Implementation of HB2 (2014) and HB 1887 (2015)

County of Fairfax, Virginia
Department of Transportation
Implementation of
HB 2 (2014) and HB 1887 (2015)
Board Transportation Committee
July 14, 2015
Noelle Dominguez, Legislative Liaison

In the past two years, significant changes have been made to the way that
transportation projects are funded in Virginia. Presentation will provide
information on the changes to State Code and the new processes for related state
and federal funding:
• Legislative and Funding Background
• Project Eligibility and Screening
• Evaluation Criteria
• Project Costs
• Application Process
• Project Scoring
• Annual HB 2 Application Cycle
• CTB Prioritization and Programming
• Changes in Project Scope, Schedule, and/or Cost
2
Recent Changes to the State
Transportation Funding Processes

3
HB 2 Summary
• HB 2 (2014) provides for the development of a prioritization process for projects funded by
the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). The bill:
– Directs the CTB to develop and implement the prioritization process for roadway, transit,
rail, technology operation improvements, and transportation demand management
strategies that must be used for the development of the Six-Year Improvement Program
(SYIP), starting July 1, 2016.
• The process must consider: congestion mitigation, economic development,
accessibility, safety, and environmental quality.
• The CTB will weight these factors for each of the Commonwealth’s transportation
districts, and the CTB assigned different weights to the factors based on location and
other factors.
• Congestion mitigation must be weighted highest in Northern Virginia and Hampton
Roads.
– Excludes maintenance, federal programs, including Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ), Highway Safety Improvement Program, Transportation Alternatives, and
Regional Surface Transportation Program; and several state programs, including urban
and secondary road program funds, and revenue sharing.

4
HB 1887 Summary
• In 2015, the General Assembly approved HB 1887, which replaces the old 40-30-30
(primary – secondary – urban) roadway funding formula with a new formula. Under
the old system, secondary and urban funds were allocated to projects by the
localities. HB 1887 changes the old formula to the following:
– 45% of the funding to state of good repair, (rehabilitation of structurally deficient
bridges and deteriorating pavement) - allocated by CTB
– 27.5% of the funding to the statewide high-priority projects program (projects of
statewide importance to be competed under HB 2) - allocated by CTB
– 27.5% of the funding to highway construction district grant programs (localities
would compete for funds under a regional version of HB 2) - allocated by CTB
• Also provided that any un-programmed funds in FY 2016-2020 in the SYIP would be
split 50-50 between the high-priority projects program and the highway construction
district grant programs.

Historical Funding Formula
5
Revenue
Source
Transportation
Trust Fund
(New Highway
Construction)
Set
Asides
CMAQ,
RSTP,
Revenue
Sharing, etc.
Interstate
Projects
Federal
Match
Revenue
Source
Revenue
Source
Revenue
Source
Allocated
by CTB
40% Primary
System
Allocated
by CTB
30%
Secondary
System
30% Urban
System
County Board
Sets Priorities,
without
restrictions
City/Town
Council; Sets
Priorities,
without
restrictions

2012-2015 Funding Formula
6
Transportation
Trust Fund
(New Highway
Construction)
Interstate Projects
Federal Match
Revenue
Source
Allocated by CTB
40% Primary
System
Allocated
by CTB
Revenue
Source
Revenue
Source
Revenue
Source
$500 Million/ CTB
Formula
Allocated by CTB
 25% - Bridge Reconstruction
and Rehabilitation
 25% - High Priority Projects
 25% - Interstate, Primary, and
Urban Primary Reconstruction
 15% - PPTA Projects
 5% - Unpaved Roads
 5% - Technology Projects
(CTB has discretion to adjust
percentages)
Up to 10% for rail projects
that reduce road
construction
Allocated by CTB
Set Asides
CMAQ, RSTP, Revenue
Sharing, etc.
30% Primary
System
County Board Sets
Priorities, without
restrictions
30% Urban
System
City/Town
Council; Sets
Priorities, without
restrictions

New Funding Formula
7
Transportation Trust Fund
(New Highway Construction)
Set Asides
CMAQ, RSTP, Revenue
Sharing, etc. *
45% - State of
Good Repair
Pavements and
Bridges
27.5% - High Priority Projects Program:
Projects and Strategies that address a
need identified for a corridor of
statewide significance or regional
network.
27.5% - Highway Construction
District Grant Program
Funding available to districts based
on allocations pursuant to formulas
contained in historical 40-30-30
formula, so each district receives
identical proportional share of what
they would have previously
received.
Projects and strategies must address
a need in the Statewide
Transportation Plan
Revenue
Source
Revenue
Source
Allocated by CTB
Using Criteria
Allocated by CTB using HB 2 criteria.
Local governments, regional
agencies, or transit agencies can
apply.
Allocated by CTB using HB 2
criteria.
Local governments can apply.
* new $10M set aside for County safety and
operational improvements - allocated
based on population and land area

