north central pennsylvania project prioritization process ... · pdf filenorth central...

North Central Pennsylvania

Project Prioritization Process & Scoring Methodology

A new planning process for prioritizing projects for the region’s Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)

January 2010

North Central PA Project Prioritization Process

2

Table of Contents

Background/Overview ............................................................................................. 3

Benchmarking .......................................................................................................... 4 PennDOT District 2-0 and 10-0 ............................................................................................. 4 Harrisburg Area Transportation Study (HATS) ................................................................ 5 Susquehanna Economic Development Area Council of Governments ........................ 5 Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC) ............................................................... 5 PennDOT TIP Project Evaluation Guide ............................................................................ 6

Identifying a Regional Core System ....................................................................... 7 Nodal Criteria ........................................................................................................................... 9 Modal Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 10

Identifying Project Selection Criteria and Weighting ........................................ 12 Methodology........................................................................................................................... 12 Transportation ........................................................................................................................ 13

Highway Restoration Criteria and Weighting ...................................................................................................... 14 Highway/New Capacity Criteria and Weighting ................................................................................................. 15 Local Bridges > 20 Feet ....................................................................................................................................... 16 Transportation Enhancements.............................................................................................................................. 17 Overall Transportation Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 19

Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) & Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) Project Criteria ................................................................................... 22 Projects of Regional Significance ....................................................................................... 25

Institutionalizing a New Planning Process .......................................................... 28

This work was sponsored by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and Federal Highway

Administration. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s), who is (are) responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the United States Department of Transportation, or the Federal Highway Administration at the time of publication. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

North Central PA

Project Prioritization Process

North Central PA


Background/Overview One of the more visible planning objectives of the 2007-2035 LRTP is to “Define and develop a regional core transportation system that connects local and regional facilities with the state’s system and coordinates with other community initiatives and priorities.” Among the four strategies that were identified to advance this objective involved the establishment of ranking criteria for evaluating candidate projects for the LRTP and future Transportation Improvement Programs. Historically, project selection in the North Central region has been accomplished through the qualitative deliberations of committees such as the RPO and CEDS committees with administrative support from North Central staff. Projects have also been advanced through federal earmarks (SXF funding) and the infusion of other discretionary funding (such as “spike” money) from Harrisburg and Washington. With the advent of the 2007 LRTP, North Central and its partners sought to re-invigorate the planning process through the introduction of a regional core system, and accompanying criteria that would be used to subject candidate projects to a more analytical and rigorous selection process. This is especially important in an era of constrained financial resources and soaring raw material costs, and especially as North Central’s share of the state transportation pie continues to grow smaller and lose pace to inflation1, as shown in Figure 1.

1 Financial Guidance from PennDOT for the 2011 TIP puts North Central’s “fair share” allocation at just $217.7 million dollars overall, a 17 percent decline from the previous TIP amount of $261.3 million. Overall, it is not keeping pace with inflation.

Figure 1 - North Central PA Historic TIP Allocation

North Central Pennsylvania

Historic TIP Allocation: 2007, 2009, 2011

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

2007 2009 2011

TIP Year

Do

llar

Am

ou

nt

(000

s)

Actual TIP Amount

3% Inflation

Source: PennDOT Center for Program Development and Management


4

The development of the regional core system and accompanying selection criteria serves as an amendment to the LRTP and the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) document that were adopted in June 2007 and 2009, respectfully. This chapter describes in detail the process by which a regional core system and accompanying project selection criteria were developed for North Central’s transportation and economic/community development processes. The finalization of the project selection criteria that were ultimately established then “operationalizes” North Central’s CEDS, LRTP and companion Regional Action Strategy, by translating the directions of these plans into defendable project selection criteria. The chapter is organized into the following subheadings, including:

Benchmarking

Identifying a Regional Core System

Identifying project selection criteria and weighting; and

Institutionalizing a new planning process.

Benchmarking Prior to North Central’s project prioritization planning effort, several of its counterparts, including SPC, HATS, SEDA-COG and Centre Region adopted project selection criteria of their own. North Central benchmarked these planning regions for any areas of potential application. A summary of these planning regions and their experience in developing project selection criteria follows. PennDOT District 2-0 and 10-0

The Districts would like to see the Planning Partners use a more robust system for evaluating and prioritizing projects.

There are reservations with aspects of using the P2 form, specifically with the manpower needed in filling it out. This task would likely fall to Environmental or scoping teams. Some elements of the P2 form will need to be built into the PPP process.

There is interest in identifying a “Core System” for the North Central region as the “trunk of the tree”, etc.

District 2-0 has used a Bridge Risk Assessment tool that is run by the Central Office Bridge Unit. This may have applicability to this effort.

The RPO should take care in how it develops evaluation criteria for local bridges. A regional process should have a side benefit of helping local officials prioritize their own projects.

North Central may need to include outreach to county planning directors and commissioners on the PPP. The RPO needs to communicate to area leaders what North Central’s top priorities are.

Incorporating the Districts’ processes (such as the Bridge Risk Assessment tool or C-DART) with this new process will be a significant challenge.

North Central PA


Harrisburg Area Transportation Study (HATS)

TCRPC is working to get its LRTP “connected” to the P2 form.

Some local municipalities have had difficulty in filling out the P2 form electronically.

PPP has been useful in an era of fiscal restraint.

