The URL can be used to link to this page

TCAgenda2023August281.SmartScale Policy Updates 1.A.SmartScale Policy Update Presentation 2.Capital Improvement Plan Update 2.A.Capital Improvement Plan Update 3.Truck Restriction Request 3.A.Truck Restriction Request 4.County Project Updates 4.A.County Project Updates 5.Other 5.A.Other AGENDA TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2023 8:30 AM FIRST-FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM FREDERICK COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA TC08-28-23SmartScalePolicyUpdates.pdf TC08-28-23CapitalImprovementPlanUpdate.pdf TC08-28-23TruckRestrictionRequest.pdf TC08-28-23CountyProjectUpdates.pdf TC08-28-23Other.pdf 1 Transportation Committee Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: August 28, 2023 Agenda Section: SmartScale Policy Updates Title: SmartScale Policy Update Presentation Attachments: TC08-28-23SmartScalePolicyUpdates.pdf 2 3 SMART SCALE Retreat July 19, 2023 Location: Fredericksburg, VA Start Time Session Title Format Presenter(s) 8:30 AM Welcome Large group session Secretary (ATCS to support) Process Overview Large group session OIPI/VDOT Summary of Briefings to Date Large group session ATCS Analysis and Recommendations to Date Large group session ATCS Noon Lunch Additional Analysis Large group session ATCS/OIPI Summary of Feedback Heard Today Large group session ATCS Schedule and Next Steps Large group session ATCS Final Comments and Questions Q&A – CTB ATCS 4:30 PM Adjourn Large group session Deputy Secretary (ATCS to support) 4 Retreat Presentation 5 SMART SCALE Process Review Retreat July 19, 2023 6 •Retreat Objectives –slide 4 •Process Overview o History and Purpose –slide 5 o Application Scoring Methodology –slide 7 o Project Funding Steps –slide 37 •Summary of Briefings to Date o Stakeholder Groups –slide 42 o CTB Briefings To Date –slide 43 o Comments and Feedback Received To Date –slide 44 o Survey Response Overview –slide 46 o Potential Issues Identified –slide 47 2 CTB Retreat Agenda 7 •Analysis and Recommendations to Date o Urban Preference –slide 48 o Leveraged Funding Preference –slide 49 o Small Project Preference –slide 50 o Refine HPP Definition and Eliminate Step 2 –slide 52 o Application Quality –slide 53 o Forward-Looking Congestion Factor –slide 54 o Forward-Looking Economic Development Factor –slide 55 o One-Factor Majority –Land Use Factor –slide 56 •Additional Analysis o Low-Scoring Projects –slide 57 o Factor Weighting –slide 59 •Summary of Feedback Heard Today –slide 77 •Schedule and Next Steps –slide 78 •Final Comments and Questions 3 CTB Retreat Agenda 8 •Review Briefings to Date •Confirm External and Internal Teams addressed the concerns and biases from Stakeholder Survey •Confirm concerns from the stakeholders were addressed •Discuss potential solutions recommended •Provide direction to the team on final recommendation 4 RETREAT OBJECTIVES What Do We Want To Accomplish Today? 9 •Prior to SMART SCALE, project decisions were driven by the entities that controlled the funding. •The old construction formula was often referred to as the 40/30/30 formula o Interstate (CTB) and Unpaved Roads (Counties) were addressed first, with the balance distributed o 40% for the primary system -allocated by the CTB o 30% to counties for secondary routes –controlled by the Local Board of Supervisors o 30% to cities and towns for urban routes –controlled by City/Town Council •No objective criteria to guide project selection, which lead to shifting priorities •Partially funded projects o Wasted time and resources waiting for funding to accrue o Project development was often measured in decades as opposed to years o Project could be very far along in the design process and not get constructed 5 History and Purpose PROCESS OVERVIEW 10 •SMART SCALE was created to improve the transparency and accountability of project selection and stabilize the Six-Year Improvement Program •HB 2 of the 2014 General Assembly (SMART SCALE) required the implementation of a formal prioritization process by June 2016 o Needed to remove the political element and select projects that bring the best value •It reformed Virginia’s transportation programming process by requiring the use of a data- driven, outcome-based prioritization process o SMART SCALE has improved the transparency and accountability of project selection o The process scores projects based on an objective and fair analysis that is applied statewide •SMART SCALE is a tool to help CTB select projects that provide the greatest benefits for tax dollars spent 6 History and Purpose PROCESS OVERVIEW 11 7 The SMART SCALE Process CTB Policy – SYIP Development, Prioritization Process, Cost Overrun Policy Funding Scenario HPP Eligibility DGP Eligibility Staff Scenario Steps Consensus Scoring Weighting Typology Methods Post-SYIP Delivery Project Change Virginia Code –HB2, HB 1887, HB 1414 •Adjusting in one area can affect another •A singular issue identified might be resolved by adjusting multiple components of the process •A singular process adjustment might resolve multiple issues •Portal •Eligibility •Communications •Readiness Procedural (OIPI and Agency Staff) PROCESS OVERVIEW 12 8 Virginia Code –HB2, HB 1887, HB 1414 HB2 Defines the Process •Effective July 1, 2014 (as defined in §33.2-214.1), required the development of a prioritization process that the CTB was to use for project selection by July 2016. •Benefit-Cost Relationship Required •Six Factor Areas Required (SCALE) –safety, congestion mitigation, accessibility, land use*, economic development, and environmental quality •Multi-Modal Project Evaluation –must consider highway, transit, rail, roadway, technology operational improvements, and transportation demand management strategies •Meet a VTrans Need •Projects must be fully funded when added to the SYIP *Note: Land Use is required in populations over 200,000 defined in the 6th enactment clause PROCESS OVERVIEW The SMART SCALE Process Driven by the Code of Virginia 13 9 Virginia Code –HB2, HB 1887, HB 1414 HB1887 and HB 1414 Define Funding to Programs •HB 1887 (Rounds 1 –3) o Established State of Good Repair (SGR -45%) High-Priority Projects Program (HPP –27.5%) and the District Grant Program (DGP –27.5%) •HB 1414 (Rounds 4 –5) o Restructured Virginia’s transportation funding model and updated program shares o Enacted changes to statewide revenue sources and regional funding sources o Imposed the regional fuels tax in all areas of the Commonwealth where it is not imposed to be used in DGP addition to the formula DGP (referred to as the Supplement District Grant) PROCESS OVERVIEW The SMART SCALE Process Driven by the Code of Virginia 14 10 Virginia Code –HB2, HB 1887, HB 1414 PROCESS OVERVIEW The SMART SCALE Process Driven by the Code of Virginia 15 11 Virginia Code –HB2, HB 1887, HB 1414 PROCESS OVERVIEW The SMART SCALE Process Driven by the Code of Virginia 16 1.Six-Year Improvement Program Development Policy •Defines SMART SCALE Schedule •Defines SMART SCALE Funding Scenario Steps 2.Policy for Implementation of the SMART SCALE Project Prioritization Process •Defines project eligibility –by entity and amount (cap limits) •Defines Typology, Factor and Measure Weighting •Adopts Technical Guide 3.SMART SCALE Cost Overrun Policy •Outlines re-scoring process when a funded project has significant changes to either the scope or cost of the project 12 CTB Policy –SYIP Development, Project Prioritization Process, Cost Overrun Policy PROCESS OVERVIEW The SMART SCALE Process CTB Policy 17 13 The SMART SCALE Process Funding Program Eligibility Funding Scenario HPP Eligibility DGP Eligibility PROCESS OVERVIEW 18 14 The SMART SCALE Process Funding Program Eligibility Procedural Project Eligibility PROCESS OVERVIEW 19 15 The SMART SCALE Process Application, Screening, and Validation Procedural Portal Project Eligibility Readiness PROCESS OVERVIEW 20 16 The SMART SCALE Process Area Type and Factor Weighting Scoring Weighting Typology PROCESS OVERVIEW 21 17 The SMART SCALE Process Factors and Measures Scoring Weighting Methods PROCESS OVERVIEW 22 18 The SMART SCALE Process Normalization Scoring Methods PROCESS OVERVIEW 23 19 The SMART SCALE Process Funding Scenario Steps Funding Scenario Steps PROCESS OVERVIEW 24 Post-SYIP Delivery 20 The SMART SCALE Process –Post Selection Program Delivery PROCESS OVERVIEW 25 21 The SMART SCALE Process –Post Selection Project Change Process Post-SYIP Project Change PROCESS OVERVIEW 26 22 Summary of the SMART SCALE Rounds PROCESS OVERVIEW 27 Summary of the SMART SCALE Rounds 23 PROCESS OVERVIEW •Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Expansion •VRE Fredericksburg Line Capacity Expansion •Crystal City Metro Improvements •Richmond Highway Corridor Improvements •I-64 Peninsula Widening, Gap Widening, High-Rise Bridge •Intercity Rail Service Expansion along US-29 & I-81 Corridors 28 •Application timing and documentation•Common-sense engineering principles•Two -year cycle established •Application timing extended•Project eligibility and readiness bar raised •Pre-application limits and schedule modifications•Project eligibility restrictions•Study requirements refined •Cost estimating transparency and consistency Environmental •Considered impact Safety •Added crash types with injuries Land Use•Added the second measure •Began cap limitsEconomic Dev•Distinguished the level of readiness for site plansLand Use•Added non-work accessibility Congestion•Expanded to off-peakSafety•Targeted crash reduction•Modified weightings Environmental•New emissions measures•Right-size impact buffer Land Use•Expanded to rural localities 24 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Committed to a regular lessons- learned process through engagement with partners and applicants Committed to research and testing of best practices Committed to a process of adjustments and feedback, supported by improved tools, training, and guidance for applicants Improvement History External review group, surveys, and regional workshops CTB Retreat, nine regional meetings, and applicant feedback Fall meetings, public comment, and applicant feedback Online tools and meetings to work through pandemic disruptions IMPROVEMENTS ProceduralPolicySMART SCALE Continuous Improvement PROCESS OVERVIEW 29 Scoring Methodology Scorecard Walk-Through 25 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 30 Scoring Methodology Congestion Mitigation The Congestion Mitigation measures evaluate how the project affects the efficiency of the road network in terms of capacity and delay. •C.1 (50%): The total increase (across all modes) in how many people are moving through the project limits during the peak period. o Several different methodologies are used to conduct the analysis o Measured in persons •C.2 (50%): The reduction in total time for all people to move through the project limits during the peak period. o Uses the same methodologies as C1 o Measured in person-hours of delay 26 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 31 •Round 2 Problem Identified 1.Phased improvement projects (broken into pieces) were scoring similar results to the entire project 2.Congestion score evaluates 10 years in the future, but existing problems might be devalued •Round 3 Implemented Solution 1.Accounted for an increase in person miles traveled allowed within the capacity of the facility 2.Applied current-day traffic volumes to the calculation •Round 3 Problem Identified 1.Method did not adequately account for recurring congestion on weekends •Round 4 Implemented Solution 1.Updated congestion methods to include consideration of weekend data to calculate the duration of peak period 27 Scoring Methodology Congestion Measure Continuous Improvement PROGRAM OVERVIEW 32 Scoring Methodology Safety Measure The Safety measures evaluate how the project addresses multimodal transportation safety concerns in terms of crash reduction. •S.1 (70%): The reduction in the number of fatal and injury crashes o Fatal and severe injury crashes are weighted more heavily than others o The estimated crash reduction is based on the project’s improvements •S.2 (30%): The reduction in the rate of fatal and injury crashes o Rate is calculated per 100 million Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) through the project area 28 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 33 •Round 1 Problem Identified 1.Only evaluated fatality (K) and severe injuries (A), which can be random or unrelated to the design •Round 2 Implemented Solution 1.Added crash types lower injury level crash types (B and C) •Round 2 Problem Identified 1.Driving under the influence crashes are hard to design for 2.Death and/or injury level is often related to the age of the vehicle and/or the age of the occupant •Round 3 Implemented Solution 1.Removed crashes that are the result of driving under the influence 2.Applied a ‘blended’ weighting equivalent property damage scale used by FHWA •Round 3 Problem Identified 1.Crash Modification Factors overestimate project benefits 2.Rate measure weighting of 50% was benefiting extremely low-volume roads •Round 4 Implemented Solution 1.Targeted crash modification factors implemented 2.Move from S.1 50% and S.2 50% to 70%/30% split in measure weighting –support CTB safety targets 29 Scoring Methodology Safety Measure Continuous Improvement PROGRAM OVERVIEW 34 Scoring Methodology Accessibility The Accessibility measures evaluate how the project addresses household access to jobs and to multiple mode choices. •A.1 (60%): Change in average job accessibility within 45 minutes (within 60 minutes for transit projects). o Assesses