Browse
Search
Agenda - 10-23-2007-6e
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2007
>
Agenda - 10-23-2007
>
Agenda - 10-23-2007-6e
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/2/2008 1:51:05 AM
Creation date
8/28/2008 10:55:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/23/2007
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6e
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20071023
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2007
RES-2007-080 Endorsing Comments to DCHC MPO TAC Regarding Regional Priority List for 2009-2015 MTIP
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Resolutions\2000-2009\2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
16 <br />a. Regional Goals -How well does the project meet the adopted regional goals? Is the project an <br />element of the current long-range plan? Does it implement community objectives (for the <br />intrastate system, does it meet NCDOT mobility objectives)? Does the project have a broad <br />base of local support? <br />b. Cost Effectiveness -How much benefit does the project offer compared to the estimated cost? <br />c. Timing Factor - Is timing a critical element for the project (one-time opportunity)? Will the <br />opportunity to do the project be lost if it is not in the current priority cycle? <br />d. Specific Project Merits -How many points does a project receive using scoring criteria? <br />APPLICATION OF THE METHODOLOGY <br />1. There are three separate ranking methodologies based on the primary mode of transportation: 1) <br />highway; 2) bicycle and pedestrian; and 3) transit. ITS, TSM, and TDM projects would be included <br />in whichever mode best fits the specific project. The three ranking methodologies are independent of <br />each other. Points for different modes are on different scales and are not comparable. <br />2. Local jurisdictions may elect to use the ranking methodology to create their local priority lists but are <br />not required to do so. When the local priority lists are submitted to the MPO, local jurisdictions are <br />requested to provide project information and, in some cases, award points in categories. Some point <br />categories can only be applied by the MPO once all projects have been submitted and evaluated. <br />3. The TCC first examines the consistency in which local jurisdictions have responded to the project <br />criteria. If the criteria are not applied consistently, the TCC can agree to change some criteria <br />responses for consistency among all projects. <br />4. Project criteria points are weighted and totaled for each project request using the three modal ranking <br />methodologies outlined on pages 7 through 10 of this document. <br />3. Projects receiving the same number of project criteria points are ordered by the local ranking. If the <br />local ranking is also the same (for example, Orange-1 vs. Chapel Hill-1), then the project with the <br />most additional local rankings will be ranked higher. If the projects also have the same number of <br />additional local rankings, then the project with the highest additional local ranking will be ranked <br />higher. <br />4. The draft Regional Priority List will consist of three modal priority lists: 1) highway; 2) bicycle and <br />pedestrian; and 3) transit. Projects with the highest numbex of project criteria points are selected first <br />- taking into consideration local priority rankings, geographical balance, and a mixture of project <br />types. <br />5. The draft Regional Priority List is then forwarded to the TAC, as the TCC's recommended project <br />priorities for the urban area. <br />6. The TAC will use the draft Regional Priority List as a starting point for the creation of the final <br />Regional Priority List. The TAC may wish to combine the three modal lists into one comprehensive <br />list. If this is done, it is important to note that the points are not comparable across different modes. <br />MODAL RANKING METHODOLOGIES IN DETAH., <br />Page 2 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.