Alpesh Patel, of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and Bjorn Hansen, of the Centralina Council of Governments, at the 2012 National Rural Transportation Conference.

1. Our Prioritization Story
North Carolina`s Perspective
Alpesh Patel, North Carolina Department of Transportation
Bjorn Hansen, Lake Norman Rural Planning Organization
April 26, 2012 - NADO Conference, Burlington, VT

2. Today’s Outline
Best way to communicate complex information is through a STORY
• Focus on a single theme - transformation
• Well developed plot - smoke filled room vs. sunshine
• Word pictures/visual aids - or as engineers/planners say…a graph!
• Faithful to source - Same data, informed results; “eyewitness”
account

3. Transportation Reform
Public wanted politics removed from transportation decision-making
Governor Purdue issued Executive Order #2
“The Secretary of the Department of Transportation shall implement throughout the
Department a professional approval process for all highway construction programs,
highway construction contracts, highway construction projects, and plans for the
construction of projects.”
Strategic Planning Office created (3 founding members)
Implemented NCDOT’s first strategic prioritization process in 2009
Completed Prioritization 2.0 (P2.0); started P3.0

4. North Carolina Department of Transportation
Map shows MPOs, RPOs, and Divisions
Responsible for 6 modes of transportation:
• Aviation (74 publicly-owned airports)
• Bicycle and Pedestrian
• Ferries – 2nd largest system in US (behind Washington)
• Highways – Maintains 80,000 miles of highways (2nd only to Texas)
• Public Transportation
• Rail

5. North Carolina Department of Transportation
Map illustrates MPOS, RPOs, and
NCDOT Divisions (black outline)
Key Partners
• 17 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)
• 20 Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs)
• 14 Field Offices (Divisions)

6. How it All Fits Together: NCDOT Policy to Projects
Strategic Prioritization

7. Strategic Prioritization and Programming Process
1. Score 2. Strategize 3. Schedule
Prioritize Projects using Set Investment Strategy Program Projects
• Data • Conduct • Develop STIP using
Scenario/Trade-off Project Rankings &
• Local Input Analysis with DOT & Investment Strategy
Partners
• Multimodal • Apply Constraints
Characteristics • Constrained only by
Total Available • Compare Selected
• Classify ranked Revenue Strategy vs. Applied
Projects into Buckets Constraints
(Mode, Goal, Tier)

8. Project Classification – P2.0
Projects classified/scored by NCDOT Goal
• Mobility – make our transportation network move people and goods more efficiently
• Safety – make our transportation network safer
• Infrastructure Health – make our transportation infrastructure last longer
Projects classified/scored by NCDOT Tier
• Statewide – Interstates, Major US Routes, Commercial Service Airports, CSX, NS
• Regional – commuter routes, regional transit systems
• Subregional – low volume secondary roads (80% of NC system), fixed bus route
systems

9. P2.0 - Scoring Highway Projects
QUANTITATIVE LOCAL INPUT
Tier Data Division Rank MPO/RPO Rank
Statewide 70% 20% 10%
Regional 50% 25% 25%
Subregional 30% 30% 40%

10. Local Input
Each MPO/RPO & Division receives equal # of points  1,300
Can choose between Top 25 project ranking or Control Total
Top 25 OR Control Total
#1 = 100 Can rank projects as desired
#2 = 96 Max 100 pts per project
#3 = 92 Min 4 pts per project
…
#25 = 4 Can transfer points to other areas*
* Must be agreement between giving and receiving organizations

11. Multimodal Bonus Points for Highway Projects
Multimodal Options  8 points:
HOV / HOT, light rail, bus rapid transit, or bus-on-shoulder within highway ROW
Multimodal Connections  5 points:
Direct connection (property line) to a transportation terminal (airport, seaport, rail depot,
ferry terminal, transit terminal, freight intermodal terminal, or park and ride lot)
Military Base Connections  5 points:
Direct connection (property line) to a major military base.
Multimodal Design Features  3 points:
Sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, striped bicycle lanes, wide outside shoulders
(greater than or equal to two feet), bus pullouts, transit bypass lanes, transit signal
prioritization, bus shelters
Note: Multimodal Projects must be ranked and must be included in an adopted Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Long
Range Transportation Plan, or a mode-specific plan to receive pts.