the average change in access to employment opportunities •A.2 (20%): Change in average jobs accessibility for disadvantaged populations within 45 minutes (within 60 minutes for transit projects). o Uses the same accessibility tool as A.1 •A.3 (20%): Assessment of the project support for connections between modes and promotion of multiple transportation choices. o Assigns scailing points for projects that increase connections between modes, and are then multiplied by the number of non-single occupancy users 30 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 35 •Round 2 Problem Identified 1.Accessibility tool was very slow to run (up to 24 hours) and calculate the change in access to jobs for each project 2.Common walk speed assumed regardless of available infrastructure •Round 3 Implemented Solution 1.Modified the tool and moved to cloud-based system to improve the efficiency of analysis –allow multiple projects to run simultaneously –still slow 2.Implemented methodological tweaks to better estimate walk speed based on ped infrastructure available. •Round 4 Implemented Solution 1.Upgraded accessibility modeling tool to TransCAD –much faster –measured in minutes 31 Scoring Methodology Accessibility Continuous Improvement PROGRAM OVERVIEW 36 Scoring Methodology Economic Development The Economic Development measures evaluate how each project supports economic development and improves goods movement. •ED.1 (60%): Project consistency with applicant-identified economic development plans and policies. o Uses a point-based scoring system to determine project consistency with local plans, which is multiplied by the planned building square-footage •ED.2 (20%): Increase in access to critical intermodal locations, interregional freight movement, and/or freight-intensive industries. o Proximity to intermodal locations combined with freight tonnage moved •ED.3 (20%): Improvement in travel time reliability attributed to the project. o Determines the project’s expected impact on improving reliability which retains businesses and increases economic activity 32 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 37 •Round 1 Problem Identified 1.Types of projects evaluated do not influence growth over the same impact area (5 miles) 2.In many localities zoning doesn’t have a direct relationship to current growth patterns •Round 2 Implemented Solution 1.Restricted the distance around certain types of projects where benefits may be considered 2.Eliminated the extra scaling point for having zoning in place •Round 2 Problem Identified 1.Zoned properties were still contributing to skewed results •Round 3 Implemented Solution 1.Zoned properties must get primary access from the project 2.Project and site must be specifically referenced in local and regional planning documents to get point 33 Scoring Methodology Economic Development Measure Continuous Improvement PROGRAM OVERVIEW 38 Scoring Methodology Land Use Coordination The Land Use Coordination measures evaluate the number of people within the area within a walkable distance of the project to determine non-work accessibility. •L.1 (50%): Amount of population and places of interest currently located within 1 mile of the project area. o Determines the degree to which the project area supports populations that on average have a reduced impact on the transportation network •L.2 (50%): Expected increase in the amount of population and places of interest located within 1 mile of the project area between present-day and 2030. o Determines the degree to which the project area supports local comprehensive plans and future development 34 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 39 •Round 1 Problem Identified 1.Projects future density but does not consider growth between today and the future •Round 2 Implemented Solution 1.Added L.2 Increase in Transportation Efficient Land Use •Round 2 Problem Identified 1.Subjectivity on whether an area meets certain criteria •Round 3 Implemented Solution 1.Added Non-Work Accessibility and eliminate subjectivity to capture degree to which development patterns meet certain criteria •Round 4 Problem Identified 1.Concerns that a 3-mile buffer is excessive to consider reasonable 2.Land Use is a large component of the score, and only applied in Area Types A & B •Round 5 Implemented Solution 1.Updated buffer to 1-mile walk area 2.Added Land Use to Area Types C &D with modifications to factor weightings 35 Scoring Methodology Land Use Measure Continuous Improvement PROGRAM OVERVIEW 40 Scoring Methodology Environmental The Environmental measures evaluate how projects reduce pollutant emissions and minimize the project’s impact on natural and cultural resources. •E.1 (100%): Potential of the project to improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. o Potential air quality improvement is based on project benefits to non-Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) users and reduced delay for freight movement. •E.2 (0% –Subtract up to 5 points): Potential of the project to minimize impact on natural and cultural resources located within project buffer. o Evaluates impact based on total potential sensitive acreage impacted within a variable buffer based on expected Right-of-Way impact. 36 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 41 •Round 1 Problem Identified 1.Projects receiving a significant benefit score without providing any other benefits •Round 2 Implemented Solution 1.Determined points by scaling environmental score based on impact on the environment 2.Potential impact scaled by points in all other measures •Round 3 Problem Identified 1.Treating impact to the environment as benefit •Round 4 Implemented Solution 1.Converted E.2 to subtractive measure (subtracting up to 5 points) 2.E.1 measure weight changed to 100% •Round 4 Problem Identified 1.E.1 measure intent to Greenhouse Gas Emissions, but isn’t quantified 2.E.2 measure applies a ¼ mile buffer to all project types •Round 5 Implemented Solution 1.Improved point system and quantified GHG offset for E.1 2.Applied a tiered buffer system to E.2 related to expected harm ranging from 30 feet to ¼ mile 37 Scoring Methodology Environmental Measure Continuous Improvement PROGRAM OVERVIEW 42 38 Funding Scenario Steps Review PROGRAM OVERVIEW 43 39 Funding Scenario Steps Review Step 1 PROGRAM OVERVIEW DGP Running Total Not eligible for DGP Not eligible for DGP Not eligible for DGP *Cost in millions Sort based on SMART SCALE Score Step 1 –Fund top-scoring projects within each district eligible for DGP funds using DGP funds until remaining funds are insufficient to fund the next highest-scoring project. APP ID DISTRICT APPLICANT DGP HPP TOTAL COST* SMART SCALE REQUEST* BENEFIT SCORE SMART SCALE SCORE (1) DGP* $121.6 1 District A Locality x $4.7 $4.7 5.45 11.63 $4.7 $116.9 2 District A MPO x $15.8 $15.8 13.38 8.46 $0.0 $0.0 3 District A Locality x $11.3 $11.3 8.93 7.89 $11.3 $105.6 4 District A Locality x $12.8 $12.8 9.81 7.66 $12.8 $92.8 5 District A Locality x $8.3 $8.3 5.90 7.11 $8.3 $84.5 6 District A Locality x x $9.3 $9.3 6.13 6.63 $9.3 $75.2 7 District A Locality x $8.6 $8.6 5.50 6.40 $8.6 $66.6 8 District A PDC x $20.5 $20.5 12.37 6.02 $0.0 $0.0 9 District A Locality x $10.0 $10.0 5.97 5.94 $10.0 $56.6 10 District A Locality x x $14.9 $14.9 8.10 5.44 $14.9 $41.7 11 District A Locality x x $14.1 $14.1 7.40 5.26 $14.1 $27.6 12 District A MPO x $20.1 $20.1 9.22 4.60 $0.0 $0.0 13 District A Locality x x $4.9 $4.9 2.24 4.58 $4.9 $22.7 14 District A Locality x $17.0 $17.0 7.21 4.25 $17.0 $5.8 44 Step 2 –Fund top scoring projects within each district that would have otherwise been funded with available DGP funds but were not because they are only eligible for HPP funds, using High Priority Projects Program funds, as long as their SMART SCALE cost does not exceed the total amount of DGP funds available to be programmed based on their rank. 40 Funding Scenario Steps Review Step 2 PROGRAM OVERVIEW DGP Running Total Fund with HPP Fund with HPP SMART SCALE $ exceeds remaining DGP Sort based on SMART SCALE Score *Cost in millions APP ID DISTRICT APPLICANT DGP HPP TOTAL COST* SMART SCALE REQUEST* BENEFIT SCORE SMART SCALE SCORE (1) DGP*(2) HPP* $121.6 1 District A Locality x $4.7 $4.7 5.45 11.63 $4.7 $0.0 $116.9 2 District A MPO x $15.8 $15.8 13.38 8.46 $0.0 $15.8 $101.1 3 District A Locality x $11.3 $11.3 8.93 7.89 $11.3 $0.0 $89.8 4 District A Locality x $12.8 $12.8 9.81 7.66 $12.8 $0.0 $77.0 5 District A Locality x $8.3 $8.3 5.90 7.11 $8.3 $0.0 $68.7 6 District A Locality x x $9.3 $9.3 6.13 6.63 $9.3 $0.0 $59.4 7 District A Locality x $8.6 $8.6 5.50 6.40 $8.6 $0.0 $50.8 8 District A PDC x $20.5 $20.5 12.37 6.02 $0.0 $20.5 $30.3 9 District A Locality x $10.0 $10.0 5.97 5.94 $10.0 $0.0 $20.2 10 District A Locality x x $14.9 $14.9 8.10 5.44 $14.9 $0.0 $5.3 11 District A Locality x x $14.1 $14.1 7.40 5.26 $14.1 $0.0 $0.0 12 District A MPO x $20.1 $20.1 9.22 4.60 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 13 District A Locality x x $4.9 $4.9 2.24 4.58 $4.9 $0.0 $0.0 14 District A Locality x $17.0 $17.0 7.21 4.25 $17.0 $0.0 $0.0 45 Step 3 –Fund projects with a benefit relative to SMART SCALE score greater than an established threshold based on the highest project benefit using HPP funds until funds are insufficient to fund the next unfunded project with the highest project benefit. 41 Funding Scenario Steps Review Step 3 PROGRAM OVERVIEW *Cost in millions Fund with HPP Fund with HPP Sort based on Benefit SMART SCALE $ exceeds remaining HPP APP ID DISTRICT APPLICANT DGP HPP TOTAL COST* SMART SCALE REQUEST* BENEFIT SCORE SMART SCALE SCORE (1) DGP*(2) HPP* 15 Statewide CTB x x $756.4 $161.4 57.78 3.58 $0.0 $0.0 16 District B Transit x $28.2 $26.7 26.98 10.10 $0.0 $26.7 17 District C MPO x $23.9 $15.1 25.82 17.16 $0.0 $15.1 18 District C Locality x x $26.0 $22.8 24.79 10.89 $22.8 $0.0 19 District F MPO x $37.6 $31.1 23.36 7.52 $0.0 $0.0 20 District C PDC x $39.6 $23.6 22.00 9.34 $0.0 $23.6 21 District H Locality x x $244.5 $209.0 20.69 0.99 $1.0 $0.0 46 42 Internal Review Technical Advisory Committee Meets Twice Monthly External Review Recommendations Executive Working Group Meets Monthly Commonwealth Transportation Board Regular Updates SUMMARY OF BRIEFINGS TO DATE SMART SCALE Process Review Stakeholder Groups 47 43 SUMMARY OF BRIEFINGS TO DATE Month Topics February SMART Scale Review background, Statistical Analysis overview, Survey Assessment overview, Procedural Review overview April Survey Response Overview, Perceptions from the Process Review Survey, Initial Key Takeaways, Themes from CTB One-on-One Meetings, Highlights from Respondent Letters / Emails May SMART Scale Program History, Potential Issues: Schedule and Application Quality June Process Bias Analysis –Small Projects and Bike & Ped, Scoring and Funding Analysis –One-factor Majority and Funding Approach July Process Bias Analysis –Urban and Leveraged Projects, Scoring and Funding Modifications, Revisiting Previous Recommendations, Public Outreach Updates CTB Briefings To Date 48 •Overarching Comments o Process seems to be transparent; however, would be helpful if simplified o The SMART SCALE process works, but look for opportunities to be more forward-thinking o Concerns regarding cost estimation and contingencies –consider requiring local funding commitment o Applicants are focused on projects that will be selected and not necessarily value add •Small Projects o Potential favoritism towards smaller projects and not higher priority projects that are needed o Need projects that are efficient to deliver and fewer projects that are more impactful o Focus on standards that make facilities for non-motorized modes comfortable for users •Factor Weighting o Safety factor weighting is too low (and surveys showed that safety is the most important factor) o Land use weighting is too high o Different views on weighting for congestion factor o Economic Development Factor is not working the way it is intended to 44 SUMMARY OF BRIEFINGS TO DATE Comments and Feedback Received To Date –CTB 49 •Overarching process review comments o SMART SCALE process benefits smaller projects o Examine mid-range option for application cap limit reduction o Concern regarding potential workload shift to MPOs/PDCs due to potential application cap limit reduction o Enhance coordination between VDOT and MPOs on projects of regional significance •Suggestions on adjustments to project scoring / factors o Emphasize equity and environmental quality (greenhouse gas emissions) in project scoring o Refine multimodal accessibility measure o Adjustments to specific thresholds / metrics o Incorporate military routes into methodology •Suggestions on improving the SMART SCALE applicant experience o Reconsider requirement of cost estimation as part of application submittal o Ensure consistency in applicant requirements for small and large communities o Change Tier 1 application limits to meet the needs of medium sized areas in Virginia o Provide an opportunity to amend applications 45 SUMMARY OF BRIEFINGS TO DATE Comments and Feedback Received To Date –Applicants 50 46 SUMMARY OF BRIEFINGS TO DATE Familiarity with SMART SCALE Most external survey respondents felt moderately or extremely familiar with the SMART SCALE process, and indicated that they have applied for a SMART SCALE project in the past Funding the Right Projects 71% of external survey respondents who responded feel that SMART SCALE is funding the right projects, with 50% indicating they feel a good mix of projects are funded Potential Biases Exist Feelings of potential biases exist toward urban and smaller projects; however, external survey respondents largely indicate a positive impression towards the SMART SCALE process Changes to SMART SCALE process Scoring criteria and the application process were the top two answers for what should change and what should remain the same in the SMART SCALE process SMART SCALE Program Stakeholder Survey 51 47 Potential Issues Identified Indentified Issue Detail Month Application Quality Staff resources are stretched to dedicate to applicant support and application quality May Process Biases Applicants may submit projects that they think will be successful, not necessarily the highest priority June Low Scoring Projects Some districts may have lower SS scores than in other districts, inconsistent with a statewide prioritization process June Funding Step Steps to apply funding June Forward-Looking Process Process should be more forward-looking to account for future traffic and future economic development July Emphasis on Safety Priority Safety is an increasing problem that warrants a higher priority in the prioritization process July One Factor Majority Land use factor has a significant number of projects funded on only that category July Disconnect Between Need & Benefit Demonstrating a benefit in the factor area related to the Vtrans need for which they were screened in July Flexibility in Project Change Process SMART SCALE project change process is overly burdensome and interupts normal project development issues September Project Performance Are the projects performing like we said they would? Is the ultilization matching predictions?September SUMMARY OF BRIEFINGS TO DATE 52 48 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DATE •Urban bias was the most frequently commented bias in the survey “Do you think the current process is biased in any way (urban/rural, large/small projects, mode, etc.)