appendix G - Selection of New Projects

 

 

Introduction

 

Project sponsors are required to complete the Project Justification Package in Appendix I.  Information provided by the sponsors is used to determine if the projects meet screening criteria and produce merit evaluations.  Every project is required to meet all of the screening requirements before progressing to merit evaluation.  Those passing the screening test are categorized according to type, following the general organization of the budget categories in the New Visions Regional Transportation Plan, namely:

 

Bridges

Pavement

Transit Support

Safety

Community Compatibility/Economic Development

Congestion Relief

Bicycle and Pedestrian

 

The projects are then evaluated for merit.  The results of the merit evaluations are used by CDTC to choose which projects receive funding.

 

 

 


Screening Process

 

 

Introduction

 

The following are the screening criteria that must be met for a project to advance to merit evaluations:

 

1.     Consistency with TEA-21, and CDTC and local plans,

2.     Provision of local matching funds,

3.     Defined scope and timing

4.     Meeting an identified need

5.     Federal-aid eligibility

 

 

Consistency with TEA-21, and CDTC and Local Plans

 

Regional Transportation Plan: Each proposed project was required to be consistent with the RTP.  The relevant RTP was the New Visions Regional Transportation Plan, was adopted in March 1997.  New Visions includes a set of 25 Planning and Investment Principles to guide capital programming, in addition to 10 strategies (with 43 implementing actions, long and short term).  Consistency with these principles and strategies was required to insure that the New Visions implementation.

 

Major projects with system level impacts are not considered for TIP programming unless they are a recommended action from New Visions or a sub-area or corridor study.  Some of these projects may be further subject to a Major Investment Study (MIS) in order to progress towards implementation.

 

All capacity increasing projects should be consistent with the Congestion Management System (CMS).  CDTC has performed extensive analysis of existing congestion in the Capital Region, as documented in CDTC's Metropolitan Congestion Management System: A Structured Approach to Addressing Congestion Issues in Regional Transportation Plan Development, Short-Range Programming and the Management System, which was adopted by the CDTC in December of 1995.  CDTC's priority is to address existing congestion problems, with projected future congestion being a lesser priority, subject to a "risk analysis" (See New Visions Congestion Management Principles for more information).

 

Boundary Compatibility: Each proposed project is required to be consistent/complimentary with the facility (or proposed facility) in the adjacent jurisdiction if the project is near or crosses a jurisdictional boundary.

 

Land Use Linkage: Linear capacity improvements are required to be linked to local land use management.  To maximize the effectiveness of existing facilities, a plan or commitment to access management, construction of new local streets or provision of supplemental transit services must be in place prior to major capacity work.

 

Public and Sponsor Support: All projects are required to be consistent with community desires as documented in local land use plans or other policy documents, at public meetings, or through other applicable means.

 

Seven Planning Issues of TEA-21: ISTEA established sixteen planning factors to be considered in the development of the TIP.  TEA-21 summarizes these into seven planning issues.  All projects were required to address at least one of these factors, as listed below:

 

1.     Support the economic vitality of the United States, the States and metropolitan areas, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;

 

2.     Increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users;

 

3.     Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and freight;

 

4.     Promote and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation and improve quality of life;

 

5.     Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight;

 

6.     Promote efficient system management and operation; and

 

7.     Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.

 

 

Provision of Local Matching Funds

 

Project sponsors are required to be willing and able to provide the local matching funds.  All fund sources are not required to be "in hand", but need to have a "reasonable expectation" of being in place by the year of programming.  Specifically, the issue of the provision of the required 20% local match share is required to be directly addressed.  Public/private financing possibilities should be addressed, if applicable.  Transit operators are required by FTA to document financial capacity in the adopted TIP.  All facilities that require an ongoing operating budget to be useful are required to demonstrate that such financial capacity exists.

 

 

Defined Scope and Timing

 

All projects are required to be well defined.  Project limits, the intended scope of work, and the project concept needed to be clearly stated.  Planning projects must have further defined longer-range federally eligible projects.   Preliminary engineering and right-of-way are acceptable project phases, provided that the other screening requirements have been met for the project as a whole.  Phases of larger construction projects are requested to be usable segments that will provide benefit to the traveler.  Properly completing the Project Justification Package will satisfy these criteria.

 

Phases programmed in the TIP must able to be implemented by the end of the five-year programming period in that TIP.

 

 

Meeting an Identified Need

 

All projects are required to be justified based on meeting an identified transportation system need according to below criteria.  