12. Bicycle and Pedestrian - Scoring
Same scoring for Bicycle or Pedestrian Projects
18 pts max.
35 pts max. Rank Top 5
Projects: Right-of- 15 pts max. Direct access to
#1 = 35 pts Way transit / school / CBD / high-
#2 = 28 pts Acquired density residential or linkage to
#3 = 21 pts a large system of
#4 = 14 pts MPO/RPO interconnected bicycle /
Connectivity
#5 = 7 pts Ranking multiuse facilities
Crashes Inclusion
5 pts max. Three of more in Adopted
bicycle/vehicle or Plan 15 pts max. Recognition of a
pedestrian/vehicle crashes
Demand / project in an adopted bicycle /
within last 5 years
Density pedestrian plan
12 pts max. Greater densities = higher points

13. Public Transportation - Scoring
Expansion – 25 points max. # of new services hours provided due to capital investment
Connections – 12 points max. # of new synchronized connections (to other modes or other
transit services)
Technology/Safety – 16 points max. Surveillance cameras, security measures, real time info
on bus arrival time
Age of Fleet – 27 points max. Ability of the project to reduce the age of the fleet
Improved Facilities – 20 point max. Ability of project to extend life and service space
Local Input (MPO only Ranking) – 550 points/area; max 100 points per project.

14. Prioritization 2.0 Accomplishments
Generated scores and ranked almost 2000 projects
• 1200 Highway projects
• 600 Bicycle & Pedestrian projects
• 100 Public Transportation projects
Incorporated new performance-based criteria for highway projects
Increased flexibility of local input with use of 1300 control points
Launched new web portal devoted to continuous conversation with
planning partners (Partner Connect)
Results at http://www.ncdot.org/performance/reform/prioritization/

15. Prioritization 2.0 Summary
Highways Non-Hwy Transportation
• Approx. $9.0B in available revenue • Approx. $1.0B in avail. revenue
• Data-driven • Data Driven
• MPO and RPO ranked projects • MPO and RPO ranked public
transit and bike/ped. projects
• $51.5B in needs • $11.5B in needs
 1,200 projects = $44.5B  700 Projects = $4.4B
 Other needs = $7B  Other needs = $7.1B
$63 Billion in Total Transportation Needs
$10 Billion in Revenue (Years 2018-2022)

16. Strategic Prioritization and Programming Process
1. Score 2. Strategize 3. Schedule
Prioritize Projects using Set Investment Strategy Program Projects
• Data • Conduct • Develop STIP using
Scenario/Trade-off Project Rankings &
• Local Input Analysis with DOT & Investment Strategy
Partners
• Multimodal • Apply Constraints
Characteristics • Constrained only by
Total Available • Compare Selected
• Classify ranked Revenue Strategy vs. Applied
Projects into Buckets Constraints
(Mode, Goal, Tier)

17. How to Divide the Pie? - Determining the Investment Strategy
How to Divide the Pie? - Determining the Investment Strategy
?%
?%
?% ?%

18. Investment Strategy Summits
Summits held throughout NC every 2 years
• Partner and public input opportunity
Purpose: provide input on where to apply expected revenue
• What are the high-level priorities?
• What is the investment needed to achieve those priorities?
• Revenue is based on expected 10 Year total, unconstrained
Use Level of Service (LOS) analysis to determine return on investment
(i.e., if $X are allocated to Bucket “Y”, expected 10 Year LOS is “Z”)
Outcome is a “picture of where transportation $ should be spent”

19. Performance Level of Service (LOS)
Quality of service provided to the user
Different than Highway Capacity Manual
Criteria for determining LOS
• Measures are reliable, repeatable, and affordable
• Current measure and targets are realistic (graded on A-F scale)
• Data is readily available, easy to collect and update
Determine existing LOS and baseline LOS for 10 years in future
Translate LOS into $$ needed to maintain and improve performance
LOS

