Project Selection
Advisory Council
March 13, 2014
Sheri Warrington, Manager of MPO Activities
Office of Transportation Planning
1
Project Selection Criteria Best Practices
Degree of implementation in other states varies
widely and is ongoing
NH, Michigan, Oregon, Utah
Highlights from newly-implemented comprehensive
prioritization processes
North Carolina, Nevada, Florida and Delaware
Trend toward looking across all modes
“The goal in funding projects…is to consider all the needs, all the available funding, the
agencies' strategic plan and the established performance measures, in the end
providing a balanced program which best helps reach the established goals and is
measured and adjusted with each annual iteration.” -- Tom Greco, Asst. Dir. Nevada
DOT Planning
2
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
3/10/2014
New Hampshire DOT
In first iteration of the new process
Focused only on FHWA funded projects.
Review with 9 Regional Planning Commissions (4 of
which also serve as MPOs) to develop standard
project evaluation and prioritization criteria.
Realization that first draft criteria were not well chosen
to fairly represent multi-modal projects
Regions can “weight” their criteria differently to match
their regional long range priorities.
All parties communicate their weighted criteria prior to
soliciting for new project needs.
3
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
3/10/2014
New Hampshire DOT Prioritization Tool
4
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
3/10/2014
Michigan DOT
Has evaluated
tools in NCDOT,
Virginia DOT,
Missouri DOT
and Wisconsin
DOT
Early stages of
visioning process
internally
Considering
purchase of a tool
for prioritization
5
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
3/10/2014
Oregon DOT
Divides STIP into two parts:
Enhance: Activities that enhance, expand, or improve the
transportation system
Fix-It: Activities that fix or preserve the transportation system
Seeks to achieve maximum flexibility in the use of limited funds for
the best multi-modal solutions.
Designed to identify most effective projects based on community
and state values, rather than how they fit into prescribed programs.
6
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
3/10/2014
Utah DOT
UDOT's ranking process is required by Utah State Code, an
administrative rule has been written to fulfill the code directive.
The Utah Transportation Commission (UTC) is the approving authority
for all programs and projects.
UDOT's ranking process is a decision support process intended to help
the UTC prioritize and rank projects in order of their importance.
However, the UTC can override the process as long as it is discussed in
a public meeting and a reason for the decision is documented.
7
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
3/10/2014
Utah DOT
Existing process ties to the
Department’s strategic goals and is the
same for urban and rural projects
Working on new prioritization process
that attempts to rank across modes to
develop a list of urbanized area
priorities
Objectives of the process include:
Combined UDOT Region and MAG
TIP process
One comprehensive list of needs
Criteria reflect UDOT goals, Utah
Transit Authority goals and local
priorities
Data driven where possible
8
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
3/10/2014
North Carolina - Strategic Mobility Formula
Statewide Level:
Projects of statewide significance will receive 40% of the available revenue, totaling $6
billion over 10 years. 100% data-driven.
Regional Level:
Projects of regional significance will receive 30% of the available revenue, equaling $4.5
billion over a decade based on regional population.
Data will comprise 70% of the decision-making process and local rankings by area planning
organizations and the NCDOT Transportation Divisions will round out the remaining 30% at
this level.
Division Level:
Projects that address local concerns such as safety, congestion and connectivity will receive
30% of the available revenue, or $4.5 billion, shared equally over NCDOT’s 14
Transportation Divisions.
The department will choose projects based 50% on data and 50% on local rankings.
9
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
3/10/2014
North Carolina – scoring example
10
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
3/10/2014
Nevada DOT
Nevada DOT asks each discipline, to create their own priority list
of needs (based on relevant data), then, using performance
based measures, funding % are assigned to each list, keeping in
mind funding designation definitions.
The “Connecting Nevada” Plan is a 50-year look ahead,
originating from a need to plan for Nevada’s long-term
transportation needs.
The Plan is for all of Nevada, urban and rural—including local,
regional, and state partners who make decisions about future
transportation investments.
A total of eight Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings,
five Steering Committee meetings, two rounds of stakeholder
meetings, and numerous briefings at regularly scheduled
meetings of transportation partners were conducted to gather
guidance and input resulting in the Plan.
11
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
3/10/2014
Florida DOT
In 2003, the Florida Legislature and Governor established the
Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) to enhance Florida’s transportation
mobility and economic competitiveness.
Mutli-modal: The SIS is a statewide network of high‐priority
transportation facilities, including the State’s largest and most
significant airports, spaceports, deepwater seaports, freight rail
terminals, passenger rail and intercity bus terminals, rail corridors,
waterways, and highways.
Objective criteria and thresholds based on quantitative measures of
transportation and economic activity.
12
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
3/10/2014
Delaware DOT (DelDOT)
Each year develops a 6-year Capital Transportation Plan (CTP) that
identifies anticipated capital investments.
The CTP contains five general types of projects and programs
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
13
Projects that represent system preservation that are excluded from the prioritization
process (SOGR)
Projects and programs that receive a dedicated funding source from the FHWA or FTA
that can only be spent on those types of projects (DED)
Projects and programs that provide the ability to make small improvements that allow for
the improved management and operation of the system (MGT)
Projects that are mandated for DelDOT to complete either through a regulatory
requirement, contractual obligation, legislative action or a judicial action (REQ)
Projects that are prioritized using the methods established under TITLE 29
CHAPTER 84 § 8419 of the Delaware Code. These remaining projects are
evaluated and ranked according to how the elements of the project meet the
priorities established by the MPOs, Sussex County and DelDOT’s mission, vision
and goals.
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
3/10/2014
Delaware DOT (DelDOT)
Delaware’s Development of the 6-year CTP
This is a multi‐step process that considers several factors including:
1. Project Technical Score – evaluates the individual projects based on a separate
document entitled DelDOT Statewide Prioritization Criteria and Weighting Summary
2. Project Readiness – assess the current phase of the project and when the next phase
can begin along with the establishment of a project schedule from concept design through
to construction.
3. Project Funding Eligibility – determine what types or Federal or State funding each
project is eligible to use.
The process of applying the funding then works down the list generated from the technical
score and assigns the most restricted funding categories first utilizing the most flexible
categories towards the end of the process.
4. Assemble the Plan
14
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
3/10/2014
Requirements for Massachusetts
Section 11: “The project selection criteria developed under this
section shall include a project priority formula or other data driven
process that shall include, but not be limited to, the following factors:”
Engineering
Condition of existing assets
Safety
Economic impact
Regional priorities
Anticipated cost of a project
15
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
3/10/2014
Requirements for Massachusetts
USDOT
MAP-21 Performance Measures and 3C
Requirements
Massachusetts Legislature
Chapter 25 of the Acts of 2009 and
Chapter 46 of the Acts of 2013
MassDOT
Comprehensive Strategic
Plan – WMM/CIP/PMT
MPOs
LRTPs & Regional
Priorities
TIPS &
STIP
16
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
3/10/2014
Next Steps
Agenda for first public hearing
Agenda items for next Council meeting
Presentations from T4America, other State DOTs, or
consultants (Decision Lens)
WeMoveMA (WMM) presentation
17
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
3/10/2014