Persons in need of auxiliary aids or services, such as interpretation services or assisted listening devices, are asked to contact DRCOG at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting by calling (303) 480-6744.

AGENDA

TIP Review Work Group – Mtg. 9 Friday, April 15, 2016

9:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. 1290 Broadway

Independence Pass Board Room - Ground floor, West side

1. Call to Order

2. February 3, 2016 - Meeting Summary (Attachment A)

3. Discussion of draft timelines for the adoption of the 2020-2025 TIP (Attachment B)

4. Discussion of topics to be addressed regarding the Dual Model for TIP project selection (Attachment C)

5. Adjournment Upcoming meeting dates

To be determined

ATTACHMENT A

MEETING SUMMARY

TIP REVIEW WORK GROUP – Mtg. 8

Wednesday, February 3, 2016 - 9:00 a.m.

PARTICIPANTS PRESENT: Jeanne Shreve Adams County Kent Moorman Adams County, City of Thornton Bryan Weimer Arapahoe County Mac Callison Arapahoe County, City of Aurora George Gerstle Boulder County Danny Herrmann CO Dept. of Transportation Janice Finch Denver, City and County David Gaspers Denver, City and County Doug Rex DRCOG Steve Cook DRCOG Art Griffith Douglas County John Cotten Douglas County, City of Lone Tree Steve Durian Jefferson County Dave Baskett Jefferson County, City of Lakewood Ken Lloyd RAQC Ted Heyd TDM/Non-motor DRCOG Staff: Todd Cottrell, Will Soper, Brad Calvert, Casey Collins Call to Order Chair George Gerstle called the meeting to order at 9:12 a.m. Draft White Paper Discussion Doug Rex presented a revised version of the draft TIP Review White Paper based on comments received by Work Group members at the January 22, 2016 meeting. He said the purpose of today’s meeting is to seek any additional comments/suggestions Work Group members may have before finalizing the white paper for DRCOG Board action on February 17, 2016. The work group discussed the white paper and reached consensus on several items. Staff agreed to make the appropriate changes and email the final version for a last review no later than Friday, February 5. Any comments should be emailed back to staff by Monday, February 8. The meeting ended at 10:37 a.m.

ATTACHMENT B

To: TIP Review Work Group

From: Todd Cottrell, Senior Transportation Planner, Transportation Planning and Operations 303 480-6737 or tcottrell@drcog.org

Meeting Date Agenda Category Agenda Item #

April 15, 2016 Discussion 3

SUBJECT

Draft timelines for adoption of the 2020-2025 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP).

PROPOSED ACTION/RECOMMENDATIONS

Discussion

ACTION BY OTHERS

N/A

SUMMARY

At the February 2016 Board meeting, the Board acted to accept the 2016-2021 TIP Review White Paper and directed staff to continue work with the TIP Review Work Group in investigating the five recommendations included within the white paper. One of the recommendations is for the TIP Work Group to take the next steps in the investigation of the Dual Model for TIP project selection. Since it is unclear at this time which process (traditional vs. dual) the DRCOG TIP selection process will take, staff has prepared two draft alternate timelines for the adoption of the 2020-2025 TIP in spring 2019:

Attachment B-1 is a draft timeline following the traditional DRCOG TIP process.

Attachment B-2 is a draft timeline reflecting a Dual Model project selection process. At the April 15 meeting, staff will seek the Work Group’s input on the proposed schedules.

PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS/ACTIONS

N/A

PROPOSED MOTION

NA

ATTACHMENTS

B-1. Draft Traditional Model Timeline for the 2020-2025 TIP

B-2. Draft Dual Model Timeline for the 2020-2025 TIP

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

If you need additional information, please contact Todd Cottrell, Senior Transportation Planner, Transportation Planning and Operations, at 303-480-6737 or tcottrell@drcog.org.