 

Bridge projects are required to meet NYSDOT criteria for a deficient bridge.  This includes the following two conditions:

 

1.     Condition Rating: The current Federal Sufficiency rating must be less than "50.0", and either (B), (C), or (D) applies;

 

(B)           State Condition Rating must be less than 3.5 by the year of programming, based on the current rating deteriorated at a rate of 0.1 points per year from the date of last inspection to the year of programming; or

 

(C)           Structure has one or more primary (critical) structural features[1] rated "2" or less, based on its last inspection, or

 

(D)      The municipality can demonstrate some deficiency not covered in (B) or (C), which makes major rehabilitation or replacement mandatory within 5 years.

 

2.     Approach Work[2]: Approach work should not exceed 25% of the structure cost, or total cost of structure.  Approaches using federal-aid should not exceed twice the cost if the project were done with state or local funds.

 

Pavement Projects: Pavement projects are required to be of a scope that is consistent with implementation with federal-aid funds.  Because the pavement condition score does not fully describe overall road conditions or substandard design features, pavement score is not used as a screening criterion, although it plays an influential role in project merit evaluation.

 

Mobility Projects: Mobility projects must address a Level of Service of E or below, either under current conditions or projected conditions in the year of programming, in order to be evaluated further.

 

Other Project Types: Other project types are based on the project justifications provided by the project sponsor.  Wherever possible, this justification includes the results of existing management systems or other performance-based standards.

 

 

Federal-Aid Eligibility

 

All candidates must be eligible for either the STP or CMAQ program. Eligible types of projects are listed below. 

 

¨     Highway (limited access facilities)

·       Construction

·       Reconstruction

·       Resurfacing

·       Restoration

·       Operational improvements

·       Safety improvements and programs

·       Research and development and technology transfers

 

¨     Bridges

·       Construction

·       Reconstruction, including seismic retrofit

·       Resurfacing

·       Restoration

 

¨     Transit

·       Anything eligible for FTA funding, including fixed guideways, vehicles, maintenance facilities.  Federal regulations prohibit the use of STP funds for ongoing operating expenses.

·       Safety improvements and programs

·       Research and development and technology transfers

 

¨     Streets and Roads (conventional facilities), functionally classified as urban collectors or above, or, in rural areas, minor collectors or above.  All old FAU/FAS routes are grandfathered.

·       New signals and signal timing

·       Restriping

·       Resurfacing

·       Bus turnouts

·       Construction

 

¨     Carpool projects

 

¨     Park and Ride lots

 

¨     Bicycle and pedestrian projects

 

¨     Traffic monitoring, management and control facilities and programs

·       Capital

·       Operating

 

¨     Planning programs

 

¨     Enhancement activities include the following.  Note that Enhancements must relate to surface transportation.

 

·       the provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles,

·       acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites,

·       scenic or historic highway programs (including provision of tourist and welcome center facilities),

·       landscaping and other scenic beautification,

·       historic preservation,

·       rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, facilities and canals,

·       preservation of abandoned railway corridors including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian or bicycle trails,

·       control and removal of outdoor advertising,

·       archaeological planning and research,

·       environmental mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff,

·       reduction of vehicle-caused wild-life mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity,

·       provision of safety or educational activities for pedestrian and bicyclists, and

·       establishment of transportation museums. 

 

¨     Transportation Control Measures

 

¨     Development and establishment of management systems

 

¨     Wetlands mitigation

 

 

According to the TEA-21 and additional guidance made available by the FHWA, eligibility for CMAQ funds is achieved by meeting any of the following criteria:

 

¨     Projects in the adopted State Implementation Plan (SIP): As a marginal nonattainment area eligible for maintenance certification, the Capital District has no projects listed in the current SIP.

 

¨     Specific Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) listed in the Clean air Act Amendments of 1990, Section 108:

(b)(1)(A)

(i)              programs for improved public transit;

(ii)            restriction of certain roads or lanes to, or construction of such roads or lanes for use by, passenger buses or high occupancy vehicles;

(iii)          employer-based transportation management plans, including incentives;

(iv)          trip reduction ordinances;

(v)            traffic flow improvement programs that achieve emission reductions;

(vi)          fringe and transportation corridor parking facilities serving multiple occupancy vehicle programs or transit service;

(vii)        programs to limit or restrict vehicle use in downtown area or other areas of emission concentration particularly during periods of peak use;

(viii)      programs for the provision of all forms of high-occupancy, shared-ride services;

(ix)           programs to limit portions of road surfaces or certain sections of the metropolitan area to the use of non-motorized vehicles or pedestrian use, both as to time and place;

