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 CommitteeJuly 14, 2015

Noelle Dominguez, Legislative LiaisonDepartment of Transportation


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

Department of Transportation 2

Recent Changes to the State Transportation Funding Processes



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.



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


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



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 AsidesCMAQ, RSTP, Revenue

Sharing, etc.

30% Primary System

County Board Sets Priorities, without

restrictions

30% Urban SystemCity/Town

Council; Sets Priorities, without

restrictions


New Funding Formula



Set AsidesCMAQ, 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.



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, servingprimarily 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



HB 1887 Eligibility


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:


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 support from relevant regional entity

Regional Network Yes Yes Yes, with resolution of support from relevant 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.



Factors and Evaluation MeasuresThe 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



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.



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:


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.



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.



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.



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.



Project Scoring


• 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.)


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


Project "A" - located in Typology A

Congestion Safety Accessibility Environ. Econ. Dev. Land Use

Throughput Delay

F &SI Crash

es

F &SI Crash Rate

Access to Jobs

Access to Jobs

(Dis. Pop.)

Multimoda

l Choic

es

Air Qualit

y

Natural & Cult.

Resources

Economic

Developme

nt

Goods Movement

Travel Tim

Reliability

Trans. Efficie

nt Land Use

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 35.9Total Project Cost $20,000,000 Score Divided by Total Cost 18.0HB2 Cost $10,000,000Score Divided by HB2 Cost 35.9VDOT HB 2 Presentation Document - July 9, 2015


Annual HB 2 Cycle


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



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.



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.



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.



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.



Potential Fairfax County Projects for Submission

(not in priority order)


• 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



Questions?

implementation of hb2 (2014) and hb 1887 (2015)

News & Politics

transportation projects

transportation alternatives

board transportation

summary hb

federal funding

county of fairfax

state programs

regional version of