P6.0 Workgroup Meeting #1: Summary Notes · 3 David presented options for the Committed Project...

1

P6.0 Workgroup Meeting #1: Summary Notes

RTP Headquarters, 12 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park

Monday, October 15, 2018, 9:30 am – 3:00 pm

Attendees

Participant Advisory Other

Anthony Prinz Karyl Fuller Aldea Coleman Bobby Lewis

Austin Chamberlain Matt Day Bobby Walston Brian Gackstetter

Beau Mills Neil Burke Brooke Boyle Cat Peele

Brian Burch Patrick Flanagan Dan Gurley Jon Arnold

Brian Wert Pat Ivey Debbie Collins Julie Lorenz (Facil.)

Chris Lukasina Ray McIntyre George Hoops Kai Monast

Chris Werner Ronnie Keeter Hanna Cockburn Neil Perry

David Wasserman Sarah Lee Jason Gray Rich Denbow (Admin.)

Jason Schronce Tristan Winkler Jason Orthner Ron McCollum

Joey Hopkins Tyler Meyer John Farley

Julie White Vicki Eastland Josh Levy

Stephanie Ayers

Sterling Baker

Van Argabright

Welcome/Agenda Review

David Wasserman began the meeting at 9:30am by welcoming the attendees. He introduced Julie

Lorenz as the new Workgroup facilitator. Julie is with Burns and McDonnell and previously worked for

Kansas DOT. Julie also previously facilitated the P2.0 Workgroup. David reviewed the agenda and the

desired outcomes for the meeting.

Introduction

Julie welcomed the meeting attendees. Julie’s primary role as facilitator is to ensure the meeting covers

all of the topics on the agenda while providing the Workgroup opportunity for discussion. Workgroup

members introduced themselves.

Opening Remarks

Bobby Lewis welcomed the attendees and emphasized the importance of the Workgroup to the success

of STI implementation over the past several years. Under STI, the State’s programming process has

evolved to where there is now a fully transparent STIP. The P6.0 process will be especially important to

the State as population in North Carolina and neighboring states continues to grow, as vehicle

technology advances, and as the state considers new revenue sources and approaches.

2

Roles and Responsibilities

Julie discussed the roles and responsibilities of the different types of Workgroup members. She also

covered the general ground rules for Workgroup meetings, including a clear understanding of operating

in a consensus‐driven manner. [See Roles and Responsibilities document for more information.]

Overall Schedule and Workgroup Meeting Schedule/Approach

David summarized transportation project prioritization efforts across the nation. North Carolina is a

leader in prioritization and is one of only four states with a mature prioritization process. North Carolina

is statutorily required to fund the highest scoring projects based on Prioritization results, which allows

the state to address critical transportation needs while growing rapidly.

Based on this mature prioritization process, David introduced the proposed P6.0 Workgroup approach.

Under this new approach, in order to change something from previous prioritization rounds, the

Workgroup would need to agree that the issue needs to be addressed in P6.0. Otherwise, items would

remain the same as P5.0. This means consensus is assumed on items that are not raised for discussion.

This proposed approach would apply to all aspects of scoring, including criteria, weights, measures, data

usage, local input points, and submittal numbers. This approach is also supported by responses to the

recent Workgroup topic survey.

As part of this proposed approach, David reviewed the proposed schedule for 7 additional Workgroup

meetings that would take place approximately once a month from November 2018 to (early) June 2019.

Subcommittees would be established and utilized to address more specific modes and topics of interest,

such as Bike/Ped, Public Transportation, Aviation, and potentially others. Subcommittee membership

will depend on the topic, interest level, and expertise of Workgroup members. Each subcommittee

would discuss topics in depth and develop recommendations to bring to the overall Workgroup; the

overall Workgroup would reach consensus on each topic.

Consensus is desired on this meeting schedule and approach at the November Workgroup meeting.

The Workgroup discussed this approach. A few members expressed concern about assuming there is

consensus on items that are not raised for discussion. Issues may arise during the process that are not

foreseen early on, and there would no longer be an opportunity to address it. Julie responded that all

items raised during the Workgroup topic survey will be discussed and voted on today, and the

Workgroup will identify those that rise to the top as priorities. Any additional items not addressed in

survey responses are also open to discussion today. This approach is simply a way to make the

Workgroup process more efficient, and items that arise during future Workgroup meetings would

certainly be open to discussion by the Workgroup if deemed necessary and time allows.

Julie reiterated that this approach is presented for discussion today but consensus would not desired

until the next Workgroup meeting.

Committed Project Definition

David started a discussion about Committed Projects. In previous rounds, numerous programmed

projects fell out of the STIP between prioritization rounds. NCDOT’s goal is to create more stability and

reliability in project delivery.

3

David presented options for the Committed Project window:

1. increase to 8 years,

2. increase to 7 years, or

3. keep as 5 years (P5.0 approach).

Consensus is desired on this topic prior to programming P5.0 Division Needs projects and the release of

the Draft 2020‐2029 STIP.

During discussion, it was noted that projects often fall out for good reasons, such as findings from

additional project studies, input received during public involvement on a project, changing prioritization

criteria, and better projects coming along. Many projects that fall out do so due to changing criteria,

therefore it’s important to maintain stability in the criteria as much as possible between prioritization

cycles. However, North Carolina also needs flexibility to stay responsive to rapidly changing needs

across the State. Some members suggested considering a 6 or 7 year window (the SPOT office also

provided data for 6 years). Others suggested that in order to avoid unintended consequences, the

Workgroup may also want to leave the window as is and instead address the issue outside of this

process. However, there may be fewer unintended consequences if an incremental change is made

from a 5 year to a 6 year window, versus going from a 5 year to a 7 year or 8 year window.

Overall, the Workgroup did not seem in favor of an 8 year window. The SPOT office will bring additional

information on all options to the next meeting. The Workgroup was asked to consider this topic, with

the desire to reach consensus at the next meeting.

Topic Gathering Exercise

The SPOT office led an exercise to identify the priority topics to be addressed in P6.0, which began by

highlighting prioritization roles established in the STI law.

Jason Schronce reviewed the summarized results from the topic survey completed by Workgroup

members about the items that worked well in P5.0 and those that potentially need improvement. Each

specific item submitted for potential improvement had been condensed and printed on individual cards

on a poster board for use during this discussion. Jason, David, and Sarah Lee reviewed each item and

clarified with the Workgroup as needed. Workgroup members also submitted additional topics to the

boards during the discussion. [See list of topics and photos of boards for further information.]

Next, Julie conducted an exercise in which the Workgroup members identified their top priorities. Each

participant was given twelve voting dots to place next to the items they believe are priority topics. [See

list of topics and photos of boards for further information.] The results of this exercise will be used by

the SPOT office to create a tentative schedule of topics for future Workgroup meetings.

A member asked if the Workgroup will address issues that involve legislative changes. David replied that

the Workgroup has not historically done this because it is out of the Workgroup’s purview. Any

legislative changes should be suggested or advocated for through the members that are staff to the

Legislature, or through Workgroup members’ respective organizations.

Wrap Up/Next Steps

David thanked the Workgroup for their participation and input. In scanning the topic items on the

boards, he noted that the Workgroup can address some of the issues that were raised but may not be

4

able to address all. He did note that SPOT On!ine will still be used for P6.0 (rather than move to the new

TOP3S application).

The first subcommittee meeting for Bike/Ped and Public Transportation will take place on Thursday,

October 18th, and the first subcommittee meeting for Aviation will be on Friday, October 19th.

Sarah reminded the Workgroup that a Workgroup website has been created and is where all

documentation will be available. The URL is:

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/PrioritizationWorkgroup/Pages/default.aspx

David noted that the next meeting will focus on reaching consensus on the Workgroup meeting

schedule and approach, as well as the Committed Project window. It will also include a potential

schedule of the topics to address in P6.0, based on today’s discussions and exercise.

Next Meeting

The next Workgroup meeting will take place on Monday, November 5, 2018 at RTP Headquarters.

1



Monday, November 5, 2018, 9:30 am – 3:00 pm

Attendees


Amber Harris Karyl Fuller Amanda Hayden Julie Lorenz (Facil.)

Anthony Prinz Matt Day Brooke Boyle Rich Denbow (Admin.)

Austin Chamberlain Neil Burke Dan Gurley Ron McCollum

Beau Mills Patrick Flanagan Dana Magliola

Brian Burch Pat Ivey George Hoops

Brian Wert Randi Gates Hanna Cockburn

Bryant Buck Ray McIntyre John Farley

Chris Werner Ronnie Keeter Lisa Hollowell

David Wasserman Sarah Lee

Jason Schronce Tristan Winkler

Joey Hopkins Tyler Meyer

Julie White Vicki Eastland


David Wasserman began the meeting at 9:30 am by welcoming the attendees. He provided a recap of

the previous Workgroup meeting and reviewed the agenda and the desired outcomes for this meeting.

Subcommittee Updates

Sarah Lee provided an update on Subcommittee membership and activities. The Bike/Ped, Transit, and

Aviation Subcommittees each met in October to review P5.0 scoring and discuss potential

improvements for their respective modes.

Jason Schronce asked for a show of hands from those who are interested in participating in the Highway

Subcommittee. The SPOT Office will schedule the first Highway Subcommittee meeting to be held in

late November.

P6.0 Overall Schedule and Workgroup Meeting Schedule/Approach

The SPOT Office reviewed the proposed P6.0 overall schedule, including the requested change from the

last meeting to extend the Regional Impact point assignment window from 3 to 4 months. Some

Workgroup members stated that the timeframe for Local Input Points does not necessarily need to be 4

months in length, but that this period usually ends up being completed in July instead of June. They

emphasized that developing project costs takes a significant amount of time, and some would prefer the

extra month to be during the scoring and data review period in order to allow additional time for QA/QC

of costs. SPOT Office staff asked Division Engineers if 3 months is enough time to complete their point

assignments, including the coordination with POs and the public comment period. The MPO and RPO

meeting schedules usually drive this part of the process, so it would depend on when PO meetings are

2

held. The number of POs in a Division is also a factor. The Workgroup tabled this discussion until the

end of the meeting in order to allow time for David to check with other Division Engineers on the 3

month time period.

