P4.0 Workgroup Meeting Summary
November 17, 2014
Don Voelker welcomed everyone and thanked them for coming. Don updated the workgroup on
the status of the action items from the last meeting. Only one public comment period would be
required for the schedule with two local input periods. The number of projects in the STIP that
cascaded down would be provided after the STIP is released. Don said the Board of
Transportation has requested regular reports from the Prioritization Office on the progress of the
P4.0 Workgroup. Susan Pullium reviewed the workgroup purpose statement and today’s agenda.
Bobby Walston, Aviation Director, reviewed the P3.0 Aviation Scoring Criteria. Division of Aviation
also performs aerial photography for the Department. There are 72 airports eligible for federal
funds in North Carolina. $500,000 in Statewide Mobility is based in legacy programs and
entitlements. Airports closest to the 375,000 enplanements of the international airports are
Asheville with approximately 200,000 enplanements and then Fayetteville next. There are 62
General Aviation airports. There are no project caps in Division Needs category, but statewide
total funding cannot to exceed $18,500,000. These airports are not DOT assets or on DOT right of
way. Aviation projects are increasing capacity by expanding the airport’s capabilities. Boards that
oversee airports have turnover as they gain new members. Neil Burke described a situation where
two airports have requested reimbursement for projects that are already completed. Bobby said a
letter of intent is necessary in that situation. They have to coordinate the project with the Division
of Aviation. Committing local points for projects that are already completed was discussed. Julie
White asked how many projects are in reimbursement status. Bobby said he thinks there are
several, but his goal is to satisfy them within the year. The project being built already does not
make it rank higher. The ideal number of years for Aviation projects to be committed is 3 years.
Paul Worley, Rail Division Director, discussed the development and constraints for the Rail Division
scoring criteria. He said their knowledge of track structures helps them. Paul reviewed the eligible
project types by funding category. Jon Dees reviewed the P3.0 Rail Scoring Criteria. Rail Division
feels that they can consolidate criteria to make it less complicated. Benefit cost and economic
competiveness is determined using TREDIS. Stephanie Ayers asked about state rail assets not
being eligible for STI. It would be up to the General Assembly to decide how to define state
assets. Matt Day said the CSX project they had submitted wasn’t explained to them well by CSX,
so the RPO didn’t give it any points. Some track projects wouldn’t have any local impacts. In
some cases it is believed the private sector is not willing to work with the MPO/RPO. Any thoughts
on a recommendation the workgroup could provide that would bring about this conversation would
be appreciated. If a project is eligible for local scoring, the railroad needs to work with the
MPO/RPO’s to inform and gain support for the project. Derailment data is not available to us. The
railroad doesn’t notify us of that.
Sterling Baker reviewed the P3.0 Ferry Scoring Criteria. Facility improvements, dolphin
replacement, and ramps & gantries are not available for consideration in criteria. Increasing
capacity is the only way a ramp improvement could be included. The commercial deliveries could
improve the benefit costs of considered projects. The Department needs to invest in technology to
better count the wait time per vehicle. Travel time savings is the hours saved by ferry users when
ferries are utilized rather than driving on alternative route. Sterling was asked how the
1
methodology worked. He said highest submission scored around 75. Frequency of breakdowns
can’t be quantified.
Susan Pullium led a Compass Point group activity. North is Acting – “Let’s do it”; likes to act, try
things, plunge in. East is Speculating – Likes to look at the big picture and the possibilities before
acting. South is Caring – Likes to know that everyone’s feelings have been taken into
consideration and that their voices have been heard before acting. West is paying attention to
detail. West wants to know who, what, when, where and why before acting. Questions were
passed out to gain a consensus of each group. Susan reviewed the answers for each compass
point group.
David Wasserman reviewed the P4.0 Schedule – Local Input Periods. He reminded the group that
a concensus is desired in today’s meeting. If you have two local input periods, you do NOT have
to have two public comment periods – only one is required. Roughly 1/3rd of the funded projects in
the DRAFT STIP Regional Impact category cascaded down from the Statewide Mobility category.
Roughly 1/4th of the funded projects in the DRAFT STIPDivision Needs category cascaded down
from the either the Statewide Mobility or Regional Impact categories. Karyl Fuller and Peggy
Holland said they would recommend Option A (two 60 day local input periods). NCAMPO has also
voted to support Option A with the option to submit all points (Regional Impact and Division Needs)
during the first local input window. Any Division Needs points submitted during the first local input
assignment window will not be considered until the second local input window period has closed.
Don asked the Division engineers if they had any preference. They said they did not. Consensus
was reached on Option A (two 60-day input periods) for the P4.0 Schedule, with the option
to submit all points during the first 60 day window.
The group took some time to discuss outstanding items and questions. Dana said local match is
calculated in each mode differently. Jurisdictions don’t understand it. If we are doing it for a
reason, they need to understand the difference. Legislative commitment on the five year timeline
was discussed. The group asked for clear guidance and the pros and cons for scoring modes.
Are reimbursements available for other modes for projects that have already been completed?
Lauren said it depends on the funding source requirements. Louis said in Aviation’s case the
agreement must be in place to be eligible. They said it still has to be ranked. Julie said she’d like
to know if that has happened. Repayment has to be programmed in the STIP. They would have to
have followed SEPA and go through all the steps. The agreement has to be within the STIP years.
The statute says to give the flexibility if the project is already in the STIP.