Hurdles have included consensus from the District (it has no criteria) and with municipalities not agreeing with the placement of their project among other regional priorities.

The MPO staff does a point ranking.

HATS recommended adding Performance Measures to North Central’s PPP prior to reauthorization.

Susquehanna Economic Development Area Council of Governments (SEDA-COG)

The RPO has used a project prioritization process since the update of its 2007 program.

The RPO maintains its project database using MS Excel. Much of the data comes from requests to PennDOT.

Planning staff applies the criteria and ranks the projects accordingly. (There’s no weighting of criteria.) Staff then presents its recommendations to the RPO board for consideration.

The RPO continues to fine-tune the process; the next iteration should strive for consistency with the next reauthorization.

SEDA-COG’s Project Prioritization Process was drawn largely from Centre Region (which in turn developed theirs from HATS).

Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

The MPO has developed a project prioritization process to increase the level of technical project evaluation that is incorporated into regional decision making.

SPC uses a three step process. First, transportation system needs are identified by stakeholders, comprehensive plans, and other transportation planning efforts. The second step is to use the project prioritization process to identify needs and projects that are high enough priority to be included on the LRTP. Third, the process is used to identify project priorities for the TIP.

Considerations in the decision making process are Local Needs and Priorities, Regional Needs and Priorities, Technical Evaluation, and Money Mix.

All identified projects are placed in one of 16 different categories. Technical criteria are identified for each category, and a project ranking is completed.


6

The project priority process has not been fully implemented during the program update process.

PennDOT TIP Project Evaluation Guide

In 2007, PennDOT prepared a proposed project evaluation process and sample criteria as part of its Linking Planning and NEPA initiative. The criteria and processes are intended to be guidance to MPOs/RPOs and not prescriptive.

It is intended that any TIP evaluation process reflect federal, state, regional and local priorities.

The document includes a scan of process and criteria used by all Pennsylvania MPOs/RPOs and some sample MPOs beyond Pennsylvania.

The information in the Guide has been used to determine further contacts to investigate different processes across the State.

North Central PA


Identifying a Regional Core System One of the weaknesses of the region’s LRTP, CEDS and Regional Action Strategy is that they did not identify priorities spatially, or geographically. The introduction of a core system sought to identify the region’s most important economic centers and the transportation facilities and services that serve them. The Pennsylvania Transportation Advisory Committee in August 2006 identified an illustrative statewide Core Pennsylvania Transportation System. The “CPTS” as it became to be known was an outgrowth of the Pennsylvania Mobility Plan – the state’s long range transportation plan. North Central’s Regional Core System follows the state model as a new planning tool and a framework for which project selection criteria can be based. At its highest level, the regional core system:

Considers the Big Picture of the region. Is a tool to help improve the flow of people and goods among the region’s counties

and even beyond its borders. Identifies the most vital links at a Regional level. Considers all modes and the connections between those modes. Follows guidance from the Pennsylvania Mobility Plan. Will be used as a criterion in evaluating competing priorities. Indicates where we as a region wish to target “integrated” investments (e.g., road,

water, sewer, etc.) as well as areas we want to preserve. At its most basic level, the core system is composed of a system of modes (links) and nodes. The criteria for identifying the regional core system’s modes and nodes are driven by the LRTP, CEDS and the Regional Action Strategy. Together, these three plans serve as North Central’s strategic policy documents for transportation, economic and community development. For the North Central region, the core system’s nodes and modes are shown in Table 1. Table 1: Regional Core System Priority Nodes and Modes North Central PA

Priority Mode/Node Description Priority Economic Centers

The economic centers of Bradford, DuBois and St. Marys.

Priority Economic/Community Development Centers

Various investment areas that include KOZ sites, the interchanges along I-80, and the region’s three largest boroughs: Brookville, Clearfield and Punxsutawney. It also includes the region’s two commercial service airports - Bradford and DuBois Regional.

Priority Recreational Nodes

Recognizing the importance that tourism and outdoor recreation have to the North Central region, these nodes have been identified as DCNR’s Primary Investment Areas, consistent with the PAWilds initiative. Examples include Cherry Springs and Kinzua Bridge State Parks, and the Benezette elk viewing area.


8

Priority Mode/Node Description Priority Transportation Links

Consist of the highest-order roadway facility that provides a direct connection among regional economic centers (e.g., PA 255 between DuBois and St. Marys).

Priority Recreation Links

Connect regional economic and community centers to the Priority Recreational Nodes (e.g., PA 555 to the elk viewing area, etc.).

Source: Gannett Fleming, Inc. Figure 2 below shows the spatial aspects of the regional core system. Figure 2 - North Central PA Regional Core System

Source: North Central PA Regional Planning and Development Commission In one sense, the North Central RPO and its partners have already developed a hierarchy of transportation systems and services on a modal basis. For example, since at least the mid-1960s PennDOT has been functionally classifying roadways based on the type of service they provide. At the federal level, Congress designated the National Highway System (NHS) in December 1995 as the nation’s most strategic network of roadways. Railroads have a similar hierarchy in designating “strategic” versus “tactical” rail lines. And up until the time of Act 44 of 2007, PennDOT organized operators of public transportation service into various classes. (ATA and DuFAST were once considered “Class 4 “ providers.) Airports also have a similar classification schema.