The SPOT Office reviewed the proposed Workgroup meeting schedule and approach. RTP Headquarters

had been confirmed for the location of the 2019 meetings. The Workgroup briefly discussed the

approach, with the understanding that additional topics will be addressed by the Workgroup as needed,

and all P6.0 components would be viewed as a “package” (as would be presented to the Board of

Transportation) toward the end of Workgroup. This would prevent consensus from being assumed on

any item not discussed in detail by the Workgroup. As part of this package, it was noted that the P5.0

method would be the default unless there is consensus to change. It was also noted that subcommittee

recommendations would be open for discussion in the Workgroup and not assumed as automatic

consensus. The Workgroup reached consensus on the Workgroup meeting schedule and approach.

The Workgroup revisited the P6.0 overall schedule at the end of the meeting. David reported that the

Division Engineers replied that 3 months would be workable. The Workgroup reached consensus on

the proposed P6.0 overall schedule, with the following changes:

Extend scoring and data review period from 5 to 6 months

The SPOT office will release quantitative scores at the end of April 2020 instead of March

2020

Regional Impact point assignment window will be 3 months, from the beginning of May 2020

to the end of July 2020.

Committed Project Definition

The Workgroup discussed options for changing the Committed Projects window. NCDOT has a goal of

creating additional stability and reliability for project delivery while still allowing for flexibility and new

projects to get funded through STI. The SPOT office presented an analysis of Statewide, Regional, and

Division projects funded in P4.0 that had to recompete in P5.0, and the outcome of these projects after

P5.0 scoring. The funding line shift appears to be the factor that made the biggest difference. In

addition, many projects continue to receive cost increases. Most P5.0 projects funded in Statewide, and

many Regional and Division projects, will likely have to recompete in P6.0 with the current 5 year

committed project window.

The Workgroup discussed pros and cons of changing the Committed Projects window from 5 to 6 years.

Some were concerned that going to a longer window would commit most of the overall STIP budget,

which may limit flexibility to fund important projects in the future. Others said the focus should be on

committing more projects, and the longer window will help.

During the discussion, a few members noted that there was an infusion of funds during the previous

round that we won’t have for P6.0, therefore outcomes may be different after this round. It was

suggested that at some point the caps on each mode should be considered for adjustment. A few

members suggested there may be a problem with how committed projects are communicated to the

public. The communication issue was placed in the parking lot for future discussion.

3

The Workgroup reached consensus to increase the Committed Projects window from 5 to 6 years for

P6.0. As a note, this definition applies to the 2020‐2029 STIP (resulting from P5.0) currently under

development. The length of the committed window may be revisited in P7.0 Workgroup discussions.

Items in Motion (Since P5.0 Workgroup Ended)

The SPOT Office reviewed items that are already in motion from P5.0. [See presentation slides for the

list of items.] Some Workgroup members requested information about NCDOT’s approach to PeakADT

Factors Statewide Update. NCDOT will send the scope to the Workgroup.

Draft P6.0 Topic Schedule

The SPOT Office presented a draft P6.0 topic schedule, with desired consensus items and topics for each

meeting. Sarah asked the Workgroup to provide feedback to the SPOT Office on the schedule.

Future Interstate Completion Factor

The SPOT Office led a discussion of scoring in P5.0 for the Future Interstate Completion Factor (FICF).

The sense of the Workgroup is that the FICF is accomplishing its intended purpose, which is to identify

projects that improve the movement of freight across North Carolina. The Workgroup reached

consensus on the continued use of the Future Interstate Completion Factor in P6.0.

Local Input Points

The SPOT Office led a brainstorming exercise on how to improve the Local Input Points (LIP) process.

Austin Chamberlain provided a history of LIP in each prioritization round and discussed LIP issues that

were identified by Workgroup members in survey responses. The Workgroup discussed how POs and

Divisions allocate LIPs and initial ideas to improve the process, including adjusting the number of points

and/or linking the points to project cost.

A subcommittee was formed to identify and discuss ideas and will meet before the next Workgroup

meeting. Subcommittee members asked the SPOT Office to provide data about how POs and Divisions

have allocated points in previous prioritization rounds and to what modes.

Wrap Up/Next Steps

Jason asked the Workgroup for clarification on a few Highway topics that were identified in the October

15, 2018 Workgroup meeting:

Resiliency – the Workgroup is interested in not only the evacuation component of resiliency but

also the ability to respond after an event to reach those who did not evacuate and need

services. This could be addressed as part of modernization or perhaps by using an impedance

factor.

Safety benefit calculations – a Workgroup member pointed out that highway widening projects

do not receive safety points but highway median projects do. This is something that could be

addressed.

Linking Prioritization to federal performance measures – the Workgroup will discuss this topic at

a future meeting.

David thanked the Workgroup for their participation and input.

4

Next Meeting

The next Workgroup meeting will take place on Monday, December 3, 2018 at RTP Headquarters.

Action Items:

Provide Peak ADT scope

Provide Draft Topic Schedule

Provide data on LIP assignment to subcommittee

1



Monday, December 3, 2018, 9:30 am – 3:00 pm

Attendees


Anthony Prinz Karyl Fuller Aldea Coleman Julie Lorenz (Facil.)

Austin Chamberlain Matt Day Brooke Boyle Neil Perry

Beau Mills Neil Burke Dana Magliola Rich Denbow (Admin.)

Brian Burch Patrick Flanagan George Hoops

Brian Wert Pat Ivey Stephanie Ayers

Bryant Buck Ray McIntyre

Chris Lukasina Ronnie Keeter

David Wasserman Sarah Lee

Jason Schronce Tristan Winkler

Joey Hopkins Tyler Meyer

Julie White Vicki Eastland


David Wasserman began the meeting at 9:30am by welcoming the attendees. He provided a recap of

items the Workgroup reached consensus on at the previous Workgroup meeting: P6.0 Workgroup

meeting schedule and approach, P6.0 overall schedule, Committed projects definition, and Future

Interstate Completion Factor.

David announced that Jason Schronce had accepted the position as SPOT manager and is now Chair of

the P6.0 Workgroup. Jason reviewed the agenda and the desired outcomes for this meeting.


Sarah Lee and Jason Schronce provided an update on recent subcommittee activities. [See Workgroup

presentation slides for more information.] The Bike/Ped, Transit, Aviation, Highway, and Local Input

Points (LIP) subcommittees each met in November. While reviewing the concept of a Highway resiliency

factor, one Workgroup member pointed out that some of the approaches the subcommittee discussed

to use resiliency as a factor would involve a significant amount of effort. The subcommittee may want

to consider other approaches that could be done more quickly. The Workgroup raised the possibility of

analyzing network segments rather than using the Statewide Model. The Highway subcommittee will

continue to discuss the resiliency topic at future meetings.

2

Local Input Points

The SPOT Office led a discussion to get input on the full range of issues and observations related to LIP

for P6.0 and whether changing LIP is the solution to address the known issues, in order to either reach

consensus or provide the LIP subcommittee with more direction. Sarah reviewed the known LIP issues

that had been identified and potential solutions to address the issues. She presented data showing the

number and percentage of submittals by mode vs. the percentage of total points by mode, as well as

LIPs assigned by cost percentile by mode. [See Workgroup presentation slides for more information.]

A Workgroup member noted that the data indicates there is a high level of desire for bike and ped

projects but an identified lack of available resources for the projects, which is reflected in the points

allocated. Another member pointed out that the ability to match and administer these projects locally is

a hurdle. A few members said that the Workgroup should recognize and state that LIP issues are more

of a reflection of local governance, local funding constraints, and/or specific LIP methodologies rather

than a result of problems with the STI process and LIPs. This point could be noted in an after‐action

report that summarizes the data trends and discusses the possible reasons behind the trends. The

Workgroup also discussed the potential to bundle low‐cost projects with other projects (either within

jurisdictions or across the state, and both within a mode and across multiple modes) in order to

encourage more LIPs to be assigned to these.

With regard to the education and awareness of local governments on the lack of funding and value of

projects in various project modes, some Workgroup members suggested that a round of exercises

across the state similar to the Investment Strategy Summits offered by the SPOT Office many years ago

could potentially be helpful. It was noted that this type of exercise may already be part of the State’s

long range transportation plan update (NC Moves 2050), but there is value in doing it at the local level as

well.

The SPOT Office also reviewed the results of the LIP topic discussion from the P5.0 Workgroup, and

noted that many of the issues and conclusions are similar to those currently being discussed.

After presenting all the data and concluding the discussions, the SPOT Office asked the Workgroup for

direction for the subcommittee or if they were ready for consensus. It was requested to have the

subcommittee analyze the current allocation of Regional points (if there are too many) as well as the

concept of pooling Regional and Division points into one allocation per organization. It was also

suggested to look at the ratio of projects to points at the Division level.

Lastly, it was suggested that if an after‐action report is developed, it should identify the types of projects

that potentially could do better outside of STI (ex. rural Public Transportation vehicle requests).

Peak ADT

Jason provided details about NCDOT’s Peak ADT update. The approach calls for 50 counties to be

updated for P7.0 and all 100 counties updated for P8.0. The Highway subcommittee recommends

continuing the use of Peak ADT in P6.0 as it was done in P5.0. A few Workgroup members asked if the

approach will address the issue of navigation apps redirecting drivers to alternate routes during periods

of congestion. Jason said this could be considered during development of sampling plans. The

consultant doing the Peak ADT update is reaching out to MPOs and RPOs. If they are aware of instances

3

where this is occurring, they can raise it to be addressed in the sampling plan. A Workgroup member

asked that NCDOT share count locations once they are identified. The Workgroup reached consensus

to continue the use of Peak ADT in P6.0 as it was used in P5.0 scoring.

Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements

Sarah provided a detailed update of Bike/Ped subcommittee activities and reviewed the current

recommendations. The subcommittee reviewed project scoring statistics in both prioritization rounds

by bicycle vs. pedestrian, but also requested to further examine the data broken down by Specific

Improvement Type (SIT). Their primary topics of discussion were Specific Improvement Types, Safety

criteria, Cost Effectiveness criteria, and project costs. Recommendations from these discussions are as

follows:

Specific Improvement Types – remove route designations from SIT 1, as long as scoring finds

another way to reward the project for improving these routes

Specific Improvement Types – clarification to include bridges/tunnels over rivers and physical

barriers

Specific Improvement Types – further examine some intersection improvements that could

move from SIT 5 to SIT 4 (or 3)

Safety – remove the lookup table for Speed Limit scoring and scale based on the raw speed

limit

Safety – continue using bike/ped crash data

Cost Effectiveness – convert to Benefit/Cost by implementing economic data as a benefit

The subcommittee also discussed project cost and ways to bundle projects in order to increase project

cost (and attractiveness for LIP), as well as the consideration of a Multimodal factor in the benefit (of

Benefit/Cost) to offset the potential additional cost of multimodal/bundled projects. The subcommittee

will continue to discuss these items and bring recommendations to the full Workgroup for discussion

and consensus.

Multimodal Benefits

Sarah reported that the Bike/Ped and Transit subcommittees discussed issues and ideas for encouraging

and rewarding the submittal of projects with multimodal elements. She presented the Benefit/Cost and

Cost Effectiveness formulas for each mode and how multimodal factors could be implemented.

Workgroup members understood the potential benefit of incorporating a multimodal element into

scoring, but noted that it would be difficult to come up with a one‐size‐fits‐all approach that applies to

all projects and modes. A multimodal factor could perhaps be considered only for certain applicable

modes. A “hold harmless” solution to remove project cost increases from scoring due to multimodal

elements was also suggested as an alternative to a factor that rewards projects for those elements. And

finally, it was discussed that if the NCDOT Complete Streets committee moves towards the idea of

Complete Streets being “business as usual”, then a multimodal factor would not be needed, as these

elements should be included in all projects as applicable.

The Workgroup was interested in continuing the discussion at the subcommittee level. NCDOT

Complete Streets committee staff will also be involved in the discussions.

4

Aviation Improvements

Sarah briefly discussed the introductory list of topics the Aviation subcommittee is working on. [See

Workgroup presentation slides for more information.]

Area‐Specific Weights vs. Default Weights

The Spot Office conducted an analysis of the use of Area‐Specific Criteria Weights by each applicable

Region and Division in P5.0. The analysis shows that the Regions and Divisions generally benefited by

using area‐specific weights. A Workgroup member suggested it would be useful to do the analysis by

SIT, which could indicate whether Divisions were aiming to benefit certain projects. The Workgroup

would like to see more data about the breakdown by SIT and a similar analysis for prior Prioritization

cycles.

Mobility vs. Modernization Weights

Jason asked the Workgroup if there is interest in looking into using different weights for mobility

projects vs. modernization projects (SIT 16 and SIT 17). The Workgroup expressed interest in looking at

this topic further. The Workgroup mentioned that Prioritization 2.0 used a similar method. One

member said that if the Workgroup decides to treat modernization as essentially a separate mode,

other factors such as resiliency can also be addressed here.

Project with Multiple Cross Sections

Jason raised the topic of addressing projects that have multiple cross sections. One potential approach

is to enter a project multiple times into SPOT Online with the applicable cross sections. The SPOT office

would then analyze the projects separately by cross section and factor the final score by length of each

cross‐section. Jason asked the Workgroup if this is a common issue and one that should be addressed in

P6.0. The Workgroup said this would be a nice enhancement, but it is not common enough to be critical

to P6.0 scoring.

Draft P6.0 Topic Schedule

Sarah reviewed the anticipated topics for the upcoming Workgroup meetings.

Wrap Up/Next Steps

Sarah highlighted the Consensus Tracker document that can be accessed on the P6.0 Workgroup

website. The SPOT Office also added all Workgroup and subcommittee meetings to the calendar. The

Workgroup requested that SPOT Office presentations to the Board of Transportation also be added to

the calendar.

Jason thanked the Workgroup for their participation.

Next Meeting

The next Workgroup meeting will take place on Monday, January 7, 2019 at RTP Headquarters.

1



Monday, January 7, 2019, 9:30 am – 3:00 pm

Attendees


Anthony Prinz Karyl Fuller Aldea Coleman Brian Gackstetter

Austin Chamberlain Matt Day Brooke Boyle Brittany Gaustad (ITRE)

Beau Mills Neil Burke Dana Magliola David Crest (Timmons)

Brian Burch Pat Ivey George Hoops Heather Hildebrandt

(NCDOT)

Brian Wert Patrick Flanagan Hanna Cockburn Jim Reed (Timmons)

Bryant Buck Ray McIntyre Stephanie Ayers Kai Monast (ITRE)

Chris Lukasina Ronnie Keeter Van Argabright LaToya Caldwell

Chris Werner Sarah Lee Rich Denbow (Admin.)

David Wasserman Tristan Winkler Sean Diehl (Timmons)

Jason Schronce Tyler Meyer Stacy Cook (Facil.)

Joey Hopkins Vicki Eastland Waugh Wright (ITRE)

Julie White


Jason Schronce started the meeting at 9:30 by welcoming the attendees. He briefly summarized the

previous Workgroup meeting, at which the Workgroup reached consensus to continue the use of Peak

ADT in P6.0 as it was used in P5.0 scoring. Jason reviewed the agenda and desired outcomes for this

meeting and announced that Stacy Cook from Cambridge Systematics will serve as our facilitator for this

meeting in place of Julie Lorenz.


Sarah Lee and Jason provided an update of recent subcommittee activities. The Highway, Bike/Ped,

Transit, Aviation, and LIP subcommittees each met in December. [See Workgroup presentation slides

for more information.] Many of the items discussed in the subcommittee meetings are on today’s

agenda for Workgroup discussion and feedback.

Local Input Points

The SPOT Office led a discussion about potential changes to LIP for P6.0. Sarah summarized discussions

that have taken place during recent LIP subcommittee meetings, particularly those around flexing LIP

points and number of points. [See Workgroup presentation slides for more information.] The

Workgroup first addressed the topic of flexing LIP points. The LIP subcommittee discussed the option to

flex up to 50% of an organization’s points between the Regional and Division categories. This would

provide more flexibility to address varying needs of different areas in each category. Flexing would be

2

optional, and each organization’s decision to potentially use flexing would need to be part of the

approved LIP methodology.

Several Workgroup members expressed support for this approach. There was discussion around the

50% value. One possible drawback is that large Divisions may gain an unfair advantage over smaller

Divisions by flexing 50% of a larger number of allocated points, especially in Regional Impact. The

Workgroup discussed whether the percent should be lower, or perhaps a set number or a not‐to‐exceed

amount. The Workgroup concluded that because this is new territory, 50% of an organization’s entire

point allocation is too high, and a low number should be chosen to start with. The Workgroup reached

consensus to allow each organization the option of flexing of up to 500 points (50% of the base

allotment) between the Regional Impact and Divisional Needs categories.

The Workgroup then discussed the number of points allocated to each organization. Jason summarized

the subcommittee’s discussions, which reflect a feeling by some that there are too many points overall.

However, in more detail, there are too many Regional points for some areas, but too many Division

points in other areas. In addition, funding has traditionally run out before points, and the calculation

method of the number of points allocated to each organization has not changed since P3.0. The

subcommittee proposed to round population values up to the next 50,000 value instead of the nearest

value when applying the LIP calculation formula. Jason showed LIP point allocations by PO and Division

using both rounding methods, both of which used the updated census data.

Jason asked the Workgroup if the number of points is an issue that should be addressed or left as‐is.

Some members agreed there are too many points, and it would make sense from a technical perspective

to reduce the overall number, but doing so would mean many organizations that currently have a small

number of points could actually decrease further. In addition, proportionality between the population

differences and number of points among various areas is also becoming a concern. A more sensible

time to reduce points could be when new census designations are released after the 2020 census. In

general, members thought that allowing flexing may address the issue, and it was suggested to keep the

process changes incremental in order to understand the effects. The Workgroup reached consensus to

apply the LIP formula used in P5.0, with the change to always round populations up to the next

50,000.


The SPOT Office provided more detail about the Bike/Ped subcommittee’s activities. The subcommittee

requested project statistics broken down by Specific Improvement Type (SIT) and possibly by criteria.

Sarah presented this data. [See Workgroup presentation slides for more information.] The key

takeaway from this analysis is that most quantitative scores decreased slightly from P4.0 to P5.0. The

primary reason for the decrease appears to be Connectivity criteria scoring corrections.

Sarah summarized the subcommittee’s discussions about Access and Connectivity criteria and asked for

feedback from the Workgroup. The Workgroup discussed how Connectivity is defined. The original goal

of connectivity was aimed at filling in gaps in existing networks, but it does not address or reward a goal

of creating new networks where there is a need or making connections between points of interest

(destinations). The Workgroup discussed combining Access and Connectivity to cover connecting origins

and destinations as well as enhancing or beginning new networks. It was suggested to provide more

3

statistical analysis of where Connectivity is not working as it should, such as projects that begin new

networks.

The Workgroup also discussed why “residential” was previously taken out as a destination in the Access

criteria. Reasons include lack of a good definition of residential, and almost every project has some sort

of access to residential. The subcommittee will discuss whether residential should be added back in as a

destination. It could be qualified and varied by considering the density of residential. One member

noted that it presents a disadvantage in rural areas because bike/ped projects are partially funded in a

statewide competition. Another member followed up by requesting that this issue of statewide

competition for bike/ped projects be added to the subcommittee’s list of topics to discuss.