(x)             programs for secure bicycle storage facilities and other facilities, including bicycle lanes, for the convenience and protection of bicyclists, in both public and private areas;

(xi)           programs to control extended idling of vehicles;

(xii)         programs to reduce motor vehicle emissions, consistent with Title II, which are caused by extreme cold start conditions;

(xiii)       employer-sponsored programs to permit flexible work schedules;

(xiv)       programs and ordinances to facilitate non-automobile travel, provision and utilization of mass transit, and to generally reduce the need for single-occupant vehicle travel, as part of transportation planning and development efforts of a locality, including programs and ordinances applicable to new shopping centers, special events, and other centers of vehicle activity;

(xv)         programs for new construction and major reconstruction of paths, tracks or areas solely for the use by pedestrian or other non-motorized means of transportation when economically feasible and in the public interest.  For the purposes of this clause, the Administrator shall also consult with the Secretary of the Interior; and

(xvi)       EXCLUDED BY TEA-21:  programs to encourage the voluntary removal from use and the marketplace of pre-1980 model year light duty vehicles and pre-1980 model light duty trucks.

 

¨     Developing and establishing management systems for traffic congestion, public transportation facilities and equipment, and intermodal transportation facilities and systems demonstrably contributing to attainment;

 

¨     Capital and operating cost of traffic monitoring, management, and control facilities and programs demonstrably contributing to attainment; and the

 

¨     Construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

 

 


Merit Evaluation Criteria

 

Every project that meets the minimum requirements (screening criteria) is fairly evaluated.  The merit evaluation procedure uses the best available information from CDTC's models, from corridor studies, and from project sponsors.  Wherever possible, measures that cut across modes, such as relative cost effectiveness, are used.  The qualitative benefits of projects are directly incorporated into this merit evaluation procedure.  This merit evaluation emphasizes different project attributes, although the same criteria are used, for the following project types:

 

¨     Bridge projects;

¨     Pavement projects;

¨     Transit Support projects;

¨     Safety projects;

¨     Bicycle and Pedestrian projects;

¨     Community Compatibility and Economic Development projects; and

¨     Mobility and Congestion Relief projects.

 

The data required for project analysis is outlined below. 

 

Project merit evaluations are presented using a common format, as shown in the blank Project Evaluation Fact Sheet on page 10.   The merit evaluation procedure is detailed in Appendix H.

 

 

 


Figure 1

BLANK Project Fact Sheet

 

 

Candidate #, Candidate name

 

 

LOCATION: 

BENEFIT/COST RATIO

!Zero Divide

DESCRIPTION: 

TOTAL BENEFITS (k$/yr)

 

PROJECT TYPE: 

SAFETY

 

COST:  $  M (total all phases)  LIFE:  yr

TRAVEL TIME

  

SPONSOR: 

ENERGY/USER

 

CURRENT CONDITION: 

LIFE CYCLE VALUE

  

FUNCTIONAL CLASS: 

AADT:

OTHER

 

PRIORITY NETWORK(S):    

ANNUALIZED COST (k$/yr)

 

 

 

CONGESTION RELIEF: 

AIR QUALITY BENEFIT: 

REGIONAL SYSTEM LINKAGE: 

 

 

LAND USE COMPATIBILITY (PLANNED OR EXISTING): 

COMMUNITY OR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: 

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:    

BUSINESS OR HOUSING DISLOCATIONS:    

 

 

BICYCLING: 

WALKING: 

GOODS MOVEMENT: 

TRANSIT USE: 

INTERMODAL TRANSFERS: 

 

 

SCREENING ISSUES: 

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: 

 

 

 


Programming Criteria and Principles

 

The TIP as a whole, must, according to federal law, conform to the Federal Clean Air Act, be financially "reasonable", be consistent with the long-range plan, and address seven planning issues spelled out in TEA-21.  Conformity with the Federal Clean Air Act must be determined, in cooperation with NYSDOT, using a methodology developed cooperatively by NYSDOT and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  This methodology, which uses CDTC's Systematic Evaluation and Planning (STEP) model to estimate PM peak hour Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and speed data, incorporates projected changes in land use and population and emissions estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency's MOBILE 5B software.  Model runs are done after the TIP had been formulated.  Financial "reasonability" is determined both at the project level and for the program as a whole.  Consistency with the long range plan is determined on a project level at the time projects were screened for inclusion in the TIP, and the implementation of New Visions goals and objectives was one of the primary programming considerations, as outlined below. In addition, the Air Quality conformity analysis included examination of the long-range plan that has the five-year TIP as a component.  An analysis of how the following methodology addresses the TEA-21 seven planning issues is found on page Error! Reference source not found.Error! Bookmark not defined..

