|
Surface Transportation Program Evaluation Manual - by Bi-State Regional Commission
Click HERE for graphic. Surface Transportation Program (formerly Federal-Aid Urban Program) Evaluation Manual Bi-State Regional Commission Revised May, 1993 (April, 1985) This report was prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; the Illinois Department of Transportation; and the Iowa Department of Transportation. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Illinois Department of Transportation, the Iowa Department of Transportation, or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. Bi-State Regional Commission P. 0. Box 3368 1504 Third Avenue Rock Island, Illinois 61204-3368 601-2 BI-STATE REGIONAL COMMISSION Charles Seaman, Chair Wayne Anderson Arthur Ash Linda J. Bloodsworth Dewey Colter Bill Fennelly Robert W. Garman Pat Gibbs William T. Green James Hancock Allen Haut George C. Heninger Sandra S. Huston Ann Hutchinson Chad James John Keig Stan Leach Mary Ellen Lobaito Francis Marlier Paul E. Mulcahey Scott H. Newberg Tom C. Nicholson LeRoy Petersen Celia Rangel Ruth Reynolds Simon O. Roberts A. Francis Roederer Brian M. Roesler Mark W. Schwiebert Elizabeth Sherwin Grace Diaz Shirk Walter Tiller William Ward William C. Weaver Thomas A. Wilson Edwin G. Winborn BI-STATE REGIONAL COMMISSION STAFF Gary B. Vallem, Executive Director Denise L. Bulat, Transportation and Environmental Services Director Jill L. Guth, Community and Economic Development Director Virginia A. McKee, Administrative Services Director Elizabeth A. Murray, Intergovernmental Services Director Marvin C. Webb, Aging Director Patricia S. Laas, Dietitian Steven G. Ames, Planner III Carole L. Boyles, Planner III Kristi K. Conway, Planner III Stacy A. DePorter, Planner III Catherine Pratscher-Woods, Planner III Gena Standaert, Planner III Chong Qing Wu, Planner III Patrick S. Marsh, Planner II David W. Tallman, Planner II Janice M. Townsend, Planner II Patrick J. Weidemann, Planner II Donna A. Moritz, Controller Patty Gregory, Graphics Specialist Lisa J. Miller, Graphics Specialist Janet L. Hill, Word Processing Coordinator Carol L. Connors, Word Proc./Acct. Clerk Leslie A. Mose, Word Processor Pearlee Carpenter, Clerk-Typist/Recep. Faye DeBisschop, Older Worker Spec. II Paul Burden, Older Worker Specialist I Joan Lopez, Ethnic Meals Cook Jason M. Moritz, Planning Assistant Jill K. Ellestad, Planning Assistant 5-1-93 900-18 ii TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE (1) Ann Hutchinson, Mayor City of Bettendorf, Iowa Edwin Winborn, Chairman Scott County Board of Supervisors Pat Gibbs, Mayor City of Davenport, Iowa Thomas Moritz, Alderman City of Davenport, Iowa John Rodgers, Mayor City of Riverdale, Iowa Ron Leiby, Mayor (3) City of LeClaire, Iowa Ian MacGillivray, Director Planning and Research Division Iowa Department of Transportation (Alternate: Lee Benfield, District Transportation Planner) H. A. Willard (ex-officio, non-voting) Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration - IA Lee Waddleton (ex-officio, non-voting) Administrator, Federal Transit Administration - Region VII Paul Mulcahey, Chairman Rock Island County Board Mark Schwiebert, Mayor (2) City of Rock Island Stan Leach, Mayor City of Moline, Illinois William Ward, Mayor City of East Moline, Illinois Bob Steele, Mayor (3) City of Silvis, Illinois Lawrence Lorenzen, Chairman Rock Island County Metropolitan Mass Transit District William Ost, District Engineer Illinois Department of Transportatio+w (Alternate: Larry Reed, Engineer of Program Development) Jay W. Miller (ex-officio, non-voting) Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration - IL Art Ash Henry County Charles Seaman, President (4) Colona Village Board of Trustees (1). The Policy Committee voting is restricted to one vote for each voting member with no proxy voting permitted with the following exception: the Illinois and Iowa Departments of Transportation are each allowed one designated alternate representative. These representatives have voting privileges in the absence of their designated Committee members. (2). Chairman, Transportation Policy Committee. (3). The mayors of the Cities of LeClaire, Eldridge, Buffalo and Panorama Park in the Iowa portion and Milan, Silvis, Coal Valley, Carbon Cliff, Hampton, and Oak Grove in the Illinois portion select a representative from their jurisdictions (Iowa and Illinois separately) to represent them on the Policy and Technical Committees. (4). Chairman, Bi-State Regional Commission. 600-44 iii TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Larry Mattusch, County Engineer Greg Champagne Scott County, Iowa Dept. of Community & Economic Development City of Rock Island, Illinois Clayton Lloyd Community Development Director Joseph Reckard City of Davenport, Iowa Director of Planning & Development City of Moline, Illinois Byron Baxter, Director Dept. of Municipal Transportation John Hoffstatter, City Engineer City of Davenport, City of Moline, Iowa Illinois Patrick McGrath, City Engineer Bill Lauper, City City of Davenport, Iowa Engineer City of East Moline, Illinois Jerry Springer Robert Hawes, Public Public Works Director Works Director City City of Bettendorf, Iowa of Rock Island, Illinois Dick Kvach Steve Seiver, Community Development Village City of Bettendorf, Administrator (2) Iowa Village of Milan, Illinois Edwin Choate, City Administrator (2) John Dowd, City City of LeClaire, Iowa Administrator City of Eldridge, Lee Benfield Iowa District Transportation Planner Jeff Nelson, General Iowa Department of Manager (3) Transportation Rock Island County Metropolitan Lee Benfield Mass Transit District District Transportation Planner Iowa Department of Steve Van Dyke Transportation Director of Developmental Services City of East Moline, Illinois Gary Vallem, Executive Director Mark Peterson Bi-State Regional Commission Systems Planning & Services Engineer Gary Lange Illinois Department Superintendent of Public Works of Transportation Rock Island County, Illinois Margaret Lake, Steve Brandau Director County Engineer Bettendorf Mass Henry County, Illinois Transit City of Bettendorf, Jim Johnson, City Engineer Iowa City of Rock Island, Illinois Tim Collins, Transit Manager Davenport, CitiBus (1). The Technical Committee system allows one vote per agency with delegated representative voting permitted in the absence of an agency's listed member. The Davenport Department of Municipal Transportation has a vote in addition to the City of Davenport. (2). The mayors of the Cities of LeClaire, Eldridge, Buffalo and Panorama Park in the Iowa portion and Milan, Silvis, Coal Valley, Carbon Cliff, Hampton, and Oak Grove in the Illinois portion select a representative from their jurisdictions (Iowa and Illinois separately) to represent them on the Policy and Technical Committees. (3). Chairman, Transportation Technical Committee. NOTE: Additional membership may include advisory representatives from the Illinois and Iowa Departments of Transportation, planning and research engineers from the Illinois and Iowa Federal Highway Administration, and a community representative from the Federal Transit Administration Region VII. D-1 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Description Page I. