group within the project's area of influence.
Step 3: Use the accessibility tool to calculate the build accessibility (using postproject implementation congested speeds and/or changes in transit operations) by mode for a project.
Step 4: Calculate the change in accessibility scores between the build and no build conditions. For each project, an average accessibility improvement is reported
70
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
(depending on mode, e.g., for roadway projects the auto mode improvement is reported, for transit projects the transit mode improvement is reported). Scoring Value Total change in average jobs accessibility.
A.2 Access to Jobs for Disadvantaged Populations
Definition: The accessibility tool analyzes the existing average accessibility to jobs within 45 minutes at the individual U.S. Census block group level statewide. For transit projects, accessibility will be calculated to jobs within 60 minutes. The tool calculates the average accessibility to jobs by mode (auto and transit). The jobs are weighted based on a travel time decay function, where jobs within a shorter travel time are weighted more than jobs farther away. The decay function was developed based on travel survey data. The average accessibility represents the total number of jobs reachable in a 45 minute travel time from each block group to every other block group7. For this measure, the change in average job accessibility is calculated and averaged based on the disadvantaged population in each Census block or block group. Data Source(s) Accessibility tool. 2014 U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Methodology For the purposes of this analysis, "disadvantaged population" is calculated as lowincome, minority, or limited-English proficiency (LEP) population. All Census blocks and block groups in Virginia were analyzed to determine the populations of low-income minority, or limited English speaking persons (LEP)in each. The accessibility tool calculates job accessibility averaged by population in each Census block or block group. The calculation of accessibility for disadvantaged population was calculated in exactly the same way as described in A.1 above for general accessibility, except that instead of averaging for population as a whole, the accessibility was averaged for the disadvantaged population in each Census block or block group.
Scoring Value Total change in average jobs accessibility for disadvantaged populations.
7 The area of influence of a project is defined as a 45 mile radius circle around the project (reflecting 45 minutes of travel at 60 miles per hour). Beyond this area of influence, the tool does not calculate job accessibility as it is a distance that is not relevant to the vast majority of trips.
71
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
A.3 Access to Multimodal Choices
Definition: This measure considers the degree to which the project can increase access to non-single occupant vehicle travel options. The objective is to recognize projects that enhance connections between modes or create new connections.
Data Source(s)
GIS data of transit routes or transit service areas, all rail transit stations (from GTFS data as described for accessibility tool).
DRPT/VDOT GIS data of park-and-ride lots.
VDOT GIS data of on and off-road bicycle facilities (incomplete dataset at this time).
Anticipated peak period non-SOV users of travel options with increased access or service.
Methodology
Step 1: The project sponsor provides project level detail on the extent of connections and accommodation of multiple modes as part of the project definition and self-assign points consistent with descriptions in Table 8.2.
Step 2: The project corridor is entered into a GIS database and overlaid with a layer including all multimodal transportation options. The GIS analysis is recommended to inform the validation of sponsor scoring in Table 8.2.
For roadway or multimodal projects this includes: type of bicycle facility, type of pedestrian facilities, connection to park-and-ride locations or inclusion of managed lanes, inclusion of technology supporting traveler information, or wayfinding signage to other modes, and accommodation of on-road transit vehicles.
For transit projects, depending on transit mode, this includes: associated bike and pedestrian facilities, bicycle parking, accommodation of bike on transit vehicles, park-and-ride facilities, traveler information, affiliation or presence of local TDM programs, and transfers with other transit modes.
For bike and pedestrian projects, this includes: class of bicycle facility, type of pedestrian improvements, connections to other on- or off-road bicycle facilities, connections to transit facilities, and affiliation or presence of local TDM programs. A bicycle facility project can include elements in one or more of the following categories:
On-Street Facilities: Shared use paths, separated bicycle lanes (cycle tracks), buffered bicycle lanes, conventional bicycle lanes, bicycle boulevards (signed routes) and shared roadways.
Off-Street Facilities: Off-street bicycle facilities are separate from motorvehicle roadways and include shared use paths or trails. Trails may be adjacent to the roadway or located on an abandoned railroad right of way.
72
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
Equipment: Bicycle facility equipment includes signs, traffic signals, barriers, and bicycle parking. Note: standalone equipment improvements, including bicycle racks as part of an application are not eligible as a bicycle facility.
Freight related accessibility is considered in the economic development factor.
Step 3: SMART SCALE review staff evaluate project scoring and work with project sponsor to adjust scoring as necessary.
Step 4: Total project points are then multiplied (scaled) by the number of peak period non-SOV users.
Scoring Value
Total points reflecting multimodal choices scaled by the number of peak period non-SOV users of the project.
Table 8.2 Access to Multimodal Choices Scoring Approach
Project Type (Mode) and Characteristics
Project includes transit system improvements or reduces delay on a roadway with scheduled peak service of 1 transit vehicle per hour.
Project includes improvements to an existing or proposed park-and-ride lot. Ex. New lot, more spaces, entrance/exit, technology (payment, traveler information).
Project includes improvements to existing or new HOV/HOT lanes or ramps to HOV/HOT
Project includes construction, enhancement, or replacement of bike facilities. For bicycle projects, off-road or on-road buffered or clearly delineated facilities are required.
Project includes construction, enhancement, or replacement of pedestrian facilities. For pedestrian projects, sidewalks, pedestrian signals, marked crosswalks, refuge islands, and other treatments are required (as appropriate).
Project provides real-time traveler information or wayfinding specifically for intermodal connections (access to transit station or park&ride lot).
Provides traveler information or is directly linked to an existing TMC network/ITS architecture.
Total Points Possible
Measure Scaling: Points are multiplied by the number of new peak period non-SOV users
Points (If Yes) 5 4 2 1.5 1.5
1 1 5 points maximum
73
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
9.0 Appendix D: Environmental Quality Measures
Table 9.1 Environmental Quality Factor Measures Summary
ID
Measure Name
E.1 Air Quality and Energy Environmental Effect
E.2 Impact to Natural and Cultural Resources
Weight 100%
(*)
Measure Description
Measure Objective
Potential of project to improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Measure rates a project's potential benefit to air quality and ability to increase energy efficiency or alternative energy use weighted by the total number of users served.