Implementation of HB 2 and HB 1887
• On March 18, 2015, a draft HB 2 Implementation Policy Guide was
released for Public Comment. Comments were accepted in March and
April.
– The Board of Supervisors endorsed comments at its April 28, 2016, meeting.
• Following some modifications, the CTB adopted the policy on Wednesday,
June 17, 2015.
8

HB 1887 Eligibility and Screening
• Projects must meet a need identified in VTrans 2040 (Virginia Multimodal Transportation
Plan) for a Corridor of Statewide Significance (COSS), Regional Network or Urban
Development Area (UDA) to be considered for the Programs. The screening criteria for each
type of project are:
– COSS – key multimodal travel corridors that move
people and goods within and through Virginia, serving
primarily long-distance / interregional travel.
• Corridors in our region are the Northern Virginia
Corridor (I-66), Seminole Corridor (Route 29),
Washington to NC Corridor (I-95), and
North-South Corridor.
– Regional Networks – multimodal networks that facilitate intraregional travel within
urbanized areas
– Urban Development Areas (UDA) – areas where jurisdictions intend to concentrate
future population growth and development consistent with the UDA section within the
Code of Virginia. Tysons is currently Fairfax County’s only UDA. UDA’s must be
designated by September 30, 2015 for this round of funding.
– Transportation Safety Needs – statewide safety needs identified in VTrans2040
9

HB 1887 Eligibility
10
Project Type
Statewide High Priority
Projects Program
District Grant Program
Capacity Need on COSS Yes Yes
Capacity Need on Regional
Networks
Yes Yes
Improvement to Support UDAs No Yes
Addressing a Safety need Identified
in VTrans
No Yes
• Applicants will need to identify which of these best fit their candidate project.
• Not all types of projects are eligible for both grant programs:
• Projects found to be eligible through the screening process will be forwarded to
VDOT and DRPT for evaluation according to the HB 2 factors and measures.

Eligibility to Submit Projects
• Only projects submitted by localities are eligible for the District Grant Program.
• Regional entities, localities, and public transit agencies are eligible to submit projects
to the High-Priority Projects Program, but may be limited in project type:
11
Project Type
Regional Entity
(MPOs, PDCs, NVTA)
Locality
Public Transit
Agencies
COSS Yes Yes, with resolution of
support from relevant
regional entity
Yes, with resolution of
regional entity
Regional Network Yes Yes Yes, with resolution of
entity
UDA No Yes No

Eligibility to Submit Projects (cont.)
• Project must be located within the boundary of the relevant qualifying
entity.
• Local governments may submit a joint application for projects that cross
the boundary of a single local government.
• The CTB may also choose to submit up to 2 projects for consideration
through the High Priority Projects Program for each application cycle, for
the entire Commonwealth.
12

Factors and Evaluation Measures
The Policy Guide provides general evaluation measures for each HB 2 factor.
Specific definitions are also included.
• Congestion Mitigation:
– 50% - Expected Reduction in Person Hours of Delay up to Posted Speed Limit
– 50% - Expected Increase in Person Throughput in the Corridor
• Safety:
– 50% - Expected Reduction in Total Fatalities and Severe Injuries on the Facility*
– 50% - Expected Reduction in the Rate of Fatalities and Several Injuries per 100 Million
Vehicle Miles Traveled on the Facility
• Accessibility:
– 60% - Cumulative Increase in Job Accessibility (within 45 minutes by Automobile and
60 minutes for Transit)
– 20% - Cumulative Increase in Job Accessibility for Disadvantaged Populations (within
45 minutes by Automobile and 60 minutes by Transit)
– 20% - Increase in Access to Multimodal Choices
* 100% for transit projects
13

Factors and Evaluation Measures (cont.)
• Environmental Quality
– 50% - Degree to Which the Project is Expected to Reduce Air Emissions and
Greenhouse Gases
– 50% - Potential impact to Natural, Cultural, and Historic Resources from the
Project
• Economic Development:
– 60% - Support for Economic Development Plans
– 20% - Expected Improvements to Travel Time Reliability of the Facility
– 20% - Improved Intermodal Access and Efficiency
• Land Use Coordination (only for areas with population over 200,000):
– 100% - Support of Transportation Efficient Land Use Patterns
Details of each measure are important.
14