Transportation Disadvantage

Brittany Gaustad and Waugh Wright, ITRE, gave a presentation titled “Assessing Measures of

Transportation Disadvantage for Public Transportation Project Prioritization.” [See Workgroup

presentation slides for more information.] The presentation summarized research conducted to

evaluate measures of transportation disadvantage (TD) and recommend metrics to be included in P6.0

for public transportation scoring (and potentially bike/ped scoring). The researchers discussed

conclusions and recommendations and asked Workgroup members for feedback.

As part of the discussion, Sarah noted that the subcommittee heard this same information in the last

meeting and therefore has not spent much time discussing TD yet. It likely will not be its own criteria, in

order to avoid assigning zero points to projects where TD is not applicable. One way to address this

across the board is to apply it as a factor, potentially to the trips value used in scoring. Workgroup

members asked how this topic is connected to the Bike/Ped subcommittee discussions about Access and

Connectivity. These are related efforts, and the TD presentations and discussion are being shared with

both groups. A TD measure may potentially apply to bike/ped projects. Some members emphasized

that a TD measure should be quantitative rather than a yes/no measure. Another member suggested to

keep in mind that there are technical concerns with the available data and analysis methods – the

analysis methods work well for fixed route service but may not work well for demand response service.

Lastly, a member requested to know what data is available for the metrics, at what geography it is

available, and what it would it look like when it is applied.

Sarah said the subcommittee will continue to discuss this topic to determine what can be addressed in

P6.0. She asked the Workgroup to review the ITRE research materials for further discussion at the next

subcommittee meeting.

Resiliency Factor

The SPOT Office led a discussion on resiliency to seek agreement on the definition of resiliency and

provide guidance to the SPOT Office on what needs to improve, what kind of projects should be

promoted, and if there are known locations. Jason provided two definitions of resiliency – one used by

CDM Smith for the North Carolina Statewide Travel Model (NCSTM) and another from FHWA. He asked

Workgroup members if there are any other definitions that should be considered. The Highway

subcommittee would like guidance from the Workgroup on what the definition should be for

prioritization purposes.

4

The ports define resiliency as the ability to recover port services after events (e.g., weather‐related) as

well as redundancy and building/enhancing facilities to be more resilient. Others said a risk‐based

approach that considers the importance of a facility to the system is important. Some members said

that because resiliency means different things to different people, it may not be possible to develop a

factor that can be used in P6.0 in any meaningful way. If there was a map of critical facilities across the

State, a priority factor could be added to improvement projects on these facilities. Similarly, resiliency

could be addressed as part of a modernization factor.

The Workgroup discussed resiliency‐related cost issues. Projects with components that make them

more resilient will have a higher cost. The way these projects are scored should reflect the additional

resiliency‐related benefits in addition to the higher cost. One member suggested that factoring

resiliency into the benefit‐cost evaluation in this manner may be the preferred way to address resiliency

rather than with a separate resiliency factor.

After much discussion, Austin Chamberlain noted there is little agreement on a definition and approach

for resiliency, and there seems to be a sense among the Workgroup that this issue is bigger than what

can be addressed in the prioritization process. As a result, it was proposed that the Workgroup not

pursue a resiliency factor for P6.0. The Workgroup is willing to address this issue, but it needs more

direction to do so. The Workgroup asked that the SPOT Office obtain more information from NCDOT

leadership on how resiliency is being addressed by the Department, as a starting point for future

conversations. The Workgroup also emphasized that the SPOT Office should communicate to those who

are working on the 2050 Plan that resiliency is an essential topic that should be addressed in the plan.

Number of Submittals

The SPOT Office announced that the Draft 2020‐2029 STIP will be released next week. If needed, the

plan is to transition the LIP subcommittee into the Submittals subcommittee. Jason asked the

Workgroup to provide direction to the Submittals subcommittee on what issues exist or what items

need to be discussed. The Workgroup requested that the subcommittee examine the data after the

Draft STIP is released and the estimated number of Carryover projects are known.

CMAQ Process

Heather Hildebrandt gave a presentation on the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement

program (CMAQ). [See Workgroup presentation slides for more information.] CMAQ projects are not

subject to prioritization. They undergo a separate application and selection process. NCDOT is looking

at changing the way they operate the CMAQ program in order to level the playing field among POs, fund

good CMAQ projects that align with new federal performance measures requirements, and encourage

selection of projects that are shovel‐ready. Delays in CMAQ project delivery puts CMAQ funding at the

risk of rescission of federal funds. NCDOT will be putting together a workgroup to discuss these

changes.

Topic Schedule / Wrap Up / Next Steps

The SPOT Office reviewed the anticipated topics for the upcoming Workgroup meetings.

Next Meeting

The next Workgroup meeting will take place on Monday, February 4, 2019 at RTP Headquarters.

1



Monday, February 4, 2019, 9:30 am – 3:00 pm

Attendees


Anthony Prinz Julie White Aldea Coleman Alpesh Patel

Austin Chamberlain Mike Stanley Brooke Boyle Amber Harris

Beau Mills Karyl Fuller Dan Gurley Brian Gackstetter

Brian Alligood Matt Day Hanna Cockburn Don Voelker

Brian Burch Neil Burke Lisa Hollowell James Bridges

Brian Wert Pat Ivey Jim Reed

Bryant Buck Patrick Flanagan LaToya Caldwell

Chris Lukasina Ronnie Keeter Mark Johnston

Dana Magliola Sarah Lee Neil Perry

David Wasserman Tristan Winkler Rich Denbow (Admin)

Jason Gray Tyler Meyer Stacy Cook (Facil.)

Joey Hopkins Vicki Eastland Vanthaphone

Phongsavath


David Wasserman opened the meeting at 9:30 and welcomed attendees. He recognized Jason Gray

from the NC Rural Center and Dana Magliola from the NCDOT Logistics and Freight Division, who are

now official P6.0 Workgroup Participants. He also welcomed Brian Alligood from the NC Association of

County Commissioners (replacing Amber Harris). Stacy Cook reviewed the agenda and desired meeting

outcomes.


The SPOT Office provided an update on recent activities of the Highway, Bike/Ped, Transit, and Aviation

Subcommittees. [See Workgroup presentation slides for more information.] Many of the items

discussed in recent subcommittee meetings were also on the Workgroup meeting agenda for further

discussion.

Draft STIP, P6.0 Normalization, P6.0 Database including Submittals

Draft STIP

David discussed the Draft 2020‐2029 STIP that was recently released. He summarized the number of

projects and dollar amounts for projects evaluated through STI and projects programmed, funding

distribution by Region and Division, adjustments to project schedules, and project cost increases. He

also summarized initial ideas for improving cost estimation. [See Workgroup presentation slides for

more information.]

2

A member asked David if it was possible to overlay the pre‐STI distribution of funds with the distribution

under STI to compare the two. Chris Lukasina noted that CAMPO has looked at this in the past and

found the distributions to be fairly consistent.

The Workgroup discussed cost increases of funded projects and cost estimation issues. Members would

like to have a better idea of available funding for each upcoming prioritization round. They also

requested data on amounts available for programming in previous prioritization rounds.

David discussed schedule adjustments in the STIP. A total of 260 projects were affected due to changes

in funding availability, resulting primarily from project cost increases. Reasons for cost increases include

projects being developed much quicker and cost estimates coming in more often. Many projects lacked

information when they were submitted in P3.0 and P4.0. Their costs increased as more information

became available.

David discussed approaches underway to improve cost estimation, including developing better project

scopes. A member noted that most of the projects in CTPs across the state do not have well‐defined

scopes. David noted that for P6.0, a purpose and need statement will be required for each project

submitted; the specific details for this requirement are still being worked on and will be provided once

ready. These purpose and need statements will assist in developing cost estimates and help streamline

the project delivery process. One member encouraged NCDOT to not consider dropping the bike/ped

components of projects that have experienced cost increases.

Normalization

David led a discussion about Normalization. [See Workgroup presentation slides for more information.]

David reviewed how normalization was set up in P5.0 and how it was applied in the Draft STIP. He

reminded the Workgroup that Normalization is applied over the entire 10‐year STIP period. He

presented a recommendation from the STIP unit that the same percentages continue to be applied, with

a change to the Division Needs non‐highway allocation being all 4% competition within each Division.

The Workgroup discussed the recommendation. There was a sense that more non‐highway projects

could potentially be funded with this change, and that this approach is more straightforward and easier

to explain to local decision makers and the public. The Workgroup reached consensus to change the

Division Needs 4% non‐highway allocation to all Division competition.

P6.0 Database (Including Submittals)

Sarah Lee led a discussion of the P6.0 Database and discussed Carryover projects. [See Workgroup

presentation slides for more information.] There are approximately 250 Carryovers for P6.0, although

siblings and projects with planning underway/complete are yet not finalized, so this number could

change slightly. Sarah presented the number of Carryovers by PO and by Division. The SPOT Office will

send a final list within about two weeks.

Sarah also discussed P6.0 Project Submittals. She presented the expected number of P6.0 submittals by

PO and by Division if the P5.0 definition was used (with updated 2017 populations), and asked the

Workgroup for thoughts on the number of submittals. Some members believe the number of submittals

should not be limited, as submitters are encouraged to segment some types of projects before

3

submitting. Some members like the ability to submit projects to test how they score with different

scopes. Other members were skeptical that more submittals are needed, believing submitters should

do more work upfront to submit the best project they can. Some suggested options were to place a cap

on the number that can be submitted for screening‐type calculations and another cap on the number

for full submittal, or to have an off‐cycle window of time to submit projects for screening calculations.

David noted that an increase in the number of projects submitted will require additional resources for

evaluation, and there are already constraints on these resources.

After much discussion, the Workgroup reached consensus to continue using the P5.0 formula for the

number of project submittals in P6.0. The SPOT Office will confirm the final number of centerline miles

used in the formula and provide the final list of submittal numbers at the next Workgroup meeting.

NC Turnpike Authority Handbook

Alpesh Patel and Don Voelker provided an overview of a current effort to create an NC Toll Project

Development Handbook. The handbook will include suggestions to facilitate enhanced toll project

scoring in P6.0. Development of the handbook is a partnership between NCDOT and several partners.