?” (yes/no & free text response) •There is not a consistent bias toward urban projects in the SMART SCALE program •Urban area projects have higher success rate than rural area projects based on the number of projects but for the amount funded, the success rate between urban and rural projects is even •Submitted and funded amounts were higher in urban areas, especially in HPP funding No Yes 41% 59% Survey Response Conclusion Action: No specific action recommended Perception:Urban projects have been recommended for funding more often than rural projects 53 49 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DATE •A vast majority of survey respondents believe that Leveraged Funding Policy is good policy “The SMART SCALE scoring process positively weighs applications that include committed project funding from other sources (often regional or local). In your opinion, is this good public policy and an appropriate way to value the Commonwealth’s investment?” (yes/no) •While leveraged projects generally have slight edge over non-leveraged projects overall, the advantage is much more prominent for SMART SCALE funded projects greater than $30M •There is not a bias toward urban leveraged projects over rural leveraged projects, however urban areas utilize leverage funding more than rural areas No Yes 20% 80% Survey Response Conclusion Action: No specific action recommended Perceptions:1) Leveraged projects are more successful than non- leveraged projects, 2) Urban areas are more likely to have leveraged projects 54 50 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DATE •One area of perceived bias identified in the SMART SCALE Process Review Survey responses was “Small Project” “Do you think the current process is biased in any way (urban/rural, large/small projects, mode, etc.)?” (yes/no & free text response) •Small Projects were funded just over 2X more often than larger projects •Small Projects account for 78% in project count and 33% of the total funded amount with HPP being used for small projects •Small Bike & Ped projects were more successful than small Highway projects •Bike & Ped projects have steadily increased in terms of the number of projects and funding amounts both submitted and recommended No Yes 41% 59% Survey Response Conclusion Actions: Refine HPP Definition and Eliminate Step 2 Perception:Small Projects (<$10M) are disproportionately recommended for funding 55 51 CTB Policy Funding Scenario HPP Eligibility DGP Eligibility Staff Scenario Steps Consensus Scoring Weighting Typology Methods Post-SYIP Delivery Project Change Virginia Code •Adjusting in one area can affect another •A singular issue identified might be resolved by adjusting multiple components of the process •Portal •Eligibility •Communications •Readiness Procedural (OIPI and Agency Staff) ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DATE SMART SCALE Prioritization Process 56 52 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DATE •Allocation steps are used to develop staff recommended funding scenario o Step 1 allocates DGP on a district-wide basis o Step 2 allocates HPP on a district-wide basis o Step 3 allocates HPP on a statewide basis •Smaller projects are being submitted as Step 2 eligible (MPO/PDC/Transit Only) •Small Bike & Ped submitted in Step 2 has increased from 1 (Rounds 1 & 2) to 32 (Round 5) •Average project amount request in Step 2 has dropped from $57M (Round 1) to $19M (Round 5) •Refine the HPP definition through CTB Policy o Better define "what" projects of regional or statewide significance are •Eliminate Step 2 and prioritize all HPP statewide by SMART SCALE Score Background Potential Solutions Actions: Refine HPP Definition and Eliminate Step 2 Issue:High Priority Program Is Being Used for Small Projects 57 53 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DATE •Staff resources stretched to dedicate to applicant support and application quality (Round 5 data) o Data –50% bigger SYIP program, same staff o Over 50% of submitted Round 5 applications are “not ready” for scoring at full app submission (90% at pre- application) o 413 Round 5 applications received and 152 recommended for funding (37% recommended for funding) o Time and effort spent on document preparation that ultimately got screened out •Reducing the application caps for all entities to: o Increase quality and focus on priorities o Improve outcomes •Addressing readiness & SMART Portal Streamline o Provides earlier and targeted support to applicants •Tying consensus funding decisions to performance in delivering projects Background Potential Solutions Actions: 1) Reduce application cap limits to 2 and 5, 2) Streamline SMART Portal, 3) Tie consensus funding to performance Issue:Improve Application Quality 58 54 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DATE •Survey Feedback –Projects aren't receiving the full projected benefits as they're analyzed in existing year conditions •Project design requirements accommodate future growth volumes, but congestion scoring is in the current day •Rounds 1 & 2 looked 10 years in the future o Methodology was switched to current-day in Round 3, to prioritize existing problems •Calculate congestion benefits for 10 years in the future o Solution considers major economic development activity in the analysis o Solution has positive downstream calculation impacts on Accessibility, Economic Development, and Environment measures o Will have more impact if weighting adjustments are made Background Potential Solution Action: Calculate congestion benefits for 10 years in the future Issue:Forward-Looking Congestion Factor 59 55 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DATE •Survey identified a disconnect between square footage and economic benefit •Since Round 1, planned or zoned Site Building Square Footage in the vicinity of the proposed transportation project was used as the measure •Last revision to Economic Development was between Rounds 2 and 3 to distinguish the level of readiness for site plans o Methodology was switched to current-day in Round 3, to prioritize existing problems •Engaged VEDP to develop a more forward-looking methodology, which will be brought in September Background Potential Solution Action: Recommendation to CTB in September Issue:Forward-Looking Economic Development Factor 60 56 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DATE •Land Use factor drives total benefits, at a rate of 2X from Round 1 to Round 5 •In Round 5, Land Use accounted for greater than 40% of total benefit score and increased for smaller projects o Bike & Ped projects have the most Land Use benefit •Land Use was expanded to Type C & D in Round 5 •Modify the factor weighting for the Land Use factor o Continue to use Land Use factor to encourage land-use and transportation coordination o No change to the way Land Use is calculated today o Modify how Land Use weighting is applied •Adjustments to other factor areas Background Potential Solution Action: Modify the factor weighting for the Land Use factor Issue:One-Factor Majority –Land Use Factor 61 57 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS –LOW-SCORING PROJECTS •Across all rounds, 91 projects were funded with Project Benefit Scores less than or equal to 1.0 o 13 HPP projects and 78 DGP projects •44 HPP projects with a lower SMART SCALE score funded over HPP projects with a higher SMART SCALE score •Low -scoring projects (Project Benefit Scores less than 1.0) are not being funded on a wide-scale basis o Overall, more rural than urban DGP projects with Project Benefit Scores Below 1.0 were funded •There were no HPP projects funded with a Project Benefit Score less than one in Rounds 4 or 5 •Step 2 process allows HPP projects with lower SMART SCALE score to be funded over HPP projects with higher SMART SCALE score Background Conclusion Action: Refine HPP Definition and Eliminate Step 2 Perception:Lower-Scoring Projects Are Being Funded Over Higher-Scoring Projects 62 58 2 1 13 4 24 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 # of HPP Projects with Lower SMART SCALE Score Funded When HPP Projects with Higher SMART SCALE Score Were Not Funded ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS –LOW-SCORING PROJECTS Low-Scoring HPP Projects Based on SMART SCALE Score •44 HPP projects with a lower SMART SCALE score have been funded over HPP projects with a higher SMART SCALE score. 63 59 Potential Process Changes Factor Perceptions from the Process Review Survey “What do you think is the most important factor that the SMART SCALE process addresses?” (select from range) •Safety was consistently ranked as the most important factor by external respondents (62%) •Congestion mitigation was the next highest ranking (almost 14%) Breakdown of Highest-Ranking SMART SCALE Factor 185 external respondents answered this question ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS –FACTOR WEIGHTING 64 60 Potential Process Changes Existing Factor Weightings ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS –FACTOR WEIGHTING 65 61 Potential Process Changes Modifications to Land Use Factor •No change to the way Land Use measure is calculated today •Modify how Land Use weighting is applied o Enhances the benefits of the project based on where it is located o Land Use Factor would be used to increase benefit points in other factor areas o Prevents Land Use from being the sole driver of success •Continue to use Land Use Factor to encourage land-use and transportation coordination, but greater emphasis can be placed on Safety and Congestion Factors Scoring Factor Weighting •Measures the number of key non-work destinations that are accessible within a reasonable walking distance, scaled by population density •Project type or scope is not considered in the calculation of the measure ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS –FACTOR WEIGHTING 66 Scoring and Funding Analysis One-factor Majority Impact 62 •Land Use factor drives total benefits, at a rate of 2X from Round 1 to Round 5 •Land Use was expanded to Type C & D in Round 5 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS –FACTOR WEIGHTING 67 •Consider Future Congestion, HPP-Eligible Project Types, and Elimination of Step 2 Potential Process Changes All Land Use at Current Weighting 63 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS –FACTOR WEIGHTING 68 Potential Process Changes Land Use As Weighted in Round 5 64 The average total cost of funded projects raised from $15.1M to $17.9M The average total request of funded projects raised from $10.1M to $11.8M (removes 14 projects) For Principal Improvement Type•Bike & Ped –51 to 39•Highway –98 to 98•Bus Transit –3 to 1 For Area Type•A –39 to 41•B –34 to 31•C –23 to 18•D –56 to 48 •Considers Future Congestion, HPP-Eligible Project Types, and Elimination of Step 2 –No Weighting Changes to Land Use •Small projects not significantly impacted •Bike & Ped Principal projects not significantly impacted ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS –FACTOR WEIGHTING 69 Scoring and Funding Analysis Land Use As Weighted in Round 5 65 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS –FACTOR WEIGHTING 70 Potential Process Changes Modifications to Land Use Factor •In Round 5 –funded projects received a significant portion of overall benefit points from Land Use o 77 projects funded (out of 152) had over 50% of the benefit score from Land Use o Of those 40 projects funded over 80% of the benefit score from Land Use •Recommend up to a 100% bonus on benefits using the Land Use Measure o Looking at Round 5, implementing no other solutions LU boosting other benefits up to 10% (1.4% of benefit score) LU boosting other benefits up to 50% (7% of benefit score) Recommend LU boosting other benefits up to 100% (14% of benefit score) 66 