 

The goal of CDTC is to produce a "balanced" TIP that contributes to implementation of the New Visions plan.  Federal regulations (23 CFR §450(l)) state that "Procedures or agreements that distribute sub-allocated STP or Section 9 funds to individual jurisdictions or modes within the metropolitan area by predetermined percentages or formulas are inconsistent with the ISTEA provisions that require MPO's in cooperation with the State and transit operators to develop a prioritized and financially constrained TIP unless they can be clearly shown to be based on considerations required to be addressed as part of the planning process."  The CDTC approach meets both the letter and spirit of federal regulations by allowing CDTC to look at the array of projects and their relative merit, and to establish a program that best implements the range of goals included in the RTP. The following criteria/principles were intended to produce the best possible program of projects to benefit the Capital District transportation system, regardless of mode.

 

 

Geographic and Sponsor Distribution

 

The STP and CMAQ programs have minimal requirements for geographic distribution of funding.  In fact, federal regulations specifically state that geographic formula distribution of STP funds is inconsistent with the intent of the ISTEA.  Therefore,   Considerations of geographic equity must stem from considerations addressed in the planning process.  CDTC based its programming decisions upon relative project merit and the balanced attainment of progress towards long-range goals -- not on geographic considerations apart from New Visions. 

 

 

Commitments Beyond Five Years

 

An emphasis on implementation of the long range plan goals and objectives should not lead to a program that creates larger future funding commitments than funds can reasonably be expected to be available.  This is consistent with, and a reflection of, ISTEA Section 134 (h)(5), which states that "The program shall include a project, or an identified phase of a project, only if full funding can reasonably be anticipated to be available for the project within the time period contemplated for completion of the project."

 

 

CDTC's FTA Section 5307 Project Selection Process

 

The Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA) is primarily responsible for submitting the requests to CDTC for transit related funded projects.  This includes transit operating assistance, equipment and support facilities.  Unlike the project selection process for flexible funds described above, CDTC defers to the judgement of CDTA, the region’s public transit operator, for project recommendations for dedicated transit funding from the state and federal governments.

 

Candidate capital projects are identified through transit improvement studies and evaluations of fleet and other capital requirements, keeping in mind transit development goals and supporting objectives established as part of CDTA's Capital Planning Process. CDTA maintains a short-range transit capital plan that identifies a series of actions and strategies that provide the basis for coordinating and prioritizing CDTA transit capital improvements.  The TIP follows directly from the plan and generally is a simple project listing.  Details of CDTA’s capital program components are included in Appendix A.  The final decisions regarding project inclusion in the program are made by CDTC on a recommendation from the Planning Committee.

 

 

Private Sector Participation in the Transit TIP

 

Projects proposed by private operators are also entertained under CDTC's TIP process, in accordance with CDTC's Private Operators Policy, adopted on February 19, 1987.  For these projects, public sponsorship is a prerequisite for receiving federal or state financial assistance.  Programming of funds by CDTC is based on the priority of the service need and on integration of the service into the regional transit system.  CDTC's Private Operators Policy also identifies a set of policies and evaluation criteria with which to review private operators proposes.  Involvement in the planning process is encouraged through routine notification of private operators. 


Programming New projects

 

 

Round One Programming

 

Round One programming is the phase of program building that considers new projects based on merit.  Projects are grouped by category and arrayed according to merit after filtering the projects.  The filtering process used is identical to that which proved successful in the last major CDTC programming effort in 1997.  The filtering process focuses upon assigning Round One funds to cost-effective projects in important locations.

 

In each category, projects are listed in descending order of quantitative benefit/cost ratio in two groups:  those that pass at least two filters and those that do not.  The three filters are detailed below.

 

Benefit/Cost Ratio: Projects whose Benefit/Cost ratios were in the top half of the Benefit/Costs of a given category pass this filter.  Those in the bottom half, fail this filter.  For Bicycle/Pedestrian projects, a Weighted Score was used instead of Benefit/Cost ratios.

 

Functional Classification: Projects were awarded a passing status for this filter if the proposed work was on an NHS road or Principal Arterial.  Other projects fail this filter.  This filter served as a way to make sure that regionally significant facilities are elevated in consideration.

