2009-05-13 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

these projects must be delivered. The committee screened out several projects with major project readiness uncertainty rather than scoring them since they would have received such a low score in terms ofproject readiness and would have had no chance of being near the top of the final ranked list. The reasons for these uncertainties are explained below. While Right-of-Way purchases are typically eligible for TE funds, the time constraints of the ARRA make it imperative that all projects selected for this funding be far along in project development. Right- of-Way acquisition is the leading cause of projects being delayed. The committee screened out those 10 projects that still required right-of-way acquisition. Railroads have proven to be particularly difficult agents to work with in a timely fashion. For this reason, the committee removed one project from consideration that required involvement with a railroad in order to be constructed. All projects must be approved by the State Historic Preservation Office in order to proceed with construction. State Aid consulted with MnlDOT's cultural resources unit for a determination if any projects would have difficulty with getting fast approval from SHPO. One project was identified as having a major historic resource impact with the information presented in the application due to its proximity to an archaeological resource. This project was removed from scoring consideration. Many of these projects would be excellent candidates for regular Transportation Enhancement funds for which we are soliciting applications in the 2009 Solicitation, where project readiness is less of a factor. Screen Three: Projects Recommended for Funding with ARRA STP Funds (3 projects screened) At its meeting on April 16, the TAC Funding & Programming Committee recommended the expenditure of STP funds from the ARRA. Three projects submitted for Transportation Enhancements funding were selected instead for STP funds. These three projects were removed from scoring consideration. Scoring Process for 31 Remaining Projects All remaining projects were then reviewed by the evaluation committee using seven general criteria of equal importance based on answers to questions in the application: F or bicycle/pedestrian projects: I. Significance of the opportunity or problem that the project addresses 2. Does the project take advantage of a time-sensitive opportunity? 3. How does the project fill a gap in a network, overcome a travel barrier or otherwise seize on an opportunity in a bike/pedestrian network? 4. Does the project address a safety issue? 5. Population density with consideration of connectivity to significant travel generators 6. Project readiness 7. Percent of other funding also applied to the project For other project types: I. Significance of the opportunity or problem that the project addresses 2. Does the project take advantage of a time-sensitive opportunity? 3. How does the project provide more than a local benefit? 4. How will the project benefit the experience of users of multiple modes of transportation? 5. Population density 6. Project readiness