1 County of Fairfax, Virginia Continuation of Countywide Dialogue on Transportation: Project Selection A Six-Year Outlo ok Board Transportation Committee

1

County of Fairfax, Virginia

Continuation of Countywide Dialogue on Transportation:

Project SelectionA Six-Year Outlook

Board Transportation CommitteeSeptember 17, 2013

Tom Biesiadny, DirectorFairfax County Department of Transportation

2


Content

Purpose

Background

Funding Outlook

Unfunded Transportation Needs

Cost Benefit Analysis/Project Selection/Prioritization

Proposed Public Outreach

3


Purpose

This effort is intended to determine the Board’s transportation project priorities through FY 2020, while taking all project selection criteria into consideration. And, utilize all available revenues to meet the need of these unfunded project priorities.

4


Background, Timeline

February 2012 – Staff presented transportation funding needs to the Board and discusses possible sources of revenue.

Spring 2012 – Staff returned to the Board with outreach strategy which included creating an advisory group.

Summer 2012 – Stakeholders for “extended” TAC identified, TAC actively involved in outreach planning. Outreach activity plan under development.

Staff presented the outreach plan and schedule for engaging the public on the transportation needs to the Board.

5


Background, Timeline (cont)Fall 2012 – the “Countywide Dialogue on Transportation” was undertaken; it included public engagement concerning transportation needs and potential new sources of funding. Numerous public meetings and a web survey were conducted.

Winter/Spring 2013 – The Virginia General Assembly met and considered a variety of transportation funding strategies/bills.

April 2013 - HB 2313, a transportation funding plan that included regional funding for Northern Virginia, is enacted.

6


Funding Outlook

• Staff has considered all available revenue sources for FY2014-FY2020.

• Revenues committed to projects in the Board’s Four-Year Plan (FY2013-FY2016) have been excluded from discussion.

• The majority of funding sources come from local and regional revenues. However, estimated increases in state funding for transportation projects in Fairfax County due to the enactment of HB 2313 have also been included.

• Each funding source has its own set of requirements and guidelines.

• Total estimated funding available through FY2020 is $1.2 billion.

7


Estimates of Revenue Sources Considered, Six-Year Period

General Obligation Bonds (2014 referendum, unallocated) $ 20MCommercial & Industrial Tax (C&I) 20MHB 2313 Local 223MHB 2313 Regional 541MRevenue Sharing 50M Secondary Road Fund 19MTransportation Alternative Program (TAP) Grants 5MTransportation Trust Fund (Estimated increases from HB 2313) 183MMass Transit Fund (Estimated increases from HB 2313) 194M

Total $1.25B

8


Revenues Purposely Excluded

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), and Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP).•Currently these funds are programmed through FY2019.•Applications for FY2020 are due late September.•FY2020 project selection must be determined prior to outreach efforts. •Board item September 24, 2013.

FY 2015 Revenue Sharing•Applications for FY2015 are due late October. •FY2015 project selection must be determined prior to outreach efforts.•Board item September 24, 2013.

9


Unfunded Transportation NeedsFebruary 2012 - The Transportation Needs/Revenues over a 10 year period were revised and presented to the Board during its retreat

Since February 2012:•Staff has reexamined needs and revised assumed revenues; worked with consultants to refine scopes and cost estimates for all unfunded projects; and developed a Cost Benefit Analysis model to assist in prioritizing projects for funding.•Board approved funding sources for projects related to Tysons.

$8.1B in expenditures

-$5.1B in assumed revenues

$3.0B deficit ($300M/year)

10


Unfunded Transportation Needs (cont)

NOTE: Need to maintain flexibility to include new projects.

$3.00 billion deficit (10-year period) - February 2012

-$0.40 billion in assumed revenues from Tysons Funding Plan

-$1.16 billion in new regional funding from Transportation Bill

-$0.55 billion in new state funding from Transportation Bill

-$0.10 billion in assumed state Revenue Sharing funds$0.79 billion deficit (10-year period)$79 million per year still needed.

Revised Estimate of Deficit

11


PROJECTS

12


County Projects Needed (see

Handouts/Posters)• The County has identified additional capital and operating

projects necessary to maintain a safe and efficient transportation network.

• These projects provide for new capacity and do not address ongoing maintenance needs. They are not funded in any existing or ongoing transportation plans and will require new sources of revenue.