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. Participation by the Transportation Technical and Policy Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 III. Project Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 IV. Surface Transportation Program Technical Evaluation . . . . .13 A. Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 1. Existing Volume/Capacity Ratio. . . . . . . . . . .13 2. Ten-Year Projected Traffic Volume . . . . . . . . .13 3. Congestion Reduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 B. Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 1. Total Number of Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 2. Accident Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 3. Accident Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 C. Physical Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 V. Non-Existent Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 A. Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 1. Volume/Capacity Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 2. Ten-Year Projected Traffic Volume . . . . . . . . .21 3. Congestion Reduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 B. Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 C. Physical Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 VI. Combination Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 VII. Evaluation Scoring Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 VIII. Special Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 A. Accident Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 B. Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 C. Automobile Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 1. Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 2. Bicycle Trails. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 3. Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 D. Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 IX. Development of Scoring Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 601-2 v LIST OF TABLES Page I-lA Illinois Projects Which Have Received FAU/STP Program Funds: 1972-93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 I-lB Iowa Projects Which Have Received FAU/STP Funds: 1972-93. . . 4 I-2 Projected Surface Transportation Program Funds for the Quad City Area FY 1992-1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 I-3 Surface Transportation Program Funds Illinois and Iowa. . . . 6 I-4 Estimated Expenditures of Surface Transportation Program Funds for the Quad City Area FY 1994-1997 . . . . . . . . . . 7 IV-1 Surface Transportation Program Technical Evaluation . . . . .17 IV-2A Capacity (LOS C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 IV-2B Capacity (LOS D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 VII-1 Evaluation Points for Volume/Capacity. . . . . . . . . .26 VII-2 Evaluation Points for Ten-Year Projected Traffic Volume.27 VII-3 Evaluation Points for Congestion Reduction . . . . . . .28 VII-4 Evaluation Points for Accidents. . . . . . . . . . . . .29 VII-5 Evaluation Points for Physical Condition . . . . . . . .30 VIII-1 Special Consideration of Accident Reduction. . . . . . .34 IX-1 Criteria and Weights Used for Surface Transportation Program Evaluation Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 601-2 vi LIST OF FIGURES Description Page II-1 Surface Transportation Program Candidate Project Submittal Form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 II-2 Surface Transportation Program Candidate Project Response Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 II-3 Project Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 601-2 vii I. INTRODUCTION Each year the Quad City area is designated to receive a portion of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds, formerly the Federal-Aid Urban (FAU) System funds, which are available to the States of Illinois and Iowa for roadway improvements or non-roadway projects. STP funds may be used on either National Highway System (NHS) or Federal-Aid roads, although bridge, safety, carpooling and bicycle/ pedestrian projects may be on any public road. Programming of these funds is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (HPO), which is the Bi-State Regional Commission. The Commission has, in turn, delegated the authority for programming these STP funds to the Transportation Policy Committee. The Policy Committee has directed the Transportation Technical Committee to develop and implement a process through which candidate projects for STP funding are submitted as needed, then evaluated and ranked in relation to each other. The resulting advisory ranking assists the Policy Committee in determining which projects should be selected to receive STP funding. The Technical Committee periodically reviews the procedure for the technical evaluation and advisory ranking. This document shall define the methodology which reflects the nomenclature and essence of the new Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Changes in light of the ISTEA were suggested by the Transportation Technical Committee in their review of this document in 1993. Each candidate project is evaluated for the categories of Level of Service, Safety, and Physical Condition. The ability of the existing roadway to safely accommodate the existing traffic is considered for each project under the Level of Service category. Also considered under this category is the ability of the proposed project to reduce traffic congestion. Additionally, the evaluation process includes a comparison of the expected traffic ten years from the analysis year for all proposed projects. Analysis for a project under the Safety category is based on the number of accidents which occurred within a three-year period. Also considered are the severity and the frequency of the accidents. The physical condition of the street/highway is analyzed as the third category in the STP Evaluation. This category is evaluated by noting the type of surface (gravel, sealcoat, asphalt, concrete), the condition of that surface, and the amount of traffic that currently uses the roadway and is expected to use the roadway in the future. Candidate projects may also receive additional consideration for demonstrating the expected ability to reduce accidents, improve the quality of air, encourage automobile alternatives, or to promote economic development. To receive special consideration for the ability to reduce accidents the jurisdiction submitting the project must produce material declaring the estimated number and percentage of accidents which are expected to be reduced. Special consideration for air quality will be given to those projects which maintain the existing level or reduce the amount of air pollutants as defined in the federal air quality standards. Projects which include the construction of sidewalks, bicycle trails, transit lanes or any other facility which would aid pedestrians, bicycles, or