Potential of project to minimize impact on natural and cultural resources located within project buffer
Measure evaluates how much sensitive land would be affected within project buffer around the project. Points are subtracted from final score based on total potential sensitive acreage impacted.
* Up to 5 points subtracted from final score based on the total potential sensitive acreage impacted
Measures Approach
E.1 Air Quality and Energy Environmental Effect
Definition
The Air Quality and Energy Environmental Effect measure describes the level of benefit that a project is projected to have on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions (or alternative energy use). The objective of this measure is to recognize projects that are expected to contribute to improvements in air quality and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Data Source(s)
Project sponsor answers defined qualifiers as described below based on project definition.
Total project corridor passenger throughput (as determined in the congestion factor).
Methodology
Air quality and energy effect is determined by reviewing a project sponsor responses (collected through the project nomination) to the qualifications identified in Table 9.2. The methodology applies to all project types.
74
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
Step 1: The project sponsor self-assesses the project based on Table 9.2 (10 point potential maximum). The nomination form includes space for the sponsor to provide clarifications/justifications for the points awarded.
Step 2: SMART SCALE review staff receive each project nomination and reviews the information provided. As appropriate, staff contact project sponsors to address any questions or unexplained scoring.
Table 9.2 Air Quality and Energy Environmental Effect Scoring Approach
Project Type (Mode) and Characteristics
Non-SOV Project Characteristics
Project includes improvements to rail transit or passenger rail facilities.*
Project includes construction or replacement of bike facilities. For bicycle projects, offroad or on-road buffered or clearly delineated facilities are required.*
Project includes construction or replacement of pedestrian facilities. For pedestrian projects, sidewalks, pedestrian signals, marked crosswalks, refuge islands, and other treatments are required (as appropriate).*
Project includes improvements to an existing or proposed park-and-ride lot. Ex. New lot, more spaces, entrance/exit, technology (payment, traveler information).*
Project includes bus facility improvements or reduces delay on a roadway with scheduled peak service of 1 transit vehicle per hour.*
Project include special accommodations for hybrid or electric vehicles, or space or infrastructure for electric vehicle parking/charging).*
Project includes energy efficient infrastructure or fleets, including: hybrid or electric buses, electronic/open road tolling, alternative energy infrastructure (e.g., roadside solar panels).*
Total Points Possible
Measure Scaling: *Points are multiplied by the number of peak period non-SOV users.
Freight Transportation Project Characteristics
Project reduces traffic delay at a congested intersection, interchange, or other bottleneck with a high percentage of truck traffic (greater than 8 percent of AADT). ***
Project includes improvements to freight rail network or intermodal (truck to rail) facilities/ports/terminals.**
Total Points Possible
Measure Scaling: **Points are multiplied by daily truck volumes ** Points awarded for projects with a decrease in person hour delay greater than zero and with truck traffic greater than 8% AADT
Points (If Yes)
3 2 2
2 1 0.5 0.5
8.5 points maximum*
Points (If Yes) 1 0.5
1.5 points maximum**
Scoring Value
After SMART SCALE staff review and confirm points assigned in Table 9.2, the maximum total points for each category (non-SOV and trucks) are multiplied by the respective scaling value (non-SOV users and peak period truck volume).
75
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
E.2 Impact to Natural and Cultural Resources
Definition: This measure considers the potential of a project to minimize the impact on natural and cultural resources located within the project buffer. Data Source(s) GIS layers for each of four categories. For cultural resources, associated nonspatial data ("Property Evaluation Status" or "Site Evaluation Status") will be used to determine eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. For threatened and endangered species, species status will be referenced to appropriately filter the spatial data and is limited to state endangered, state threatened, federal endangered, federal threatened. Methodology The potential of the project to minimize impact on natural and cultural resources is conducted by considering the existing acres of sensitive areas and resources located within a ¼ mile buffer around the project, as well as the type of environmental document (EIS, EA, CE) expected to be required for the project. The final E.2 (Natural and Cultural Resource Impact) score for the project will be based on the portion of acres affected relative to the total project buffer (initial score) and the weighted points derived from other factor areas. The resulting value is then renormalized to calculate the final score and weighting is applied. Measure E.2 is unique among evaluation measures because the score is adjusted, or scaled, by the benefit scores for all other measures. Step 1: Using a ¼ mile buffer around each project, total the acreage of land in four categories 1) Conservation Land, 2) Species/Habitat, 3) Cultural Resources, and 4) Wetlands. The specific GIS layers used in each category are as follows: Conservation Lands Virginia Outdoor Foundation Protected Easements Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation 6F properties Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Conservation Lands Virginia Department of Forestry Agricultural/Forest Districts Virginia Department of Historic Resources Protected Easements Species/Habitat Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Threatened and
Endangered Species Virginia Center for Conservation Biology (Eagles)
76
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
Cultural Resources
National Park Service, American Battlefield Protection Program Potential National Register (POTNR) Areas
Virginia Department of Historic Resources Architecture layer: properties listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places ("Evaluation Status")
Virginia Department of Historic Resources Archeology layer: sites listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
Wetlands
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Step 2: Determine the level of environmental documentation required for the federal action. This information will be used to assess and scale the potential natural resource impacts. If not already determined by the appropriate federal agency with the action, VDOT/DRPT environmental staff will determine the anticipated level of environmental documentation required for the project using the best available information. Concurrence by the federal agency is required prior to initiation of environmental documentation. The amount of potentially impacted acreage that will be counted towards the score is different based on the type of environmental document required:
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 50% of acreage will be used for scoring
Environmental Assessment (EA) 30% of acreage will be used for scoring
Categorical Exclusion (CE) 10% of acreage will be used for scoring
This process of scaling acres based on the type of environmental document is illustrated in Table 9.3 below.
Table 9.3 Example of Potentially Impacted Acres by Type of Environmental Document
Project A B C D
Conservation 100 100 20 200
Species/ Habitat
25 25 0 400
Cultural Resources
25 25 0 200
Wetlands 150 150 5 400
Total Acres 300 300
25 1200
Environmental Document EA EIS CE EIS
Acres Counted
100 150 2.5 600
Buffer Acres 500 500 500 500
Buffer Ratio 0.2 0.3 0.005 1.2
Final Buffer Ratio
0.2
0.3
0.005
1.0
Step 3: Divide the amount of potentially impacted acres by the total buffer area in acres. If the result is > 1.0 then set buffer ratio equal to 1.0. This is the ratio of potentially impacted area.