• These projects are in addition to projects that are already in progress (also see list of ongoing, Funded Projects).

• Highway maintenance costs have been excluded, since road maintenance is primarily a state responsibility. Most sources available to the County preclude maintenance. The state will receive additional funding from HB 2313.

13


Major Emphasis Areas

• Tysons Related Projects• Base Realignment and

Closure (BRAC) Improvements

• Comprehensive Plan Improvements (includes Interchanges)

• Road Widenings • Transit service expansions

for Dulles Rail, South County, and I-66 Corridor.

14


Major Emphasis Areas (cont.)

• Transit operating and capital (Countywide)

• Improvements in Activity Centers such as Richmond Highway, Annandale, Bailey’s Crossroads, Reston, Springfield, McLean, etc.

• Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

15


Project Description Posters/SheetsPosters•Posters display currently funded and unfunded projects•Color coded by project type•Activity Centers•Countywide Transit Network Study Corridors•Magisterial Districts•Comparison of projects (i.e Cost Benefit Analysis, categories)Sheets•Project sheets include full detail of each unfunded project, some information included:

o Titleo Description/Scopeo Estimate of Costo Pictures or Mapo Benefits

16


• Congestion Reduction*• Economically Disadvantaged Populations• Mode Balance• Safety• Travel Time Savings*• Community Input• School and Park Access• Regional Consideration (included in NVTA TransAction

2040)• Air Quality*• Countywide Balance• Disabled/Elderly Populations• Economic Development (support for revitalization

areas and major Activity Centers)

Criteria for Future Project Selection(Not in Priority Order)

*Included in the Cost Benefit Analysis

Staff will continue to evaluate criteria for project selection in addition to Cost/Benefit Analysis.

17


• There are many factors that play a role in project selection (discussed in previous slide).

• Typically, no one factor outweighs another; all are taken into consideration.

• Ultimately, the decision of approving a priority project list will rest with the Board.

Project Selection

18


Cost Benefit Analysis

What is the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)?•A systematic process for calculating and comparing benefits and costs of a project.

Why use a CBA?•Tool to help determine if a project is a sound investment.•Helps provide a basis for comparing projects.•County’s method streamlines project data collection process.•One input into project selection.

19


Cost Benefit Analysis (cont)

Some benefits incorporated in the CBA:

Highway and Transit•User travel time savings•User vehicle operating cost savings•Collective emissions reductions

Bicycle and Pedestrian•Qualitative evaluation of several factorsoEmployment and household densityoTransit ProximityoConnectivity, etc.

20


Cost Benefit Analysis – Other Key Points

• Developed over 14 months• Verified results with other traffic analyses• Can be modified or scaled

21


Cost Benefit Analysis (cont)

Results Explained

• Project Estimate – The project estimates used are planning level estimates and subject to change through out the life of a project until completion

• Benefit Cost Ratio – The result is derived from total life-cycle benefits divided by total life-cycle costs.

22


Benefit-Cost Ratio (cont)

• Scored as a Benefit-Cost Ratio (Life-cycle Benefits / Life-cycle Costs)

• The higher the score the more practical the project• Also provides rate of return and period in which the

benefit equals cost.

BC RATIO MEANING

1.0Benefit equals cost in 20 years (20-year benefits = 20-year amortized costs)

>1.0 Benefit equals cost in less than 20 years

<1.0 Benefit equals cost greater than 20 years

23


Proposed Public Outreach Strategy

• Four county-wide public meetings

• Held October-November 2013

• Goals for public outreach

• All citizens are welcome at any of the meetings

24


Proposed Public Meetings (cont)

Meeting format– Open House

• Project Description Sheets/Poster Boards/Maps• Results of last year’s outreach

– Brief Simplified Presentation– Public comment

• Speakers at meetings• Comment forms (paper)• Individual project priorities• Online/email comments

25


Proposed Outreach – Internet/DigitalWeb page/Social Media

• Overview & background• Links to projects• Link to presentation (CBA & other criteria)• How to participate in dialogue

o Public meeting infoo Sign up for emailso Submit online comments

• Facebook page, Twittero Links to web, Flickr, YouTube

• Social votingo Several options

26


Proposed Outreach – Other

Presentations by Request

News release– Media, elected officials– Supervisors’ newsletters, HOAs– Transportation outlets (VDOT, DRPT, DATA, TYTRAN, TAGS,