North Central PA


North Central recognized that a proposed Regional Core System needs to be developed at a scale appropriate to the region. Like the illustrative state system, North Central’s system of regional significance identifies nodes and modes that are of regional significance, that is, the modes connect the region’s primary economic centers (Bradford, St. Marys and DuBois) with one another and with economic centers outside the region (such as State College). The identification of a Regional Core System is one of the objectives (6-B) of the 2007 LRTP. The following section shows potential elements of the Regional Core System, by definition. Nodal Criteria The region’s primary economic centers include the urban centers of the micropolitan statistical areas of Bradford, DuBois and St. Marys. Why?: The U.S. Census Bureau in 2003 defined these places as Micropolitan Statistical Areas. There are 22 such places in Pennsylvania (sidebar). They are defined by areas that lie outside of a defined Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), yet still attract significant numbers of workers. They are organized around core cities ranging in size from 10,000 to 49,999, plus “adjacent territory that has a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as measured by commuting ties.” When combined with their respective adjacent second class townships, the three cities listed above are among the largest populated areas in the region, comprising 20 percent of the entire region’s total population. Connection to the RAS’ Goals:

I.A. Promotes new infill development in and around core communities (defining what constitutes the region’s “core” communities is a strategy of the RAS) .

I.B. Focus development and redevelopment in priority areas in the region.

In addition to the economic centers described above, members of the Project Prioritization committee also identified priority economic/community development nodes. These include the boroughs of Brookville, Clearfield and Punxsutawney, and the region’s Keystone Opportunity Zones and industrial park areas. Other priority economic/community development nodes include the region’s two commercial service airports (Bradford and DuBois Regional) and areas adjacent to most of the region’s interchanges along Interstate 80.

Pennsylvania’s Urban Clusters of Micropolitan

Statistical Areas Bloomsburg Berwick Bradford Chambersburg DuBois East Stroudsburg Gettysburg Huntingdon Indiana Lewisburg Lewistown Lock Haven Meadville New Castle Oil City Pottsville Sayre Selinsgrove Somerset St. Marys Sunbury Warren


10

Why?: North Central’s Regional Action Strategy puts a premium on the development of certain areas for job creation. Using total population as a proxy for economic importance, the three boroughs noted above are the region’s largest. There are KOZs in every county. I-80 is the region’s only limited access highway and offers unparalleled mobility in comparison to any other North Central roadway. Its interchanges offer strategic opportunities for employment and freight movement in support of regional economic centers, most particularly DuBois. Connection to the RAS’ Goals:

The economic development nodes offer facilities and services in support of the region’s economic centers.

Modal Criteria The region’s priority transportation links connect the region’s primary economic centers. These include the following roadways (also shown on Figure 2 in red): Table 2: Regional Core System Priority Transportation Roadways North Central PA

Roadway Limits Connects the Regional Tier 1 Center of…

I-80 Region-wide DuBois to Clarion and State College

US 6 Region-wide Warren to Scranton

US 119 South of DuBois DuBois to Indiana

US 219 Bradford to DuBois Bradford to DuBois

US 322 Woodland to Philipsburg

DuBois to State College

PA 153 Penfield to I-80’s Exit 111

St. Marys to State College

PA 255 DuBois to Johnsonburg

DuBois to St. Marys; St.Marys to Bradford

PA 321 Wilcox to Ludlow St. Marys to Warren

PA 770 Custer City to Kinzua Beach

Bradford to Warren

Source: Gannett Fleming, Inc. An additional roadway, that of PA 120 between St. Marys and Emporium, was also added, due to the roadway’s lack of redundancy in the county and strategic importance for facilitating goods movement and commuter flows between the two communities. Other priority modes/services include:

Buffalo & Pittsburgh’s main line between DuBois and Bradford. B&P is a provider of long haul rail service to the region’s shippers. The railroad provides major connections to Norfolk Southern (NS) at Buffalo, Driftwood, and Freeport, and to CSX

North Central PA


at Erie, New Castle, and Buffalo. The B&P also provides connections with CP Rail and CN at Buffalo. Rail freight traffic has been moved to New York’s Southern Tier line.

The only commercial service airports in the region: Bradford Regional and DuBois Regional

ATA and DuFAST fixed- and express bus routes (e.g., DuBois to St. Marys, etc.) In addition to the priority transportation roadways are roadways that provide access to the region’s priority recreational centers (as identified in green in Figure 2). These roadways are summarized in Table 3. Table 3: Regional Core System Priority Recreational Roadways North Central PA

Roadway Limits Connects the Priority Recreational Center of…

US 6 McKean and Potter Counties

Historic Pennsylvania Route 6

PA 36 Brookville to Cook Forest S.P.

Cook Forest S.P.

PA 144 Galeton to Cherry Springs S.P.

Cherry Springs S.P.

PA 153 I-80 to Penfield Future welcome center and Benezette Elk Viewing area

PA 555 Penfield to Clinton County line

Benezette Elk Viewing area

PA 872 US 6 to PA 555 Sinnemahoning S.P.

PA 948 Ridgway to Forest County line

Allegheny National Forest

PA 949 Ridgway to Cook Forest S.P.

Cook Forest S.P.

SR 3011 Mt. Jewett to Ormsby Kinzua Bridge S.P.