20. Performance Level of Service (LOS) – Example
100
Optimal
Target
LOS
90
A
10 YR
Target
80
B
Level of Service
LOS
You are Here
$$ Additional achieve 10 Yr. Target
needed to
Revenue/Funding
70
C
$ Additional Revenue/Funding needed to
maintain current LOS
60
D
50
E
Current Year 10 Future
Year Year
LOS based on Do-Nothing Maintain Current LOS Achieve Target LOS

21. LOS – Current Grades (Highways)
GOAL Performance Measure Current Desired Level
Level of Service of Service
% of miles with uncongested
Mobility roadways
B ?
Infrastructure Health % of miles with “Good” rating or
better
C ?
(Pavement)
Infrastructure Health % of miles meeting DOT paved
shoulder width standards
D ?
(Modernization)
Safety Fatal Crash Rates C ?
Infrastructure Health
% of bridges with “Good” rating
(Bridges) or better
C ?
Overall Average for Highways C ?
*Note: letter grades reflect an average across Tiers

22. LOS – Current Grades (Non-Highways)
MODE GOAL Performance Current Desired
Measure Level of Level of
Service Service
Aviation All 3 Goals # of unfunded Projects D ?
Bicycle - Pedestrian Mobility Bike-Pedestrian Index D ?
# of vehicles left behind
Mobility / year
Ferry # of terminals / vessels C ?
Health meeting Coast Guard
standards
Passenger trips, age of
Public Transportation All 3 Goals fleet, dollars invested in C ?
safety/security
Rail Mobility Mobility Index D ?
Overall Average for Non-Highways D ?
*Note: letter grades reflect an average across Tiers

23. Strategic Prioritization and Programming Process
1. Score 2. Strategize 3. Schedule
Prioritize Projects using Set Investment Strategy Program Projects
• Data • Classify ranked • Develop STIP using
Projects into Buckets Project Rankings &
• Local Input (Mode, Goal, Tier) Investment Strategy
• Multimodal • Conduct • Apply Constraints
Characteristics Scenario/Trade-off
Analysis with DOT & • Compare Selected
Partners Strategy vs. Applied
Constraints
• Constrained only by
Total Available
Revenue

24. Factors Influencing TIP
Project
Priority
Development
Ranking
Time
Construction Investment
Sequence TIP Strategy
Funding
Equity Formula
Constraints
Prioritization Results ≠ Programming

25. Questions?

26. Local Perspective on Input into the North Carolina
DOT Transportation Improvement Program
Project Ranking Process
2012 National Rural Transportation Conference
April 2012

27. Background of Transportation Planning in
North Carolina
 Page 27

28. Lake Norman RPO Facts
360,000 people
Northern and western edges of Charlotte region
Report to NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch
Made up of four counties and eight municipalities
Intermediary between local governments and the NCDOT for plan
development, project identification, prioritization, design review, and grant
submittal
Staffed by “about” two people within the Charlotte region’s COG
 Page 28

29. North Carolina STIP Development Process and MPO/RPO
Input
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
Updated on a two-year cycle
Five year funding document, with a second five-year planning document
(for a total 10-year document)
Subject to many limitations on the use of funds
RPO Input
Previously NCDOT accepted project rankings, but also accepted projects
from local communities outside of the MPO/RPO system
Since 2009 NCDOT only accepts project rankings from
within the MPO/RPO system
 Page 29

30. Lake Norman Project Ranking History
2003: First time RPO develops priority list
 Projects solicited from RPO members (five per member)
 All 100+ projects submitted to NCDOT
2005: Refinement of 2003 priority list
 Projects are broken into phases
 List is broken into “high-priority” and “other” projects
 Top 50 projects submitted
2007: First time cost-effectiveness is quantified by RPO
 Submitted project list further limited to reflect available funds
 Top 25 projects submitted
2009: NCDOT moves to formal quantitative statewide project
ranking process (SPOT 1.0), similar to the RPO’s process
 Top 25 projects submitted
2011: RPO revises ranking process to include infrastructure health and submits
prioritized project list under SPOT 2.0 process
 Top 25 projects submitted
 Page 30