LINK, NVTC, NVTA, MWCOG, etc.)– Internal Agencies (OCR, DPZ, DPWES, FCPA, EDA)– FCDOT mailing lists

Ask Fairfax online chat

Media interviews

Channel 16/YouTube video

27


Proposed Outreach – Other (cont)

Articles for publication and electronic dissemination

Series of ads, for example, in malls, on buses and bus shelters with QR codes for more information

Electronic and print informational advertising (Google ads, local news media)

Gas Station TV ads

Outreach tailored for non-traditional or disadvantaged audiences

28


Proposed Schedule/Next Steps

• 8/20/13 – Presentation to TAC

• 9/10/13 – TAC Workshop - continued discussion of recommended approach

• 9/17/13 – Presentation to Board Transportation Committee

o Input from the Board

• 9/18/13 – 11/15/13 Outreach Takes Place

• 11/2013 – Individual Meetings with Board Members

• 11/2013 - Return to TAC with results of public outreach.

29


Proposed Schedule/Next Steps (cont)

• 12/4/13 – Distribute Summary of Recommendations to Board

• 12/10/13 – Board Review & Discussion of Project List

• January 2014 – Board adopts Priority Project List

• Spring 2014 – Staff returns to the Board with a proposed funding plan (cash-flow) for the priority projects.

NVTA is currently working on a schedule for funding regional projects in future years. This schedule is expected to be available in the next couple of months.

30


Questions?

31


32


33


Revenue Estimates of HB 2313 Statewide Provisions for Fairfax County (in millions)

Notes−Estimates calculated by FCDOT staff based on average expenditures of previous years. −Additional information regarding TTF funding will be available once the VDOT SYIP has been released.

* Will be based on yet-to-be-defined service standards, per SB 1140 (2013) ** The $100 million that will be provided for Dulles Rail Phase 2 (FY14-FY16) may impact HMOF or other available revenue sources.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 5-Year

Highway Maintenance and Operations Fund

$160.2** $325.1** $409.6** $478.8 $500.1 $1,874.0

- Estimated Expenditures in Fairfax County:

$12.0 $24.4 $30.7 $35.9 $37.5 $140.5

Transportation Trust Fund (including enactment of Marketplace Equity Act)

$131.3 $163.3 $171.9 $181.6 $190.1 $838.3


$19.7 $24.5 $25.8 $27.2 $28.5 $125.7

Mass Transit Fund* $66.5 $75.3 $78.3 $81.3 $84.1 $385.4


$23.3 $26.4 $27.4 $28.5 $29.4 $134.9

Total Estimated for Fairfax County

$55.0** $75.3** $83.9** $91.6 $95.4 $401.1

34


Benefit Cost Analysis

• What is Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA)• Why BCA?• What to expect from a BCA• There is no industry standard

– Different agencies use different measures, and weigh them differently

– Users vs. non-users / different values assigned to benefits / etc.

• BCA is one factor in project prioritization

35


BCA Program Development

• Board request as part of the County Dialogue on Transportation

• Developed as a spreadsheet application by Cambridge Systematics

• Combined approaches from several sources adapted for Fairfax County

• Easily scalable and adaptable • 20 Year benefit and cost window• Project specific benefits and costs• Department-wide input

36


MethodologyHighway Projects -Project-specific data (traffic, cost, etc.)-Direct Benefit Cost Ratio Calculated (Benefits/Costs)Transit Projects-Project-specific data (ridership, cost, etc.)-Life cycle costs calculated by model (capital & operations cost, less farebox revenues)-Additive Benefit Cost Ratio (two types of users benefits vs. cost of service)Bike & Pedestrian Projects-Quantitative and qualitative benefits are rated subjectively-Cost rating stratified by H-M-L-Benefit/Cost Ratio is Benefit Score/Cost Score Ratio

37


Benefit-Cost Ratio

• Scored as a Benefit-Cost Ratio (Life-cycle Benefits / Life-cycle Costs)

• The higher the score the more beneficial the project• Also provides rate of return and period in which the

benefit equals cost.