Source: Gannett Fleming, Inc.

Why? As a rural region, roadways constitute the backbone of North Central’s transportation system. Many of the roadways identified on the Regional Core System have already been identified by Congress as being part of the National Highway System (NHS). Notable exceptions include the roadways that connect the regional economic centers of Bradford and St. Marys to other economic centers both within and outside of the region (e.g., PA 153, PA 255, PA 321 and PA 770, etc.). In addition, the priority recreation links such as those noted in the preceding table provide primary connections to DCNR Primary Investment Areas, consistent with the PAWilds initiative. Connection to the RAS’ Goals:

II.B. Improve mobility into and throughout the region more efficiently and effectively.


12

Identifying Project Selection Criteria and Weighting North Central facilitated an interactive process with its partners in developing project selection criteria for both its transportation planning program (under the auspices of the LRTP), and economic/community development (ARC and CEDS). Methodology For this project, North Central formed a Project Prioritization Committee comprised of representatives from the following stakeholders (essentially including members of both the RPO and CEDS committees):

ATA Bradford Office of Community

and Economic Development Cameron County City of St. Marys Clearfield County DCED DCNR DuBois Area Chamber of

Commerce Elk County Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) Jefferson County McKean County NCPRPDC Executive Board PennDOT Central Office PennDOT District 2-0 PennDOT District 10-0 Potter County Sandy Twp. Workforce Investment Board

Members of the Project Prioritization Committee began meeting in December 2008 and continued throughout 2009 in developing selection criteria and elements of the regional core system. Samples from existing transportation and economic/community development projects were used in determining and evaluating the merits of various selection criteria. Beyond the identification and weighting of criteria, the Project Prioritization Committee will serve as a steward of the Regional Action Strategy (RAS), monitoring implementation and involved in the evaluation of candidate projects of regional significance. Guiding principles

Figure 3: Using Decision Lens to Weight Project Selection Criteria

North Central PA


throughout the project included creating a new process that would be intuitive and easy to use. Recognizing that not all criteria necessarily convey the same level of importance, the next step in the process was to identify a preferred weighting for each project selection criterion As part of identifying recommended weighting, PennDOT offered North Central the use of a dynamic, group-enabled software called Decision Lens. The software has been developed to improve capital resource planning and decision-making. PennDOT in fact has already begun using the tool as part of the most recent update of its Interstate Maintenance (IM) Program. The Decision Lens software subjected each proposed criterion to rigorous pairwise comparisons, or “judgments,” which yielded more meaningful and candid results. Members of the Project Prioritization committee were able to vote anonymously on the criteria before discussing the initial results. The results of the committee’s deliberations with regard to both criteria development and their subsequent weighting are described in the tables that follow. A Microsoft Access database was developed to track projects and to apply a recommended weighting to candidate projects as they are data entered and “scored” as part of their evaluation. Transportation There are various types of transportation projects that compete for discrete transportation funding “buckets”. These range from highway capacity-adding projects to more non-traditional projects such as Transportation Enhancements. Recognizing the nature of these funding silos, North Central sought to identify selection criteria for each transportation project type against six major categories, as shown in Table 4 below. A summary of each project type, including their associated criteria and recommended weighting, follows. Table 4: Transportation Project Type Descriptions North Central PA

Project Type Description

Highway Restoration

This includes projects such as repairs or rehabilitation to extend the life of the existing roadway, which could include resurfacing, concrete rehabilitation, base repair, drainage improvements, and shoulder stabilization. Depending on the condition of the pavement, drainage and sub-base, it could involve complete reconstruction. (It does not include any addition of highway lanes.)

Highway/New Capacity

This includes projects such as the construction of roadways, interchanges or bridges on new alignment, or widening to existing roadways resulting in the addition of lanes.


14

Project Type Description

State Bridges > 8 feet

This includes projects such as the rehabilitation or replacement of an existing state-owned bridge to remove a deficiency, or systematic preventive maintenance activities to maintain a bridge in good condition.

Local Bridges > 20 feet

This includes projects such as the rehabilitation or replacement of an existing local bridge to remove a deficiency, or systematic preventive maintenance activities to maintain a locally-owned bridge in good condition.

Safety

These are stand-alone projects to address specific safety issues. This may include projects to eliminate sight distance problems at intersections, correction of hazardous curves, projects that improve pedestrian safety and other projects that address areas with high accident rates or crash clusters.

Transportation Enhancements

These projects include bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and trails and shared use pathways that improve accessibility and mobility for bicycles and pedestrians; scenic beautification, wayfinding signage, welcome centers, transportation museums, historic preservation, streetscapes, and other related projects.

Source: Gannett Fleming, Inc. Highway Restoration Criteria and Weighting This is the most common project type that North Central administers as part of its rural transportation planning program. In developing selection criteria, North Central decided to weigh future highway restoration projects against their position on the region’s highway network; traffic volumes; surface conditions; percentage of trucks, and the latest date the roadway in question was resurfaced. Of the five criteria established for this project type, North Central has weighted the candidate project’s relationship to the Core System, along with existing surface condition, as the two most important considerations in evaluating candidate projects. This generally means that North Central will be prioritizing roadway improvements toward the highest-order roadways in the region, on the primary roadways that connect the region’s economic centers and priority investment areas such as KOZ sites and highway interchanges. Table 5 shows the various elements of the Highway Restoration criteria and related weightings in more detail. Table 5: Highway Restoration Criteria and Weighting

Project Criteria Rating Guidelines Weighting

What Network is the project on?