31. Common Ranking Process Variables and LNRPO
Weighting
Travel Demand (4.5) Cost-benefit (2)
Safety (2.5) Natural environment impact (1)
Consistency with existing Human environment impact (1)
local transportation plans (2.5) Project already in STIP (1)
Consistency with local land Air quality impact (1)
use plans (2.5)
Environmental Justice
On NC strategic corridor (2) considerations (1)
Supports economic Infrastructure health
development initiatives (2)
Multi-modal (2)
 Page 31

32. Lake Norman RPO 2011 Ranking Results
LAKE NORMAN RPO RANKING PROCESS RESULTS
Points Assigned SPOT Ranking within Division 12 Points Assigned by Division 12
Ranking Project (and RPO Ranking Score) by RPO (OUT OF 96 PROJECTS) (Out of 1300)
(Out of 1300)
1 1-40/1-77 Interchange (97.25 points) 100 5 100
2 I-77 from West Catawba to US 21 (91.5 points) 96 1 100
3 I-77 from NC 115/ US 21 to I-40 (87.25 points) 92 9 100
4 I-77 from US 21 to NC 115/US 21 (87 points) 88 7 100
I-40 widening from Catawba County to Statesville
5 84 48 0
(81.75 points)
US 74 Bypass from Long Branch Road to west of
6 80 14 100
Stoney Point Road (80 points)
US 74 Bypass from west of NC 150 to Long Branch
7 76 17 100
Road (79.25 points)
8 Williamson Road from I-77 to NC 150 (75.5 points) 72 3 0
9 NC 150 from Harvel Road to I-77 (74.25 points) 68 10 100
Existing US 74 Bypass- widening to six lanes (73.25
10
 Page 32 64 53 0
points)

33. MPO/RPO Responses to NCDOT SPOT Program
Issue Pre-SPOT Post-SPOT
No format (lists, memos, resolutions
Submittal format Web-based submittal portal
used)
Number of Projects No limit- some organizations
Up to 25 per RPO/ MPO
Allowed submitted 50+ projects
Bike/ped, transit, and road projects Project ranking and submittal
Project Type
could be co-mingled separated by mode
Cost Limits Unlimited Unlimited
Who can submit
Anyone- private, public, MPO/RPO MPO/RPO only
candidate projects?
Increased reliance on “SPOT”
Prioritization Process Highly variable local processes
scores
Cause for confusion- Projects were
Significance of Two five-year categories.
occasionally added with little near-
Inclusion in STIP Inclusion has significance
 Page 33 term potential for funding

34. Results of SPOT Process on MPO/RPO
Rankings and Submittals
Reduced MPO/RPO highway project submittals (over 1,000
reduced to ~600). Projects cost a total of $27 billion
MPO/RPOs now focus on projects with “momentum”. Less
focus on aspirational projects
Increase in Bicycle and Pedestrian project submittals (before
there was no formal process soliciting projects)- 229 projects
submitted costing $177 million
Apples to Apples Comparisons: MPOs and RPOs now know
how their projects score relative to their peers
NCDOT Division staff priorities known- scores are
shown in project database
 Page 34

35. Further Refinement and MPO/RPO
Response
 Recognition of limited resources: Increased focus on smaller
projects for highest and best use of resources
 Increased coordination with NCDOT Divisions: Greater
awareness of state priorities and desire to “maximize
influence”
 Reduced project submittals: Further intent on “maximizing
influence”
 Common data sources: Safety, congestion, cost figures
typically rely on NCDOT SPOT office numbers
 Page 35

36. NC Prioritization Story
Alpesh Patel
North Carolina Department of Transportation
http://www.ncdot.org/performance/reform/prioritization/
email – agpatel@ncdot.gov
Bjorn Hansen
Lake Norman Rural Planning Organization
http://lakenormanrpo.org/
email – BHansen@centralina.org