transit usage will receive special consideration by the Technical Committee. Special consideration will be given for projects associated with the creation or retention of permanent jobs. 601-2 -1- After a point value is assigned to each item considered in the evaluation, the points for each project are totalled. The final advisory ranking is then determined by listing the projects by their individual total number of points, with the highest point total being the number one ranked project and then proceeding to the lowest point total. Since 1972 a total of 36 local area projects have received funding under the Federal-Aid Urban/Surface Transportation Programs. Tables I-lA and 1B list those projects in the Illinois and Iowa Quad Cities, respectively, which have received funding. In addition, a few projects have been programmed to receive funds by the Policy Committee, based on anticipated allocations of FAU/STP funds through FY 1994. This funding is premised on the continuation of allocations at the FY 1994 level through FY 1997. Table I-2 shows a summary of funds which are expected to be available through FY 1997. The current STP projects for the Illinois and Iowa Quad Cities are shown in Tables I-3. Projects may receive up to 80% of their eligible STP costs, and are to be funded in a manner whereby the projects listed first on each list will receive funding prior to any other projects, unless otherwise directed by the Policy Committee. The estimated expenditures of STP funds for the Quad City area (FY 1994-1997) are shown in Table I-4. 601-2 -2- Click HERE for graphic. -3- Click HERE for graphic. -4- TABLE I - 2 PROJECTED SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FUNDS FOR THE QUAD CITY AREA FY 1992-1997 Illinois Iowa FY 1992 $ 540,000 $ 629,073 FY 1993 $ 658,169 $1,333,333* FY 1994 $ 658,169 $1,333,333* FY 1995 $ 658,169 $1,333,333* FY 1996 $ 658,169 $1,333.333* FY 1997 $ 658,169 $1,333.333 Totals $3,830,845 $7,295,738 *Includes funds formerly programmed by the State of Iowa and spent on the State Primary Arterial System based on the authorized funding levels. 601-2 -5- Table I - 3 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FUNDS ILLINOIS REMAINING PROGRAMMED PROJECTS - ILLINOIS FEDERAL SHARE OF PROJECT 19th Avenue (West Corporate Limits to 15th Street A)-Moline 750.00 Total Projects Projects Programmed $ 750.00 REMAINING PROGRAMMED PROJECTS - IOWA FEDERAL SHARE OF PROJECT Jersey Ridge Road (Kimberly Rd./U.S. 6 to 46th St.)-Davenport 750.00 Total Projects Projects Programmed $ 750.00 601-2 -6- Table I - 4 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FUNDS FOR THE QUAD CITY AREA FY 1994-1997 Illinois Iowa Balance June 30, 1993 (IL) $ 122,169 $( 409,405) September 30, 1993 (IA) Projected Funds Available FY 1994 658,169 1,333,333 ----------- ---------- FY 1989 Balanced & FY 1990 Projected $ 780,338 $ 923,928 Estimated Cost of Programmed Projects (obligated and unobligated) ( 750,000) ( 750,000) ----------- ----------- Remaining Funds to be Programmed $ 30,338 $ 173,928 ------------------------- Projected Funds Available FY 1995-97 1,974,507 3,999,999 Amount to be Programmed through Remaining Years of the ISTEA $2,004,845 $4,173,927 Next Fiscal Year in which sufficient 1995 1995 funds will be available for program- ming based on at least one year of appropriation at current funding level 601-2 -7- II. PARTICIPATION BY THE TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL AND POLICY COMMITTEE Candidate projects for the Surface Transportation Program (STP) evaluation are submitted as needed by jurisdictions through the Transportation Technical Committee. A submittal form, as shown in Figure II-1@, must be completed every submission period for each project which is to be evaluated. Data provided on the submittal form will be used by the Bi-State staff in conducting the STP evaluation. Following the completion of the project's evaluation, the STP Candidate Project Response Form, Figures II-2 and 3, is returned to the proper jurisdiction for review. Bi-State staff should be notified of any revisions to the project's evaluation desired by the jurisdiction. Calculation errors may be corrected by Bi-State staff, however, any subjective revisions which are requested must be presented to the Technical Committee for their consideration. The Transportation Technical Committee will review the special consideration categories at the first Technical Committee meeting following the completion of the initial evaluation of projects. At this time the ranking of projects shall not be released to the Committee. A list of those projects which are eligible for special consideration "bonus" points shall be presented to the Technical Committee members prior to the special consideration review. Any other evaluation revisions which are presented to the Technical Committee will also be considered at this meeting. Final ranking of the STP Candidate Projects will be conducted following the Committee's review of special considerations. After awarding "bonus" points, the final ranking will be presented to the Technical Committee. The Technical Committee will be asked to consider the recommendation of any project to receive STP Funds, as funding becomes available. This recommendation shall consider the results of the STP Evaluation and the amount of anticipated funds. Any recommendation made will be forwarded to the Transportation Policy Committee for consideration. 601-2 -8- FIGURE II-1 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM CANDIDATE PROJECT SUBMITTAL FORM 1. Jurisdiction:_______________________________________________ 2. Project Location (Street, Avenue, etc.): ___________________ 3. Project Description (type of improvement, number of lanes, etc.): _____________________________________________________ 4. Project Cost: ______________________________________________ Information for Categories 1-3 in Technical Evaluation 5. Existing Traffic: __________________________________________ 6. Existing Project Width: ____________________________________ For intersection projects, please give all approaches land their widths. 7. Congestion Reduction (Please check (X) appropriate description): ______ Segment with intersection with additional lanes and/or transit turnout lanes ______ Segment with additional lanes ______ Intersection with additional lanes and/or transit turnout lanes ______ No additional lanes included in project 8. Project Length (segment project only) ______________________ 9. Physical Condition (Please check (X) one of the following): ______ Gravel ______ Low type asphalt, good base ______ Sealcoat, poor base ______ Pavement, asphalt, portland Information for Special Considerations 10. Accident Reduction ______ Percent reductions in accidents One percent of the total points from the first three categories will be added for each 10% reductions in accidents. PleaSe submit supporting information. Information will be submitted to Technical Committee for their approval. 