1 5 5

Other State Routes (or non-network) Access to KOZ or other Regional Investment Areas Access to DCNR Investment Area

31%

North Central PA



10

(priority recreational routes/green segments) Core System (priority transportation routes/red segments)

What is the AADT?

1 5 7

10

< 2,000 vehicles per day 2,000 – 4,999 5,000 – 9,999 10,000 +

12%

What is the IRI?

1 3 5

10

< 150 inches per mile 150 - 199 200 - 299 300 +

31%

Percentage of Trucks

1 5

10

< 5 percent 5-10 percent > 10 percent

14%

Resurfacing Date

1 5

10

< 10 years 10-20 years 20+ years

12%

Highway/New Capacity Criteria and Weighting New capacity projects are much less common, but much more visible and carry a higher profile in comparison to highway restoration jobs. In the future, North Central will be putting a greater emphasis on new capacity-adding projects that support business retention and growth, as explained in more detail in Table 6. North Central will be evaluating future capacity-adding projects against their position of the region’s highway network; their effectiveness (in terms of how well the project addresses existing or anticipated conditions); their support of business growth; percentage of trucks, and the project’s overall value for dollar spent. Of the five criteria established for this project type, North Central has weighted the candidate project’s ability to support business retention and expansion as the primary criterion for considering these types of projects. Table 6 shows the various elements of the Highway/New Capacity criteria and related weightings in more detail.


16

Table 6: Highway/New Capacity Criteria and Weighting Project Criteria Rating Guidelines Weighting

What Network is the project on?

1 5 5

10

Other State Routes (or non-network) Access to KOZ or other Regional Investment Areas Access to DCNR Investment Area (priority recreational routes/green segments) Core System (priority transportation routes/red segments)

19%

Project Effectiveness

0 5

10

Project fails to address existing conditions/problems Project addresses most of existing or anticipated conditions/problems and improves mobility/reduces congestion Project effectively addresses existing or anticipated conditions/problems and provides a significant improvement in mobility/reduces congestion

22%

Supporting Business Retention & Growth

0

10

Does not support existing business/industry Supports existing or emerging business/industry and/or development of entrepreneurs/new enterprise

30%

Percentage of Trucks

1 5

10

< 5 percent 5-10 percent > 10 percent

8%

Cost Factors

1 5

10

High cost/requires additional dollars to the TIP (e.g., “spike” funds) Medium cost/some additional dollars plus TIP Relatively low cost/Can be afforded within the TIP

21%

Local Bridges > 20 Feet There are approximately 288 locally-owned bridges in the North Central region that are greater than 20 feet in length. In evaluating future local bridge projects, the Commission will be using five basic criteria, including: availability of the local funding match; overall traffic volume; overall deficiency; the level of accessibility the structure provides to commerce or emergency access; and whether or not the structure is posted or closed. Of these five criteria, North Central has weighted the structural deficiency of the candidate project, in addition to the level of access it provides to business and industry. The recommended weighting emphasizes the removal of structurally deficient local bridges from

North Central PA


the network. Structurally deficient bridges are receiving renewed attention across Pennsylvania, and this is expected to continue in the North Central region, where approximately 60 percent of all local (non-PennDOT owned) bridges are considered to be structurally deficient (11 percentage points above the state rate). Table 7 shows the various elements of the Local Bridge criteria and related weightings in more detail. Table 7: Local Bridges > 20 Feet Criteria and Weighting


The municipality has the local match?

0 5

10

No match Pending/Applied for Match in hand

11%

What is the AADT?

0 4 8

10

< 100 vehicles per day 100 – 499 500 – 999 1,000 +

14%

Is the bridge deficient?

0 10

Not SD Project will preserve a bridge and avoid becoming SD; Project will eliminate existing SD bridge designation

30%

Critical to commerce or emergency access?

0

10 10

Other alternatives for emergency access/school buses Only alternative for emergency access Direct access to business/industry.

30%

Posted or Closed

0 4 8

10

Open to all vehicles Posted < legal limit Posted < 13 tons Closed or will be closed

15%

Transportation Enhancements Statewide solicitation of future Transportation Enhancement projects will be contingent on reauthorization legislation. In regions that have or will have advanced all previously approved and committed Transportation Enhancement projects, funds made available under the 2011 Program may be used to consider additional projects as determined by the RPO in cooperation with PennDOT. In evaluating future transportation enhancement projects, the Commission will be using five basic criteria, including: consistency with PennDOT design standards; availability of matching funds; project readiness; potential impacts and benefits; and “other beneficial values.” Of these five criteria, North Central has weighted “other beneficial values” as its highest priority, in terms of how well a proposed project serves a larger, more comprehensive initiative. Table 8 shows the various elements of the Transportation Enhancement criteria and related weightings in more detail.