77
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
Table 9.4
Scoring Value
Whereas all the other measures are added together based upon typology weighting, the E.2 measure is applied to that sum as a subtractive measure.
Across typologies, all factor weights sum to 100% for a theoretical maximum benefit score of 100. For a project with no impacts to natural and cultural resources, zero points are subtracted; thus a theoretical maximum score of 100 is maintained. Non-zero E.2 measures are normalized by dividing by the highest E.2 measure (ie. the greatest impact to natural and cultural resources) then scaled by 5 points. These derived points, ranging from 0 to 5, are then subtracted from the sum of all other measures' weighted scores. This measure can cause a project with a non-zero score to earn a total adjusted score of zero. No project will receive a negative total benefit score.
Example of Potentially Impacted Acres by Type of Environmental Document
Sum of All Other Weighted Measures
60 25 4 3
Impact to Natural and Cultural Resources
Highest Moderate
High Low
Normalized E.2 Measure E.2 Points (Subtractive)
1.0
-5.0
0.4
-2.0
0.7
-3.5
0.1
-0.5
Total Benefit Score
55.0 23.0 0.5 2.5
78
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
10.0 Appendix E: Economic Development Measures
Table 10.1 Economic Development Factor Measures Summary
ID
Measure Name
ED.1 Project Support for Economic Development
ED.2 Intermodal Access and Efficiency
ED.3 Travel Time Reliability
Weight 60% 20%
20%
Measure Description Project consistency with regional and local economic development plans and policies and support for local development activity
Rate projects based on the extent to which the project is deemed to enhance access to critical intermodal locations, interregional freight movement, and/or freight intensive industries.
Improvement in travel time reliability attributed to the project
Measure Objective
The intent of this measure is to assess if the project is supporting future economic development and the progress made toward development in the project corridor at the local level. Progress will be assessed through use of a checklist of desired actions.
The intent of this measure is to assess the:
Level to which the project enhances access to distribution centers, intermodal facilities, manufacturing industries or other freight intensive industries;
Level to which the project supports enhanced efficiency on a primary truck freight route (or high volume/ high value truck or rail freight corridor);
Level to which the project enhances access or reduces congestion at or adjacent to VA ports/ airports.
The intent of this measure is to determine the project's expected impact on improving reliability which supports efforts to retain businesses and increase economic activity.
Measures Approach
ED.1 Project Support for Economic Development
Definition: Assessment of project based on input provided by the applicant regarding the project's potential to directly support economic development and the readiness of the economic development sites affected. Progress will be assessed through use of a checklist of desired actions that examine the impact of the project on economic development sites and the progress that has been made to advance the economic development sites.
79
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
Data Sources: Economic Development site description and supporting information provided by the project sponsor. Methodology: The focus of this measure is on support of real, planned nonresidential development/redevelopment (residential-only developments are not eligible) within the project corridor (what is included in the project corridor is clarified in steps below). Residential development as part of a mixed-use development that includes a non-residential component is eligible. To qualify as mixed-use development, a site or parcel must be designated in the locality's current zoning map or future land use map as mixed-use zoning or future land use, which allows for a range of land uses (residential, commercial, cultural, institutional, and/or industrial) in a single development project. To qualify as redevelopment, a site or parcel must be in a measurable state of decline, disinvestment, abandonment, or a site cleared of the previous building(s). Redevelopment sites must rebuild or restore to non-residential or mixed-use and must include either a conceptual site plan, detailed site plan, or a building permit. Project assessment is based on points received based on characteristics of both the transportation project and development sites located within a project buffer, as shown in Table 10.2 below. Validation (based on documents provided by applicant) of the existence of the project and site status in the checklist is included as part of the project nomination. The transportation project is awarded scaling points for each development site within a project buffer. The total scaling points are multiplied by the proposed or projected square footage of each development site to reflect the magnitude of the development supported by the transportation project. The maximum amount of development that can be considered for the purpose of scaling the ED.1 measure is set at 10 million square feet. An applicant may submit additional sites (square footage) above this cap; however, additional documentation consisting of tenant agreements, major economic development announcements from the state (Governor or Economic Development Partnership), and/or mega-site certification by a third party will be required for all sites that are zoned only or have conceptual site plans related to the project.
Figure 10.1 below illustrates the overall process to calculate ED.1 measure value.
80
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
Figure 10.1 Flow Chart for Project Support for Economic Development Measure Value
Step 1: Determine ED Site Eligibility - Distance from Transportation Project (Refer to Table 10.2) Tier 1 Transportation Project Type: 0.5-mile buffer Tier 2 Transportation Project Type: 1-mile buffer Tier 3 Transportation Project Type: 3-mile buffer
Step 2: Calculate Site Scaling Points (Refer to Table 10.3) Select one Site Plan Type (maximum of 3 scaling points): Detailed Site Plan Approved: 3 points Detailed Site Plan Submitted: 1 point Conceptual Site Plan Approved: 0.5 points Conceptual Site Plan Submitted: 0.25 points Zoned Only: 0 points Select one Site Characteristics (maximum of 1 scaling point) Redevelopment of existing site: 1 point VEDP Tier 5 Site: 1 point VEDP Tier 4 Site: 0.5 points VEDP Tier 3 Site: 0.25 points
(Maximum 4 total scaling points can be applied in Step 2)
Step 3: Calculate Transportation Project Scaling Points (Refer to 4) Proposed Transportation Project Included in Local Plans: 0.5 point Degree of economic distress: up to 0.5 point
(Maximum 1 scaling point can be applied in Step 3)
Step 4: Calculate Total Site Scaling Points Add ED Site Points (Step 2) and Transportation Project Points (Step 3)
(Total Maximum of 5 scaling points per ED site)
Step 5: Calculate Site Adjusted Building Square Footage (Refer to Table 10.5) Identify ED Site Building Square Footage (up to a maximum of 10 million square feet) Adjust for Access Provision: 100%(multiply by 1) or 50% (multiply by 0.5) Adjust for Distance: Divide by distance to transportation project if greater than 1 mile
Step 6: Calculate Adjusted Site Score and Final Measure Value ED Site Scaling Points X Adjusted Square Footage = Adjusted Site Value Sum of each Adjusted Site Square Footage = ED.1 Measure Value
81
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
Site Eligibility by Transportation Project Type
To determine if a site is eligible for consideration in the ED.1 measure value, the proposed or potential development has to be within a buffer distance from the transportation project. The project type has an assigned a tier value, which defines the buffer area for eligibility. The site eligibility determination is defined in Table 10.2.