The presenters requested input from the Workgroup to help shape handbook topics and next steps.

[See Workgroup presentation slides for more information.] One member requested that the NCDOT Rail

team be involved in this effort.

Rail Improvements

Neil Perry presented changes to the STI legislation that will be requested by the Rail Division in to allow

additional rail lines to become eligible for STI. Currently, highway routes on the Strategic Highway

Network (STRAHNET) are eligible by law for STI. The Rail Division is requesting a change to allow all NC

railroads designated as Strategic Rail Corridor Network (STRACNET) and military‐owned or controlled

railroads to become eligible for STI.

The Workgroup asked for information on the reasoning behind the proposed change. Neil noted that

the issue was identified during an assessment of threats to strategic ports. If a Class I railroad sold a

portion of its track to a shortline railroad, that section would currently no longer be eligible for funding

under STI, causing the port to lose its classification as a strategic port in the future. The Rail Division felt

that the importance of STRAHNET routes in the Highway mode should be mirrored in the law by

including STRACNET rail corridors as well. A member noted that changes to the STI law are typically

presented as a package and asked if this change would be part of a package or requested separately.

Other members requested a map to show STI‐eligible rail corridors today compared to what would be

eligible under this proposed change. The Rail Division will bring this information back to the Workgroup

at their next meeting.

Highway – Mobility vs. Modernization

Austin Chamberlain summarized Highway Subcommittee discussions about criteria and weights for

Mobility vs. Modernization projects. The Subcommittee developed an option for revised Modernization

weights for Statewide, Regional, and Division categories and now needs Workgroup input. Some

members would like to see Freight included in all three categories. One current challenge is funding

modernization projects on SR routes only eligible in the Division Needs category. After much discussion,

4

the Workgroup agreed that it will be difficult to develop an approach that will address all projects and

cases. The Subcommittee will continue to address this issue.

Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements and Public Transportation Improvements

Sarah provided an update of Bike/Ped Subcommittee activities. Recent discussion topics include Specific

Improvement Types, bundling projects, and Transportation Disadvantage. [See Workgroup presentation

slides for more information.] Due to data quality issues, the Subcommittee had determined that it

would be difficult to apply Transportation Disadvantage metrics across the state for P6.0 as currently

proposed.

Sarah also provided an update on Transit Subcommittee activities. In addition to Transportation

Disadvantage, the Subcommittee discussed bundling projects and Demand Response eligibility. [See

Workgroup presentation slides for more information.] Because no new potential data or scoring metrics

are currently available, and in light of NCDOT internal changes to the Public Transportation and

Bicycle/Pedestrian Divisions, the current direction of the Subcommittee is to keep P6.0 Transit scoring

the same as P5.0.


Bobby Walston provided a report from the Aviation Work Group. Bobby discussed issues the Aviation

Work Group is addressing and expected actions as they move forward. [See Workgroup presentation

slides for more information.]

Workgroup members support the Aviation Work Group’s consideration of the project prescreening

process. Improving this process is important not only for Aviation but for all modes. Putting forth

projects that meet Purpose and Need will strengthen the implementation process. Workgroup

members also asked for a list of Division of Aviation contacts.

Topic Schedule / Wrap Up / Next Steps

The SPOT Office reviewed the anticipated topics for the upcoming Workgroup meetings.

Next Meeting

The next Workgroup meeting will take place on Monday, March 4, 2019 at RTP Headquarters.

1



Monday, March 4, 2019, 9:30 am – 3:00 pm

Attendees


Amber Harris Joey Hopkins Aldea Coleman Brian Gackstetter

Austin Chamberlain Julie White Bill Marley (for George

Hoops) James Bridges

Beau Mills Karyl Fuller Brooke Boyle Jim Reed

Brian Burch Matt Day Dan Gurley LaToya Caldwell

Brian Wert Neil Burke Hanna Cockburn Neil Perry

Bryant Buck Pat Ivey Rich Denbow (Admin.)

Chris Lukasina Patrick Flanagan Stacy Cook (Facil.)

Chris Werner Sarah Lee

Dana Magliola Tristan Winkler

David Wasserman Tyler Meyer

Jason Gray Vicki Eastland

Jason Schronce

Jimmy Eatmon (for

Ronnie Keeter)


Jason Schronce opened the meeting and welcomed attendees. He summarized the consensus items

from the previous Workgroup meeting, then reviewed the agenda and desired meeting outcomes.


The SPOT Office provided an update on activities of the Highway, Bike/Ped, Transit, and Aviation

subcommittees. [See Workgroup presentation slides for more information.] Many of the items being

addressed by the subcommittees were on the Workgroup meeting agenda and to be discussed

throughout the meeting. Sarah provided an update on the potential Rail eligibility changes that were

presented at the previous Workgroup meeting. At this time, NCDOT is not pursuing a legislative change

to allow NC railroads designated as Strategic Rail Corridor Network (STRACNET) and military‐owned or

controlled railroads to become eligible for STI.

P6.0 Carryovers and Submittals

Carryovers

Jason provided an update on projects that automatically carry over from P5.0 for evaluation in P6.0. The

SPOT Office is working on a definition of “active NEPA” with NCDOT Technical Services. The Workgroup

discussed concepts of how to define when a project becomes active in the NEPA process. The unofficial

definition generally used is when the project scoping meeting is held. The Workgroup was in favor of

2

using this in the prioritization process, and specific projects that have work started without meeting this

definition will be evaluated on an individual basis. The SPOT Office will finish compiling the full

carryover project list and provide to all partners for use in submittal coordination meetings. Partners

may also flag projects that should potentially be Carryovers for SPOT to review.

P6.0 Submittals

Sarah Lee presented the final number of P6.0 Project Submittals by PO and Division, using final 2017

population and 2019 centerline miles, as an informational item. This information will also be provided

to all partners.


Sarah provided an overview of Bike/Ped subcommittee discussions. To meet the deadline for SPOT

On!ine improvements, Workgroup consensus is needed for any changes that will affect the system, such

as Specific Improvement Types (SIT), new data, and any new scoring process.

The Workgroup discussed Transportation Disadvantage. As reported in the previous Workgroup

meeting, the subcommittee had determined that it would be difficult to incorporate Transportation

Disadvantage within the structure of STI and current scoring criteria. SPOT and the subcommittee will

continue working on what information is needed for addressing this topic in P7.0 scoring.

The topic of bundling Bike/Ped projects across geographies and varying project types was discussed at

length in subcommittee meetings. Sarah summarized the bundling changes that were discussed and put

forward to the Workgroup for consensus. [See Workgroup presentation slides for a list of bundling

changes discussed.] The Workgroup reached consensus on the Bike/Ped project bundling changes.

Sarah summarized the subcommittee’s recommended SIT changes. [See Workgroup presentation slides

for a list of recommended SIT changes.] The Workgroup reached consensus on the SIT changes. Sarah

noted that the subcommittee was still discussing ways to incorporate National/State/Regional bike

routes into another criteria.

Sarah also summarized the subcommittee’s discussions about Safety. The subcommittee recommended

removing the Speed Limit measure and replacing it with ATLAS Safety Risk Analysis data, and creating

new Safety Benefit groupings that are not based on SIT. The Workgroup discussed the changes and the

data used in ATLAS. The Workgroup reached consensus to remove the Speed Limit measure and

replace with ATLAS Safety Risk Analysis, and to create new Safety Benefit groupings not based on SIT.

The subcommittee will continue to discuss ATLAS Safety Risk inputs / final output as well as the Safety

Benefit table specifics/groupings.

Sarah summarized the subcommittee’s discussion about combining Access and Connectivity criteria and

automating data where possible, with the proposal to use ATLAS points of interest (POI) to buffer for the

Access portion and the ATLAS Pedestrian Bicycle Infrastructure Network (PBIN) as a reference layer in

SPOT On!ine to assist in Connection Point entry. The proposal also included the transition of manual

Connection Point options from infrastructure‐based to options of “Existing”, “Committed”, or “In a

Plan”. [See Workgroup presentation slides for more information.] The subcommittee discussed various

options for scoring combined Access and Connectivity criteria. The Workgroup reached consensus on

the structure of using the ATLAS POI, ATLAS PBIN as a reference layer, and the structure of new

Connection Point options. The subcommittee will continue to work on how to score the combined

3

criteria, a possible POI cap, POI final categories, and connection point values. It was also noted that the

subcommittee needs to discuss the scaling of lookup tables.

Highway Topics

Mobility vs. Modernization Weights

Jason summarized Highway subcommittee discussions regarding Mobility and Modernization scoring

and default weights. [See Workgroup presentation slides for more information.] The subcommittee had

discussed the criteria that are potentially important at the Statewide, Regional, and Division categories

but did not bring a recommendation on weights. The SPOT Office asked for input from the Workgroup

on criteria and weights across all categories.

During discussion, a Workgroup member expressed interest in developing a method to consider

mobility‐type issues within Modernization scoring, such as the functionality of a road and how it is used.

Some members recommended dropping Benefit/Cost because, as currently defined, it addresses travel

time savings, and there may be better ways to account for benefits. Members also felt that Congestion

can be a differentiator but should not have a high weighting. The Workgroup discussed Pavement

Condition and felt that there might be a better measure that looks at pavement condition rating versus

the need for total roadway reconstruction. The SPOT Office will discuss internally with pavement

experts about other potential measures that address this concern. There was a suggestion to combine

Lane Width and Shoulder Width into one criteria. There was also a suggestion to give Freight more

weight, and to consider whether Economic Competitiveness should be added for considering future

interstates.

After discussion, the Workgroup decided more time is needed to look into this topic. The Highway

subcommittee will continue to discuss it before bringing a recommendation back to the Workgroup. In

the meantime, the SPOT Office will perform an analysis of Mobility and Modernization project scores

from P5.0 using the suggested weights from the Workgroup discussions.