18

Table 8: Transportation Enhancement Criteria and Weighting Project Criteria Rating Guidelines Weighting

Design Standards

0

10

Project is not consistent with PennDOT design guidelines Project is consistent with PennDOT design guidelines

18%

Matching Funds

0 5

10

Unsure of source/availability of funds Matching funds have been applied for Matching funds have been secured

16%

Project Readiness

0 5

10

Project has not been initiated Project still in PE Project design complete

15%

Potential Impacts/Benefits

0 5

10

Project does not positively impact quality of life and does not promote other modes (bicycle, pedestrian, transit) Project has a positive impact on quality of life but does not promote other modes Project has a positive impact on quality of life and promotes other modes

24%

Other Beneficial Values

0 5

10

Does not serve as a part of a larger, comprehensive initiative Project is being used to leverage additional funds for community benefit/design Project completes an existing phase

27%

What about State Bridges and Safety Projects?

It should be noted that North Central decided to use existing processes already being used by

PennDOT in prioritizing certain project types.

In the case of State Bridges, North Central will use PennDOT’s Bridge Risk Assessment Tool as the

primary filter for identifying an initial listing of 10 bridge replacement projects by county and a compiled

list showing the overall listing by region (60 total). The resulting list would then be evaluated against the

“Overall Transportation Criteria” discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

For Safety projects, North Central will defer to C-DART (Crash Data Access and Retrieval Tool), a

statewide database from which North Central – in cooperation with PennDOT and county planning –

would identify and (when possible) field view a list of safety projects to be scored against “Overall

Transportation Criteria.”

North Central PA


Overall Transportation Criteria A second round of review would place all transportation projects against a set of “Overall Transportation Criteria,” regardless of project or funding type. Evaluators will assign a score (or subtotal) for each project by one of the previous five project types, to be added with an “Overall Transportation Criteria” score to yield a total score. Figure 4 below demonstrates how all candidate transportation projects would be evaluated against two sets of criteria in a two-step process. Figure 4: Two-Step Process for Evaluating Candidate Transportation Projects

For the Overall Transportation Criteria, North Central identified 14 different elements that would serve as selection criteria. For the purposes of performing the pairwise comparison and weightings, the Commission organized the criteria into four basic groupings. They are highlighted in bold below, along with their recommended weighting.

1. Safety – 36% 2. Job Creation and Community Benefits – 23%

a. Permanent Job Creation/Retainage b. Community Benefits

3. Transportation Planning and Project Support – 14% a. Supported by LRTP b. Supported by County/Municipal Comprehensive Plan c. Public-Private Sector Involvement d. Leadership and Political Support


20

4. Project Location Factors – 12% a. Maximizes Existing Infrastructure b. Environmental c. Land Use

5. Transportation Benefits – 16% a. Intermodal Benefits b. Vehicle Trip Reduction c. Promotes Other Modes d. Freight Movement

Table 9 shows how the 14 criteria were organized according to their parent-child relationship. Associated weights for the parent-child criteria are also shown in the table. Table 9: Overall Transportation Criteria and Weighting

Project Criteria Rating Guidelines

Weighting Child Parent

S a

f e

t y

Safety*

0

10

Project does not effectively address safety issues in the project area Project includes one of the top 25 safety projects identified in the region through PennDOT’s C-DART database.

n/a 36%

Job

Cre

atio

n &

Com

mu

nit

y B

enef

its

Community Benefits

0 5

10

Does not have positive community benefits Project impacts confined to local community Project has broad and positive multi-municipal or regional impact

30%

23%

Permanent Job Creation/Retainage

0 5

10

No impact on total employment or employment potential Will ensure creation of new jobs Will retain/preserve jobs

70%

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

Pla

nn

ing

&

Pro

ject

Su

pp

ort

Supported by LRTP

0 5

10

Project is not related to, nor part of, the LRTP Supports an LRTP project Project is included in LRTP

34%

14%

County/Municipal Comprehensive Plan

0 5

10

Project is not included in any county or municipal comprehensive plan Project is part of one county or municipal comprehensive plan Project is part of more than one county or municipal comprehensive plan

31%

North Central PA




Public/Private Sector Involvement*

0 3 7

10

No private sector/municipal money available Private sector/municipal involvement of 1 to 10 percent of project share. Private sector/municipal involvement between 11 to 19 percent of project share Private sector/municipal involvement 20 percent or more of project share

19%

Leadership and Political Support*

0 5

10

Project has no leadership or political support Project has some leadership and political support Project has defined leadership and strong political support

16%

P r

o j

e c

t L

o c

a t

I o

n

F a

c t o

r s

Maximizes Existing Infrastructure*

0 5

10

Project requires development of new transportation infrastructure Project improves existing transportation infrastructure Project maximizes the use of existing transportation infrastructure

52%

12%

Environmental

0 5

10

Project is expected to have significant environmental impacts Project environmental impacts can be mitigated at reasonable cost Project has no expected environmental impacts

19%

Land Use

0 5

10

Project could negatively impact the land use of the area or community character Project will have minimal impacts on land use Project will have no impact or make positive improvement to the area’s land use and community character

29%

p o

r t

a t I

o n

B

e n

e f

Intermodal Benefit

0 5

10

No intermodal potential Facilitates transfer or intermodal potential between 1-2 modes Connects >2 modes/services

25% 16%


22



Vehicle Trip Reduction

0 5

10

No trip reduction Project will result in some trip reduction Project will encourage the reduction of trips/discourage SOV use

23%

Promotes Other Modes*

0

10

Does not promote the use of multiple modes Promotes the use of multiple modes

27%

Freight

0

10

Does not facilitate the movement of freight Enhances the operational performance and/or safety of freight carriers