Table 10.2 Site Eligibility by Transportation Project Tier
Transportation Project Tier
Distance from Transportation Project to be an Eligible ED Site
Tier 1 - Turn Lane, Intelligent Transportation Systems, Bike Lane or Path, Sidewalk, Bus Stop, Park & Ride Lot
Up to 0.5 mile buffer
Tier 2 - Access Management, Signal optimization, Increase Bus service, Improvement to Rail Transit Station
Up to 1.0 mile buffer
Tier 3 - New through lane, new/improved interchange, new bridge, new Rail Transit Station, additional Rail Track, Intersection Control Change
Up to 3.0 mile buffer
Economic Development Site Scaling Points Criteria
Development site plan status scaling points are assigned in Table 10.3. Use the definitions below to determine the type and status of the site plan.
Detailed Site Plan: Construction documents, engineering/architectural drawings and specifications that includes construction requirements for a site. These plans are detailed enough for construction and include details regarding building pad locations, grading, drainage, utilities, parking and entrances. Note that an applicant can only take credit for a site as long as the Certificate of Occupancy has not been issued prior to the final Smart Scale submission deadline.
Conceptual Site Plan: A conceptual sketch, or preliminary plan, as part of a rezoning application that must include the following details: (1) The location, area and density or floor area ratio (FAR) of each type of proposed land use within the development. (2) A delineation of developable land to exclude wetlands and terrain that will not be developed. (3) The location of any proposed roadway facility on site within the development's boundaries and the connectivity of the network addition as proposed. (4) The location of stub outs on adjoining property and the existing land use of such adjacent property, if applicable, and the location of any proposed stub outs within the network addition, if applicable.
Approved: Site plans that have been reviewed and given documentation of support from a local jurisdiction and/or VDOT, if applicable. Official approval documentation from the approving authority must be uploaded with the application.
82
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
Submitted: Site plans that are currently under review by a locality and/or VDOT, if applicable, for construction, rezoning or special use permits. Documentation of submitted site plans to the approving authority must be uploaded with the application.
Zoned Only: Development project lacks an approved or submitted conceptual or detailed site plan but is consistent with local comprehensive plan's future land use or zoning map, and/or zoning code/ordinance. Zoned only sites must have primary access to the project or be directly adjacent to the proposed transportation project in order to be eligible. For the purposes of SMART SCALE, zoned only sites will be capped at an assumed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.3 unless the applicant can provide documentation as part of the project application that the average FAR for sites around the proposed project exceeds 0.3 or that local ordinances or zoning has established a minimum FAR greater than 0.3.
Site characteristic scaling points are defined below in Table 10.3. Use the definitions below to determine the type and status of the site plan.
Redevelopment of Existing Site: Existing buildings on the site with a total building footprint of at least 10% of the site area that will be demolished or rehabilitated for non-residential or mixed-use development. Note that to gain points for redevelopment status a site must have Conceptual or Detailed site plan approved.
VEDP Location: The site is listed by the Virginia Economic Development Partnership's (VEDP) Business Ready Sites Program (VBRSP) as a Tier 5 "shovel ready", Tier 4 "infrastructure ready" site, or Tier 3 "Zoned industrial/commercial, due diligence complete". Note that VEDP site location is independent of plan approvals, so VEDP site location status is allocated points in addition to the level of plan approvals.
Table 10.3 Site Scaling Points
Scaling Point Description
Points Value
Development Site Plan Status (Max of 3 scaling points)
Detailed site plan approved: 3
Detailed site plan submitted: 1
Conceptual site plan approved: 0.5
Conceptual site plan submitted: 0.25
Zoned Only: 0
Site Characteristics (Max of 1 scaling point)
Redevelopment of existing site: 1
VEDP Tier 5 Site: 1
VEDP Tier 4 Site: 0.5
VEDP Tier 3 Site: 0.25
Subtotal of Economic Development Site Scaling Points (max 4 points that can be applied)
83
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
Development building square footage up to a maximum of 10 million square feet (does not include residential-only property) within a specified buffer distance from the project and adjusted by factors will be multiplied by the above points to calculate the final project measure value. Zoned only sites must have primary access to the project or be directly adjacent to the proposed transportation project in order to be eligible.
Transportation Project Scaling Points Criteria
Transportation project scaling points are applied based on the proposed transportation project, and then points are distributed to each eligible economic development site in the application.
Referenced in Local Plans: To determine whether a project is consistent with local plans, first identify the local Comprehensive Plan, local Economic Development Strategy or Regional Economic Development Strategy for the geographic area in which the transportation project is proposed. Second, review the goals, objectives and strategies noted in the document(s) to determine if the proposed transportation project is specifically cited in the document(s) as a key project desired to support local/regional economic development. If the proposed transportation project is specifically mentioned as a key project in at least one of the local Comprehensive Plan, local Economic Development Strategy or Regional Economic Development Strategy documents, the project is considered "referenced in," and is awarded 0.5 points.
Economic Distress: To determine the relative economic distress of a project location, consult the Economic Innovation Group's latest Distressed Communities Index by ZIP Code (ZIP Codes refer to US Census Bureau ZIP Code Tabulation Areas). Find the ZIP Code or Codes in which the transportation project is located. Use the highest distress score and divide by 100. If the transportation project is located in a ZIP Code that does not have a distress score (Zip Codes with populations under 500 do not have a value calculated), then use the highest value adjacent ZIP Code and divide by 100. Projects will score between zero and 0.5 points for economic distress.