11. Automobile Alternatives (Please check if applicable) ______ New sidewalks included in project ______ Separate facility for bike trail ______ Special lanes for transit (turnouts, etc.) 12. Economic Development (Please specify if applicable) ______ Total direct jobs created ______ Total direct jobs retained ______ Total capital investment of economic development project 601-2 -9- FIGURE II-2 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM CANDIDATE PROJECT RESPONSE FORM 1. Jurisdiction:_______________________________________________ 2. Project Location:___________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 3. Project Description:_________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 4. Existing Volume: ___________________________________________ 5. Existing Project Width: ________ Existing Capacity: ________ V/C ________________________________________________________ 6. Future Volume: _____________________________________________ Source: ____________________________________________________ 10-Year Project Volume: ____________________________________ 7. Congestion Reduction: ______________________________________ 8. Total Accidents: ___________________________________________ Fatal Accidents: _____ Injury: _____ Property Damage: ______ Accident Severity: _________________________________________ Accident Rate - ____________________________________________ 9. Future Volume: ______________ Existing Volume: _____________ Lanes: ____ Surface Type: ____ Surface Condition: __________ 10. Comments: __________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 601-2 -10- FIGURE 11-3 PROJECT SUMMARY Criteria Points V/C: __________________________ ______________ 10-Year Volume: _______________ ______________ Congestion Reduction: _________ ______________ Total Accident Number: ________ ______________ Accident Severity: ____________ ______________ Accident Rate: ________________ ______________ Physical Condition: ___________ ______________ Total Points Excluding Special Considerations ______________ 601-2 -11- III. PROJECT REQUIREMENTS Candidate projects which are submitted for the STP technical evaluation must meet the following requirements: A. The project must be part of the adopted Long Range Davenport- Rock Island Moline Transportation Plan; B. The project must be on the National Highway System or Federal- Aid roads except bridge, safety, carpool-related, and bicycle/pedestrian projects which may be on any public road; C. The project must be a permanent improvement; temporary construction is defined as work which must be essentially replaced in the immediate future; staged construction is considered permanent rather than temporary so long as future stages build on rather than replace previous work; D. Noise barriers, lighting projects, drainage projects, fences, landscaping, etc., are ineligible for funding unless included as part of a larger roadway construction, safety, capacity, or bikeway/walkway construction project which would qualify under the above criteria; E. The project must be structurally capable of handling all anticipated vehicles of legal load limit; F. Street/highway projects must provide for level of service "D" or higher on traffic forecasts developed in accordance with the adopted long-range transportation plan; G. Bikeway/walkway projects must meet one or more of the following location criteria:(a) be along a federal-aid route, (b) provide a means of crossing a controlled access federal- aid route or (c) shift non-motorized traffic which would have normally used a federal-aid highway route to an adjacent route in the corridor; ordinary sidewalk construction is not eligible as a separate project; and H. The jurisdiction submitting a project for STP funding consideration must be able to implement the project within five years from the time it is considered for priority rating. Any project not meeting these requirements will not be considered in the technical ranking of STP candidate projects. 601-2 -12- IV. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM TECHNICAL EVALUATION In the STP Technical Evaluation, candidate projects are evaluated using three categories composed of seven criteria. These categories include Level of Service, Safety, and Physical Condition (see Table IV-1). This chapter shall identify the criteria which comprise these categories. A fourth category, Special Considerations, does not apply to all candidate projects and is addressed in Chapter VII, Special Considerations. A. Level of Service The category of Level of Service (LOS) was established to determine the ability of a highway segment or intersection to accommodate traffic. Criteria which are examined to determine such an ability include the existing volume/capacity ratio, a ten-year projected traffic volume, and the project's ability to reduce traffic congestion. 1. Existing Volume/Capacity Ratio To indicate how well a facility is currently functioning without improvements, the existing volume is divided by the existing capacity. The capacity is the amount of traffic that a given roadway can safely handle based at LOS D. Both volume and capacity are expressed as Average Daily Traffic Volumes (ADT) (24-hour volumes). Volumes which are used in the existing volume/capacity ratio shall be obtained from the Average Daily Traffic Map Davenport-Rock Island-Moline Urbanized Area prepared by Bi-State Regional Commission. These volumes were taken in 1990 in Iowa and in 1991 in Illinois. More recent volumes may be submitted by a jurisdiction for usage in the evaluation, however, approval by the Technical Committee of all new volumes must be obtained prior to the final ranking of the projects. This step must be repeated each year for all volumes not given on the Bi- State map. The capacity used in this evaluation is obtained from the charts shown in Table IV-2B for State of Iowa projects and Table IV-2A for all other projects. Capacity for each local project is determined from the existing width of the roadway . This width is obtained from the project submittal form as provided by the jurisdiction. For total intersection width, the widths of the highest ADT approach of the east-west approaches and the highest ADT approach of the north-south approaches are totalled. Capacity of the intersection is determined from this total width. While the capacity used in this analysis is not based on the type of roadway surface, it is adjusted (as noted on the capacity table, Table IV-2A) for population, type of area, and percentage of trucks. State of Iowa projects will use number of lanes, availability of turning lanes, and the amount of access control to determine capacity (see Table IV-2B). 