Kent Taylor with the Transportation Planning Branch gave a presentation on Traffic Counts and
Seasonal ADT. Julie asked if this is the standard for the industry. Kent said that this is a standard
for traffic monitoring systems in all 50 states. 48 hours is the standard for short term counts. They
also monitor all truck routes. Counts are performed in cycles. County based growth factor is
based on the actual growth for that county for that year. Seasonal factor is used for calculating an
annual average daily traffic (AADT) count. They have urban and rural seasonal factors. Clustering
analysis is performed. What the factors and clusters are will be shared with the group. Data is
collected exactly as requested. The factors are designed to calculate the AADT from a weekday
count. Travel at the recreational facility is unpredictable. The raw counts are much more variable
in the summer time. Analysis to get the peak travel depends on statistic required. Need to know
the geographical area and what time you want it monitored. Kent said you need to define what you
need regarding peak recreational traffic. How big of an area can one count cover? It is based on
2
the pattern. It is not one station that covers a geographic area. Factoring an event into AADT
would cause too much variability. There are Urban, Rural and Recreational patterns. The
Workgroup needs to determine what needs to be counted. Taking what they already have on the
shelf for AADT was discussed. Peak traffic versus peak recreational traffic was discussed. Susan
asked if we need to form a subgroup to work on this topic or is this a whole workgroup discussion.
The Workgroup decided it is a whole work group discussion and they would like to see if it is
possible to come up with a peak factor for consideration. Congestion is also a factor. We want to
continue to explore it. Don said they will research this further.
Hope Morgan, GIS Manager for Emergency Management (NCDPS), came to discuss Emergency
Evacuation Routes. NC Sparta is a position oriented system that they use. Profile data is pulled
form the Office of State Budget. INRIX feed is the next step that they want to add. Hurricane
evacuation routes are the major routes to get people away from the coast. Evacuation zones
around nuclear facility are incident dependent. There are very rare mandatory evacuations. Julie
White asked for a list of evacuations that have taken place. There are many factors that Hope’s
group can include in their analysis. Are there specific routes for nuclear evaluation? Hope said
she’ll check that for Matt. Hope discussed different evacuation scenarios. All evacuations routes
are NC or US routes, except for a few smaller communities at the coast. Don asked the group
what they want to do next with this. Running the analysis would require a lot of predefined query
information. Emergency Management looks at the number of people they are trying to evacuate.
There are no records available of how many people have actually been evacuated. Stephanie said
there has to be a way estimating the number of people or road improvements that could be made
to improve evacuation. Do we prioritize a project higher if it is on an evacuation route? Hurricane
evacuation study can be shared that will help the group with their question. Julie asked if we have
any data that shows loss of life because people could not leave.
Joe Guerre with Cambridge Systematics and Chris Holleyman with Econometrica gave the
Statistical Analysis update. Flags raised during the current step will reviewed during the next step
for transportation-related/data issues. The schedule and next steps were reviewed.
David Wasserman discussed Accessibility/Connectivity criteria. He provided information on the
approved crtieria used for scoring Accessibility/Connectivity as well as options discussed during
P3.0 that we not approved. David also provided some brief information from the University of
Minnesota Accessibility Observatory on this measure. Julie asked how Minnesota is using the
measure [David will follow up with them]. Dana asked the how the average commute time was
figured. Modernization type projects were discussed compared to congestion projects. What
factors could you look at for modernization projects? Julie suggested changing the criteria name.
What is commerce’s strategy with emphasis on how is transportation a part of the overall strategy
and specifically how is accessibility/connectivity part of the overall strategy. A presentation by Dept.
of Commerce was requested at a future meeting. Let’s build something more useful to them.
David said the big picture question should be: overall, did the criteria work? Don requested that
Workgroup members review the Accessibility/Connectivity data and scores from P3.0 to help
answer this question.
David wrapped up the meeting with items on upcoming agendas. Don asked for outstanding
questions or comments. Lauren Blackburn would like to discuss local input points. Lauren asked
how the locals decide on the number of points get made. Karyl explained how she gave points and
said that a roundtable discussion would be useful for that topic.
3
Action Items:
 At a future meeting discuss the timeline of committed projects and those subject to
reprioritization
o Provide by mode the Pros/Cons by number of years
o Confirm legislative intent of 5 years
o What years (actual) are being referenced (5, 7, etc.)
o Clarify preconstruction perspective
 What components would you like to change in Accessibility/Connectivity criteria? Please
go back to review scores
 Gather information on peak factors or continue exploring options
 List of voluntary evacuations – How often and where
 What is Department of Commerce’s strategy to enhance economic development?
Next Meeting: December 1, 2014, 10:00 am – 3:00 pm, RDU Airport Authority
Meeting Attendees:
Stephanie Ayers
Bryce Ball
Rob Stone
Debbie Barbour
Lauren Blackburn
Neil Burke
Amna Cameron
Matt Day
Dana Stoogenke
Don Voelker
David Wasserman
Julie White
Frank Winn
Jeff DeBellis
Patrick Flanagan
Karyl Fuller
Shelly Heath
Mike Holder
Van Argabright
Sterling Baker
Jed Dixon
Brooke Boyle
Tommy Perry
Peggy Holland
George Hoops
Hugh Johnson
Bobby Walston
Kathy Vollert
Joe Guerre
Sarah Lee
Chris Lukasina
Dan Madding
Chris Holleyman
Sandra Stepney
Neil Perry
Tyler Meyer
Jon Dees
Louis Mitchell
Patrick Norman
Paul Worley
Jeff Mann
Susan Pullium
John Rouse
Dan Thomas
Kent Taylor
Hope Morgan
4