BC RATIO MEANING

1.0Benefit equals cost in 20 years (20-year benefits = 20-year amortized costs)

>1.0 Benefit equals cost in less than 20 years

<1.0 Benefit equals cost greater than 20 years

38


Example –Road Widening Major Inputs

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS•Number of General Traffic Lanes•Highway Free-Flow Speed•Length (in miles)•Impacted Length (if different)•Current Traffic Volume (daily)•Future Traffic Volume (daily)

CONSTRUCTION CHARACTERISTICS•Construction Cost•Construction Period (years)

REGIONAL PARAMETERS•Discount Rate•Prevailing Wage Rates•Vehicle Operating Costs•Roadway Capacities•Peaking Characteristics•Fuel Economy and Emissions Factors

39


Road Widening Example - Hypothetical Results

Life-Cycle Costs (mil. $) $9.1

Life-Cycle Benefits (mil. $) $15.2

Net Present Value (mil. $) $6.1

Benefit-Cost Ratio 1.7

Rate of Return on Investment

7.6%

Benefit Equals Cost 12 years

40


Example - Transit Project Major Inputs

New Bus Service

Highway Information – From Parallel Highway (Same As Highway Project)Includes Capital Facilities (If Needed)

Transit Route Information•Annual Person Trips•Annual Vehicle Miles•Average Transit Travel Time (In and Out of Vehicle)•Percentage of Trips from Parallel Facility

Transit Operating and Fare Box Recovery – Calculated Annually•Bus Purchase Costs•Bus Operating Costs•Average Fare Box Recovery Rates

41


Example - Transit Project Hypothetical Results

Life-Cycle Costs (mil. $) $100.1

Life-Cycle Benefits (mil. $) $120.2

Net Present Value (mil. $) $20.1

Benefit-Cost Ratio 1.2

Rate of Return on Investment

6.6%

Benefit Equals Cost 16 years

42


Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects

Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects – Benefit Score / Cost Score

Cost Score is based on Cost per Linear Foot of Facility

Benefit Score is an Average of The Following Criteria:•Timeframe to Construct•Feasibility to Construct•Vicinity Household Density•Employment Density•Transit Proximity•Commuter and School Connectivity•Intra-Community Connectivity

Bike & Ped Scores - Benefits Score/Cost Score - Range from 3.0 to 0.0 The Higher the Score the More Cost Beneficial the Project

43


Improving Project Delivery

The Department is evaluating areas to improve and streamline project delivery. Examples include:

• Improve project scoping.• Implement design/build model.• Reduce/Streamline VDOT review process.• Evaluate resource needs for FDCOT and other County

Departments.• Evaluate other structural changes to the Department.• Improving cost estimates through the BCA process.• Improve estimation of project schedules.

44


Purpose – Reconvening the “Extended” TAC

Update the “extended” TAC on the development of a project list and implementing the Cost/Benefit Analysis (CBA).

Seek advice from the County’s “extended” TAC on how best to:•Engage the public in an outreach effort in the Fall 2014 to select high-priority projects for funding.•Solicit public comment on a six-year funding plan for transportation projects for the fiscal years 2014 – 2020.

45


Types of Requirements/GuidelinesRegional projects mitigating congestion, or mass transit capital. – HB 2313

Urban or secondary road construction, capital improvements that reduce congestion, are in the regional transportation plan, or for public transportation purposes . – HB 2313

New transportation or transit projects that add capacity. – C&I

Construction, reconstruction, improvement, or maintenance of the local highway system. – Revenue Sharing

Projects largely pedestrian in nature (i.e. bicycle and off-road trails, safe routes for non-drivers, etc.) – TAP

46


Types of Requirements/Guidelines (cont.)Projects which relieve congestion and/or mitigate factors contributing to poor air quality. - CMAQ

Construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation of highway projects; safety projects for bridges; transit capital projects; highway and transit safety infrastructure safety improvements. - RSTP

47


County Project List

• The County’s list of improvements needed includes these types of projects:

• Please note that improvements to interstate facilities and major Metrorail expansions have been specifically excluded because they fall outside of the County’s capacity to implement and construct on its own

• In addition, highway maintenance costs have been excluded, since road maintenance is primarily a state responsibility.

Types of Projects

•Spot/Corridor Projects1)Transit Capital & Operating2)Highway Interchanges3)Road Widening4)Road Extensions5)Bicycle and Pedestrian

Documents

1 County of Fairfax, Virginia Continuation of Countywide Dialogue on Transportation: Project Selection A Six-Year Outlo ok Board Transportation Committee