2. Ten-Year Projected Traffic Volume The second criteria in the LOS category is the ten-year projected traffic volume on the proposed facility. The projected ADT is determined by the interpolating between the existing volume and the most recently adopted Long- Range Transportation Plan, to obtain a projection representing traffic ten years from the submittal date. 601-2 -13- 3. Congestion Reduction The ability of a project to reduce traffic congestion is considered to be an important portion of the STP evaluation. This criteria is evaluated through the analysis of the proposed improvement. Transit alternatives will be given consideration. A segment project which does not add lanes, but includes an intersection improvement which adds lanes, a transit turnout which adds lanes, or a road segment which adds a bi-directional lane will receive a rating of 2. All other projects will be given a rating of 1. B. Safety The methodology which is used in the Quad City Street/Highway Intersection Traffic Accident Study is repeated in the evaluation of the safety category. Criteria for this category include the total number of accidents, the severity of the accidents, and the accident rate. 1. Total Number of Accidents Each project is evaluated on the total number of accidents which have occurred during a three-year period along the project termini. This data will be obtained through the Iowa and Illinois Departments of Transportation by Bi-State staff for the latest three- year time period which is available. Due to the difficulty experienced in attempting to sort accidents by location, accidents which occur at intersections along a roadway segment project will be included in the total number of accidents. 2. Accident Severity Accident data, as obtained through the respective Departments of Transportation, categorizes accidents according to three classifications:property damage; personal injury; and fatal injury. These classifications are assigned weighted numerical values of 1, 3, and 12, respectively, and are totalled to obtain the accident severity. This criteria provides a means of determining the severity of accidents occurring along a project location. 3. Accident Rate Accident rates are particularly significant in measuring accident experience, since they relate accident frequency to traffic exposure. Accident rates are normally expressed in terms of accidents per million vehicle miles (MVM) for roadway segments and accidents per million entering vehicles (MEV) for intersections. The use of accident rates provides a common denominator for comparison of accident experience between different locations or against a critical rate in identifying locations with unusually high accident experience. The formula used to calculate intersection accident rates is: R sub i = (A)(1,000,000) -------------- (T) (V) 601-2 -14- Where: R = intersection accident rate expressed in accidents per million entering vehicles (MEV); A = number of accidents during the subject period; T = time period in days; and V = total average daily traffic (ADT) entering the intersection based on ADT counts. The formula for calculating the accident rate for roadway segments is: R sub s = (A) (100,000,000) ----------------- (T) (V) (L) Where: R = segment accident rate expressed in accidents per 100 million vehicle miles; A = number of accidents during the subject period; T = time period in days; and V = total average daily traffic (ADT) based on ADT counts; and L = segment length in miles. Comparing segment accident rates to intersection accident rates is difficult since the segment accident rate is based on million vehicle miles, while the intersection accident rate is based on million entering vehicles. Therefore, the intersection project with the highest accident rate will receive the same score for this criteria (see Chapter VII) as the highest segment project. The second highest intersection rate is given the same value as the second highest segment rate, etc. C. Physical Condition The physical condition of a project is determined by the current surface type, surface condition, and the current and future traffic. Each project is rated according to surface type and condition as follows: Surface Type Gravel 6 Sealcoat, poor base 4 Low type asphalt, good base 2 Pavement, asphalt, portland 1 Surface Condition Good 1 Fair 2 Poor 3 601-2 -15- These values will be multiplied by the average of the project's current and projected average daily traffic (ADT) per lane and then divided by 1000 to obtain more simplistic numbers. Projects are then scored and given weighted points for this category. Thus, for a deteriorated 2-lane paved road the project would receive values of 3 and 1 for the surface condition and type, respectively. A current ADT of 4,800 and a projected ADT of 13,800 would yield an average of 9,300 or a value of 9.3. Dividing the average ADT value of 9.3 by the 2 lanes yields a value of 4.7. The rated value for this project would thus be 3 x 1 x 4.7, or 14.1. This score would then be assigned points using Table VII-5. Projects with gravel surfaces are given a value of 6 for the surface type and a value of 2 for the surface condition. Since a gravel surface will vary in condition quite easily, the value of 2 is used. Non-existent projects are also given a value of 6 for surface type and a value of 1 for surface condition. The current traffic for non-existent facility will be 0. This was considered a tradeoff between the value of 6 for surface type and no current traffic. 601-2 -16- Click HERE for graphic. -17- Click HERE for graphic. -18- Click HERE for graphic. -19- V. NON-EXISTENT FACILITIES Frequently, projects are submitted for evaluation which involve the construction of roadways which do not currently exist. These projects become difficult to evaluate through the process described previously because current traffic and accident data are not available for these projects. The absence of this data prevents the evaluation of an existing volume/capacity ratio, the ten-year project traffic volume, total number of accidents, accident severity, and the accident rate. This chapter shall present the means used to evaluate a non-existent facility. A. Level of Service 1. Volume/Capacity Ratio Because an existing volume is not possible for non- existent facility, a method of obtaining a volume must be established. The future and existing volumes for a nearby roadway shall be applied in ratio with the proposed project's future volume to determine the project's "existing" volume. It is recommended that the nearby roadway which is used, be parallel to the existing project and, if possible, have equivalent termini. A sample calculation is outlined below for a project on Tanglefoot Lane in Bettendorf, Iowa. The following calculations were necessary as a portion of the sample project is a non-existent roadway. Values for each category were determined by calculating information for the existing and the non-existing portions. The ratio of lengths were applied to these numbers to obtain the final value. The lengths of the existing and non-existing portions were taken as 0.43 and 0.57 miles, respec- tively. A total project length of 1.00 mile was used in the calculations, as given by the City. Kimberly Road from I-74 to Forest Road was used as the surrounding facility best representing the non- existent portion. For convenience, the existing and nonexisting portions will be referred to as portions A and B, respectively. Existing volume: Since current ADT for portion A is not available, Kimberly Road will be used for both portions of A and B in determining the existing volume. Tanglefoot Lane: 1979 ADT = X Kimberly Road: 1979 ADT = 29,900 2000 ADT = 8,600 2000 ADT = 30,900 8,600 X ----- ------ 30,900 = 29,900 X = 8,322 use 8,300 for existing volume This estimated volume will be used in calculating the "existing" volume/capacity ratio, the ten-year projected traffic volume, and the accident rate. Capacity of the proposed facility will be determined as the "existing' capacity for the calculation of the volume/capacity ratio. 