Factor Weighting
• The guide includes four categories for Factor Weighting throughout the Commonwealth.
– Category A - primarily includes urban regions (Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads,
Fredericksburg).
– Category B - combination of high anticipated growth and above average travel demand
with high density in some areas and low density in others.
– Category C - median population growth, and diverse outcomes on travel demand and
existing density.
– Category D - below average population growth, travel demand and existing density.
• Weighting schemes for each Category are:
15
Congestion
Mitigation
Economic
Development
Accessibility Safety Environmental
Quality
Land Use
Category A 45% 5% 15% 5% 10% 20%
Category B 15% 20% 25% 20% 10% 10%
Category C 15% 25% 25% 25% 10%
Category D 10% 35% 15% 30% 10%

Project Cost
• HB 2 requires that the prioritization process be based on the factors
relative to the cost of the project.
• For HB 2 project scoring, project benefits will be calculated relative
to HB2-funded costs only. The calculation of scores based on total
cost will be provided to the CTB for comparison purposes.
– Regional stakeholders, included the County and
NVTA, commented that the funds that the
Authority and its member jurisdictions allocate
should not be considered in any statewide cost-
benefit analysis.
16

Application Process
• Project sponsors will need to coordinate with VDOT and DRPT early in the process
to share information on prospective applications.
– This will allow project descriptions, cost estimates, and potential benefits to be
developed and refined, and will facilitate the application and evaluation process.
• If an applicant submits more than one project for consideration, must rank their
submitted projects in priority order. VDOT and DRPT will evaluate projects in
priority order.
• The application, currently being finalized, is expected to be “simple and
straightforward.” Specific information on projects, including data for certain
measures must be provided by the applicant.
17

Application Process (cont.)
• HB2 project applications must include the following information:
– Scope - limits of the project, its physical and operational characteristics,
and physical and/or operational footprint.
– Schedule - the expected process for further project development
including key milestones, work activities, related activities,
approvals/approval timelines. The schedule should be realistic and reflect
the complexity of the project, and identify durations for project phases
– Cost –be realistic and account for applicable risk and contingencies based
on the size and complexity of the project.
• Projects that are based on conceptual planning-level recommendations,
or have not been formally scoped or defined, may require additional
planning/ pre-scoping before their benefits can be adequately assessed
through HB 2.
18

Application Process (cont.)
• Cost Estimates:
– For VDOT administered projects, VDOT to provide the applicant with a cost
estimate. If the applicant has provided an estimate, it must be validated by
VDOT.
– For locally administered projects and for all DRPT oversight projects, the
applicant may provide a cost estimate for each project application, however it
must be validated by VDOT and/or DRPT.
– If there is disagreement concerning the estimate that cannot be resolved
between the applicant and the VDOT/DRPT local contact, the applicant may
request resolution from the VDOT District Engineer/Administrator or the DRPT
Director.
19

Project Scoring
20
• Each project will be scored by:
– Calculating values for each of the evaluation measures
– Converting those values into a score for each factor
– Then by weighting the factor scores according to one of several potential weighting
frameworks approved by the CTB.
• The best project within each measure dictates scores for all projects:
VDOT HB 2 Presentation Document - July 9, 2015

Project Scoring (cont.)
21
 Apply Measure Weights: Once each measure’s score has been assigned, the
weighting is applied. The sum of weighted measure scores will produce the raw
factor score.
 Apply Factor Weights. The raw factor score is multiplied by the assigned
weighting percentage.
 Project Score. All weighted factor scores are added together to provide the
project score.
 Calculate Cost-Effectiveness. The project score is divided by the HB2-funded cost
of the project (in $10 millions).
• For example with a project, with a total score of $30 million scores 61.5:
o If the project is requesting $15 million in HB2 funds, the cost-
effectiveness index would be 41 per $ 10 million dollars of HB2 funds
invested.
o If the total project costs were used, the cost-effectiveness index would
be 21 per $ 10 million dollars of cost.

