Summary:  The Financial Element Technical Group developed an RTP Project Evaluation Criteria Focus Group to discuss in-depth revisions and updates to the 2018 RTP Project Evaluation Criteria. The 2018 Project Evaluation Criteria will be used to score the priority of projects submitted during the RTP Call for Projects process in terms of forecasted funding available through the sunset year of the RTP (2042).  The focus group met on five separate occasions in the last month, up from the two meetings originally planned, in an effort to assure a comprehensive set of criteria.

The focus group consisted of representatives from Fresno, Clovis, Fresno County, a rural westside representative (Mendota), a rural eastside representative (Reedley), a transit representative (FCRTA), as well as a few representatives from various non-governmental organizations with interest in bike/ped, air quality, health, and transportation equity.  The Focus Group collaborated on the revisions made, and are in agreement with the totality of the revised document.

Highlights of the revisions made include:

• A health priority index criterion was added to bike/ped and transit sections, in an effort to steer at least some project preference to areas that are the most health burdened, and are also likely the most disadvantaged.

• Level of Service in Capacity Increasing Criteria was updated to “Congestion Relief” instead, but the premise behind the criteria is basically the same - to prioritize capacity-increasing projects by the level of congestion a roadway is experiencing.

• The Streets and Roads Non-capacity Increasing section was broken into two separate evaluation criteria: one for Maintenance, and the other for Operations.  The Maintenance criterion has basically been redone; with criteria that, for the most part, was not in this section previously.  The thought behind this was to try and accurately evaluate the merits of maintenance projects.  Previously, the criteria in the Capacity Increasing section was being used to score maintenance and operations projects, and the criteria didn’t seem to work well in order to evaluate priorities for maintenance projects. Operations was also re-worked as well.

• The remaining revisions were mostly grammatical in nature; word choice, sentence structure, clarifications, etc.

It is important to note that this criteria will be used solely to determine a project's ranking in the RTP in terms of projected funding; not actual funding available during a program Call-for-Projects.  The criteria will be used to create the RTP's constrained and unconstrained list of projects.

The Financial Element technical group recommended approval of the 2018 RTP project evaluation criteria.

Action:  Staff recommends that the RTP Roundtable recommend approval of the final draft of the 2018 RTP Project Evaluation Criteria to the TTC/PAC and COG Policy Board.

Summary: In this current update to the RTP, staff proposes that the Financial Element Project Scenarios closely align with the SCS scenario concepts that have been developed and approved by the RTP Roundtable.

The vast majority of the funding sources that can be projected to fund scenario projects are designated for particular modes.  Those funding sources will be allocated in this process towards the particular modes that they are designated for first.  The remaining funding sources, which are mainly RSTP (which is now known as STBGP - Surface Transportation Block Grant Program), and partially CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Program), are the funding sources that are more flexible and are the only sources that will be used to create the variations between the four (4) Project Scenarios.  After funds from all other sources are allocated to the highest-scoring projects (according to the Project Evaluation Criteria, by mode), a methodology must be employed to determine which remaining projects (if any) should be considered to receive funding from RSTP and CMAQ, for each SCS Scenario.

The methodology that staff proposes involves using elements from the Project Evaluation Criteria that correspond to the levels of investment that have been determined for each SCS Scenario concept.  This way, the methodology can be completely objective and would require neither additional work nor separate scoring criteria to evaluate projects for RSTP and/or CMAQ eligibility.

The attached materials outline the eight SCS Scenario funding priorities, as well as their rank for each of the four approved scenario concepts.  For each of these priorities, it also shows which modes’ Project Evaluation Criteria include applicable measures that would apply to that priority.  In the proposed methodology, the applicable scoring criteria for each project to be considered for RSTP and/or CMAQ funding will be scaled in proportion to the investment priorities specified by the SCS Scenario.

For example, SCS Scenario D demonstrates a higher priority for increasing roadway capacity than the other scenarios.  (Quantitatively, Scenario D’s investment in capacity increasing projects is represented by a value of 3, compared to a value of 1 for other scenarios.)  As such, the project scenario corresponding with SCS Scenario D should reflect this emphasis by increasing the weighted importance of capacity increasing projects.

Staff has developed a tool to automate this process, and will demonstrate the tool’s performance at the meeting.

Action:  Staff recommends that the RTP Roundtable recommend approval of the process for determining the RTP Funding Scenarios and the methodology for prioritizing projects within each funding scenario to the TTC/PAC and COG Policy Board.

Summary: The Environmental Justice (EJ) Subcommittee was asked to assist Fresno COG in identifying an EJ Performance Indicator that will be used to evaluate the impact of each scenario modeled under the 2018 Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). The subcommittee met and discussed the following performance measures.

• Accessibility - The ease of reaching destinations as measured by the percent of commuters who can get to work within a given period of time. Will be measured by calculating average travel times during the peak morning commute to defined major job centers.
• Mobility - The ability to move throughout the region within a reasonable amount of time. Will be measured by calculating average travel times on highways and transit during the evening peak travel time.
• Access to Community Resources - Combination of Accessibility and Mobility.
• Transit Investment Effectiveness - Measures maximized return on transit investments. Estimated by dividing the new added average number of daily passenger miles traveled served by RTP transit projects in the full project list by the total $1,000 of investment inside and outside the EJ TAZs.
• Distribution of Investments - Ensuring equitable distribution of transportation investment benefits. Compares the ratio of person-miles traveled on roadway & transit projects in an area to the total investment in roads and transit in that area.
• Reliability - Compares the percentage of on-time arrivals. Calculating vehicle miles traveled on congested highways or in transit vehicles

The EJ subcommittee recommended Access to Community Resource as the EJ SCS indicator.

Action: Staff recommends that the RTP Roundtable recommend the approval of “Access to Community Resources” as the Environmental Justice Indicator for the 2018 Sustainable Communities Strategy to the TTC/PAC and Policy Board.

Summary: The draft Action Element for the 2018 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) describes the programs and actions necessary to implement the RTP and assigns implementation responsibilities.  The draft will describe transportation projects anticipated to be completed during the RTP's horizon (2042) and will consider congestion management activities within the region.  All transportation modes (highways, local streets and roads, mass transportation, rail, bicycle, aviation facilities and services) are addressed. The draft Action Element provides direction about the roles and responsibilities of the MPO and other agencies as RTP projects and policies are established.

Each mode section has a team leader and work is beginning on drafting the text for each section. The sections are divided into the following categories: multimodal; highways, streets and roads; urban mass transportation; rural area public transportation & social service transportation; aviation; non-motorized; rail; specific transportation strategies and management systems; and air quality.

Each mode or transportation strategy will be presented in a separate section and will include a discussion of the existing system, an assessment of needs and proposed actions. The latter will be divided into short-range (0-4 years) and long-range (5-26 years). Proposed actions will be based upon projected travel demand and appropriate policy. The short-range measures will then form the basis for the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (state funding) and the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (federal funding).

 Tentative timeline for the development of the draft Action Element:

• June 2017 through mid-August 2017 Write text for Action Element sections.
• September 27, 2017 draft Action Element to 2018 RTP Roundtable for review/comment.
• December 8, 2017 all draft documents completed for 2018 RTP.

The basic format of the draft Action Element will follow the 2014 RTP which can be accessed here:

http://www.fresnocog.org/sites/default/files/publications/RTP/Final_RTP/2014_RTP_Chapter_Five_Final_.pdf

Action: Information only. Direction may be provided at the discretion of the Roundtable.