601-2 -20- 2. Ten-Year Projected Traffic Volume The ten-year projected traffic volume for a non-existing facility shall be obtained by interpolating between the current Long-Range Transportation Plan and the "existing" volume which was determined above. 3. Congestion Reduction Although additional lanes will be added, all non-existent facility projects will be awarded a rating of 1 in keeping with the essence of the ISTEA and its emphasis on alternatives to adding new capacity for single-occupant vehicles. B. Safety To evaluate the safety category for a "non-existent" roadway, safety data is obtained for a nearby roadway. This roadway shall be the same as was used to determine the project's "existing" volume. Again the ratio of future traffic and the total accident number shall be applied to the project's future volume to obtain a number of accidents for the proposed project. This number shall be reduced by 50%. Accident severity shall also be determined using this method. The project's accident rate will be calculated using the total number of accidents and the "existing" volume. An example of these calculations is listed below for the former I-74 and 53rd Street Interchange project. Total Number of Accidents: I-74 (Spruce Hills Dr.) Accidents = 34 2000 ADT = 26,700 I-74 (53rd St.) 2000 ADT = 10,300 10,300 X ------ -- 26,700 = 34 X = 13/2 = 6.5 accidents therefore, use 7 accidents for I-74/53rd St. Interchange Accident Severity: I-74 (Spruce Hills Dr.) Severity = 56 10,300 = X ------ -- 26,700 56 X = 22/2 = 11 therefore, use severity = 11 for I-74/53rd St. Interchange Accident Rate: for I-74/53rd St. Interchange Number of accidents = 7 "existing" volume = 5,600 7 x 10 to the 6th accident rate = ----------------- (3 x 365) (5,600) = 1.14 MEV 601-2 -21- C. Physical Condition As stated in Chapter IV, non-existent facilities are given a value of 6 for surface type (gravel) and a value of 1 for surface condition (good). The current volume for a non- existent facility will be given a value of zero. Calculations of "non-existent" facility projects may be requested by a Technical Committee member to be presented to the Technical Committee for their review. All changes requiring a consideration of judgement must be requested by the Technical Committee as a whole. 601-2 -22- VI. COMBINATION PROJECTS Many projects which are submitted for the STP evaluation are composed of multiple surface types, surface conditions, varying roadway widths, or varying number of lanes. Some projects have portions which do not currently exist while the remainder of the project does indeed exist. To address these "combination' projects, a method of calculation was developed. Should a project consist of multiple characteristics, each segments shall be evaluated individually with the ratio of that particular segment to the entire project length. These values shall be summed to obtain a project total. Examples of calculations for a project which has varying surface types and conditions may be found below for the Marquette Street project in Davenport. The following calculations were necessary as a portion of the sample project which include a two lane roadway and the remainder of the project is a four lane roadway. The two lane portion, portion A, was estimated to be 0.5 miles in length. The four lane portion, portion B, was estimated to be 0.3 miles in length. Values for the capacity and physical condition were determined for both portions and then combined by applying the ratio of the lengths. Capacity - Portion A: width = 36 feet parking = both sides capacity = 8,400 length = 0.5 miles Portion B: width = 36 feet parking = none capacity = 12,300 length = 0.3 miles Capacity = (8,400 x 0.5/0.8) + (12,300 x 0.3/0.8) = 9,900 Physical Condition = Portion A: future volume = 17,300 existing volume = 8,200 lanes = 2 surface type = 1 surface condition = 3 length = 0.5 miles physical condition = (17,300 + 8,200 --------------- (2)(2)(1,000)) x 1 x 3 = 19.13 Portion B: future volume = 17,300 existing volume = 8,200 lanes = 4 surface type = 1 surface condition = 2 length = 0.3 miles physical condition = (17,300 + 8,200) ---------------- (4)(2)(1,000)) x 1 x 2 = 6.38 Physical Condition = (19.13 x 0.5/0.8) + (6.38 x 0.3/0.8) = 14.35 601-2 -23- This sample project also demonstrates a roadway with portions of two and four lanes in addition to varying surface types. It should be noted that this method is not applied when evaluating a segment project with an intersection having additional lanes. A generalized number of lanes shall be used when varying lengths comprise a very small portion of the total project length. 601-2 -24- VII. EVALUATION SCORING PROCEDURE To complete the final ranking of the candidate projects, the criteria in each of the Level of Service, Safety, and Physical Condition categories must be transformed to scores for ease of comparison. This task is accomplished through the use of tables (see Tables VII-1 to VII-5). A table has been developed for each criteria item. These tables present raw data values in ranges and points which correspond to these ranges. Scoring for most criteria items may be read directly from the table; however, the Accident Rate criteria for intersection projects depends on the segment projects which are submitted. As explained in Chapter IV, Accident Rate is measured in Million Entering Vehicles (MEV) for intersection projects and Million Vehicle Miles (MVM) for segment projects. Differing variables such as these cannot be compared directly. The Accident Rate table was developed for segment projects, thus allowing the scores of the majority of projects to be read directly from the table. Intersection projects will be scored such that the intersection having the highest accident rate will receive a score equivalent to the segment having the highest accident rate. Likewise, the second intersection project will receive a score equivalent to the second segment project, etc. Data values determined through the candidate project evaluations are transformed to scores and the scores are summed for each project. The candidate projects are then ranked in descending order. Prior to the final ranking of the projects special consideration is given to projects which are expected to have a beneficial effect on the areas of Accident Reduction, Air Quality, Automobile Alternatives, or Economic Development. The Technical Committee may award additional or "bonus' points to these projects. Further discussion on Special Considerations will be presented in the next chapter. 