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS –FACTOR WEIGHTING 71 Potential Process Changes Land Use Multiplier 100%, All Land Use Weight to Safety 67 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS –FACTOR WEIGHTING 72 68 SMART SCALE Area Type D Factor Congestion Mitigation Safety Accessibility Economic Development Environment Land use Measure C.1 C.2 S.1 S.2 A.1 A.2 A.3 ED.1 ED.2 ED.3 E.1 E.2 L.1 L.2 Increase in Peak Period Person ThroughputReduction in Peak Period DelayReduction in Fatal and InjuryCrashesReduction in Fatal and InjuryCrash RateIncrease in Access to JobsIncrease in Access to Jobs forDisadvantaged PopulationsIncrease in Access to Multimodal Travel ChoicesSquare Feet ofCommercial/IndustrialDevelopment SupportedTons of Goods ImpactedImprovement to Travel TimeReliabilityPotential to Improve Air QualityImpact to Natural and CulturalResourcesTransportation-EfficientLand DevelopmentIncrease in Transportation-Efficient Land DevelopmentMeasure Value 28.7 0.8 57.1 166.4 2.8 3 143.7 0 0 70,715,400.00 4.1 0 24.2 33.2 persons person hrs.EPDO EPDO / 100M VMT jobs per resident jobs per resident adjusted users adj sq. ft.daily tons adj. buffer time index adjusted points impacted acres access * pop/emp density.h access * pop/emp density change Normalized Measure Value (0-100)1.2 0.1 10.4 0.1 0.5 0.7 11.6 0 0 1.2 4.1 0 35 48.1 Measure Weight (% of Factor)50%50%70%30%60%20%20%60%20%20%100%*50%50% Factor Value 0.6 7.3 2.8 0.2 4.1 41.6 Factor Weight (% of Project Score)10%30%40%10%30%10%5 (max point reduction) 10% Weighted Factor Value 0.1 2.2 2.9 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.0 4.2 Project Benefit 7.2 (0.1+2.9+0.3+0.1+0.4)*1.42 = 5.4 SMART SCALE Cost $22,239,400 SMART SCALE Score (Project Benefit per $10m SMART SCALE Cost) 3.2 = 2.4 (1+[41.6/100]) Multiplier Calc = 1.42 Potential Process Changes Land Use Multiplier 100%, All Land Use Weight to Safety ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS –FACTOR WEIGHTING 73 Potential Process Changes Land Use Multiplier 100%, All Land Use Weight to Safety 69 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS –FACTOR WEIGHTING 74 Potential Process Changes Land Use Multiplier 100%, All Land Use Weight to Safety 70 The average total cost of funded projects raised from $15.1M to $21.4M The average total request of funded projects raised from $10.1M to $13.6M (removes 37 projects) For Principal Improvement Type•Bike & Ped –51 to 12•Highway –98 to 103•Bus Transit –3 to 0 For Area Type•A –39 to 29•B –34 to 27•C –23 to 15•D –56 to 44 •Considers Future Congestion, HPP-Eligible Project Types, and Elimination of Step 2 –Land Use modified and weight given to Safety •Small projects reduced by 44% to 57 •Bike & Ped Principal projects reduced by 76% to 12 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS –FACTOR WEIGHTING 75 Potential Process Changes All Land Use Points to Congestion 71 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS –FACTOR WEIGHTING 76 Potential Process Changes Land Use Multiplier 100%, All Land Use Weight to Congestion 72 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS –FACTOR WEIGHTING 77 Potential Process Changes Land Use Multiplier 100%, All Land Use Weight to Congestion 73 The average total cost of funded projects raised from $15.1M to $21.3M The average total request of funded projects raised from $10.1M to $13.8M (removes 35 projects) For Principal Improvement Type•Bike & Ped –51 to 16•Highway –98 to 100•Bus Transit –3 to 1 For Area Type•A –39 to 31•B –34 to 27•C –23 to 15•D –56 to 44 •Considers Future Congestion, HPP-Eligible Project Types, and Elimination of Step 2 –Land Use modified and weight given to Congestion •Small projects reduced by 42% to 61 •Bike & Ped Principal projects reduced by 69% to 16 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS –FACTOR WEIGHTING 78 74 Potential Process Changes Staff Recommended Factor Weightings ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS –FACTOR WEIGHTING 79 Potential Process Changes Staff Recommended Scenario 75 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS –FACTOR WEIGHTING 80 Potential Process Changes Staff Recommended Scenario 76 The average total cost of funded projects raised from $15.1M to $21.8M The average total request of funded projects raised from $10.1M to $13.9M (removes 39 projects) For Principal Improvement Type•Bike & Ped –51 to 13•Highway –98 to 99•Bus Transit –3 to 1 For Area Type•A –39 to 29•B –34 to 26•C –23 to 14•D –56 to 44 •Considers Future Congestion, HPP-Eligible Project Types, and Elimination of Step 2 –Land Use modified and weight given to a mix of Safety & Congestion •Small projects reduced by 46% to 57 •Bike & Ped Principal projects reduced by 75% to 13 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS –FACTOR WEIGHTING 81 77 SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK HEARD TODAY Summary of Feedback Heard Today 82 78 SCHEDULE AND NEXT STEPS Month Topics August No Meeting September Need and Benefit Relationship, Project Change Process, Project Performance, Cost Estimate Contingency, Economic Development October Present Recommendations November Public Virtual Town Hall December Policy Adoption Schedule and Next Steps 83 Thank you 84 Scorecard Material 85 A project scorecard is prepared for each project that is evaluated and scored. The scorecard is a snapshot of project information and scoring. The following provides a brief overview of the information contained in the scorecard. Project Overview: Includes the project name, a short description of the project, and the application ID. Score Summary: Provides the SMART SCALE score, rank, project cost, and benefit. Project Information: Provides information about the project, applicant, delivery status, requested funding, and project need. Evacuation Route and Resiliency Commitment: Per Virginia Code § 33.2-214.2 B. (ii), it is identified for the applicant whether such projects are located on a primary evacuation route. Per Virginia Code § 33.2-214.2 B. (iii), the applicant self-identifies, whether a project has been designed to be or the project sponsor has committed that the design will be resilient. How to calculate the SMART SCALE Score using the Scoring Table: 1. The Measure Value is determined by assessing the data and characteristics of the project and is then normalized as a percentage of the highest Measure Value in that year’s cohort of projects. 2. The Normalized Measure Value is then multiplied by the Measure Weight. 3.Normalized Measure Values are then summed to equal the Factor Value. 4. The Factor Value is then multiplied by the appropriate Factor Weight for the area type of the project. 5.Project Benefit is then calculated from the sum of the Weighted Factor Values. 6. The SMART SCALE Score is calculated by taking the Project Benefit and dividing by the SMART SCALE Cost (in tens of millions). HOW TO READ A SCORECARD 2 3 4 5 1 3 4 2 1 5 86 Explanations of Measures Values: Congestion Mitigation o Person throughput is the projected increase in persons moving through the project limits during the peak period for current year. o Delay is the projected reduction in cumulative time for all persons to move through the project limits for current year. Safety o Reduction of fatal and injury crashes and crash rate is calculated using the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) methodology used by FHWA. This equates all crash severities on the same scale by assigning a higher weight to fatal and injury crashes than those that are property damage only. o Crash rate reduction is determined by the number of crashes per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). This measure also uses the EPDO methodology stated in the first safety measure. Accessibility o Access to jobs is the number of jobs to which each person has access within 45 minutes (60 minutes for transit projects). The total number of jobs divided by the population equates to jobs per person. o Access to jobs for disadvantaged populations is calculated in the same manner as the first Accessibility measure, only for a particular subset of the population. o Increase to multimodal travel choices is determined by how the project supports travel choices and the connections between modes. Points are assigned based on project characteristics, and are then multiplied by the number of non-single occupancy vehicle users. Economic Development o Square Feet of Commercial and Industrial development supported uses either 50% or 100% of each development’s square footage based on the proximity of the development to the project. A point value is then determined based on how the project fits with local and regional economic plans and policy, and is multiplied by the adjusted square feet of development. o Tons of goods impacted determines the amount of daily freight tons impacted by the project and multiplies the tonnage by a point value based on certain criteria. o Improvement to travel time reliability uses weather event frequency and impact as well as incident frequency and impact along with a buffer index to evaluate the improvement in travel time reliability. This value is multiplied by corridor Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) to scale the results. Environment o Potential to improve air quality based on project benefits to non-single occupancy vehicle (SOV) users and reduced delay for freight movement. o Evaluates potential natural and cultural acreage impacted using a tiered buffer around the project limits, and is a subtractive measure based on the total potential sensitive acreage impacted. Land Use o Future Transportation Efficient Land Use measure reports a project’s non-work accessibility scaled by the surrounding area’s 2030 population and employment density. o Increase in Transportation Efficient Land Use measure reports a project’s non-work accessibility scaled by the surrounding area’s 2010 to 2030 increase in population and employment density. For more information, please reference the SMART SCALE Technical Guide. 87 SMART PROJECT SCALE SCORECARD Riverside Dr. Improvements -Audubon Dr. to Arnett Blvd. "VDDT f:?RPT � Office of I R 10D Planning and Investment Project Id: 9443 Construct new sidewalks across both sides of Riverside Drive from west of Audubon Drive to east of Arnett Boulevard. Install crosswalks and pedestrian countdown signals across eastern and northern legs at Audubon and across the western and northern legs at Arnett. Improve lack of access management on north side of Riverside by providing curb & gutter and clearly designated driveway entrances. Construct bus shelter and bus bay east of Audubon at Biscuitville. Construct sidewalk to connect nearby Riverwalk Trail south of Audubon Drive intersection. Eliminate three median openings and construct RCUT. Construct new right turning lane on westbound Riverside Drive at Audubon. 3.2 #178 OF 394 STATEWIDE SMART SCALE SCORE #8 OF 29 DISTRICTWIDE Submitting Entity: Preliminary Engineering: Right of Way: Construction: Eligible Fund Program: Evacuation Route: Resiliency Commitment: VTRANS Need: Danville City Not Started Not Started Not Started BOTH Yes Yes CoSS, RN, Safety SMART SCALE Requested Funds Total Project Cost Project Benefit Project Benefit/ Total Cost SMART SCALE Area Type D Factor Congestion Safety Accessibility Economic Development Environment Mitigation C: >, u � 0 <ti L 0 � I!! ai � � Q E Q) iii Q) 0 ::, ::, u, u, u, :;::; E ::, .aa. u �E .0 .0 C: "5 i= 0 "5 u 0 0 .ssj ::E "5l I L (.) 0 li u u -, ai � .ifi C: C: .9 o-.9 iii t: u a.<ti <ti -::, � g_ <ti > Q) C: a._,.,u, "' a. u, a. I!! > <tiMeasure Jg Jg u, "' 0 u, ::, g-.s I-e <ti � �a. 8"' � <ti Q) <ti <ti .... "0(1) u, .9 a. a. u.. u.. oU o.E_ .s .a a. <( !!l, <( � u C:.!: .!: .!: Q) --C: 0 <ti "' c:::i .!: .5 S C: ·5 gi ]i � 0 Q).9 z Q) ·- a.C: C: C: -·- .c u..1::? (!) �� .9 � Q) .c 0 �� 0 <ti Q) Q) C:5l (.) ]i II) Cl u :;::;O:: u, "' <ti �� 0 t5 5 (.) .c <ti >>·-C: <ti ::, ::,.c <ti �J e -g �e ::, u "' ::, "'� Q) u � E !\? u, � <ti "' u u <ti L (ti C a.= a. <ti (.) .c Q) Q) I!! Q) L (.) u .� (.) I!! C" 0 Q) {=. E Q) E a, .!:1-a:: 0::(.) 0::(.) .!: .!:O .!: I-(1)(.)0 _a:: a._a:: 28.7 0.8 57.1 166.4 2.8 3.0 143.7 0.0 0.0 70,715,400.0 4.1 0.0 Measure Value persons person hrs. EPDO EPDOI jobs per jobs per adjusted adj sq. fl. dally tons adj. buffer adjusted impacted 100M VMT resident resident users time Index points acres Normalized Measure 1.2 0.1 10.4 0.1 0.5 0.7 11.6 0.0 0.0 1.2 4.1 0.0 Value (0-100) Measure Weight 50% 50% 70% 30% 60% 20% 20% 60% 20% 20% 100% (% of Factor) Factor Value 0.6 7.3 2.8 0.2 4.1 Factor Weight 10% 30% 10% 30% 10% (max point (% of Project Score) reduction) Weighted Factor Value 0.1 2.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.0 Project Benefit 7.2 SMART SCALE Cost $22,239,400 SMART SCALE Score (Project Benefit per $10M 3.2 SMART SCALE Cost) Revised: 01/17/2023 05-08 $22,239,400 $22,239,400 7.2 3.2 Land Use C: C: Q) C: C: Q) .Q E .Q E - a. - a.<ti 0 <ti 0 t:-t:-0 Q) 0 Q) a.> a.> "' Q) "' Q) C: 0 C: 0 i!!u �uI-C:..... <ti 0-' I-C: ..... <ti0 ....J t: -t: -0 iii 0 iii a.--a.--g-�g-�CllW CllW 24.2 33.2 access• access* poplemp poplemp density.h density change. 35.0 48.1 50% 50% 41.6 10% 4.2 LYNCHBURG 88 CTB Briefings to Date 89 SMART SCALE Process Review February 21, 2023 90 •SMART SCALE is the CTB’s project prioritization tool developed to meet the requirements of Chapter 726 of the 2014 Virginia Acts of Assembly. –The SMART SCALE process has been used since 2016 (5 Rounds) to inform the CTB on project funding decisions. •Secretary Miller directed OIPI to conduct a full review of the SMART SCALE Process, in collaboration with VDOT and DRPT. Focused on: –Obtaining input from CTB members, stakeholders, legislators, and other concerned parties –Review of the related Code requirements and the CTB's SMART SCALE Policy –Process analysis of the outcomes of the past funding rounds •The objective of the process review is to ensure it is meeting the intended goal –to identify the projects that provide the greatest benefit for the investment. 