Table 10.4 Transportation Project Scaling Points
Scaling Point Description
Transportation project referenced in local Comprehensive Plan, local Economic Development Strategy or Regional Economic Development Strategy
Transportation project area economic distress score
Points Value Referenced in: 0.5 points
Up to: 0.5 points
Subtotal of Transportation Project Points (max 1 point that can be applied these points are applied to each eligible economic development site included in the project application)
NOTE: Zoned only sites must have primary access to the project or be directly adjacent to the proposed transportation project in order to be eligible.
Scaling points are multiplied by the proposed or potential development building square footage (does not include residential-only property) near the project, based
84
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
on the project buffer and access/distance adjustments, which are defined below in Table 10.5.
Table 10.5 Adjustments for Access and Distance
Access Provision Adjustment
Transportation Project provides new direct access to the site or improves existing access to the site (site must be physically adjacent to the project). In case of capacity enhancement to limited access facility, new or improved interchange, transit rail capacity improvement, or new transit rail station, zoned properties* within 0.5 miles of the adjacent interchange(s) or rail station(s) qualify as receiving improved direct access.
Transportation Project enhances economic development by improving congestion, mobility, access, or operations in the vicinity of the site, but the site is not physically adjacent to the project
Distance** Adjustment
Economic development site is within 1 mile of the proposed transportation project.
Economic development site is greater than 1 mile from proposed transportation project.
100% of building sq. footage
50% of building sq. footage 100% of building sq. footage Divide building sq. footage by distance in miles
* Zoned only sites must have primary access to the project or be directly adjacent to the proposed transportation project in order to be eligible.
** distance is measured via the travel distance on the transportation network
The following hypothetical case study for a proposed interchange improvement project shows the sequence for scoring a transportation project's ED.1 measure value.
Step 1: Determine Site Eligibility by Transportation Project Type - Interchanges are classified as Tier 3 Projects, allowing economic development sites within 3 miles of the project to be considered for scoring.
Step 2: Calculate Site Scaling Points - There are three economic development sites within the 3-mile buffer of the proposed interchange Site A, Site B, and Site C.
Site A has a detailed site plan approved (+3 points), is a VEDP Tier 4 site (+0.5 points) Site A receives 3.5 total Economic Development Site scaling Points.
Site B has a conceptual site plan approved (+0.5 points), and has qualifying redevelopment (+1 points). Site B receives 1.5 total Economic Development Site Scaling Points.
Site C is a zoned only site (+0 points), and is a VEDP Tier 3 Site (+0.25 points). Site C receives 0.25 total Economic Development Site Scaling Points.
85
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
Step 3: Calculate Transportation Project Scaling Points - A proposed interchange project is referenced as a key economic development project in the local Comprehensive Plan (+0.5 point). The ZIP code containing the proposed interchange project has an identified Economic Distress Score of 50 (+0.25 points). Total Transportation Project Scaling Points are 0.75. there are 3 ED sites, therefore 0.75 scaling points will be applied individually to Site A, Site B, and Site C.
Step 4: Calculate Total Site Scaling Points
Site A total scaling points = 3.5 (economic development site scaling points) +0.75 (transportation project scaling points) = 4.25
Site B total scaling points = 1.5 (economic development site scaling points) + 0.75 (transportation project scaling points) = 2.25
Site B total scaling points = 0.25 (economic development site scaling points) + 0.75 (transportation project scaling points) = 1.0
Step 5: Apply Adjustments for Access and Distance - Adjust the building square footage for each site multiplying by 1 if directly accessed by the proposed transportation project or by 0.5 if indirectly accessed.
Then, adjust again by dividing by the distance in miles between the transportation project and development site for any distance greater than one mile. Example shown below in Table 10.6.
Table 10.6 Example Calculating Building Square Footage
Distance to
transportation
project (divide by
Project provides
miles if greater
direct access Adjusted
than
Final Adjusted
Site
Building Sq. Ft. (Yes = 1, No = 0.5) Sq. Ft.
1 mile)
Sq. Ft.
A
250,000
1
250,000
0.2 miles
250,000
B
250,000
0.5
125,000
2.5 miles
50,000
C
150,000
1
150,000
1.5 miles
100,000
Step 6: Multiply the final adjusted square footage for each site by the Total Project Site Scaling Points. Total the scores for each site to determine the final ED.1 measure value. Example shown below in Table 10.7
86
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
Table 10.7 Support for Economic Development Final Measure Value
Site
Final Adjusted Square Footage
Total Site Scaling Points
Adjusted Site Value
A
250,000
4.25
1,062,500
B
50,000
2.25
112,500
C
100,000
1.0
100,000
1,275,000
The proposed example project has an ED.1 measure value of 1,275,000.
ED.2 Intermodal Access and Efficiency
Definition: Measure rates each project based on the extent to which the project is deemed to enhance access to critical intermodal locations and/or freight intensive industries and supports increased efficiency for freight movement in congested corridors.
Data Sources:
Project description and supporting information provided by project sponsor
Project description, if applicable, in the Virginia Multimodal Freight Study (2014)
STAA Truck Routes and Restrictions8
SMART SCALE Congestion Scoring outputs
Methodology
Project descriptions will be reviewed and assessed based on the extent to which the project is deemed to enhance access to critical intermodal locations and/or freight intensive industries and supports increased efficiency for freight movement in congested corridors.
Points are assigned through a qualitative assessment of the project description and supplementary information submitted by the project sponsor. Flexibility is provided in the project nomination for sponsors to describe the manner in which the project is expected to enhance access to critical intermodal locations, interregional freight movement, and/or freight intensive industries and supports increased efficiency for freight movement in congested corridors. The project rating is based on the extent to which the project is deemed to enhance access to critical intermodal locations, freight networks, and/or freight intensive industries and supports increased efficiency for freight movement in congested corridors. The Congestion Scoring process will identify roadway improvements that are likely to provide an operational benefit to freight movement.
8 http://gis.vdot.virginia.gov/vatruckweb/VaTruckRestrictions.aspx
87
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
This comparison supports a determination of the level of economic enhancement on a 0 to 6 scale as summarized in Table 10.8.