601-2 -25- Table VII-1 EVALUATION POINTS FOR VOLUME/CAPACITY V/C Points V/C Points >1.95 60 0.96-1.00 40 1.91-1.95 59 0.91-0.95 39 1.86-1.90 58 0.86-0.90 38 1.81-1.85 57 0.81-0.82 37 1.76-1.80 56 0.76-0.80 36 1.71-1.75 55 0.71-0.75 35 1.66-1.70 54 0.66-0.70 34 1.61-1.65 53 0.61-0.65 33 1.56-1.60 52 0.56-0.60 32 1.51-1.55 51 0.51-0.55 31 1.46-1.50 50 0.46-0.50 30 1.41-1.45 49 0.41-0.45 29 1.36-1.40 48 0.36-0.40 28 1.31-1.35 47 0.31-0.35 27 1.26-1.30 46 0.26-0.30 26 1.21-1.25 45 0.21-0.25 25 1.16-1.20 44 0.16-0.20 24 1.11-1.15 43 0.11-0.15 23 1.06-1.10 42 0.06-0.10 22 1.01-1.05 41 0.00-0.05 21 601-2 -26- TABLE VII-2 EVALUATION POINTS FOR TEN-YEAR PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUME ADT Points ADT Points >39000 60.0 19001-19500 40.0 38501-39000 59.5 18501-19000 39.5 38001-38500 59.0 18001-18500 29.0 37501-38000 58.5 17501-18000 38.5 37001-37500 58.0 17001-17500 38.0 36501-37000 57.5 16501-17000 37.5 36001-36500 57.0 16001-16500 37.0 35501-36000 56.5 15501-16000 36.5 35001-35500 56.0 15001-15500 36.0 34501-35000 55.5 14501-15000 35.5 34001-34500 55.0 14001-14500 35.0 33501-34000 54.5 13501-14000 34.5 33001-33500 54.0 13001-13500 34.0 32501-33000 53.5 12501-13000 33.5 32001-32500 53.0 12001-12500 33.0 31501-32000 52.5 11501-12000 32.5 31001-31500 52.0 11001-11500 32.0 30501-31000 51.5 10501-11000 31.5 30001-30500 51.0 10001-10500 31.0 29501-30000 50.5 9501-10000 30.5 29001-29500 50.0 9001-9500 30.0 28501-29000 49.5 8501-9000 29.5 28001-28500 49.0 8001-8500 29.0 27501-28000 48.5 7501-8000 28.5 27001-27500 48.0 7001-7500 28.0 26501-27000 47.5 6501-7000 27.5 26001-26500 47.0 6001-6500 27.0 25501-26000 46.5 5501-6000 26.5 25001-25500 46.0 5001-5500 26.0 24501-25000 45.5 4501-5000 25.5 24001-24500 45.0 4001-4500 25.0 23501-24000 44.5 3501-4000 24.5 23001-23500 44.0 3001-3500 24.0 22501-23000 43.5 2501-3000 23.5 22001-22500 43.0 2001-2500 23.0 21501-22000 42.5 1501-2000 22.5 21001-21500 42.0 1001-1500 22.0 20501-21000 41.5 501-1000 21.5 20001-20500 41.0 0-500 21.0 19501-20000 40.5 601-2 -27- TABLE VII-3 EVALUATION POINTS FOR CONGESTION REDUCTION Congestion Reduction Points 2 25 1 10 601-2 -28- TABLE VII-4 EVALUATION POINTS FOR ACCIDENTS Accident Number Accident Severity Accident Rate Accidents Points Severity Points Rate (per Points 100 MVM) >130 20.0 >260 20.0 >3250 20.0 126-130 19.5 251-260 19.5 3126-3250 19.5 121-125 19.0 241-250 19.0 3001-3125 19.0 116-120 18.5 231-240 18.5 2876-3000 18.5 111-115 18.0 221-230 18.0 2751-2875 18.0 106-110 17.5 211-220 17.5 2626-2750 17.5 101-105 17.0 201-210 17.0 2501-2625 17.0 96-100 16.5 191-200 16.5 2376-2500 16.5 91-95 16.0 181-190 16.0 2251-2375 16.0 86-90 15.5 171-180 15.5 2126-2250 15.5 81-85 15.0 161-170 15.0 2001-2125 15.0 76-80 14.5 151-160 14.5 1876-2000 14.5 71-75 14.0 141-150 14.0 1751-1875 14.0 66-70 13.5 131-140 13.5 1626-1750 13.5 61-65 13.0 121-130 13.0 1501-1625 13.0 56-60 12.5 111-120 12.5 1376-1500 12.5 51-55 12.0 101-110 12.0 1251-1375 12.0 46-50 11.5 91-100 11.5 1126-1250 11.5 41-45 11.0 81-90 11.0 1001-1125 11.0 36-40 10.5 71-80 10.5 876-1000 10.5 31-35 10.0 61-70 10.0 751-875 10.0 26-30 9.5 51-60 9.5 626-750 9.5 21-25 9.0 41-50 9.0 501-625 9.0 16-20 8.5 31-40 8.5 376-500 8.5 11-15 8.0 21-30 8.0 251-375 8.0 6-10 7.5 11-20 7.5 126-250 7.5 0-5 7.0 0-10 7.0 0-125 7.0 601-2 -29- TABLE VII-5 EVALUATION POINTS FOR PHYSICAL CONDITION Score Points Score Points >42.66 100 21.07-21.60 60 42.13-42.66 99 20.53-21.06 59 41.59-42.12 98 19.99-20.52 58 41.05-41.58 97 19.45-19.98 57 40.51-41.04 96 18.91-19.44 56 39.97-40.50 95 18.37-18.90 55 39.43-39.96 94 17.83-18.36 54 38.89-39.42 93 17.29-17.82 53 38.35-38.88 92 16.75-17.28 52 37.81-38.34 91 16.21-16.74 51 37.27-37.80 90 15.67-16.20 50 36.73-37.26 89 15.13-15.66 49 36.19-36.72 88 14.59-15.12 48 35.65-36.18 87 14.05-14.58 47 35.11-35.64 86 13.51-14.04 46 34.57-35.10 85 12.97-13.50 45 34.03-34.56 84 12.43-12.96 44 33.49-34.02 83 11.89-12.42 43 32.95-33.48 82 11.35-11.88 42 32.41-32.94 81 10.81-11.34 41 31.87-32.40 80 10.27-10.80 40 31.33-31.86 79 9.73-10.26 39 30.79-31.32 78 9.19-9.72 38 30.25-30.78 77 8.65-9.18 37 29.71-30.24 76 8.11-8.64 36 29.17-29.70 75 7.57-8.10 35 28.63-29.16 74 7.03-7.56 34 28.09-28.62 73 6.49-7.02 33 27.55-28.08 72 5.95-6.48 32 27.01-27.54 71 5.41-5.94 31 26.47-27.00 70 4.87-5.40 30 25.93-26.46 69 4.33-4.86 29 25.39-25.92 68 3.79-4.32 28 24.85-25.38 67 3.25-3.78 27 24.31-24.84 66 2.71-3.24 26 23.77-24.30 65 2.17-2.70 25 23.23-23.76 64 1.63-2.16 24 22.69-23.22 63 1.09-1.62 23 22.15-22.68 62 0.55-1.08 22 21.61-22.14 61 0.00-0.54 21 601-2 -30- VIII. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS While the STP Evaluation examines the existing volume, capacity, safety, and physical condition of each project, it is recognized that certain projects address other areas which are deserving of recognition. These areas have been identified by the Transportation Technical Committee to include Accident Reduction, Air Quality, Automobile Alternatives, and Economic Development. This chapter shall address these "Special Considerations.' A. Accident Reduction Although each candidate project is evaluated on the Safety category for total number of accidents, accident severity, and accident rate, it is recognized that projects which are anticipated to reduce accidents should be encouraged. For this reason, additional or "bonus" points may be awarded to a project which is expected to reduce the number of accidents. To be considered eligible for these additional points, the jurisdiction submitting the project for STP evaluation must request that the project be considered for Accident Reduction. The written request must be accompanied by supporting information which shall include the documentation of the total number of accidents occurring over a three year period, the identification of those accidents which are expected to be reduced, and a narrative containing all reasoning used to reach this conclusion. Documentation of the accidents shall include the number of accidents which have occurred, the types of accidents, as well as other contributing factors. The accidents may be those occurring along the project location or, in the case of a non-existent facility project, those occurring along near-by roadways which are expected to be reduced. The supporting information received on behalf of the candidate projects shall be distributed to all Technical Committee members for their review. This material shall be considered by the Committee, along with other Special Consideration criteria, at the next Technical Committee meeting. At this time, the Committee may request clarification of the documen- tation by the submitting jurisdiction. Scoring for the special consideration of Accident Reduction criteria is awarded by utilizing Table VIII-1. Bonus points are awarded to eligible projects based on both the number and percentage of accidents which are anticipated to be reduced. The application of this table was approved by the Technical Committee on May 9, 1985. Prior to this date, the bonus points for accident reduction were assigned based only on the percentage of accidents which were expected to be reduced. B. Air Quality Projects which are eligible to receive 'bonus' points for the air quality criteria can be located in areas of either non- attainment or attainment