Multiple Intersection SIT

The SPOT Office discussed a suggested technical correction to how multiple intersection improvements

along a corridor were scored in P5.0. With this new approach, a new specific improvement type (SIT 25)

would be created. In SPOT On!ine, the submitter would select the entire corridor and list out the

intersections being improved. A new safety benefit factor is being developed, and travel time savings

would be scored using the CALC method. The Workgroup stated their support for this approach.

Freight Routes

The subcommittee has discussed developing a Freight Network Improvement Factor that would

consider items important to freight movement. [See Workgroup presentation slides for more

information.] The subcommittee requested feedback on whether a second factor (in addition to the

Future Interstate Completion Factor) in the Freight criteria is a proper addition for P6.0 scoring.

During discussion, Workgroup members noted that using distance in the denominator does not have the

same importance to freight network improvements as it does to improvements that help to complete

the Future Interstate network. There may be a better way to account for improvements on the freight

network. Some members were interested in knowing more about the data available for each of the 4

items (from the presentation slides) important to freight movement. The SPOT Office noted that

because of the IT deadline for incorporating this into SPOT On!ine, the determination must be made

soon on using this approach in P6.0 or addressing it in P7.0 scoring. The Workgroup felt that good

4

progress had been made on this issue, so it was beneficial not to shelve it for P6.0 if possible. If it is not

used, a distance component in the factor could be incorporated as a manual adjustment rather than

through SPOT On!ine. In the meantime, the subcommittee will look at the freight data that is currently

available.

P6.0 Updates – Items in Motion

Mass Email Updates to Submitters

The SPOT Office will send several emails to submitters in the near term, including a status of

Committed/Carryover/Holding Tank projects from P5.0, a final Number of Submittals table, and Highway

Cross Sections to be loaded into P6.0 for scoring (in addition to items in the next few discussions).

Letters of Support

Letters of support will be required by April 30, 2019 for all local funds on P5.0 non‐highway projects in

the draft 2020‐2029 STIP. POs can provide copies of previous letters if they are applicable. Guidance

will request that if any local governments are facing challenges meeting the required Bicycle/Pedestrian

match, they discuss the issues with NCDOT before requesting that the project be removed from the

STIP.

Cost Estimation Tool Changes

Jason discussed changes that are being made to the Highway cost estimation tool in SPOT On!ine,

including updates to typical cross‐sections and per‐mile cost estimates. [See Workgroup presentation

slides for more information.] He cautioned that the cost estimates from the new tool may differ

significantly from estimates with the current tool because the changes involve looking at costs much

more closely.

Bike/Ped Cost Estimation Tool Updates

The SPOT Office reported that the Bike/Ped Cost Estimation Tool is being updated. It is anticipated to be

easier to use, more transparent, easier to maintain, and produce improved estimates. It will be ready

for use by June 15, 2019 for P6.0 project submittals.

P6.0 Submittal Training

Sarah discussed a planned P6.0 Submittal training schedule. [See Workgroup presentation slides for

more information.] Training will begin in late May/early June and go through August.

P6.0 Schedule

Sarah reviewed the P6.0 schedule and pointed out key dates. [See Workgroup presentation slides for

more information.]

Purpose and Need (Identified Need Statements)

The SPOT Office reported that NCDOT is establishing guidance and templates on what Identified Need

statements should look like as a requirement for each P6.0 project submittal. NCDOT Corridor

Development Engineers will have a key role in developing statements, where applicable. The goal is to

capture key project concepts and the problem being addressed by the project. For example, why is the

project needed? Is the project a long term solution or a temporary fix? This will improve project

5

knowledge transfer between NCDOT business units and guide NEPA document creation. A Workgroup

member asked what multi‐modal information is needed for developing guidance and templates. The

SPOT Office will sit down with the modes to discuss this future requirement.

Review Topic List and Schedule

The SPOT Office reviewed the items to be addressed by the P6.0 Workgroup that were identified and

prioritized in the first Workgroup meeting. The Workgroup requested examples of how POs and

Divisions are approaching public involvement for projects, including how the coordination takes place

between POs and Divisions. The SPOT Office will put together some information for the next meeting in

response.

Next Meeting

The next Workgroup meeting will take place on Monday, April 1, 2019 at RTP Headquarters.

1



Monday, April 1, 2019, 9:30 am – 3:00 pm

Attendees


Anthony Prinz Joey Hopkins Aldea Coleman Brian Murphy

Austin Chamberlain Julie White Bobby Walston Daniela Waltersdorfer

(Admin.)

Beau Mills Karyl Fuller Brooke Boyle James Bridges

Brian Alligood Matt Day Dan Gurley Jim Reed

Brian Burch Neil Burke George Hoops LaToya Caldwell

Brian Wert Pat Ivey Hanna Cockburn Neil Perry

Bryant Buck Patrick Flanagan Stephanie Ayers Rich Denbow (Facil.)

Chris Lukasina Ray McIntyre Ron McCollum

Dana Magliola Sarah Lee Tolga Cankurtaran

David Wasserman Tristan Winkler

Jason Gray Tyler Meyer

Jason Schronce Vicki Eastland


Jason Schronce opened the meeting and welcomed attendees. He summarized the consensus items

from the previous Workgroup meeting and reviewed the agenda and desired meeting outcomes.


The SPOT Office provided an update on recent activities of the Highway, Bike/Ped, and Aviation

subcommittees. [See Workgroup presentation slides for more information.] Jason discussed the

potential need to hold an additional Highway subcommittee meeting in April to address the Priority

Freight Network and Pavement Condition Rating adjustments. A Workgroup member expressed interest

in further discussion about port criteria and a discussion on Multimodal measures.

Safety Benefit Factors Update

Brian Murphy from the NCDOT Safety Planning Group provided an update on safety‐related activities in

support of P6.0 scoring. Changes in the STI Crash Data Feed are being made after consideration of how

scaling is performed in the prioritization process. Previously, roadway section crash data was grouped

before providing it to the SPOT Office. Now, data provided to SPOT Online will be the raw severity,

density, and critical crash rate values. Scaling will take place on the actual values, leading to more

variability in the scoring process.

2

Brian discussed recommended additions to safety benefit factors for widening existing urban roadways.

The suggested changes for P6.0 are based on evaluation of specific Crash Modification Factors and

NCDOT crash rate comparisons.

Brian also discussed research to be conducted later in 2019 that will aid in developing safety benefit

factors for new location and urban widening projects. The P6.0 recommended safety benefit factors for

urban widening are subject to change based on findings from this research. Jason added that the

research findings will be applied to developing potential changes for P7.0 scoring.

Highway Modernization Default Weights

Jason summarized Highway subcommittee discussions about Modernization project default weights at

the Statewide, Regional, and Division categories. The SPOT Office conducted an analysis of

Modernization project scores from P5.0 using potential changes to weights suggested by the

subcommittee. Jason summarized the results of the analysis. The Workgroup discussed the results and

the suggested weights. Some members of the Workgroup wanted to assign a weight to Congestion at

the Regional Impact category as a way to reflect usage levels of facilities. Other members felt that

applying a weight to Congestion could hurt some Modernization projects on facilities that are not

typically congested, such as two‐lane state routes. Members also expressed an interest in assigning

weight to Freight at the Division Needs category. A suggestion was made to include freight counts from

freight hubs in the scaling process. The Workgroup decided to continue to discuss Modernization

default weights with the Highway subcommittee.

Scaling Lookup Tables

Sarah Lee provided background information on the practice of scaling lookup tables, and provided

examples of how scaling can affect lookup table values in different ways. The Bike/Ped subcommittee

proposed changing the overall approach to remove the 0‐100 point values and the stated separation

between values and replace with a straight ranking system (i.e.: 1, 2, 3, 4…) that would still be scaled.

The proposed method would not change the results of scaling, as both the current and proposed

methods both rank the projects before scaling. The two remaining lookup tables this change would

affect are Rail Multimodal and Public Transportation Facility Efficiency. The Workgroup questioned if

the Efficiency table for Passenger Facilities in Public Transportation could be changed to be scaled based

on actual trips, instead of a lookup table. Sarah will examine P5.0 notes and project values, and

determine if this could work. (Efficiency table for Administrative/Maintenance facilities would need to

remain a lookup table due to its “ideal size” point assignment method.)

Since this is just a messaging change in how lookup tables are scaled, the Workgroup agreed to the

proposed approach for scaling lookup tables. Sarah noted that she would make sure the Rail and Public

Transportation teams were aware of the change.


Sarah summarized Bike/Ped subcommittee discussions and the consensus points previously reached by

the Workgroup. [See Workgroup presentation slides for more information.] The subcommittee has

continued to discuss several specific issues related to these consensus points that still need to be

finalized.

3

Sarah summarized proposed categories and approaches for ATLAS Points of Interest (POI) and a

proposed Accessibility/Connectivity score. The subcommittee and the Workgroup need to decide on

POI category definitions, regardless of ATLAS availability. Some categories could be added manually by

the project submitter. The subcommittee also discussed connection point options and point values,

with a tiered point approach that gives more points to projects that connect to existing bike/ped

facilities over those that are only committed or in a plan. More points would also be assigned for

projects that improve or connect to a national, state, or regional bike route.

The subcommittee also discussed (and will continue to discuss) adjusting the input factor percentages

toward the final output layer of values for the ATLAS Safety Risk Analysis data.

Sarah introduced the proposed Safety Benefit concept, which would be grouped by either safety ratings

or by actual facilities based on assumed benefit to the safety of users. Grouping by facilities would lead

to further discussion on how to define them for the lookup tables. The Workgroup asked the

subcommittee to continue to work on grouping options.

Lastly, the Workgroup discussed proposed changes to bike/ped criteria weights, which remove weight

from the old Connectivity and add it to Safety and the new Accessibility/Connectivity. The Workgroup

reached consensus on using the proposed bike/ped criteria weights for P6.0.