Table 10.8 Intermodal Access and Efficiency Scoring Approach
Rating Description
Value
1. Level to which the project enhances access to existing or planned distribution centers, intermodal transfer facilities (excluding ports and airports), manufacturing industries or other freight intensive industries
Project provides direct access (within 1 mile) to existing or planned locations
2
Project provides indirect access (greater than 1 mile, less than 3 miles) to existing or planned
1
locations
No direct or indirect access
0
2. Level which the project supports enhanced efficiency on a primary truck freight route
Project is on the designated STAA National and Virginia Network or a STAA Virginia Access
2
Route9
Project directly connects to designated STAA National and Virginia Network or a STAA
1
Virginia Access Routes
Project is not on and does not connect to the designated STAA National and Virginia
0
Network
3. Level to which the project enhances access or reduces congestion at or adjacent to Virginia ports or airports
Project provides direct access to (within 1 mile) existing or planned ports or airports
2
(measured from designated entry gates to port or air cargo facilities)
Project provides indirect access to (greater than 1 mile, less than 3 miles) existing or planned
1
ports or airports (measured from designated entry gates to port or air cargo facilities)
No direct or indirect access
0
Total (sum of score)
0 6
Scoring Value
Total points received based on the assessment in Table 10.8 are multiplied (scaled) by total freight tonnage within the project corridor and by the total length of the proposed roadway project contributing to the operational benefit to freight movement. Depending on the project type, the definition of total freight tonnage within the project corridor will vary. For example, for an interchange project or extension of acceleration/deceleration lanes at an interchange, estimates of freight tonnage on the ramps (instead of the mainline) will be used to scale the points received as described in Table 10.8.
9 http://gis.vdot.virginia.gov/vatruckweb/VaTruckRestrictions.aspx.
88
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
ED.3 Travel Time Reliability
Definition: Change in travel time reliability attributed to the project. Data Source(s) Latest five complete years of crashes from VDOT Roadway Network System
(RNS) GIS data maintained by Traffic Engineering Division. Buffer index (BI) from University of Maryland Regional Integrated
Transportation Information System (RITIS). Weather information from VDOT VA Traffic database. AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (HSM), 2010. Methodology The methodology to compute travel time reliability for a project is a quantitative, corridor-based analysis with two components: impact and frequency. Impact is defined as the ability of a project to reduce the impact of the four contributors for unreliable travel time: Highway incidents Weather events Work zones Capacity bottlenecks Since other SMART SCALE measures account for the impacts of work zones and capacity bottlenecks, only the impacts of highway incidents and weather events will be accounted for in the computation of travel time reliability. Frequency is defined as the likelihood of unanticipated delays due to highway incidents and weather events. Estimates of frequency are based on segment data for incidents and weather. For each project, VDOT will compile information to compute five factors to be used in evaluating the reliability of the proposed project: BI Incident impact Incident frequency Weather impact Weather frequency The BI is defined as the extra time travelers should add to average travel times to ensure on-time arrival. This index is expressed as a percentage of the average time. A BI of 0.20 means that a travelers needs to increase their time cushion by an extra 20% from the average travel time. This index value is computed by dividing the difference between the 95th percentile travel time and mean travel time by the
89
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
mean travel time for a segment. For long corridors, the index is averaged using a weighted factor based on VMT.
The BI which comes from the RITIS data does not provide statewide coverage. In the first round of SMART SCALE scoring, in cases where data does not exist, the method utilized buffer indices from other nearby facilities. This approach leads to questionable results on low volume roadways. Moving forward, if BI data does not exist within the project corridor, the approach is to assume there is no reliability issue and BI = 0 - therefore the score will be 0.
The methodology to compute travel time reliability for roadway projects is defined in the following steps:
Step 1: Determine the impact of incidents on the network. The effectiveness of the project to reduce the impact of incidents within the project study area will be based on the type of project. Table 10.9 present the impact values of both roadway and transit projects. Project types that are most effective at reducing the impacts of incidents will receive the highest scores as identified in the following scoring criteria:
2: Projects directly improving incident frequency and duration (e.g., interchange improvements, truck run-away ramps, queue warning)
1: Projects improving incident management response (e.g., traveler information systems, location signs, reversible lanes)
0: No impact
While most projects provide one benefit in incident reduction per the project type listed in Table 10.9, there are complex projects that provide more than one benefit. For those projects, the total score of the impact of incidents is found by adding the maximum value of one benefit (i.e., 1 or 2) to 10% of the value of the remaining benefits. For example, if a project adds a travel lane and a truck runaway ramp, its score is 2 (travel lane) + 10%x 2 (truck runaway ramp) = 2.2
Step 2: Determine the frequency of crashes using historical crash data. VDOT will compile the latest 5 years of crashes within the project limits. An annual average Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) value is obtained through data from the VDOT Roadway Network System and the ratio of cost for crashes by severity published by FHWA and AASHTO since the EPDO value is used as a measure to quantify the incident duration and the impact to travel time reliability, the weight for Fatal crashes is adjusted from 540 to 120 to better reflect the incident duration as opposed to the societal cost as applied in the EPDO calculation for the safety measures. EPDO will be used as a surrogate measure to determine the frequency and duration of incidents, since more severe crashes will typically cause a longer traffic disruption. The EPDO equates injury and fatal crashes to property damage only crashes, thus reflecting the severity. Project types that are most effective at reducing the frequency and severity of incidents will receive the highest scores as identified in the following scoring criteria:
5: EPDO greater than 300
90
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
4: EPDO between 200 and 300
3: EPDO between 125 and 200
2: EPDO between 75 and 125
1: EPDO between 25 and 75
0: EPDO less than 25
Step 3: Determine the impact of weather events. The effectiveness of the project to reduce the impact of weather within the project study area will be based on the type of project. Project types that are most effective at reducing the impacts of weather will receive the highest scores as identified in the following scoring criteria:
2: Projects directly mitigate weather impacts by geometric improvements or endto-end detection or warning systems
1: Projects that contain a component of an end-to-end detection or warning system or mitigate the event (e.g., improved detour routes, expanded transit operations)
0: No impact
While most projects provide one benefit in mitigating weather events per the project type listed in Table 10.9, there are complex projects that provide more than one benefit. For those projects, the total score of the impact of weather events is found by adding the maximum value of one benefit (i.e., 1 or 2) to 10% of the value of the remaining benefits. For example, if a project adds a bridge heating system and a reversible lane, its score is 2 (bridge heating system) + 10%x 1 (reversible lane) = 2.1
Step 4: Determine the frequency of weather events using historical weather data. VDOT will compile 3 years historical weather data within the project limits. The magnitude of weather events will be determined from historical data and scores will be assigned according to the following criteria:
2: More than 40 hours of combined moderate/severe snow events and flood events per year
1: Between 20 and 40 hours of combined moderate/severe snow events and flood events per year
0: Less than 20 hours of combined moderate/severe snow events and flood events per year
Step 5: Compute the BI of the roadway. The Regional Integrated Travel Information System (RITIS), offered through VDOT's participation with the I-95 Corridor Coalition provides a tool to calculate the BI. The RITIS system can provide the BI for all interstates and most primary routes. Where BI data is not available it can be assumed that the BI is zero if no congestion or reliability issues are observed.