2 Background 91 3 Key Components of SMART SCALE Process Review Statistical Analysis Analysis of the performance and outcomes of the past funding rounds Identification of potential biases and related causes Survey Assessments Review of process performance and perceptions Administration, communications, and customer service Procedural Review Identify procedural improvements including application updates, communications, and process improvements Code and Policy Recommend procedural changes Recommend CTB Policy changes Recommended Code changes 92 Potential Biases -Urban vs Rural -Project Size Weighting of the Factor Areas and Typologies -Project Type -Project Size -Geography Evaluation Measures -Factor Analysis -Current Conditions vs Future Conditions Statistical Analysis (ATCS Lead) 93 •Process Review Survey -ATCS Lead –https://publicinput.com/smartscalesurvey –Survey sent to 1,900 portal users and General Assembly, with feedback to be leveraged as key component of this Process Review –Topics include overall impressions of SMART SCALE and identifying elements of SMART SCALE that should remain the same or be improved –Survey open until March 10th •Round Procedural Survey -OIPI Lead –Focused on Round 5 experience by Applicants –Will be released by the end of February 5 Survey Assessments 94 6 Procedural Review (OIPI Lead) SMART Portal •Pre-Scoping, Pre-Application, Application Screening •VTrans, Readiness, Eligibility Scoring •Process, Methodology Communications •Website, References, Training, Videos 95 7 Review Organization Internal Review Technical Advisory Committee Meets Twice Monthly External Review Recommendations Executive Working Group Meets Monthly Commonwealth Transportation Board Update Quarterly 96 External Review •Comprised of ATCS Staff •Purpose –Combine independent Statistical Analysis and Process Review Survey –Provide recommendations for improvements to TAC and EWG 8 Composition of Review Teams Internal Review •Comprised of OIPI, VDOT, and DRPT Staff •Purpose –Complete Round Procedural Review –Summarize statewide Lessons Learned Workshops, observations from the scoring teams, and the Applicant Survey, Ad Hoc Feedback (i.e., Emails and Letters) –Provide recommendations for improvements to TAC and EWG 97 •Composition –Key VDOT Central Office SMART SCALE staff –Key VDOT District Offices SMART SCALE staff –DRPT SMART SCALE staff •Purpose –Synthesize the findings of the External and Internal reviews –Present findings and selected recommendations to the Executive Working Group 9 Technical Advisory Committee 98 •Composition –Secretary’s Office –OIPI Director and key staff –VDOT Commissioner and key staff –DPRT Director and key staff •Purpose –Consider the findings and recommendations presented by the TAC –Recommend procedural, policy and code changes to the Secretary and CTB 10 Executive Working Group 99 11 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Present Recommendations to CTB 10/17 April CTB Meeting4/19 Public & GA Survey Feedback Due 3/10 SMART SCALE Retreat TBD Policy Adoption 12/4 CTB Briefing2/21 Team Milestones / Timeline Survey Assessments Procedural Review Methodology Assessment & Recommendations Applicant Survey Launch TBD Statistical Analysis 100 •February/March: Summary of Process Review •April: Overview of survey and historical data analysis. Summary of findings primarily focused on survey responses; no recommendations provided at this time •July/August: Detailed overview of findings •October: Final findings and recommendations presented •December: Policy Adoption and other recommendations 12 CTB Meeting Outlook 101 Thank you. Please contact Young Ho Chang with any questions or for additional information. Young Ho Chang yhchang@atcsplc.com 571-436-3754 102 SMART SCALE Process Review April 18, 2023 103 •Overview –Team Milestones and Timeline –Process Review Update •External Review –Overview –Survey Response Overview –Perceptions from the Process Review Survey –Initial Key Takeaways –Next Steps •Additional CTB and Respondent Feedback –Themes from CTB Meetings –Highlights from Respondent Letters / Emails •Internal Review –Overview •Concluding Remarks 2 Structure and Objectives of Today’s Presentation 104 3 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Present Recommendations to CTB 10/17 April CTB Meeting4/18 Process Review Survey Feedback Due 3/17 SMART SCALE Retreat7/19 Policy Adoption 12/4 CTB Briefing2/21 Overview: Team Milestones and Timeline Survey Assessments & Public Input Procedural Review Methodology Assessment & Recommendations Statistical Analysis Today’s Meeting Applicant Experience Survey Feedback Due 4/21 Spring Transportation Meetings 4/20 –5/17 Fall Transportation Meetings TBD Virtual Town Hall TBDTBD May/June CTB Meeting 105 •Statistical analysis is ongoing, with initial trends and findings leveraged with survey feedback •Representatives from Virginia Municipal League (VML), Virginia Association of Counties (VACO), and Virginia Transit Association (VTA) have been added to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and currently participate in twice monthly meetings •Recent participation in 1-on-1 meetings with CTB members to gather additional feedback regarding the SMART SCALE process to incorporate into considerations for the Process Review, this includes additional considerations provided during the February CTB meeting 4 Overview: Process Review Update 106 •Process Review Survey –released on January 12th and closed on March 17th –The survey was extended to allow for greater participation –Survey feedback presented today focuses on responses from “external” respondents, those who did not identify as VDOT, State DOT, and Consultant response groups •External survey feedback was reviewed to gain better insight into sentiments from the free text comments made by external survey respondents •Key trends from external respondents have been summarized in the following slides 5 External Review: Overview 107 6 External Review: Survey Response Overview Possible number of external survey respondents: 1,300 Total number of external survey respondents: 398 (31% of possible external survey respondents) See Appendix A (p. 26) for more details Breakdown of External Respondents by Category 108 7 External Review: Perceptions from the Process Review Survey “What is your overall impression of SMART SCALE?” (select from range) 21%47% of funded projects43%21%12% Very positive Somewhat positive Neutral Very negative Somewhat negative 64% of external survey respondents who answered have a somewhat or very positive impression of SMART SCALE 3% 109 8 External Review: Perceptions from the Process Review Survey “Generally, how familiar are you with the SMART SCALE process?” (select from range) 37%38%18% Extremely familiar Somewhat familiar Slightly familiar Moderately familiar Not at all familiar 75% of external survey respondents who answered indicated they are moderately or extremely familiar with the SMART SCALE process 2% 5% 110 9 External Review: Perceptions from the Process Review Survey “Have you applied for a SMART SCALE project in the past?”(yes/no question) of external respondents have not applied for SMART SCALE projects in the past of external respondents have applied for SMART SCALE projects in the past No Yes 41% 59% 111 10 External Review: Perceptions from the Process Review Survey “In general, do you think SMART SCALE is funding the right projects?” (yes/no question) of external respondents feel that SMART SCALE is not funding the right projects of external respondents feel that SMART SCALE is funding the right projects No Yes 29% 71% See Appendix B (p. 27) for more details 112 11 External Review: Perceptions from the Process Review Survey “The SMART SCALE scoring process positively weighs applications that include committed project funding from other sources (often regional or local). In your opinion, is this good public policy and an appropriate way to value the Commonwealth’s investment?”(yes/no question) of external respondents think this is not a good public policy or an appropriate way to value the Commonwealth’s investment of external respondents think this is a good public policy and an appropriate way to value the Commonwealth’s investment No Yes 20% 80% 113 12 External Review: Perceptions from the Process Review Survey “Do you think a good mix of SMART SCALE projects are being funded?” (yes/no question) of external respondents feel that SMART SCALE is not funding a good mix of projects of external respondents feel that SMART SCALE is funding a good mix of projects No Yes 20% 50% of external respondents were not sure whether a good mix of SMART SCALE projects are being funded Not sure 30% See Appendix C and D (p. 28 and 29) for more details 114 13 External Review: Perceptions from the Process Review Survey of external respondents feel that biases do not exist in the SMART SCALE process of external respondents feel that biases exist in the SMART SCALE process “Do you think the current process is biased in any way (urban/rural, large/small projects, mode, etc.)?”(yes/no question) No Yes 41% 59% See Appendix E (p. 30) for more details 115 •66% of external respondents responded to this question •Of those that responded, 59% said yes •These are the most frequent areas of perceived bias: 14 External Review: Perceptions from the Process Review Survey Urban Small project Application process “Do you think the current process is biased in any way (urban/rural, large/small projects, mode, etc.)?” (yes/no & free text response) 116 15 External Review: Perceptions from the Process Review Survey “What do you think is the most important factor that the SMART SCALE process addresses?” (select from range) •Safety was consistently ranked as the most important factor by external respondents (62%) •Congestion mitigation was the next highest ranking (almost 14%) See Appendix F (p. 31) for more details Breakdown of Highest-Ranking SMART SCALE Factor 185 external respondents answered this question 117 •37% of external respondents responded to this question •Of those that responded, 67% provided factors to be considered •These are the most frequent factors: 16 External Review: Perceptions from the Process Review Survey Equity Livability Non-Motorized Benefits Resilience “Are there other factors that should be considered?” (free text response) 118 •43% of external respondents responded to this question •Of those that responded, 92% provided feedback regarding elements that should be changed •These are the most frequent elements to be changed: 17 External Review: Perceptions from the Process Review Survey “What elements of SMART SCALE should be changed?” (free text response)Scoring changes Application process Transparency Project Timeliness 119 •34% of external respondents responded to this question •Of those that responded, 90% provided feedback regarding whether SMART SCALE should remain the same •These are the most frequent elements to remain the same: 18 External Review: Perceptions from the Process Review Survey “What elements of SMART SCALE should remain the same?” (free text response)Scoring criteria Application process All elements Transparency 120 19 External Review: Initial Key Takeaways Familiarity with SMART SCALE Most external survey respondents felt moderately or extremely familiar with the SMART SCALE process, and indicated that they have applied for a SMART SCALE project in the past Funding the Right Projects 71% of external survey respondents who responded feel that SMART SCALE is funding the right projects, with 50% indicating they feel a good mix of projects are funded Potential Biases Exist Feelings of potential biases exist toward urban and smaller projects; however, external survey respondents largely indicate a positive impression towards the SMART SCALE process Changes to SMART SCALE process Scoring criteria and the application process were the top two answers for what should change and what should remain the same in the SMART SCALE process 121 •Reviewing the survey feedback in comparison to historical Program data to better understand whether there may be potential biases towards: –Urban or rural areas –Large or small projects –Type of project (i.e., bike/pedestrian projects) •Continued survey review and statistical analysis to include: –High Priority Project scoring and success rates across the districts –Weighting of the factor areas and typologies –Analysis of existing factor areas, and where adjustments could be implemented to incorporate feedback from external survey respondents 20 External Review: Next Steps 122 21 Additional CTB and Respondent Feedback: Themes from CTB Meetings •The SMART SCALE process works, but look for opportunities to be more forward-thinking •Process seems to be transparent; however, would be helpful if simplified •Potential favoritism towards smaller projects and not higher priority projects that are needed •Need to understand intended and unintended consequences •There seems to be a bias toward Bike/Ped projects •Applicants are focused on projects that will be selected and not necessarily value add •Importance of SMART SCALE focusing on economic development, as it generates revenue •Concerns regarding cost estimation and contingencies 