Public Transportation Improvements and Criteria/Weights

Sarah reviewed changes discussed by the Transit subcommittee regarding bundling projects and the

previously discussed recommendation to maintain the existing Public Transportation criteria and

weights for P6.0. [See Workgroup presentation slides for more information.] The Workgroup reached

consensus on the changes for bundling projects. The Workgroup also agreed to use the existing Public

Transportation criteria/weights for P6.0.

One caveat to note from during the meeting is the possibility of the Efficiency lookup table for Passenger

facilities changing to use the actual trip values. This will be a discussion in the next Workgroup meeting,

and if changed, would be reflected by a technical correction to this topic.


Bobby Walston provided an update from the Aviation Work Group. As previously presented, he

reviewed issues the group is addressing and recommendations to address each issue. He also presented

the Aviation Work Group’s recommended scoring for P6.0, including a change in the Benefit/Cost

criteria and a new Constructability Index criteria. [See Workgroup presentation slides for more

information.] The Work Group will continue to address remaining issues and bring a full scoring

recommendation to the next P6.0 Workgroup meeting for discussion and consensus.

Rail Criteria/Weights

Sarah reviewed scoring for Rail projects. The Workgroup agreed to use the existing Rail criteria and

weights for P6.0.

One member requested the SPOT Office to review the effect of the Multimodal measure within the Rail

criteria, in case it could be removed to help not use lookup tables where possible. These results will be

available at the next Workgroup meeting.

4

Ferry Criteria/Weights

Sarah reviewed scoring for Ferry projects. The Workgroup agreed to use the existing Ferry criteria and

weights for P6.0.

Highway Reliability Project Update

Jason provided an update on the Highway Reliability effort. There is not enough time remaining to

validate the reliability data for use in P6.0, so the consultant will continue working with the data for

anticipated use in P7.0. The SPOT Office suggested the idea of creating a “pre‐workgroup”

subcommittee to examine/refine the data and recommend it for use in P7.0. The Workgroup expressed

support for this approach, and several volunteers signed up to serve on the subcommittee. A suggestion

was made to include weekend travel data to account for Reliability in regions that experience issues

outside of the typical weekday peak periods.

Highway Mobility Default Weights

Jason presented proposed Highway Mobility default weights for use in P6.0. [See Workgroup

presentation slides for more information.] Jason opened the floor for Workgroup members to review

the weights and voice any concerns. The Workgroup reached consensus on using the proposed

Highway Mobility default weights for P6.0.

NCDOT Complete Streets 2.0

As a follow‐up to earlier conversations during the meeting on Modernization projects, Aldea Coleman,

NCDOT Deputy Chief Secretary’s Office, presented on the status of NCDOT Complete Streets 2.0. [See

Workgroup presentation slides for more information.] Workgroup members shared ideas on who Aldea

could contact to help NCDOT understand the needs of different municipalities throughout the state.

Members also suggested that Aldea’s team would be the ideal group to create recommendations on

how to improve the Highway Multimodal criteria for P7.0.

Aldea said that key recommendations and findings from the Complete Streets 2.0 effort should be

available by the end of April.

Next Meeting

The next Workgroup meeting will take place on Monday, April 29, 2019 at RTP Headquarters. Jason

noted that this will likely be the last Workgroup meeting, as the status of most topics is wrapping up and

should conclude then. Therefore, the scheduled June meeting could be canceled.

1



Monday, April 29th, 2019, 9:30 am – 3:00 pm

Attendees


Anthony Prinz Julie White Aldea Coleman Brooke Boyle

Austin Chamberlain Justin Green Bill Marley Daniela Waltersdorfer

(Admin.)

Beau Mills Karyl Fuller Bobby Walston Jim Reed

Brian Burch Matt Day Stephanie Ayers LaToya Caldwell

Brian Alligood Pat Ivey Neil Perry

Brian Wert Patrick Flanagan Rich Denbow (Facil.)

Bryant Buck Ray McIntyre

Chris Lukasina Ronnie Keeter

Dana Magliola Sarah Lee

David Wasserman Tristan Winkler


Jason Schronce Vicki Eastland

Joel Strickland (for Neil

Burke)

Joey Hopkins


Jason Schronce opened the meeting by welcoming the attendees. He summarized the consensus items from the previous Workgroup meeting and reviewed the agenda and desired meeting outcomes.


The SPOT Office provided an update on the Highway, Bike/Ped, and Aviation subcommittees. [See

Workgroup presentation slides for more information.]

Sarah Lee also provided an update on Rail scoring. The SPOT Office tested P5.0 projects to determine

the effect of removing the Multimodal measure, as requested in the previous meeting. This change had

a significant effect on the resulting order of projects. The SPOT Office also discussed this with the Rail

Division, and both units agreed on the need to keep the measure in P6.0 scoring.

Sarah also gave an update on scaling lookup tables, as a follow‐up to the consensus item from the

previous meeting. The new lookup values for Rail Multimodal and Public Transportation Facilities were

shown to the Workgroup. Regarding a previous question about the removal of the Passenger Facilities

lookup table (and using actual trip values), Sarah showed how this table could not be removed due to

the way all Facility scores are scaled together, including Administrative and Maintenance facilities.

2

Aviation Improvements and Criteria/Weights

Bobby Walston summarized the issues and recommendations the Aviation Work Group developed for

P6.0. [See Workgroup presentation slides for more information.] Workgroup members suggested

changing the step of requiring an approval letter from the Division of Aviation for each project to simply

an eligibility determination letter, to avoid setting a precedent that a project needs to be pre‐approved

before submittal – the intent of this step is that the Airport Project Managers are involved in order to

help make each project the best it can be.

During the discussion around Constructability Index, it was also noted that while each airport has

runway designations to note which runway is primary, secondary, or tertiary, the data in this criteria will

always be sourced from the primary runway. This will take place regardless of which runway a project

may be on, since the intent of this criteria is to assess the airport and its overall safety. Bobby closed by

summarizing the recommendations, which include revising the criteria weights of the FAA Airport

Capital Improvement Plan Rating and Constructability Index (in the criteria slot formally used by the

Non‐State Contribution Index) in the Statewide Mobility and Regional Impact categories. The

Workgroup reached consensus on the proposed Aviation scoring changes for P6.0.

Bobby also noted that the final Risk Assessment (used in the Constructability Index) will be complete by

the end of this fiscal year, then can be shared with the Workgroup. A draft will be complete by the end

of the week, and SPOT will obtain a copy to share with the Workgroup.

Highway Modernization Default Weights

Jason summarized Highway subcommittee discussions about Modernization weights and reiterated that

the SPOT office is looking for consensus on changes to the default weights. He presented a summary of

project scoring results using P5.0 projects and different weights for Congestion and Shoulder Width at

the Regional Impact level, as well as Freight and Pavement Condition at the Division Needs level. The

Workgroup discussed the results and proposed changes, with most of the discussion centered around

varying opinions on the Congestion weight. The Workgroup discussed whether the Congestion criteria is

an appropriate way to account for the usage of a facility and discussed various potential changes that

could be made in order to reach agreement. It was noted that without consensus, scoring would revert

back to a single set of default weights for all Highway projects. The Workgroup generally agreed this

was not ideal, and the SPOT Office conducted additional analysis based on further discussion. The

Workgroup reached consensus on Highway Modernization weights for P6.0 as follows:

3

Highway Criteria Weights

Jason summarized the Highway criteria and weights for both Mobility projects and Modernization

projects that have been discussed by the P6.0 Workgroup to date (including the earlier discussion and

consensus on Modernization weights). [See Workgroup presentation slides for more information.] The

Workgroup agreed to the Highway criteria and weights for P6.0 as shown.

Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements and Criteria Weights

Sarah presented a final update on bicycle/pedestrian scoring improvements for P6.0. [See Workgroup

presentation slides for more information.] Workgroup members had questions about some of the

ranges used in the Crash/Safety Risk factors, and it was established that the ranges were preset by

ATLAS and based on research – SPOT will obtain a breakdown of the factor scores and provide to the

Workgroup. Members also had questions about ATLAS points of interest (POI) categories, which were

mostly clarified through discussion. Sarah noted how the documentation for the eligible points of

interest will need to be very clearly defined this time, so there will be follow‐up with the Workgroup to

assist with the definitions and ensure all realistic types within each POI category are included. This

includes what types of facilities are included in government buildings and tourist destinations, where

central business districts fit, and how a single employment center point is defined. It was noted that this

approach is not perfect, but it is a vast improvement over the prior completely manual entry approach,

and it will continue to be improved in future cycles. A discussion also took place on the reasoning

behind not capping points of interest or averaging connection points, and it was established that the

intent of the new Accessibility/Connectivity criteria is to allow more flexibility in the purpose of each

project, whether it be to connect bicycle/pedestrian networks or to connect destinations. The

Workgroup reached consensus on all proposed changes to Bicycle/Pedestrian scoring for P6.0.

Sarah provided an update on development of the Bike/Ped cost estimation tool for P6.0 projects. The

tool is expected to be completed and available for use for P6.0 project submittals by June 2019.

Merging of Bicycle/Pedestrian and Public Transportation Divisions

Julie White provided an informational update on the merger of the NCDOT Bicycle/Pedestrian Division

and the Public Transportation Division. A key component of this merger is to create an organizational

structure that is able to stay up‐to‐date with the rapid change of pace in this area.

On‐Going Prioritization Committee

Jason proposed an approach to set up an on‐going Prioritization Committee to address research and

develop ideas to improve scoring before P7.0 begins. [See Workgroup presentation slides for more

information and a list of potential discussion topics.] Ideally, the committee would meet every 4 to 6

weeks, for 3 hours at a time, beginning in August 2019 and ending in July 2020 before P7.0 Workgroup.

The goal is not to have a completely new group, but to treat the group as a continuing subcommittee of

the P6.0 Workgroup, and to have the Workgroup members attend the proposed meetings and include

subject matter experts related to the discussion topics. The group will meet in a less formal way than

Workgroup meetings, including call‐in options. It was also suggested that the meetings operate on an

“informational agenda”, as opposed to a “consensus agenda”, in order to reflect that the intent is about

research, issues, and options to use in informing the future P7.0 Workgroup. Meetings would also be

open to additional/new attendees (as recommended by current Workgroup members), in order to

introduce new interested persons to the Workgroup process.