91
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
Step 6: Compute the travel time reliability measure. To compute travel time reliability, add the product of the incident impact (from Step 1) and the incident frequency (from Step 2) to the product of the weather impact (from Step 3) and the weather frequency (from Step 4), then multiply this result by the BI (from Step 5).
The methodology to determine travel time reliability for transit and TDM (including park and ride lots) projects uses this defined process as they are included as project impacts in Table 10.9. Bicycle/pedestrian projects are not applicable.
Scoring Value
The travel time reliability measure estimated in Step 6 above is multiplied by corridor VMT to scale the scoring results.
Table 10.9 Incident, Weather and Work Zone Impact Scoring
Major Project Type
Median Design
Shoulder Design
Ramps Design and Use
Truck Incident Design Travel Lanes Design Animal-Vehicle Collision Lane Types and Use
Sub Project Type
Emergency crossovers, Controlled/Gated turnaround Moveable traffic barriers Movable cable median barrier High median barriers Traversable medians Accessible/widen shoulder to 10 feet Drivable shoulder to 11-12 feet Hard shoulder running/Dynamic shoulders Emergency pull-offs/Turnouts, Crash investigation sites Bus turnouts Ramp widening (All lanes) Ramp closure (time of day) Off-ramp terminal traffic control Ramp turn restrictions (time of day) Runaway truck ramps Add travel lanes Interchange modifications ramps Intersection modifications turning lanes Wildlife fencing over/underpass Contra-flow lanes (no-notice evacuation will be scored w/ weather) Adding HOV lanes / HOT lanes Dual facilities (bypass lanes) Reversible lanes
Incidents Impact
2 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 0
2 2 1
Weather Impact
1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 2
1 1 1
92
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
Major Project Type
Traffic Signals Active Traffic Mgmt
Tolling Weather
Incident Management
Transportation Demand Management Transit
Sub Project Type
Lane reconfigurations to improve capacity or improve safety (static change, i.e., lane stripes) Emergency vehicle traffic signal improvements Signal timing systems Dynamic ramp metering / flow signals Variable speed limit / reduction Connected Vehicle System integration Over-height vehicle detection system Truck roll over warning Queue warning Integrated Corridor Management (alt routes/modes) Dynamic lane merging Converting to all electronic tolling Fog detection warning system RWIS Flood warning systems / Wind warning systems Bridge heating systems / Anti-icing Drainage improvements Incident clearance pre staged incident response, incentive based towing, emergency relocation programs Safety Service Patrol Improvements to detour routes Reference location signs Incident detection / CAD integration Park and Ride Lots
Incidents Impact
1
2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
2 2 1 2 0
Weather Impact
0
0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 0
1 1 0 0 0
Traveler Information/ Travel Time Information: DDMS
1
1
Additional trains on existing rail lines
0
1
New rail lines
0
1
New rail station / intermodal connection
0
1
Transit AVL Traveler Information
0
0
Shorter headway
0
0
New bus route
0
1
Larger bus capacity
0
0
Additional bus stops
0
0
93
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
11.0 Appendix F: Land Use Coordination Measure
Table 11.1 Land Use Factor Measure Summary
ID
Measure Name
L.1 Future transportation efficient land use
L.2 Increase in Transportation Efficient Land Use
Weight 50%
50%
Measure Description
Evaluates the amount of population and employment located in areas with high non-work accessibility
Evaluates the increase in amount of population and employment located in areas with high non-work accessibility between present day and the horizon year of 2030
Measure Objective
To determine the degree to which the project supports population and employment that on averages has a reduced impact on the transportation network To determine the degree to which the project supports population and employment that on averages has a reduced impact on the transportation network
Measures Approach
L.1 Future Transportation Efficient Land Use
Definition: The measure reports a project's support for transportation efficiency based on the amount and pattern of future development. The measure is based on (1) the amount of population and employment in 2030 and (2) the non-work accessibility, or the number of key non-work destinations that are accessible within a reasonable walking distance. Research and analysis has demonstrated that areas with a high level of non-work accessibility result in less vehicle miles traveled per household than in areas with less non-work accessibility with reductions of as much as 66% per household.
Data Sources
Accessibility tool
Change in local pedestrian network and network conditions
Horizon year, 2030, population and employment
94
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
Methodology
The accessibility tool reports access to non-work destinations by walking as a composite value at the individual U.S. Census block level. The analysis considers how well local land uses around the project support access to a variety of destinations within a reasonable walking distance. Current non-work destinations considering the impact of the project will be used. Proposed changes to transportation networks are included in the analysis; those that improve walking access to destinations will improve scores while any that impede walking access will reduce scores.
A composite value of local access to non-work destinations was established by analyzing existing patterns throughout Virginia. This value, described in Table 11.2, assigns points for different types of non-work destinations accessible by walking, based on the maximum expected number of occurrences for each destination type statewide. Similar to the access to jobs analysis, destinations are evaluated using a decay curve where destinations within a shorter travel time are weighted more than destinations farther away. The decay function was developed based on travel survey data. Every location in Virginia earns a value between 0 and 100.