24%

Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) & Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) Project Criteria In addition to transportation projects, the North Central PA Commission also evaluates certain community and economic development projects. The region’s Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, or CEDS analyzes the region’s economy and serves as a guide for establishing regional goals and objectives, developing and implementing a regional plan of action, and identifying investment priorities and funding sources. CEDS and ARC projects are typically not as numerous as transportation projects, yet they entail important investments that address the region's greatest needs or that will best enhance the region's competitiveness. As part of the implementation process in executing the CEDS, projects are proposed to solve regional problems, act as a catalyst to economic development, or complement existing growth opportunities. Physical infrastructure is most often proposed as a way to address the needs of industry or commercial development. Some examples of typical CEDS projects include upgrades to municipal wastewater treatment plants and sewer system improvements, such as the ones currently proposed in Johnsonburg and Curwensville, respectively. As with the transportation projects, the Regional Project Prioritization committee developed a set of evaluation criteria for candidate ARC/CEDS projects, as shown in Table 10. For the purposes of performing the Decision Lens pairwise comparison, the Commission organized the CEDS/ARC criteria into four basic groupings (or “parents”), including (by weight):

North Central PA


1. Employment – 42% a. Project expands employment by creating or retaining family-sustainable jobs b. Project improves workforce training, development, and educational

attainment c. Project promotes or strengthens targeted industry cluster

2. Project Factors – 16% a. Project Needs and Benefits b. Project is Eligible c. Timeline for Project Delivery d. Additional Funding Partners Identified

3. Community Development – 15% 4. Community Benefits – 27%

a. Project promotes the use and diffusion of technology (e.g., GIS, internet) b. Project enhances destination(s) and will attract visitors to the region c. Project increases international trade and supports global competitiveness

The joint Regional Project Prioritization committee placed a higher emphasis on how well a candidate project addresses the expansion of the region’s labor market, with a particular concern on workforce training and development. In many respects, the workforce represents the future of the region, and it must be prepared for future innovations in the global market. The accompanying weights for the parent-child criteria are also shown in Table 10. Table 10: CEDS and ARC Criteria and Weighting



E m

p l

o y

m e

n t

Project expands employment by creating or retaining family-sustainable jobs

0

3

5

10

Does not create or retain family-sustainable wage jobs Creates or retains 1 to 10 family-sustainable wage jobs Creates or retains 11- 20 family-sustainable wage jobs Creates or retains 20+ family-sustainable wage jobs

53%

42%

Project improves workforce training, development, and educational attainment

0 3 5

10

Project does not provide worker skills Project provides basic worker skills Project provides skilled jobs in targeted industry clusters Project improves continuous learning through formal opportunities

25%

Project promotes or strengthens

0

Has no direct relationship to any existing industry cluster

22%


24



targeted industry cluster2

10 20

Supports non- targeted industry cluster Supports targeted industry cluster

P r

o j

e c

t

F a

c t

o r

s

Project Needs and Benefits

0

3

5

8

10

Project Need is not defined or benefits are not estimated Project has need defined with no benefits estimated Project is not part of the RAS, but has needs defined and benefits have been reasonably estimated Project is part of the RAS, has needs defined, and reasonable benefits have been estimated. Project is under consent order

32%

16% Project is Eligible

0

5

10

Project does not meet EDA/ARC funding criteria Project is linked to a fundable project and has another funding source identified (e.g., DOT, DEP) Projects are ARC or EDA eligible

29%

Timeline for Project Delivery

0

5 10

Project component or phase not ready for implementation Project has an implementation schedule Project component or phase ready for implementation

22%

Additional Committed Funding Partners Identified

0 5 7

10

No Pending/Applied Partially Received Yes

17%

Community Development

0 5

Project is located in an undeveloped area Project is located in an urban or downtown area, but not a brownfield site or distressed property

n/a 15%

2 The North Central WIB is currently focusing on the following industry clusters (in descending rank order):

Advanced Manufacturing and Diversified Metals Healthcare Gas and Oil Extraction Lumber Paper and Wood Logistics and Transportation

As North Central completes its Industry Cluster Analysis, this list may change as the region looks at new/emerging industries that could be prioritized as they are identified. (For example, North Central will be taking a closer look at the following Industry Clusters over the next year: “Green” Energy; Business and Financial Services; and Education, etc.)

North Central PA




10

10

Projected is located in an urban or downtown area, and is a brownfield site or distressed property or KOZ or KIZ Project is regional3 in scope

C o

m m

u n

I t

y B

e n

e f

I t

s

Project promotes the use and diffusion of technology (e.g., GIS, internet)

0

5

10

Project does not in any significant way promote the use of technology Project utilizes and promotes the use of technology within the community Project will result in the development and diffusion of innovative technology within an industry or a region

33%

27%

Project enhances destination(s) and will attract visitors to the region

0

5

10

Project will have no impact in increasing travel and tourism in the region Project indirectly enhances or promotes a particular destination Project directly enhances or promotes a particular destination resulting in increases in day and overnight tourism

35%

Project increases international trade and supports global competitiveness

0

5

10

Project does not impact international business or improve the global competitive position of any existing firm or industry Project promotes the development of new international markets for existing products Project supports the entry of a new firm or existing industry with a new product into new international markets resulting in the increased competitiveness of the industry