ATTACHMENT B-1

Draft Traditional Model Timeline for the 2020-2025 TIP (April 2016)

2016 February White Paper Completed April Restart TIP Work Group May Dual Model Evaluation & Identification – regional project considerations/steps; Sub-region allocation considerations/steps Sept Complete review of “Dual Model” Project Selection Process October Board Direction on Dual vs. Traditional selection process Oct - Dec TIP Work Group review of ROI principals: in current TIP, options for new TIP

Assume Existing TIP Process Model:

2017 Jan - Feb Work Group/Staff evaluation of off-the-top programs and set asides; March Board Direction for TIP Policy Group/Committee structure, and purpose statement May TIP Policy Group begins discussions: - Process based on ROI, metrics, benefits

- Eligibility rules -Project type adequacy

- Evaluation criteria and scoring - Timing of call, submittals, selection - Timing of funding level definition - Scope precision - Decision/recommendation schedule and deadline -Set-Aside Programs and Pools -Wait list -Others

2018 March Final Policy Document adopted by Board May Call for Projects / Training July/Aug Applications due Aug Project scoring review, ranking Nov 1st phase confirmation, 2nd phase selection process Dec 2nd Phase selection approval

2019 January Draft TIP document to Board March Public Hearing April Approval of 2020-2025 TIP

ATTACHMENT B-2

Draft Dual Model Timeline for the 2020-2025 TIP (April 2016)

2016 February White Paper Completed April Restart TIP Work Group May Dual Model Evaluation & Identification – regional project considerations/steps; Sub-region allocation considerations/steps Sept Complete review of “Dual Model” Project Selection Process October Board Direction on Dual vs. Traditional selection process Oct -Dec TIP Work Group complete review of ROI principals: in current TIP, options for new TIP

Assume Dual Model Process:

2017 Jan - Feb Work Group/Staff evaluation of off-the-top programs and set asides; Methods for consideration of project requests March Board Direction for TIP Policy Group structure; guidance for sub-region forums; purpose

statement May TIP Policy Group begins discussions Regional Projects Pot: - Eligibility rules (funding level, hierarchy, amount by mode type, etc) - Evaluation criteria and scoring (single phase only? no scoring?) - Timing of call, submittals, selection (centralized or receive from sub-areas) Sub-Region Allocations Pot: - Definition of sub-regions - Funding formula for sub-regions - Project eligibility rules - Core defined specific criteria? - Required “types” of flexible criteria - Scope precision - Decision/recommendation schedule and deadline Definition of roles: Staff with forums/ assistance, review, etc. Set-Aside Programs and Pools Wait list process, other policy components CDOT – funding control totals (program distribution) Sub-region forum start-ups

2018 March Final Policy Document May Call for Regional Projects (specifics to be determined) Sub-Region Forum process Aug Regional Projects scoring review, ranking, and official selection by Board Dec Final Sub-Region project recommendations

2019 January Draft TIP document to Board March Public Hearing April Approval of 2020-2025 TIP

ATTACHMENT C

To: TIP Review Work Group

From: Steve Cook, MPO Planning Program Manager 303 480-6749 or scook@drcog.org

Meeting Date Agenda Category Agenda Item #

April 15, 2016 Discussion 4

SUBJECT

Topics to be addressed regarding the Dual Model for TIP Project Selection.

PROPOSED ACTION/RECOMMENDATIONS

Discussion

ACTION BY OTHERS

N/A

SUMMARY

Over the next several meetings, the Work Group will need to address many specific procedural questions related to the Dual Model, and prepare associated recommendations for the DRCOG Board of Directors. Staff will continue to communicate with the other Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) that have conducted “dual” type TIP selection processes as specific topics of discussion come up. In order to initiate the discussion, staff offers Attachment C-1, which graphically portrays some of the process elements of the Dual Model in the DRCOG context. Specific example topics are spelled out with more detail in Attachment C-2. The topics fall into three general categories: the overall dual model process, the regional project funding allocation, and the sub-regional allocations. At the April 15 meeting, the Work Group is asked to discuss Dual model topics needed to be addressed in this process and develop a framework for addressing those (and others) in the next several of months.

PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS/ACTIONS

N/A

PROPOSED MOTION

N/A

ATTACHMENTS

C-1. Schematic Diagram – Dual TIP Project Selection Model

C-2. Dual TIP Selection Model - Topics to be addressed by Work Group

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

If you need additional information, please contact Steve Cook, at 303-480-6749 or scook@drcog.org.

Set-Asides/CommitmentsPools: (TDM, STAMPs, Ops

ITS/Signal Systems)

Programs: (Way to Go, Air Q.,

Signal Coordination)

Projects:

$40 Mil.

DRCOG

Federal Funds2020-2023 TIP

(FY20 - FY23 $)

$280 Mil.

e.g.

50%-50% split of

remaining $240 Mil.

Regional Projects Sub-Region Projects- Total Allocation Amount? - Define Geog sub-regions

- Project Eligibility (RTP?) Dual - Core Criteria Share (MV) % $

- Evaluation Criteria & Scoring Project - Required types of criteria Adams XX% $XXX

- Project Selection Selections - Other Criteria Guidance Arapahoe XX% $XXX

- 1st or 2nd Phase method? - Project Eligibility (Fed.) Boulder XX% $XXX

- Forum Structure Guidance Broomfield XX% $XXX

- Decision schedule Denver XX% $XXX

$120 Million - Wait list(s) Douglas XX% $XXX

- Scope level of detail Jefferson XX% $XXX

$120 Million SW Weld XX% $XXX

100.0% $120,000,000

- - - Example for Discussion Only - - -

ATTACHMENT C-1

Example Allocations (4-yr tot.)

(e.g. Pop., Employment, VMT, etc.)

Schematic Diagram - Dual TIP Project Selection Model (example for discussion only)(April 7, 2016)

4/7/2016 C1-Schematic Diagram Dual Model.xlsx

ATTACHMENT C-2

Dual TIP Selection Model – Draft Topics to be Addressed by Work Group (April 7, 2016)

Page 1

A. Overall Process

1. What sequence/schedule should be followed regarding establishment of:

a. Set-asides/Pools

b. Regional project allocation

c. Sub-regional recommendation

2. How should the funding distribution between regional and sub-regional allocations be determined?

a. Definition of regional pot funds (or target) before or after projects submitted or selected

B. Regional Project Allocation

1. What types of projects should be eligible for regional allocations?

a. How are regional projects defined?

i. Facility type, service type, size, cost. . . .

2. What evaluation criteria should be used?

a. General categories

b. Specific criteria

3. Should the regional allocation selection process have two phases?

4. How should project waiting list(s) be prepared (Regional and Sub-regional)?

5. How should “additional” accrued TIP funds be allocated to wait list projects (i.e., during first three years of TIP)?

C. Sub-Region Allocations

1. How should the sub-regional geographic areas be defined? (confirmation from FHWA)

a. By county?

b. By logical subarea (population, travel patterns, etc)?

2. How should funding allocations to sub-regions be calculated?

a. i.e., population, employment, VMT, other . . . .

3. What guidelines should be established for the sub-region forums? (“forums” will be responsible for recommending projects to the DRCOG Board)?

a. Participation/membership structure

b. Forum procedures (e.g., public comment/participation, consensus/voting)

c. Other:

ATTACHMENT C-2

Dual TIP Selection Model – Draft Topics to be Addressed by Work Group (April 7, 2016)

Page 2

4. Project selection procedures

a. Should an application/call for projects process required?

i. e.g., if call for projects not used, still compile criteria info for selected projects.

b. All eligible entities involved (local governments, state and regional agencies)

5. Should some specific “core-criteria” be universal across all sub-regions?

a. i.e., Metro Vision non-transportation criteria, EJ, sponsor attributes, etc.

6. Should some general types of criteria should be required? – specifics to be determined through each forum:

a. Basic technical evaluations related to:

i. Problem definition (volume, congestion, connectivity, filling gaps, etc.)

ii. Likely benefits (usage, delay reduction, crash reduction, etc.)

b. Other related beneficial elements:

i. e.g., multimodal components, connections to transit, etc.

7. How to incorporate (or not) project type targets?

8. How to incorporate consideration of funding program categories (CMAQ, TAP, and STP-Metro)?