as defined by the Federal air quality standards and regulated by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) and Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IADNR). These projects will be identified and pre- sented to the Technical Committee by the Bi-State staff for their consideration. Those projects which are believed to have a positive or negative effect on the quality of air in a non- attainment area may receive 601-2 -31- "bonus" points of +2% to -2% of the total score for the first three evaluation categories. Projects in an attainment area that maintain the existing air quality or promote alternatives to single occupant vehicles may receive "bonus" points of +2% to -2% of the total score also. The percentage of "bonus points to be awarded will.be determined by the Technical Committee. C. Automobile Alternatives The impact a project will have on the enhancement of automobile alternatives is determined by assessing the project's effect on walking, bicycling, and mass transit use. Additional points may be received by those projects demonstrating an intention to include sidewalks, bicycle trails, or transit lanes. Jurisdictions must request consideration of a project to receive additional points for automobile alternatives. 1. Sidewalks A project which expresses the intention to construct sidewalks along the project location may receive an additional one percent of the total points received from the first three categories. To be eligible, a project must include the construction of new sidewalks within three years of the beginning of project construction. The upgrading of existing sidewalks shall not be considered for "bonus"' points. Eligible projects will be presented to and reviewed by the Technical Committee, who may award "bonus' points. 2. Bicycle Trails An additional two percent of the total evaluation points may be received by those projects expressing an intention to construct a bicycle trail. The bicycle trail must meet the requirements which have been established to be eligible for STP funding (See Chapter III). Should "bonus' points be requested for both sidewalk placement and bicycle trail construction, a separate facility for bicycles must be constructed. Additional points may not be received by a project which places bicycle trail signs along a roadway since the trail must be constructed as a facility separate from the roadway. Projects eligible to receive additional points will be considered by the Technical Committee. 3. Transit The promotion of mass transit usage is encouraged by the special consideration of all projects which may improve the ridership of transit vehicles. A project may receive an additional three percent in total points if it includes the establishment of specific lanes for transit (turnout lanes) or other particular features which would encourage ridership. The Technical Committee will review all eligible projects for consideration of "bonus" points. 601-2 -32- D. Economic Development Special consideration will be given to roadway projects that promote economic development in the urbanized area. "Bonus" points will be given to value-adding activities that provide maximum economic impact to the metropolitan area. Value-adding activities include those economic development projects that feed new dollars into the economy or retain what is already existing. In assessing the economic impact of a project, consideration will be given to the number of permanent direct and indirect "multiple" jobs that will be created or retained as compared to the total capitol investment. The Technical Committee will review all eligible projects for consideration of "bonus" points. Eligible projects may receive between one and three percent of the total points as determined by the Technical Committee. 601-2 -33- TABLE VIII-1 SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OF ACCIDENT REDUCTION Anticipated* Anticipated* Number (#) of Additional Percentage (%) of Additional Accidents Reduced Points Accident Reduced Points >45 4.0 41-45 4.5 36-40 4.0 31-35 3.5 26-30 3.0 21-25 2.5 81-100 2.5 16-20 2.0 61-80 2.0 11-15 1.5 41-60 1.5 6-10 1.0 21-40 1.0 1-5 0.5 1-20 0.5 * As submitted by local jurisdictions: based on accident data for a three-year period. 601-2 -34- IX. DEVELOPMENT OF SCORING TABLES Criteria data, as determined in the STP Evaluation, are transformed to point values through the use of Tables VII-I through VII-5 (see Chapter VII). The criteria points are determined by locating the actual data value for the category on the proper table. The summation of these criteria points for each project will become the final score upon which projects will be placed in order. Tables VII-1 through VII-5 were developed after review of many sets of tabulated data from FAU projects submitted in 1983 and characteristics of the regional network. The highest data value for the volume/capacity table was determined from current traffic volumes and capacity experienced by the existing network. Likewise, for the 10-Year Projected Volume Table the highest data value, 39,000, was established as very few facilities exceed this value in the 2005 Long-Range Transportation Plan. The Physical Condition Table was based on those upper values of the Volume/Capacity Ratio and 10-Year Projected Traffic Volume Tables. Upper values for the Accident Table were set at levels lower than may be expected as projects in the past tended to have low values with one or two exceptions. These exceptions were of such high values it was necessary to place a ceiling on the highest point value available. Consideration was given to awarding the exceptions higher values; however, this resulted in a grouping of projects with lower values. The Accident Rate Table was established for an accident rate/100 HVM or segment projects as this represents the project majority. Intersections will be given points equivalent to the segments of the same rank (i.e., the highest intersection will receive the score of the highest segment). Actual points on the tables were determined by a base of twenty projects multiplied by the assigned category weight (see Table IX- 1). The base of twenty was utilized as approximately twenty projects have been submitted by jurisdictions in Iowa and jurisdictions in Illinois in past years. Ranges for the tables were refined to fit point values. A reasonable range was determined for the Volume/Capacity Ratio Table and applied such that the median 1983 project received a median value of 30 (of 60 available points). This range was continued until a value of zero was reached (at a point value of 21). All other tables were set such that the lower limit of points was consistent with this value. As the accident category consists of three criteria (accident number, accident rate, and accident severity) the Accident Table consists of three tables based on each criteria. These tables are given an upper value of 20 points and a lower value of 7 points such that their summation will yield the 60 and 21 points consistent with the Volume/Capacity Ratio Table of equal weight. 601-2 -35- Click HERE for graphic. - 36 -