32%

Projects of Regional Significance The final set of selection criteria involves that of Projects of Regional Significance. These projects would involve only a handful of projects that would provide benefits that transcend county boundaries and likely involve drawing funding from multiple state and federal agencies in order to complete. These projects would also be reviewed by members of the Project Prioritization Committee. This group will function as an evaluator of the proposed Projects of Regional Significance that are recommended to be advanced for review by both the RPO and CEDS committees. (In some unique cases, there may even be some projects that lie outside of the traditional RPO/CEDS planning process, such as PMI North Central and the ZITO Media Broadband Project. Despite their placement outside of the RPO/CEDS 3 “regional” in most cases entails a project that would be multi-municipal in its scope and impacts


26

planning process, these unique projects will ultimately be assessed by the Project Prioritization Committee for consideration as a “Project of Regional Significance.”) As with the CEDS/ARC and Overall Transportation Criteria, for the purposes of performing the pairwise comparison, the Project Prioritization Committee organized the criteria for the Projects of Regional Significance into five basic groupings (or “parents”), which are highlighted in bold:

1. Regional Factors – 23% a. Regional Core System b. Strong Leadership and Political Support c. Multi-municipal Cooperation

2. Plan or Planning Support – 22% a. Supported by LRTP b. Supported by County Comprehensive Plan c. Supported by Regional Greenway Plan d. Supported by CEDS Plan

3. Project Maximizes the Use of Existing Infrastructure – 26% 4. Project Readiness – 9% 5. Business Factors – 21%

a. Project Supports Business Growth b. Project Will Attract Private Investment

A more detailed description of the criteria and their respective weights are shown in Table 11. Table 11: Projects of Regional Significance - Criteria and Weighting



R e

g I

o n

a l

F a

c t

o r

s

Regional Core System

0

5

10

Project does not directly relate to Regional Core system Project provides a connection to an element of the regional core system Project is part of the regional core system

50%

23%

Strong Leadership and Political Support

0

5

10

Project has no leadership or political support Project has some leadership and political support Project has defined leadership and strong political support

17%

North Central PA


Multi-Municipal Cooperation

0

5

10

Project does not promote or involve multi-municipal cooperation Project promotes multi-municipal cooperation Project promotes multi-county or regional cooperation

33%

P l

a n

o

r P

l a

n n

I n

g

S u

p p

o r

t

Supported by Long Range Transportation Plan

0

5 10

Project is not related to, or part of, the LRTP Project supports an LRTP project Project is included in LRTP

38%

22%

County Comprehensive Plans

0

5

10

Project is not included in any county comprehensive plan Project is part of one county comprehensive plan Project is part of more than one county comp plan

15%

Regional Greenway Plan

0

5

10

Project is not included in any county greenway plan Project is part of one county greenway plan Project is part of more than one county greenway plan or regional greenway plan

20%

Supported by CEDS plan

0

5 10

Project is not related to, or part of, the CEDS Project supports a CEDS project Project is included in CEDS plan

27%

Exi

stin

g In

fras

tru

ctur

e

Project maximizes the use of existing infrastructure

0

5

10

Requires the development of new infrastructure Creates necessary community infrastructure Improves community infrastructure

n/a 26%

Pro

ject

R

ead

ines

s

Project Readiness

0

5

10

Project component or phase not ready for implementation Project has a realistic implementation schedule Project component or phase ready for implementation

n/a 9%

B u

s I

n e

s s

F a

c t o

r s

Project supports business growth

0

7

10

Project does not support existing business/industry Supports existing business/industry/ cluster Supports emerging business/ industry/cluster or the development of entrepreneurs/new enterprise

62% 21%


28

Project will attract private investment

0

5

10

Project will not attract private investment Project will attract up to $1M private investment Project will attract >$1M private investment

38%

Institutionalizing a New Planning Process The following two figures graphically summarizes how the North Central Project Prioritization Process would conceptually work as described in the previous subsections. Transportation projects would continue to be evaluated by the RPO and its members, while community and economic development projects would be reviewed and evaluated by the CEDS committee. The Project Prioritization Committee, initially formed in December 2008, would continue on in its role as a reviewer and evaluator of candidate Projects of Regional Significance. This function represents the main institutional change in the future project prioritization process. The Committee would forward its recommendations to North Central’s executive board for final action. This upgraded project prioritization process will be used immediately, beginning with the 2011 TIP and upcoming ARC and CEDS programs. From the beginning, the intention of this new project selection process is intended to give North Central and the Region new planning tools and quantitative evaluation techniques that will yield in encourage and emphasis the importance of more strategic, targeted investments and improved decision-making. Despite the quantitative nature of these new tools, they are not intended to override or replace human judgment. The function and role of the CEDS and RPO committees (along with the Project Prioritization Committee), will ensure that deliberations on candidate projects will continue, with the added benefit of these new planning tools informing decision-making. Figure 5 and Figure 6 provide flow charts that summarize the steps highlighted in the preceding sections.

North Central PA


Figure 5: The North Central PA Project Prioritization Process


30

Figure 6: The Integration of the Planning and Prioritization Process and Identification of Regionally Significant Projects

north central pennsylvania project prioritization process ... · pdf filenorth central...

Documents