4

The Workgroup expressed strong support for this approach, with the clarification that it should still be

referred to as the Prioritization Workgroup.

P6.0 Workgroup Plus/Delta

The Workgroup participated in a Plus/Delta exercise to identify positives and improvements from the

P6.0 Workgroup process. [See Workgroup presentation slides for the list of Plus and Delta items.]

Wrap Up

Jason closed the meeting by expressing the gratitude of the SPOT Office to the Workgroup for their time

and efforts.

1



Monday, August 5th, 2019, 9:30 am – 3:00 pm

Attendees


Anthony Prinz Jason Schronce Aldea Coleman James Bridges

Austin Chamberlain Justin Green Brooke Boyle LaToya Caldwell

Brian Wert Karyl Fuller George Hoops Mark Johnston

Bryant Buck Matt Day Neil Perry

Chris Lukasina Neil Burke Rich Denbow (Admin.)

Chris Werner Pat Ivey Tim Brock

Dana Magliola Randi Gates Todd Meyer

David Wasserman Ronnie Keeter

Hanna Cockburn

(for Julie White) Sarah Lee



Jason Schronce opened the meeting by welcoming the attendees. He summarized P6.0 activities since

the last Workgroup meeting on April 29, 2019 and reviewed the agenda and desired meeting outcomes.

Highway Capacities Update

The SPOT Office opened a discussion about how to best incorporate the most current methods for

calculating highway capacity. Capacities are generated using the North Carolina Level of Service (NCLOS)

tool, which is based on methodologies in TRB’s Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and parameters from

North Carolina specific data. NCLOS was developed by ITRE and NCDOT. Prioritization Rounds 2.0

through 5.0 used NCLOS that was based on the 2010 version of HCM. In October 2016, TRB released a

revised HCM. NCLOS was subsequently updated by NCDOT‐DIT to reflect HCM 2016. The Department

has been working on incorporating the update into P6.0 but still needs to validate the changes before

the tool can be used during project submittals. The validation process may not be finished in time for

P6.0 scoring.

The Workgroup discussed three options to address this for P6.0:

1. Complete the validation of HCM 2016 capacities so it is available for use in P6.0 before opening

the submittal window. This option may potentially delay the P6.0 submittal window for

validation time.

2. Open the P6.0 submittal window as planned and use HCM 2010 capacities for P6.0 scoring,

deferring the use of HCM 2016 capacities to P7.0.

2

3. Open the P6.0 submittal window as planned and submit projects using the HCM 2010 capacities,

then update them during data review with HCM 2016 capacities after validation is completed.

The Workgroup generally agreed that it is preferable to use HCM 2016 capacities for P6.0. HCM 2016

equations reflect multimodal issues and new technologies that were not included in HCM 2010 and are

currently being used for project design work. The key issue with the first option is how long the

validation process will take. It will take time to get a contractor approved and underway to begin the

validation. The worst case is that HCM 2016 won’t be available until P7.0.

The Workgroup agreed that NCDOT should move forward with validation as quickly as possible, with the

goal of having it available in P6.0. Then use option 3 if validation is not completed in time to get into

SPOT On!ine, with a disclaimer during submittal saying the 2010 capacities are being used initially but

will be updated during data review to reflect HCM 2016 capacities once validation is complete. It may

also be possible to derive 2016 capacities in the meantime. NCDOT will discuss this internally to

determine what resources are available to complete validation as quickly as possible and will keep the

Workgroup updated.

P6.0 Schedule

The Workgroup discussed potential changes in the P6.0 schedule due to the STIP schedule extending to

three years. This one‐time STIP schedule change will result in the Draft 2023‐2032 STIP being released in

January 2022. The STIP extension is primarily due to future funding uncertainty with the FAST Act

expiring in September 2020, and to allow NCDOT to get a handle on cost increases for projects and

maintain an adequate cash balance. The P6.0 submittal window will still open in early October 2019 as

planned. The SPOT Office requested input from the Workgroup on how to use the extra time in the P6.0

schedule resulting from extending the STIP schedule – specifically the extra time between project

submittal and the release of quantitative scores.

Prior to discussing how to utilize the extra time, some participants noted that moving the STIP to three

years will impact MPO planning schedules, especially for MPOs that are required to conduct air quality

conformity on their MTPs and TIPs at least every four years. Some participants expressed a preference

for moving to four years to better align the STIP with the prioritization process and MPO schedules.

Others prefer the three year schedule because they have already begun the P6.0 submittal process, and

because funds could possibly become available that would make the additional fourth year unnecessary.

At this time, at the guidance of the STIP Unit, the Department is planning to move ahead with extending

the schedule to three years as already discussed.

The participants expressed an interest in more time to work on submittals and to coordinate with

partner organizations. The Workgroup discussed and proposed changes to the schedule, including

additional time for the STIP unit to program Regional Impact and Division Needs projects, and extending

the Regional Impact local input point assignment window to 3 months to match the Division Needs

window. It was also proposed to push back the release of the Draft STIP to February 2022 in order to

incorporate some of these extensions, so the SPOT Office noted that they will discuss the proposed

changes with the STIP unit during the break and report back to the Workgroup.

After clearing the Draft STIP release date with the STIP unit, the SPOT Office confirmed the changes to

the P6.0 schedule with the Workgroup. [See Workgroup presentation slides for more information.]

3

SPOT will send an updated schedule to the Workgroup for quick review by the next day, in order to

finalize it and share with all partners this week.

Other Fund Contributions

Jason presented on the topic of leveraging new non‐state or non‐federal dollars during 3 different

windows: project submittal, Regional Impact local input points, and Division Needs local input points.

This discussion topic was presented as an informational item on the Benefit‐Cost criteria, as well as to

emphasize the multiple opportunities for contributing other funds. [See Workgroup presentation slides

for more information.] This has previously been applied only to Highway project scoring, but now will

also apply to Aviation and Rail. Workgroup members asked NCDOT for a summary of how many projects

have received local fund contributions in previous prioritization rounds. The SPOT Office will also

discuss if there will be a requirement for Aviation and Rail (like Highway already requires) for a letter of

contribution to be provided at the time that the other funds are submitted for the project.

Bicycle/Pedestrian POI Definitions

The SPOT Office requested Workgroup assistance with defining the types of eligible facilities of the

previously‐decided Point of Interest (POI) categories. Some categories also did not have adequate data

for use in automation – Sarah noted that Historic Landmarks would now need to be a manual category

(within Tourist Destinations), and the Workgroup agreed to remove Adult Education Centers and

Fire/EMS facilities from the POI categories. During discussion on eligible facilities for manual categories,

the Workgroup agreed on the points listed below.

Museums, Theaters, and Auditoriums (within Tourist Destinations): centered around

performing arts destinations, but the Workgroup felt this should include any general tourist

attractor/destination that is typically included in a tourism/visitor’s guide. Must be open to the

public. Department of Commerce, visitors bureaus, or local tourism divisions/groups may be

good data sources. Would be helpful to provide examples (botanical gardens was suggested as

one).

Historic Landmarks (within Tourist Destinations): not to include historic markers only. Must be

an actual standing destination, not already included in Historic Districts POIs, and must be listed

on an official historic registry (national, state, or local). Would be helpful to provide examples.

Shelters: intended to be a place for the homeless or victims of domestic abuse, not emergency

shelters. North Carolina DHHS, 211, or the Red Cross may be good data sources. Does not have

to be licensed by the State.

Employment Centers: businesses with at least 25 employees. May include a single building of

multiple businesses that total at least 25 employees. Information should be verifiable. InfoUSA

may be a good data source.

Documentation: Submitters will be required to provide a spreadsheet of the manual POIs

within their project buffer, noting the following: POI category, facility name, and data source.

Hanna Cockburn noted that the Bicycle/Pedestrian Division will now have adequate staff to assist in

reviewing project data, including the POI submissions. Sarah also noted that an additional destination

outside the pre‐defined POI categories can always be provided to the SPOT Office for consideration

4

during project submittal, if there exists a unique facility that is sensible as a destination but does not fit

the official categories.

It was also questioned if a destination that fits more than one category can count multiple times. The

Workgroup agreed that this would be acceptable, since the destination is serving multiple purposes.

The SPOT Office will use this input to develop submittal guidance regarding what qualifies as a POI.

Sarah also reviewed submitter responsibilities in ensuring the accuracy of the results for each project.

[See Workgroup presentation slides for more information.]

On‐Going Prioritization Committee

The Workgroup discussed holding continuing prioritization discussions to address research and develop

scoring improvement ideas before P7.0 WG begins in the fall of 2021 (based on the new schedule). [See

Workgroup presentation slides for more information and a list of potential discussion topics.] The

participants decided to meet every other month, beginning on the third Monday in September, from

9am to 12pm. Attendance will be allowed by phone or in person at NCDOT. The SPOT Office will

provide a list of meeting topics to be discussed at each meeting ahead of time.

Identified Needs Form

The Spot Office discussed the Identified Needs form for P6.0 that has now been incorporated into SPOT

On!ine and provided several need category examples. Austin Chamberlain pointed out that if

submitters use safety as a primary need, a further set of needs and constraints will be required. The

SPOT Office will provide more guidance on this.

Wrap Up / Next Steps

Jason closed the meeting by thanking the participants for their input. The SPOT Office will update the

Workgroup with the P6.0 schedule changes as discussed today and send a draft version for review. They

will also set up a group invitation for the Ongoing Prioritization Committee meetings, which will begin on

Monday, September 16th.

P6.0 Workgroup Meeting #1: Summary Notes · 3 David presented options for the Committed Project...

Documents

Transcript of P6.0 Workgroup Meeting #1: Summary Notes · 3 David presented options for the Committed Project...