TC 05-04-15 Meeting MinutesCOUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation
RE: Transportation Committee Report for Meeting of May 4, 2015
DATE: May 7, 2015
The Transportation Committee met on May 4, 2015 at 8:30 a.m.
Members Present
Chuck DeHaven (voting)
James Racey (voting)
Jason Ransom (Voting)
Lewis Boyer (liaison Stephens City)
Members Absent
Mark Davis (liaison Middletown)
Barry Schnoor (voting)
Gene Fisher (voting)
Gary Oates (liaison PC)
***Items Requiring Action***
1. HB2 Classification Discussion
Staff reviewed the draft classifications and the most recent Secretary of Transportation
presentation to the Commonwealth Transportation Board with the Committee. Staff noted
that while VDOT currently has the County rated as a B, it is the opinion of our local VDOT
partners and staff that within our MPO area we should be rated a C and within our rural
areas we should be rated a D. This it is believed, would make the County more competitive
and gives greater weight to items such as economic development and safety that were
identified as our top priorities regionally early in the process. It was noted that many
localities across the state are requesting adjustments and that VDOT and the CTB are
listening. At the request of the committee, Staff has since followed up with the regional
commission to determine what their conversations with our CTB member would indicate
his feelings are on this. Ms. Shickle (Executive Director of the Northern Shenandoah
Valley Regional Commission) indicated that our CTB member (Mr. Whitworth) is
supportive of localities that request changes to their classification.
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
2
On a Motion by Mr. Ransom that was seconded by Mr. Racey the committee recommended
that the Board endorse a change in classification from B for the entire County to C for the
MPO area and a D for the rural areas. Motion passed unanimously.
'Items Not Requiring Action***
2. Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Improvement Plans
The committee recommended approval with some minor modifications. This item will be
appearing independently as a public hearing item on a future Board agenda.
3. Other
JB/pd
COMMONWEALTH of VIR,GINIA
Office of the
SECRETARY of TRANSPORTATION
House Bill 2 Update
Nick Donohue, Deputy Secretary of Transportation
Chad Tucker- VDOT TMPD
Tommy DiCiulian, PE, VDOT Salem District
April 14, 2015
ff/Z
■l■
House Bill 2 Update
Late February/Early March - dela meetings in each
district to get feedback on measures/process
April/May -- Public Lrobm rent on draft
• Today - Progress on HB2 Pilot Pro"ect Sc ring
May CTB - Revised process presented
•June Gr - f=inal process considered by the Beard
Outline
• Framework and Evaluation Process
• Overview of Pilot Projects
•
Scorecard. and Relative Benefits
• Findings
• Challenges
• Recommended Changes
• Next Steps
HB2 Project Evaluation Process
Factor Weighting Frameworks
Lategory A 35% 10% 25% 10% 10% 10%*
Category B
15%
20%
25%
15%
10% 15%*
Category C
10%
20%
30%
30%
10%
Category D
10%
30%
20%
30%
10%
Note* — For metropolitan planning areas with a population over 200,000 (TPB,
HRTPO, RRTPO, FAMPO, RVTPO), the prioritization process shali aiso
include a factor based on the quantifiable and achievable goals in VTrans
(referred to as the Transportation -Land Use Coordination factor).
Note** -- For Northlerni Virginia and Hampton Roads construction districts,
congestion mitigation is weighted highest among the factors in the
prioritization process.
Draft Area Types
Legend
Overview of Pilot Projects
Train Station
1
1
Bus Expansion
1
1
Fixed Route Transit
1
1
New Location Roadway
2
2
Widen Existing Roadway
8
4
2
1 15
Reconstruction w/ Added
1 1
Capacity
Interchange Improvements
4
8
2
1 15
Bridge Replacement
1
1
Safety
1
1
Multimodal -- Dark and Ride
1
1
Total
15
15;
6
3 39
Illustrative Scorecard Examples
PROJECTNAME
LIMITS OF PROJECT AND JURISDICTION
HB2 PROJECTSCORECARD
SCORE �rtrsrnl , .,rE:�cPI�
r +>F .+ 1E, ulA 118 ❑ C ❑ C1 RELATIVE SCORES
:= Fercerrtile :aFall
EVALUATION MEASURES RAW SCORES WEIGHTED SCORES projects scored
SA—FY
YY.YY
xx'xx
PROJECT SCORE, YYyY
Expected Redut-tton in F-1 r.-nwh R3Ce ,S{r,'AY`r
0
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
$xx,xxx,xxx
Ari i=;ir.., ,e=+9�=l,•'-a . �;f:�C' tdr _.aCii ff n-,. -
sr.;µ
WEIG HTED SC ORE PER TOTAL PROJECT( OST
#�,##�0
IL
;'•�.�C r.�T,"9i1 _Grt:tih F:T:ii`r,�,'�,,
ft.rl
{##}
EC:0110f'+ICUEL,ELC'PMEF1T
Y'a. 'i
XXXX
ir'L' Yli'li,.l-moi - ..- = iid Effiacr,,-
ff
1 -162 -FUNDED PROJECT COST:
$Xxfxxx,xxx
as
L;�trltl;;_( sty: .�•6r.i�ii+,+ �' -"
., ,..