Project Scoring Example
22
Project "A" - located in
Typology A
Congestion Safety Accessibility Environ. Econ. Dev.
Land
Use
Throughput
Delay
F&SICrashes
F&SICrashRate
AccesstoJobs
AccesstoJobs
(Dis.Pop.)
Multimodal
Choices
AirQuality
Natural&Cult.
Resources
Economic
Development
Goods
Movement
TravelTim
Reliability
Trans.Efficient
LandUse
Measure Score 62 48 20 32 10 20 10 38 28 30 20 20 17
Measure Weight 50% 50% 50% 50% 60% 20% 20% 50% 50% 60% 20% 20% 100%
Weighted Measure Score 31 24 10 16 6 4 2 19 14 18 4 4 17
Raw Factor Score 55 26 12 33.0 26.0 17
Factor Weighting (Typ. A) 45% 5% 15% 10% 5% 20%
Weighted Factor Score 24.8 1.3 1.8 3.3 1.3 3.4
Project Score 35.9
Total Project Cost $20,000,000
Score Divided by Total Cost 18.0
HB2 Cost $10,000,000
Score Divided by HB2 Cost 35.9
VDOT HB 2 Presentation Document - July 9, 2015

Annual HB 2 Cycle
23
Final HB 2 Implementation Policy Guide

Funding Available for HB 2 Process
(subject to revisions)
HB 2 Percentage Amount Available
(in Millions)
District Grant Programs $500.1
- Bristol 7.1 35.3
- Culpeper 6.2 31.1
- Fredericksburg 6.9 34.3
- Hampton Roads 20.2 100.8
- Lynchburg 7.1 35.7
- Northern Virginia 20.7 103.7
- Richmond 14.4 72.2
- Salem 9.6 48.1
- Staunton 7.8 39.0
Statewide High-Priority Projects Program 500.1
Total 100.00 1,000.2
24

CTB Prioritization and Programming
• The HB2 review teams will present the screening and scoring results to
the CTB and the public.
• The CTB will give guidance on program development, and begin to narrow
down their funding decisions for projects that will be funded in the draft
SYIP.
• After the draft SYIP is presented, VDOT and DRPT will hold a public
comment period that will allow eligible entities to comment on the
process, screening decisions, and scoring of individual projects.
• CTB will take into account public comments on the draft SYIP, ultimately
approving the final SYIP for implementation in June.
25

CTB Prioritization and Programming (cont.)
• Prioritization process does not require the CTB to funds projects in order
of their scoring or to select the highest scoring project.
• Additional consideration may be used to develop the SYIP, such as:
– Public feedback from Fall Transportation Meetings;
– Overall availability of funding and eligible uses of such funding;
– Leveraging of outside funding sources
– Maximizing the use of Federal funds;
– Project development considerations – timeframe and extent of
Federally required location studies;
– Project segmentation – starting the next phase of a multi-segment
roadway improvement.
26

Changes in Project Scope/ Schedule/
Costs Following Project Selection
• Projects that have been selected for funding must be rescored if:
– A change in the scope of the project significant enough to impact the
anticipated benefits or to require the location decision, the
environmental review process, or public hearing to be revisited; OR
– Significant reduction in the locally/regionally leveraged funds available
for the project.
– An estimate increase over certain thresholds, prior to contract award,
unless local or other exempt funding is identified to support the increase.
27

Changes in Project Costs
• Projects must be re-scored when, based on the total project cost and the increase in
the cost:
– Total Cost Estimate <$5 million: 20% increase prior to award of the construction
contract
– Total Cost Estimate $5 million to $10 million: $1 million or greater increase prior to
award of the construction contract
– Total Cost Estimate > $10 million: 10% increase, with a $5 million maximum, prior to
the award of the construction contract
• To cover cost increases, funds will be reprogrammed from projects with surplus
allocations due to estimate decreases, contract award savings, schedule changes, etc.
or from the lowest priority project with eligible funds.
• If a project is selected for funding in an approved SYIP, intent is to keep that project as
a priority in subsequent SYIPs even if constraints require temporarily de-funding
lower-priority HB2 selected projects beyond the current six-year program.
28

Potential Fairfax County
Projects for Submission
(not in priority order)
29
• Route 1 Widening from Mt Vernon Memorial Highway to Napper Road
• Route 7 Widening from the Dulles Toll Road to Reston Ave
• Route 28 Widening from Route Rt. 29 to the Prince William County Line
• Fairfax County Parkway Improvements
– Route 123 to Route 29
– Popes Head Road Interchange
• I-66 and Route 28 Interchange (Phase II) & I-66 Corridor Improvements
(Outside the Beltway)
• I-95 and Fairfax County Parkway/Northbound Flyover
• Seven Corners Interchange Improvements
• Shirley Gate Road Extension

30
Questions?

Implementation of HB2 (2014) and HB 1887 (2015)

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie Implementation of HB2 (2014) and HB 1887 (2015)

Ähnlich wie Implementation of HB2 (2014) and HB 1887 (2015) (20)

Mehr von Fairfax County

Mehr von Fairfax County (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Implementation of HB2 (2014) and HB 1887 (2015)