123 •Suggestions on adjustments to project scoring / factors –Emphasize equity and environmental quality (greenhouse gas emissions) in project scoring –Refine multimodal accessibility measure –Adjustments to specific thresholds / metrics –Incorporate military routes into methodology –Consider additional costs and barriers associated with older infrastructure projects •Suggestions on improving the SMART SCALE applicant experience –Make Technical Guide available earlier in process –Reconsider requirement of cost estimation as part of application submittal –Ensure consistency in applicant requirements for small and large communities –Change Tier 1 application limits to meet the needs of medium sized areas in Virginia 22 Additional CTB and Respondent Feedback: Highlights from Respondent Letters / Emails 124 •Round 5 Applicant Experience Survey –OIPI Lead –Focuses on procedural elements, SMART Portal, resources, and communications –Released on March 22nd and will close on April 21st •Summarize statewide Lessons Learned Workshops, observations from the scoring teams, and the Applicant Survey, Ad Hoc Feedback (i.e., Emails and Letters) –Scoring Teams Lessons Learned Workshop held on February 7th –Statewide DRPT, VDOT, and OIPI Screening and Validation Teams Workshop held February 28th 23 Internal Review: Overview 125 •May/June 2023 CTB Meeting to include an update regarding the statistical analysis component of the Process Review •SMART SCALE Retreat –Scheduled for July 19th –Focus on comprehensive Process Review findings, including draft recommendations for participants to review and discuss –Participation in 1-on-1 meetings with CTB members, as well as the Spring Transportation Meetings will allow for additional opportunities to capture feedback ahead of the SMART SCALE Retreat •Final findings and recommendations presented during October 2023 CTB meeting for consideration •Policy adoptions and other recommendations in December 2023 24 Concluding Remarks 126 Thank you. Please contact Young Ho Chang with any questions or for additional information. Young Ho Changyhchang@atcsplc.com571-436-3754 127 26 Appendix A: Respondent Count by District 20 31 25 17 38 42 31 32 19 # of External Respondents per District Salem Total number of survey respondents: 459 Total number of external survey respondents: 398 (87%) Return to main slide (p.6) 128 27 Appendix B: Survey Perceptions by District Funding the Right Projects 74% yes 90% yes 88% yes 72% yes 82% yes 58% yes 67% yes 67% yes 63% yes Salem Return to main slide (p. 10) Survey asked participants (yes/no question): In general, do you think SMART SCALE is funding the right projects? 129 28 Appendix C: Survey Perceptions by District Right Mix of Projects Return to main slide (p. 12) Perceptions by District of Right Mix of Projects 6% Location Not Provided Northern Virginia 130 29 Appendix D: Survey Perceptions by Category Right Mix of Projects Return to main slide (p. 12) Perceptions by Group of Right Mix of Projects 131 30 Appendix E: Survey Perceptions by District Perceived Biases Return to main slide (p. 13) Perception of Biases Existing in SMART SCALE by District Do you feel biases exist in SMART SCALE? Northern Virginia Location Not Provided 132 31 Appendix F: Survey Perceptions by District Highest-Ranking SMART SCALE Factor Return to main slide (p. 15) Most Important Factor Addressed by SMART SCALE by District 133 SMART SCALE Process Review Update Brooke Jackson, P.E. –SMART SCALE Program Manager May 2023 134 •SMART SCALE Program History –Purpose –Related Virginia Code –Supporting CTB Policy –Funding Sources –Previous Round Summary –Process Overview •Potential Issues –Schedule –Application Quality 2 Agenda 135 •HB 2 of the 2014 General Assembly (SMART SCALE) required the implementation of a formal prioritization process by June 2016 –Needed to remove the political element and select projects that bring the best value •It reformed Virginia’s transportation programming process by requiring the use of a data - driven, outcome-based prioritization process •SMART SCALE has improved the transparency and accountability of project selection and improved the stability of the Six-Year Improvement Program •The process scores projects based on an objective and fair analysis that is applied statewide, helping the CTB select projects that provide the greatest benefits for tax dollars spent 3 Why SMART SCALE 136 •Effective July 1, 2014 (as defined in §33.2-214.1), required the development of a prioritization process that the CTB was to use for project selection by July 2016. •Benefit-Cost Relationship Required •Six Factor Areas Required (SCALE) –safety, congestion mitigation, accessibility, land use*, economic development, and environmental quality •Multi-Modal Project Evaluation –must consider highway, transit, rail, roadway, technology operational improvements, and transportation demand management strategies •Meet a VTrans Need •Projects must be fully funded when added to the SYIP *Note: Land Use is required in populations over 200,000 defined in the 6th enactment clause 4 Virginia Code -Development of Prioritization Process (HB 2) 137 1.Six-Year Improvement Program Development Policy -December 7, 2016 2.Policy for Implementation of the SMART SCALE Project Prioritization Process -Updated December 8, 2021 3.SMART SCALE Cost Overrun Policy -October 30, 2018 5 CTB Policy -SMART SCALE Prioritization Process 138 The 1986 formula was often referred to as the 40/30/30 formula •Interstate and Unpaved roads were addressed first, with the balance distributed –40% for the primary system, provided to each district for primary routes using vehicle miles of travel (VMT), primary lane miles, and a needs factor –allocated by the CTB –30% to counties for secondary routes using population and land area –controlled by Local Board of Supervisors –30% to cities and towns for urban routes using population –controlled by City/Town Council Allocated The new formula established by HB 1887 distributes the District Grant Program (DGP) funds to the districts in a similar manner as the previous 40/30/30 formula. 6 Virginia Code -Transportation Funding Formula 139 7 Virginia Code -Transportation Funding Formula (HB 1887, HB 1414) §33.2-358 Allocation of funds to programs •HB 1887 (Rounds 1 –3) •Established the State of Good Repair (SGR -45%) High- Priority Projects Program (HPP –27.5%) and the District Grant Program (DGP –27.5%) •HB 1414 (Rounds 4 –5) •Restructured Virginia’s transportation funding model and updated program shares •Enacted changes to statewide revenue sources and regional funding sources •Imposed the regional fuels tax in all areas of the Commonwealth where it is not imposed to be used in DGP addition to the formula DGP (referred to as the Supplement District Grant) 140 8 Virginia Code -District Grant Program Supported by Regional Gas Tax 141 9 Virginia Code -Example Supplemental Grant (FY 2024) 142 10 SMART SCALE Previous Round Summary 143 •Application timing and documentation •Common-sense engineering principles •Two-year cycle established •Application timing extended •Project eligibility and readiness bar raised •Pre-application limits and schedule modifications •Project eligibility restrictions •Study requirements refined •Cost estimating transparency and consistency Environmental •Considered impact Safety •Added crash types with injuries Land Use •Added the second measure •Began cap limits Economic Dev •Distinguished the level of readiness for site plans Land Use •Added non-work accessibility Congestion •Expanded to off- peak Safety •Targeted crash reduction •Modified weightings Environmental •New emissions measures •Right-size impact buffer Land Use •Expanded to rural localities 11 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Committed to a regular lessons- learned process through engagement with partners and applicants Committed to research and testing of best practices Committed to a process of adjustments and feedback, supported by improved tools, training, and guidance for applicants Improvement History External review group, surveys, and regional workshops CTB Retreat, nine regional meetings, and applicant feedback Fall meetings, public comment, and applicant feedback Online tools and meetings to work through pandemic disruptions IMPROVEMENTS ProceduralPolicySMART SCALE Previous Round Summary Continuous Improvement 144 12 SMART SCALE Prioritization Process CTB Policy Funding Scenario HPP Eligibility DGP Eligibility Staff Scenario Steps Consensus Scoring Weighting Typology Methods Post-SYIP Delivery Project Change Virginia Code •Adjusting in one area can affect another •A singular issue identified might be resolved by adjusting multiple components of the process •Portal •Eligibility •Communications •Readiness Procedural (OIPI and Agency Staff) 145 13 Funding Program Eligibility Funding Scenario HPP Eligibility DGP Eligibility 146 14 Funding Program Eligibility Procedural Project Eligibility 147 15 Application, Screening, and Validation Procedural Portal Project Eligibility Readiness 148 16 Area Type and Factor Weighting Scoring Weighting Typology 149 17 Factors and Measures See Appendix (p. 32) for an example scorecard including all measures Scoring Weighting Methods 150 18 Normalization Scoring Methods 151 19 Funding Scenario Steps Funding Scenario Steps 152 Post-SYIP Delivery 20 Program Delivery 153 21 Project Change Process Post-SYIP Project Change 154 22 Potential Issues Identified Indentified Issue Detail CTB Application Quality Staff resources are stretched to dedicate to applicant support and application quality May Process Biases Applicants may submit projects that they think will be successful, not necessarily the highest priority June & July Forward-Looking Process Process should be more forward-looking to account for future traffic and future economic development June Funding Steps Steps to apply funding June Low Scoring Projects Some districts may have significantly lower SS scores than in other districts, which is inconsistent with the purpose of a statewide prioritization process July Emphasis on Safety Priority Safety is an increasing problem that warrants a higher priority in the prioritization process July One Factor Majority Land use factor has a significant number of projects funded on only that category July Disconnect Between Need and Benefit Perception that projects are not demonstrating a benefit in the factor area related to the Vtrans need for which they were screened in September Flexibility in Project Change Process SMART SCALE project change / cost over-run process is overly burdensome, creates project delays, and interupts normal project development issues September Project Performance Are the projects performing like we said they would? Is the ultilization matching predictions?September 155 23 Potential Issues Schedule 156 24 Application Process 157 •Source –Data, VDOT Staff, OIPI Staff, CTB Members o Data –50% bigger SYIP program, same staff o Round 5 Data -Over 50% of submitted applications are “not ready” for scoring at full app submission (90% at pre-application) o Round 5 Data –413 received and 152 recommended for funding (37% recommended for funding) o Round 5 Data –More applications are not an indicator of success o VDOT Staff Survey-Time and effort spent on document preparation that ultimately got screened out 25 Potential Issue Identified -Application Quality 158 Potential Solutions Identified -Application Quality 1.Project Eligibility –Reduce the application cap for all entities 2.Readiness & SMART Portal –Streamline document approvals before final submission –Change “conditional screen in” to “conditional screen out” 3.Readiness -Allow applicants to use their estimate if they agree to cover any shortfall* -VDOT does not validate the estimate –*Note this creates an unfair advantage in the scoring process 4.Delivery -Tie consensus funding decisions to performance in delivering projects 159 27 Potential Solutions Identified -Application Quality 160 This resulted in a reduction of overall apps from 394 to 259 The overall success rate rose from 39% to 53% 28 Potential Solutions Identified -Application Quality For Principal Improvement Type •Bike/Pedestrian applications fell from 97 to 55 •Highway applications fell from 294 to 201 •Bus Transit applications remained at 3 For Area Type •Area Type A applications fell from 78 to 48 •Area Type B applications fell from 113 to 63 •Area Type C applications fell from 75 to 52 •Area Type D applications fell from 128 to 96 The average total cost of funded projects raised from $15.1M to $16.9M The average total request of funded projects raised from $10.1M to $11.2M 161 1.Recommends reducing the application caps for all entities –Focus on improving outcomes –Higher quality and focused on priorities 2.Recommends solution for readiness & SMART Portal Streamline –Provides earlier and targeted support to applicants 3.Does not support solution to not validate estimates 4.Recommends solution to tie consensus funding decisions to performance in delivering projects 29 Potential Solutions Identified -Application Quality 162 •June –Process Biases (Part 1) –Forward-Looking Process –Funding Steps •July –Process Biases (Part 2) –Low Scoring Projects –Emphasis on Safety Priority –One Factor Majority –Retreat (Discuss preliminary recommendations) •August –No meeting 30 Next Steps 163 Thank you 164 32 Sample Scorecard 165 33 166 SMART SCALE Process Review Update June 20, 2023 167 •Process Bias Analysis o Project Size Small Project Preference o Project Types Bike & Ped Preference o Findings •Scoring and Funding Analysis o One-factor Majority Impacts Land Use o Funding Approach HPP Definition Funding Scenario Step 2 o Findings 2 Overview 168 •Potential Process Changes •Revisit Previous Recommendations •Schedule and Next Steps 3 Overview 169 4 Key Components of SMART SCALE Process Review Statistical Analysis Analysis of the performance and outcomes of the past funding rounds Identification of potential biases and related causes Survey Assessments Review of process performance and perceptions Administration, communications, and customer service Procedural Review Identify procedural improvements including application updates, communications, and process improvements Code and Policy Recommend procedural changes Recommend CTB Policy changes Recommend Code changes 170 5 “Do you think the current process is biased in any way (urban/rural, large/small projects, mode, etc.)