Table 11.2 Local Non-Work Access Value
Destination Type Bank Education Entertainment Food & Drink Grocery Healthcare Public Services Recreation
Shopping
Total points
Definition (specific destinations included)
Bank, ATM
School
Cinema, Performing Arts, Museum, Nightlife, Sports Complex, Convention/Exhibition Center, Sports Center, Animal Park
Restaurants, Coffee Shop, Winery, Bar or Pub
Grocery
Hospital, Medical Service, Pharmacy
Library, Post Office, Community Center, City Hall, Court House, Police Station
Golf Course, Ice Skating Rink, Campground, Park/Recreation Area
Shopping, Convenience Store, Clothing Store, Department Store, Specialty Store, Home Improvement & Hardware Store, Office Supply & Service Store, Bookstore, Home Specialty Store, Sporting Goods Store, Consumer Electronic Store
Points per destination 0.74 (up to 15 occurrences) 5.6 (up to 2 occurrences) 5.6 (up to 2 occurrences) 0.25 (up to 45 occurrences) 3.7 (up to 3 occurrences) 3.7 (up to 3 occurrences) 3.7 (up to 3 occurrences) 3.7 (up to 3 occurrences) 0.34 (up to 33 occurrences)
100
Step 1: Update transportation networks in the accessibility tool to reflect new or changed links that the proposed project will provide. The tool imposes impedances on certain walking conditions automatically. Measure development involves scanning the project area carefully using aerial imagery for links that are legally walkable but that average people would avoid, such as crossings of unsignalized freeway ramps, or narrow bridges with narrow shoulders and no
95
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
pedestrian accommodations; any of these links within a 1-mile buffer of the project are removed. Step 2: Use the accessibility tool, with a destination-decay rate for walking mode, to calculate post-project non-work accessibility to the weighted destinations in Table 11.2 for each Census block in a 3-mile buffer of the project. Step 3: Obtain horizon-year population and employment for all Census blocks in the 3-mile study area. For each block, calculate the sum to obtain the future jobpopulation. Scoring Value L.1 Non-Work Accessibility x Future Density The post-project non-work accessibility value for each block is multiplied by the future job-population density of each block, and these values are averaged L.1 Measure = Average for all blocks of [Future Job-Population Density x PostProject Non-Work Accessibility Value]
L.2 Increase in Transportation Efficient Land Use
Definition: This measure uses the same inputs as the L.1 measure but it evaluates the increase in the amount of population and employment located in areas with high non-work accessibility. The measure is based on (1) the change in the amount of population and employment between today and the horizon year of 2030 and (2) the non-work accessibility, or the number of key non-work destinations that are accessible within a reasonable walking distance. Data Sources Accessibility tool Change in local pedestrian network and network conditions Current year and horizon year, 2030, population and employment Methodology The accessibility tool reports access to non-work destinations by walking as a composite value at the individual U.S. Census block level. The analysis considers how well local land uses around the project support access to a variety of destinations within a reasonable walking distance. Current non-work destinations considering the impact of the project will be used. Proposed changes to transportation networks are included in the analysis; those that improve walking access to destinations will improve scores while any that impede walking access will reduce scores. A composite value of local access to non-work destinations was established by analyzing existing patterns throughout Virginia. This value, described in the previous section in Table 11.2, assigns points for different types of non-work
96
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
destinations accessible by walking, based on the maximum expected number of occurrences for each destination type statewide. Step 1: Update transportation networks in the accessibility tool to reflect new or changed links that the proposed project will provide. The tool imposes impedances on certain walking conditions automatically. Measure development involves scanning the project area carefully using aerial imagery for links that are legally walkable but that average people would avoid, such as crossings of unsignalized freeway ramps, or narrow bridges with narrow shoulders and no pedestrian accommodations; any of these links within a 1-mile buffer of the project are removed. Step 2: Use the accessibility tool, with a destination-decay rate for walking mode, to calculate post-project non-work accessibility to the weighted destinations in Table 11.2 for each Census block in a 3-mile buffer of the project. Step 3: Calculate the difference between the existing and horizon-year jobpopulation (the sum of population and employment for all Census blocks in the 3mile study area. For each block, calculate the sum to obtain the future jobpopulation. Scoring Value L.2 - Non-Work Accessibility Change in Density The post-project non-work accessibility value is multiplied by the expected change in job-population density of each block, and these values are averaged L.2 Measure = Average of all blocks of [(Future Job-Population Density Existing Job-Population Density) x Post-Project Accessibility Value]
97
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
12.0 Appendix G: List of Acronyms
AADT BOS BI BPR CAP-X CE CN CMAQ CoSS CTB DRPT DGP EPDO FAMPO FAST
FHWA FONSI FTA GIS HCS HPPP HRTPO HSIP HSM IJR IMR
Annual average daily traffic Board of Supervisors Buffer Index used in calculation of reliability measure Bureau of Public Roads FHWA Capacity Analysis for Planning of Junctions analysis tool Categorical Exclusion (NEPA) Construction phase for schedule and cost estimates Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program Corridors of Statewide Significance Commonwealth Transportation Board Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation District Grant Program Equivalent Property Damage Only, crash value defined by FHWA Fredericksburg Area MPO Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, federal transportation bill Federal Highway Administration Finding of No Significant Impact (NEPA) Federal Transit Administration Geographic Information Systems Highway Capacity Software High-Priority Projects Program Hampton Roads TPO Highway Safety Improvement Program AASHTO Highway Safety Manual Interchange Justification Request Interchange Modification Report
98
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
MAP-21
MPO NEPA NTD NVTA OIPI PDC PE QA/QC RITIS
RN RNS ROD RRTPO RVTPO RW SGR SPR STBG STIP SYIP TA TIP TMS TPB UDA VACO VDOT VHT VML
"Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century" Act, federal transportation bill Metropolitan Planning Organization National Environmental Policy Act process National Transit Database Northern Virginia Transportation Authority Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment Planning District Commission Preliminary Engineering phase for schedule and cost estimates Quality Assurance/Quality Control University of Maryland Regional Integrated Transportation Information System Regional Networks VDOT Roadway Network System Record of Decision (NEPA) Richmond Regional TPO Roanoke Valley TPO Right-of-Way phase for schedule and cost estimates State of Good Repair Program State Planning and Research funding Surface Transportation Block Grant Program State Transportation Improvement Program Six-Year Improvement Program Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside funds Transportation Improvement Program VDOT Traffic Monitoring System National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board Urban Development Areas Virginia Association of Counties Virginia Department of Transportation Vehicle Hours of Travel Virginia Municipal League
99
SMART SCALE Technical Guide
VMTP VTA
Virginia Multimodal Transportation Plan Virginia Transit Association
100