 

Priority Network Score: Every project was assigned a priority network score.  Projects in the top half of the Benefit/Costs of a given category pass this filter.  New Visions task forces defined priority networks as a way to focus investment where it is needed most and where the ultimate project design is likely to achieve multiple objectives.  Priority network status is used as (an admittedly imperfect) proxy for the extent to which a project implements New Visions goals and principles.  Relevant priority networks are assigned by project type, namely:

 

Project Category

Relevant Priority Networks

Bridge

Bicycle/Pedestrian and Freight

Pavement

All

Safety

All

Transit

All but Freight

Economic Development

All

Mobility

All

Bicycle/Pedestrian

Bicycle/Pedestrian, Access Management, Transit

 

CDTC Staff assigned points to specific projects as follows:

 

¨     3 points for being on a relevant priority network with features that address priority network concerns;

¨     2 points for being on the network (but no known features at this time);

¨     1 point for including features (even if not on the network); and

¨     0 points for not being on the network, and including no known features.

 

The following text is lifted from the New Visions 2021 plan to describe the contents of each of the priority networks.

 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Priority Network: A bicycle and pedestrian priority treatment network provides a "backbone" for a region-wide bicycle and pedestrian travel system.  The ±355 mile network contains those facilities which have high existing or potential bicycle and pedestrian travel but also present many barriers, including high traffic volumes/speeds, limited pavement space and busy or confusing traffic patterns.  These facilities connect major activity centers, are accessible to residential areas via local roads, and have few practical alternatives nearby.  The facilities included in the network are listed in the Making the Capital District More Bicycle- and Pedestrian-Friendly: A Toolbox and Game Plan technical report.

 

Arterial (or Access) Management Priority Network: The New Visions report entitled Land Use/Traffic Conflict Inventory and Measurement contains level of compatibility ratings for over 275 roads covering nearly 850 miles of Capital District roadway.  The access management priority network is defined as:

 

¨     Those road segments that show a high degree of conflict between commercial or residential land use and traffic, resulting in poor compatibility (Level of Compatibility D, E or F); and

 

¨     Additional road segments where either the potential for commercial development or intrusion of vehicle traffic through residential corridors is high, or significant deterioration in arterial corridor function is forecast to occur by 2015.

 

This priority network tentatively includes about 220 miles of roadway.  The network is predominantly composed of state highways in suburban towns.

 

Goods Movement Priority Network: The proposed priority road network for goods movement in the Capital District includes:

 

¨     The National Highway System, including intermodal connectors (approximately 826 lane-miles); and

 

¨     State touring routes that currently carry more than 10% trucks in the traffic flow (approximately 150 centerline miles).

 

 

Transit Priority Network: Traditionally-strong transit corridors such as NY 5, NY 32, US 20, US 4, and downtowns and potentially-strong corridors such as NY 7, US 9, NY 155 and Wolf Road represent priorities for improvements to transit amenities.  Transit amenities include bus stops, pull outs, and park and ride facilities.  However, the single most important action to improve transit accessibility is a significant increase in sidewalk and crosswalk provision and maintenance throughout the region.

 

Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Network: The Expressway Management Task Force identified a network of expressway and arterial facilities as the platform for the regional ITS.  There should be centrally coordinated traffic control and/or guidance along these facilities.  The logic is that advising travelers of preferable alternatives before they enter the most congested areas and facilitating smooth flows along the alternatives can keep overall traffic conditions from worsening.  The regional ITS network contains:

 

¨     Priority expressways

¨     Arterials representing their immediate alternatives (ordinarily either parallel to or connecting the expressways)

¨     Their secondary alternatives (which entail more surface street travel), and

¨     Other arterials that are strategically important because they are spurs of the priority arterials and/or carry traffic across major travel gateways.

 

A county-by-county listing of this over 250 centerline mile network is included in the Expressway Management Task Force Technical Report.

 

 

Round Two Programming

 

Round Two provides funds for projects from any category for any reason, insuring an opportunity for projects whose benefits don’t quantify well. 

 

 

Round Three Programming

 

After public review, in step three, CDTC may program the balance of the funds to projects, insuring some ability to respond to public comment.

 

 



[1] Defined as (1) Beginning and ending abutment rating, (2) Pier rating (net), (3) Beginning and ending abutment erosion rating, (4) Primary member rating (net), (5) Pier erosion rating (net), where the net rating is the lowest value of all the similar elements rated; e.g. a bridge with two piers, one with a rating of "3" and one with a "4", would have a net pier rating of "3".

 

[2] Includes any realignment, reconstruction or resurfacing beyond the approach slabs (if any) to the structure.  Features such as vertical and horizontal sight distances, curves, grades, intersection approaches adjacent to the structure will be evaluated.  A detailed cost estimate is not expected; rather a qualitative assessment will be made.