?” (yes/no & free text response) of external respondents think the current process is not biased in some way of external respondents think the current process is biased in some way No Yes 41% 59% •One area of perceived bias identified in the SMART SCALE Process Review Survey responses was “Small Project.” Process Bias Analysis Small Project Preference $$$ Project Size 171 •When referring to “Small Projects”, interpreted as low -request (<$10M) o 60% of all applications are Small Projects o 95% of Small Projects have a total cost of less than $10M •Small Projects vs. Large Projects comparison o 1,092 Small Projects submitted / 823 Large Projects submitted o $4.8B Small Projects requested / $33.1B Large Projects requested o 558 Small Projects funded* / 154 Large Projects funded o $2.1B Small Projects funded / $4.2B Large Projects funded *The term “funded" represents projects recommended for funding in the staff scenario throughout the presentation 6 Process Bias Analysis Small Project Preference $$$ Project Size 172 7 $$$ •Based on the number of projects, Small Projects were just over 2X more successful than larger projects. •The average project funded amount is $8.9M. •The average amount requested for all projects is $19.8M. Project Size 19% 51%Success rate for Small Projects across all area types (558 projects) Success rate for projects greater than $10M across all area types (154 projects) Process Bias Analysis Funded Small Projects 173 Small Funded Projects vs. Large Funded Projects, with Total Funded Projects Round 5 Round 4 Round 3 Round 2 Round 1 # Projects 98 156 152 137 $ Amount $436M 8 •Small Projects account for 78% of all funded projects. •Small Projects account for 33% of the total funded amount. Process Bias Analysis Funded Small Projects $$$ Project Size $1.8B $992M $742B $1.3B $1.5B 169 137 98 156 152 $1.4B $718M $454M $731M $962M 37 26 10 35 46 132 111 88 121 106 $436M $274M $288M $569M $538M 174 9 $$$ Project Size Process Bias Analysis Funded Small Projects by Program -Counts # of Funded Projects (DGP and HPP) Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 84% 92%75% 11% 16%25% 8% 56% 44% 93% 71% 7% 29% 82% 11% 18% 64% 36% 72% 52% 60% 28% 40% •Overall, based on the number of projects, most funded projects in both DGP and HPP are small. •In HPP, based on the number of projects, 60% are small. LEFT COLUMN: Greater Than $10M (DGP) Less Than $10M (DGP) RIGHT COLUMN: Greater Than $10M (HPP) Less Than $10M (HPP) 175 10 •In DGP, Small Projects are getting roughly equal the amount of funding compared to larger projects. •In HPP, the funded amount of Small Projects in Rounds 4 & 5 was 21% higher than in Rounds 1, 2, & 3 combined. $$$ Project Size Process Bias Analysis Funded Small Projects by Program -$ Amount $ Amount (DGP and HPP) Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 48% 63% 52% 8%11% LEFT COLUMN: Greater Than $10M (DGP) Less Than $10M (DGP) RIGHT COLUMN: Greater Than $10M (HPP) Less Than $10M (HPP) 52% 92% 37% 11% 89% 68% 52% 8% 32% 92% 57% 11% 43% 24% 76% 42% 52% 19% 58% 81% 176 •Typical Small Projects may include o Highway Principal Improvement Type* –Intersection or turn lane improvements, innovative intersections, roadway widenings, access management Typically, less than a half mile in length o Bike & Ped Principal Improvement Type –Sidewalk projects, shared-use paths, bike lanes, improve crossings Typically, less than 1 mile in length o Bus Transit Principal Improvement Type –New Routes, Stop Improvements *Principal Improvement Type means the largest component of the application. SMART SCALE applications are largely multi - modal with 50% of all Highway Principal Improvement Type projects having Bike & Ped components. 11 Process Bias Analysis Types of Small Projects $$$ Project Size 177 12 •For all Small Projects (all principal improvement types): o Highway projects comprise 74% of projects submitted (804 out of 1,092 projects) o Highway projects comprise 67% of funded projects (376 out of 558 projects) o Bike & Ped projects comprise 21% of projects submitted (228 out of 1,092 projects) o Bike & Ped projects comprise 24% of funded projects (135 out of 558 projects) Process Bias Analysis Prevalence of Bike & Ped Projects Bike & Ped 178 $1.5B $519M 376 Small Projects (Funded vs. Unfunded)and Submitted, with Success Rate 135 $939M $ Amount Success Rate Highway Bike & Ped # Projects $519M135 $1.5B376804 13 228 $3.7B $2.3B428 93 Success Rate •Overall, small Bike & Ped projects were more successful than small Highway projects. Process Bias Analysis Success of Bike & Ped Projects $$$ Project Size 55% 47%39% 59% $420M$939M 179 14 Process Bias Analysis Number of and Funding for Small Bike & Ped Projects •Small Bike & Ped projects have steadily increased in terms of number of projects and funding amounts both submitted and recommended. Bike & Ped Round 5 Round 4 Round 3 Round 2 Round 1 # Projects $ Amount Funded Small Bike & Ped vs. Unfunded Small Bike & Ped, with Total Submitted Small Bike & Ped $43M $107M $220M $263M $306M 17 39 64 53 55 $14M $59M $131M $125M $85M 4 15 35 26 13 13 24 29 27 42 $29M $48M $89M $138M $221M 180 Findings Small Project Size Perception 15 •Small Projects were funded just over 2X more often than larger projects •Overall, small Bike & Ped projects were more successful than small Highway projects •Small Projects account for 78% in project count and 33% of the total funded amount o Bike & Ped projects received 25% of the total funding for Small Projects compared to 69% for Highway projects •Average SMART SCALE request has decreased between Rounds 1 and 4 •Bike & Ped projects have steadily increased in terms of the number of projects and funding amounts both submitted and recommended o Funded amounts for Bike & Ped projects increased in HPP in Rounds 4 and 5 $$$ Project Size 181 16 Scoring and Funding Analysis Funding Scenario HPP Eligibility DGP Eligibility Staff Scenario Steps Consensus Scoring Factor Weighting Typology Methods Post -SYIP Delivery Project Change •Adjusting in one area can affect another •A singular issue identified might be resolved by adjusting multiple components of the process •A singular process adjustment might resolve multiple issues 1.In the Scoring Process –Land use factor contributes significantly to funded projects scores 2.In the Funding Scenario Process -HPP dollars facilitate funding small project request projects 182 Scoring and Funding Analysis One-factor Majority Impact 17 •Land Use factor drives total benefits, at a rate of 2X from Round 1 to Round 5 •Land Use was expanded to Type C & D in Round 5 183 18 Scoring and Funding Analysis One-factor Majority Impact In Small Projects •In round 5, the smaller the project, the greater the Land Use benefit 184 19 Scoring and Funding Analysis One-factor Majority Impact In Bike & Ped Projects •Compared to all types, Bike & Ped projects have the most Land Use benefit •Twice the amount in Bike & Ped when compared to Highway projects 185 20 Scoring and Funding Analysis One-factor Majority Impact Current Land Use Scoring Methods Scoring Factor Weighting •Current Land Use method is more related to project location than to expected project outcomes o Scores existing walk access to key non-work destinations such as grocery, healthcare, education, etc. in the vicinity of the proposed transportation improvement o Weighted based on population and employment density •Land Use was expanded to Type C & D in Round 5 •In Round 5 -funded projects a significant portion of overall benefit points from Land Use o 77 projects funded (out of 152) had over 50% of the benefit score from Land Use o Of those 40 projects funded had over 80% of the benefit score from Land Use 186 21 Potential Process Changes Modifications to Land Use Factor •Continue to use Land Use Factor to encourage land-use and transportation coordination •No change to the way Land Use is calculated today •Modify how Land Use weighting is applied o Enhances the benefits of the project based on where it is located o Land Use Factor would be used to increase benefit points in other factor areas o Prevents Land Use from being the sole driver of success Scoring Factor Weighting •Modify the Factor Weighting for the Land Use factor •Adjustments to other factor areas (will be discussed in July) 187 22 Potential Process Changes Modifications to Land Use Factor -Scenario The average total cost of funded projects raised from $15.1M to $18.3M The average total request of funded projects raised from $10.1M to $11.8M (removes 28 projects) For Principal Improvement Type•Bike & Ped -51 to 20•Highway -98 to 102•Bus Transit -3 to 2 For Area Type•A -39 to 29•B -34 to 24•C -23 to 19•D -56 to 52 •Funded Small Projects were reduced from 106 to 41. •Funded Bike & Ped Principal Improvement Types were reduced from 51 to 20. Scoring Factor Weighting 188 23 Potential Process Changes Refine HPP Definition •Code of Virginia §33.2-370 o “High-priority projects" means those projects of regional or statewide significance, such as projects that reduce congestion or increase safety, accessibility, environmental quality, or economic development” •Policy defines where -Corridors of Statewide Significance and Regional Networks •Define what o Consider projects that include feature types -New Capacity Highway, Managed Lanes, New or Improved Interchanges, New or Improved Passenger Rail Stations or Service, Freight Rail improvements, Fixed Guideway Transit Funding Scenario HPP Eligibility •Refine the HPP definition, which is largely implemented through CTB Policy. •Current CTB Policy defines the where through VTrans, but not the what. 189 •Allocation steps are used to develop staff recommended funding scenario •Step 1 allocates DGP on a district-wide basis •Step 2 allocates HPP on a district-wide basis •Step 3 allocates HPP on a statewide basis •HPP has not grown since Round 2, however, the DGP is now enhanced by the Supplemental District Grant (SDG) revenues 24 Potential Process Changes Current Funding Steps •Funding Small Projects with HPP dollars. Funding Scenario HPP Eligibility Steps 190 25 Potential Process Changes Eliminate Step 2 •Eliminate Step 2, Prioritize all HPP statewide by SMART SCALE Score. •Smaller projects are being submitted as Step 2 eligible (MPO/PDC/Transit Only). •Small Bike & Ped submitted in Step 2 has increased from 1 (RD 1&2) to 32 RD 5. Funding Scenario Steps 191 26 Potential Process Changes Refine HPP Definition -Scenario The average total cost of funded projects rose from $15.1M to $18.0M The average total request of funded projects rose from $10.1M to $11.8M (removes 24 projects) For Principal Improvement Type•Bike & Ped -51 to 38•Highway -98 to 88•Bus Transit -3 to 1 For Area Type•A -unchanged at 39•B -34 to 24•C -23 to 17•D -56 to 48 Funding Scenario HPP Eligibility •Steps 2 and 3 average project size rose from $15.6M (30 projects) to $76.2M (6 projects). •All Bike & Ped Principal Improvement Types were removed from HPP. 192 27 Potential Process Changes Eliminate Step 2 -Scenario The average total cost of funded projects fell from $15.1M to $11.1M The average total request of funded projects fell from $10.1 M to $9.8 M (adds 14 projects) For Principal Improvement Type•Bike & Ped -51 to 56•Highway -98 to 107•Bus Transit -unchanged at 3 For Area Type•A -39 to 42•B -34 to 40•C -23 to 28•D -unchanged at 56 Funding Scenario Steps •SMART SCALE review highlighted favor of Small Projects. •Smaller projects get funded in both DGP and HPP. •Importance of refining the definition of HPP-eligible project. 193 28 Potential Process Changes Potential Solutions Combined The average total cost of funded projects rose from $15.1M to $20.5M The average total request of funded projects rose from $10.1M to $13.2M (removes 34 projects) For Principal Improvement Type•Bike & Ped -51 to 15•Highway -98 to 103•Bus Transit -3 to 0 For Area Type•A -39 to 30•B -34 to 26•C -23 to 18•D -56 to 44 •Combining the scenarios balances the two HPP solutions. •HPP average funded went from $15.6M (30 projects) to $31.8M (17 projects). •Bike & Ped Principal Improvement types reduced from 51 to 15. Funding Scenario HPP Eligibility Steps 194 Addresses Small Project Bias •Forces applicants to prioritize submissions focused on priorities. •In the testing scenario, the overall project cost/size was increased in funded projects. •Anticipate reduction in Small Projects as a result of cap limit reduction. 29 Revisit Previous Recommendations Application Cap Limit 195 30 Schedule and Next Steps 196 197 SMART SCALE Process Review Update July 18, 2023 198 •Process Bias Analysis o Urban Preference o Leveraged Project Preference •Scoring and Funding Analysis o Overview o Forward-Looking Congestion Factor o Forward-Looking Economic Development •Public Outreach Updates o SMART SCALE Website o Schedule and Next Steps 2 Presentation Overview 199 3 “Do you think the current process is biased in any way (urban/rural, large/small projects, mode, etc.)