3 iT F,,l
FINAL
PROJECT SCORE, YYyY
xx.xx
0
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
$xx,xxx,xxx
W m
WEIG HTED SC ORE PER TOTAL PROJECT( OST
#�,##�0
IL
Cal CL
(RANKING).
{##}
�
4f�c
1 -162 -FUNDED PROJECT COST:
$Xxfxxx,xxx
as
o
WEIGHTEDS(CIREPER HEI2-FUNDEDPRO)ECTCOST
(RANKING)
(##)
U
,n
I PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DRAFT
cieneral project description goes here along-pithl ey informational
fields from application including :'E++?T E<istrict.d:IPt" and or PC+C..
Map of project location goe:here, EarnplepioAded.
PROJECT READINESS
Locally—ppm,ed PlanningDocmnerrt
Stat e-;-,ppro: ed Planning E10'
Constrained Long -Range Plan ;CLFP?
Tiansportationlnipro;an;ent Program MP-
Preliminary EngineeringStarted
Preliminary Engineering Complete
P.ight-of--: a'3 Started
Pight-of-:°:ar Complete
I IEP-: _ tart,d
IdEPY {on+plet=_
Other: E,escribe,
H,� 2 WDOT*"
x B2 Project Scorecard H
2
Project mama: Route z - Project A
Dtsscription: I -his is � gtneric project description �DRAFT,�i DOT
Sample orecard
Project Location rr
Total Cost --T"500.000 System: HHSMon -Interstate
9 H02 Cost: S500A00 Location: District 9
Hon-HB2 Cost: $2.000,000 Area Type Typology: A
wt> T fiJ5 IPerformanceInformation:
-y Overall Based on Value
d {out of ON)990 Fatal a Severe Crash Rate
Reduction
Within District Based on HB2 Cost 5.2
Effectiveness
2 tett ons) 85%
Project Rated in
Tier 91 (out of d)
Project
i
75
56■Economic Development
■Congestion Mitigation
A8 i
■Accessibility
35 a Safety
.20 Land Use Coordination
1D
a Environmental Quality
0 20 40 60 80 100
Best Possible
Delay 'Savings
In Person -Hours
400
Environments! Quality
?lumber of "ion -SOV isers
Reacted though
Ridesharing Programs,
Increased T,-ansit Jse. and
other Energy Efficiency
Efforts
850
_�QQl17WIIIiC;i��
Tonnage of Freight Goods
Moved throdgh Imimoved
Irite;modai Connectivity
200
Change In Corridor
Population Job
Accessibility
Project Scoring
Cost -Effectiveness
1.20 --- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- — -
1.00 !
H
H
Q�
C
OJ
_d
d �
w
0.606A
B
V
� �C
0.40
0.20 -
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
HB2 Cost Effectiveness
Findings from Initial Scoring of Pilot
Projects
Overall Findings:
• Develop consistent and clear definitions and
criteria for applications
- Minimize interpretation of responses
- Ensure consistency of information provided
• Reduce complexity and improve clarity of certain
measures
- Congestion
Accessibility
- Economic Development
findings from Initial Scoring of Pilot
Projects
Safety Factor Area
• Finding: Inconsistent project scope descriptions -
dictates scope of analysis
• Recommended Action ,rashes as Performance
a
measure- emphasis on Io aflions with greatest p (�tentia],
for fatalities and 'Injures
Finding,-, Insufficient numbeir of i� e'Idents in certain
ca o r
Rut;vrrimend'ec Action,-,. Expand t lar=ger sample size tb
be consistent with federal guidelines- five years
Findings from initial Scoring of Pilot
Projects
Congestion Factor Area
• Finding: Using multiple evaluation techniques based on
locaflon, provided i niconsistent results. For example, a
regional, model ma,,,r provide one answer while a
cakulation based on the Highway Capacity Manual max,
P uv'
ride a different answer JW
• RecommendedAGtf',.on-. Use auniforni,., Gansistent,.., and,
V,
repeatable process that will allow prc)Jkr---W%cIs to be
.pa ably evaluated
Findings from Initial Scoring of Pilot
Projects
Economic Develcopment
• Finding: It is difficult to determine which undeveloped
or underdeveloped parcels vvifthin the project area
should be considered as benefitting from improved
transportation taeilflilty
•Recommended Acfilon: Incorporate levels of
It Ulm S!.K.
commitment- aC.It"I'M; Ile plans, occupancy permits,
water and sewer in place, letters of intent, market
studies, etc.
Potential Changes to Measures
0 Econo-,.mic� developmenit, factor area
-- Undertaking analysis to determine if a re4labilfty
nrie asure can bes 'Inc., nrporatc,-.,,d into this factor area
* Environmental factor area,
® (.','oncern thatf, see essib'Hity for disadvantaged
POPLItations ;s not an environnientai ipstice measure
— CoIncern over iac* of cons it-lieralion cof naturm, historic
and cultural resources
0'b'Ifty faGt(-),r area
Accessi 1 1
CXancern over
apprcrqpriateness
and
deft'ni"t, n a
j(j f
gfess-senfial
desfinatficams55
Next Steps
0 April/May-
- Public comment on draft will be solicited
-Six-Year Improvement Program hearings
0 May CT13- Pilot 'FResults and process revisions
presented
June C. TB - Final pro � ss considered by Board