?” (yes/no & free text response) No Yes 41% 59% Urban vs. Rural •One area of perceived bias identified in the SMART SCALE Process Review Survey responses was “Urban” PROCESS BIAS ANALYSIS Urban Preference Survey Response 200 4 •Weighting typologies were established by CTB resolution in 2017 o Based on a robust public involvement process, it was determined that needs within each construction district are often diverse o The four weighting frameworks are assigned by planning district commission (PDC) and metropolitan planning organization (MPO) boundaries •Assumptions: o Urban and rural areas are categorized based on area types as delineated on the SMART SCALE Technical Guide typology map* Area Types A & B are considered largely “urban” areas Area Types C & D are considered largely “rural” areas *Note: This breakdown is important when categorizing and identifying trends across historical Program data Urban vs. Rural PROCESS BIAS ANALYSIS Urban Preference Typologies and Assumptions 201 5 Category A & B Population Count: 6,168,694 Category C & D Population Count: 3,491,742 Urban vs. Rural 2020 US Census Data PROCESS BIAS ANALYSIS Urban Preference Typology Map Note: Some regions and counties encompass more than one Area Type and overlap. Thus, the sum of all 4 Area Types will NOT be equal to the census total. 202 Urban Preference Findings •The number of projects submitted and the number of projects funded* are fairly evenly distributed between urban and rural areas •The amounts submitted and funded are higher in urban areas,although the ratio of submitted and funded amounts is similar o Significant funding difference in HPP (83% urban vs. 17% rural) o Funding for projects in rural areas increased in Rounds 4 & 5 •The success rates based on the number of projects are higher for urban projects and the success rates based on the amounts funded are comparable *Funded represents projects recommended for funding in the staff scenario 6 PROCESS BIAS ANALYSIS Urban vs. Rural 203 Urban vs. Rural 7 Urban (Type A/B)Rural (Type C/D) #Funded Urban (Type A/B)Rural (Type C/D) 50% (144)50% (144) 50% (202)50% (202) 46% (199)54% (234) 44% (175)56% (222) 48% (189)52% (205) 47% (900)53% (1,015) Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Overall # Submitted 47% (335) 45% (44) 39% (53) 51% (86)49% (83) 61% (84) 55% (54) 52% (81)48% (75) 48% (73)52% (79) 53% (377) •The number of projects submitted by the urban and rural areas are similar •Aside from Round 2, the number of funded projects distributed between urban and rural areas is similar PROCESS BIAS ANALYSIS Urban Preference Submitted & Funded Projects –Count 204 8 Urban vs. Rural Urban (Type A/B)Rural (Type C/D) $Funded HPP Urban (Type A/B)Rural (Type C/D) Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Overall $ Funded DGP 42% ($1.5B) 41% ($326M) 42% ($420M)58% ($580M) 70% ($221M)30% ($95M) 60% ($227M)40% ($152M) 59% ($470M) 54% ($594M)46% ($506M) 58% ($2.1B) 80% ($784M) 95% ($643M) 91% ($330M) 75% ($350M) 83% ($2.5B) 5% ($34M) 9% ($33M) 73% ($358M) 20% ($196M) 17% ($500M) 27% ($132M) 25% ($117M) •The total funded amounts in DGP and HPP are higher in urban areas, particularly in Rounds 2 and 3 PROCESS BIAS ANALYSIS Urban Preference Funded Projects (DGP & HPP) –$ Amount 205 9 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 57%61% 42%26% 27%19% 47%34% 38%39% 41%34% # Funded 22%32% 15%7% 12%7% 19%24% 16%23% 17%16% $ Funded Overall Urban vs. Rural Urban (Type A/B)Rural (Type C/D)Urban (Type A/B)Rural (Type C/D) •The success rate for the number of funded projects was slightly higher for urban areas than rural areas and about even for amount funded PROCESS BIAS ANALYSIS Urban Preference Success of Funded Projects 206 •There is not a consistent bias toward urban projects in the SMART SCALE program o Urban area projects have a higher success rate than rural area projects based on the number of projects, however, the success rate for the amount funded between urban and rural projects is even o Submitted and funded amounts were higher in urban areas, especially in HPP funding Overall, the ratio of submitted and funded amounts is similar o Rural area projects received a higher share funded than what was submitted in the last two rounds o Urban areas represent 2/3 of the population 10 PROCESS BIAS ANALYSIS Urban vs. Rural Urban Preference Conclusion 207 11 “The SMART SCALE scoring process positively weighs applications that include committed project funding from other sources (often regional or local). In your opinion, is this good public policy and an appropriate way to value the Commonwealth’s investment?”(yes/no question) No Yes 20% 80% $ Leveraged Funding $ •A vast majority of survey respondents believe that Leveraged Funding Policy is good policy PROCESS BIAS ANALYSIS Leveraged Project Preference Survey Response 208 12 •The CTB policy, as stated in the SMART SCALE Technical Guide: o Applicants are encouraged to identify other sources of funding (local, regional, proffers, other state/federal funds) to reduce the amount of funding being requested via SMART SCALE •Perceptions: o Leveraged projects are more successful than non-leveraged projects o Urban areas are more likely to have leveraged projects $ Leveraged Funding $ PROCESS BIAS ANALYSIS Leveraged Project Preference Policy & Perceptions 209 13 •One-third of the number of funded projects have leveraged funding, representing 55% of the total amount funded o $3.5B in SMART SCALE funding has supported over 3X in total project cost ($11.5B) •The success rates of the number of leveraged projects and the amount funded were slightly higher than the non-leveraged projects •The success rate for the number of urban leveraged projects was slightly higher than rural leveraged projects but lower for amount funded •Leveraged projects are at least 6X more successful for projects with SMART SCALE funding equal to or greater than $30M $ Leveraged Funding $ PROCESS BIAS ANALYSIS Leveraged Project Preference Findings 210 14 $ Leveraged Funding $ 40% Projects Submitted Amount Submitted Leveraged Non-Leveraged 30% (588) 70% (1,332) Projects Funded Amount Funded Leveraged Non-Leveraged 45% ($17.1B) 55% ($20.8B) 33% (236) 67% (476) 55% ($3.5B) 55% ($2.8B) •One third of funded projects have leveraged funding, representing 55% of the total amount funded PROCESS BIAS ANALYSIS Leveraged Project Preference Submitted and Funded Projects 211 15 $ Leveraged Funding $ 36% (476 funded/ 1,332 submitted) 14% ($2.8B funded/ $20.8B submitted) 40% (236 funded/ 683 submitted)Leveraged Non-Leveraged 20% ($3.5B funded/ $17B submitted) # Projects $ Amount •The success rates of the number of leveraged projects and the amount funded were slightly higher than the non-leveraged projects PROCESS BIAS ANALYSIS Leveraged Project Preference Success Rate Leveraged vs. Non-Leveraged 212 26% (61) 16 $ Leveraged Funding $ Urban Rural 73% (426) 27% (157) Projects Submitted Amount Submitted Projects Funded Amount Funded 89% ($15.2B) 74% (175) 87% ($3.0B) Urban Rural 11% ($1.9B) 13% ($466M) •Urban areas have significantly more submitted and funded leveraged projects by number of projects and amounts than rural areas PROCESS BIAS ANALYSIS Leveraged Project Preference Submitted and Funded by Urban & Rural Areas 213 17 $ Leveraged Funding $ 39% (61 funded/ 156 submitted) 25% ($466M funded/ $1.9B submitted) Success Rate for Leveraged vs. Non-Leveraged 41% (175 funded/ 426 submitted)Urban Rural 20% ($3B funded/ $15B submitted) # Projects $ Amount •The success rate for the number of leveraged projects was slightly higher for urban areas than rural areas but lower for amount funded PROCESS BIAS ANALYSIS Leveraged Project Preference Success Rate for Urban vs. Rural 214 18 # Funded 28% (157) 72% (401) $ Leveraged Funding $ 42% (51) 58% (71) 88% (28) 12% (4) 28% $589M 72% ($1.5B) 43% $842M 57% ($1.1B) 92% $2.1B 8% ($172M) $ Funded <$10M $10M -$30M >$30M <$10M $10M -$30M >$30M Non-Leveraged Leveraged •Leveraged projects make up substantial number and amount of funded projects with SMART SCALE funding greater than $30M PROCESS BIAS ANALYSIS Leveraged Project Preference Comparison by Funding Tier 215 48% 19 $ Leveraged Funding $ # Funded 60% $ Funded Non-Leveraged Leveraged 20%29%19%41%51%19%28%16% <$10M $10M -$30M >$30M <$10M $10M -$30M >$30M 3%2% •For SMART SCALE funded projects greater than $30M, leveraged projects had at least 6X higher success rate than non-leveraged projects for number of projects funded and 8X higher for amount funded PROCESS BIAS ANALYSIS Leveraged Project Preference Success Rate by Funding Tier –Leveraged vs. Non-Leveraged 1.3X 1.5X 6X 1.2X 1.5X 8X 216 •While leveraged projects generally have slight edge over non-leveraged projects overall, the advantage is much more prominent for SMART SCALE funded projects greater than $30M o At least 6X higher success rate based on project count and 8X higher success rate on amount funded for leveraged projects compared to non-leveraged projects •There is not a bias toward urban leveraged projects over rural leveraged projects, however urban areas utilize leverage funding more than rural areas •$3.5B in SMART SCALE funding has supported $11.5B in total project cost 20 PROCESS BIAS ANALYSIS Leveraged Project Preference Conclusion 217 21 Overview Funding Scenario HPP Eligibility DGP Eligibility Staff Scenario Steps Consensus Scoring Factor Weighting Typology Methods Post -SYIP Delivery Project Change •Adjusting in one area can affect another •A singular issue identified may be resolved by adjusting multiple components of the process •A singular process adjustment may resolve multiple issues SCORING AND FUNDING ANALYSIS •There are no recommendations related to Urban Preference or Leveraged Project Preference but will report on analyzed biases in final scenario. 218 •Survey Feedback -Projects aren't receiving the full projected benefits as they're analyzed in existing year conditions •Rounds 1 & 2 looked 10 years in the future o Methodology was switched to current-day in Round 3, to prioritize existing problems •Recommend calculating congestion benefits for 10 years in the future o Solution considers major economic development activity in the analysis o Solution has positive downstream calculation impacts on Accessibility, Economic Development, and Environment measures o Will have more impact if weighting adjustments are made 22 SCORING AND FUNDING ANALYSIS Scoring Methods •Project design requirements are based on future growth volumes, but congestion scoring is in the current day. Forward-Looking Congestion Factor 219 Forward-Looking Congestion Factor 23 Future Year Analysis Applied to Round 5 Zero or Negative Congestion Scores to Positive Congestion Scores SCORING AND FUNDING ANALYSIS Scoring Methods Display ID District Name Project Type Change in Throughput (Persons) Change in Delay (Person- Hours) Original Congestion Rank Future Year Congestion Rank Change in Rank 9135 Richmond I-64 at Ashland Rd. (Rte. 623) Interchange Highway 689 784 88 5 +83 9449 Fredericksburg Lafayette Blvd -Rte 3 Roadway Improvements Highway 957 261 113 11 +102 9098 Hampton Roads Great Bridge Bypass and Battlefield Blvd Interchange Imp.Highway 260 4 390 55 +335 9061 Culpeper Route 3 and the Post Office Intersection Improvements Highway 153 30 274 57 +217 9298 Staunton Route 7/Route 601 Intersection Improvements Highway 23 14 299 116 +183 220 24 The average total cost of funded projects rose from $15.1M to $15.3M The average total request of funded projects rose from $10.1M to $10.3M For Principal Improvement Type•Bike & Ped -51 to 47•Highway -98 to 102•Bus Transit –unchanged at 3 For Area Type•A -unchanged at 39•B –unchanged at 34•C –unchanged at 23•D –unchanged at 56 SCORING AND FUNDING ANALYSIS Scoring Methods •Positive impacts on large highway projects •Area types not impacted by the singular change •Changed the mix of project types in urban areas Forward-Looking Congestion Factor 221 •Since Round 1, planned or zoned Site Building Square Footage in the vicinity of the proposed transportation project was used as the measure o Last revision to Economic Development was between Rounds 2 and 3 to distinguish the level of readiness for site plans 25 Scoring Methods SCORING AND FUNDING ANALYSIS •Survey identified a disconnect between square footage and economic benefit •Engaged VEDP to develop a more forward-looking methodology, which will be brought in September Forward-Looking Economic Development Factor 222 •Resources linked directly on the SMARTSCALE.org homepage •Comment intake available at bottom of page 26 PUBLIC OUTREACH UPDATES SMART SCALE Website 223 27 PUBLIC OUTREACH UPDATES Schedule and Next Steps Economic Development. 224 Transportation Committee Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: August 28, 2023 Agenda Section: Capital Improvement Plan Update Title: Capital Improvement Plan Update Attachments: TC08-28-23CapitalImprovementPlanUpdate.pdf 225 226 Transportation Committee Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: August 28, 2023 Agenda Section: Truck Restriction Request Title: Truck Restriction Request Attachments: TC08-28-23TruckRestrictionRequest.pdf 227 228 Transportation Committee Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: August 28, 2023 Agenda Section: County Project Updates Title: County Project Updates Attachments: TC08-28-23CountyProjectUpdates.pdf 229 230 Transportation Committee Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: August 28, 2023 Agenda Section: Other Title: Other Attachments: TC08-28-23Other.pdf 231 232