This page contains accessible text equivalents for non-accessible content.

Return to SFMTA Board Nov. 17, 2009, agenda

Calendar item 13 (presentation) as accessible text:

1. PRESENTATION TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
Capital Investment Plan (CIP):
A New Approach to
Project Prioritization

November 17, 2009

San Francisco, CA

2. OVERVIEW

Background/Previous Steps
CIP Purpose
Reason for CIP Revision
Process to Develop a CIP Methodology
Next Steps

3. BACKGROUND/PREVIOUS STEPS

June 2008 – SFMTA Board Adopted CIP

July 2009 – SFMTA Board Special Meeting

Presented background on purpose of CIP and the changing planning environment
Discussed potential need to defer capital projects
Emphasized the importance of a transparent and logical prioritization system tied to long-range planning goals

October/November 2009 – Developing Framework

Research on best practices and local/regional plans
Staff and CAC review of framework
Presenting the Board with a process to determine the prioritization methodology

4. PURPOSE OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN

Describes the Agency’s Capital Investment Priorities
Unconstrained long-range capital needs
Multi-year programming document
Two year (fiscal) Capital Budget
Key Reasons for Having a CIP
A means to achieve the Agency’s strategic priorities
Preserves existing assets and strategically expands transportation system
Integrates capital planning, prioritization, budgeting and financing

REASON FOR A NEW CIP APPROACH

The graphic shows the main reason for a new CIP approach is to proactively position the agency to best meet the rapidly changing environment. The graphic shows the following factors all contribute to the need for a new CIP approach:

Federal reauthorization
State regulatory requirements
State legislation (SB 375)
Regional/MTC/BAAQMC
Volatile funding situation
Long-range, multi-modal transportation plan
Climate action goals
Mode shift/capacity
Large area redevelopment plans

PROCESS FOR THE CIP REVISION

Graphic shows that many projects are sifted through a process (like a funnel) to select the high priority projects included in 5-year CIP and 2-year Capital Budget. The process should be transparent to the public. Its steps include:

Review best practices and key local/regional plans
Develop prioritization methodology
Identify unconstrained capital needs for all modes
Review projects using standardized methodology
Prioritize projects using new criteria
Develop and refine funding and implementation strategies

7. NATIONAL REVIEW

Questions about Agencies with Multi-Modal Responsibilities:

Do they rank projects across modes?
Do they rank different types of projects against each other (e.g., major extensions vs. employee support equipment)?

Prioritization Methodologies Researched Include:

Transit Agencies, Metropolitan Transportation Authorities, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, City Departments of Transportation

Findings:
Few agencies have the breadth of responsibilities of the SFMTA
Agencies rarely use systematic approach to rate projects across modes
Projects are generally grouped by corridor/area, mode or type of project

…The SFMTA Comprehensive CIP will be a first in the nation in breadth and focus

8. KEY LOCAL/REGIONAL PLANS

Plans & Policy Documents:

SFMTA Strategic Plan
SFMTA Climate Action Plan
SF 10-Year Capital Plan
SF General Plan Transportation Element
SFCTA Countywide Transportation Plan
MTC Regional Transportation Plan 2035
ABAG Projections 2009
BAAQMD Clean Air Plan
California Transportation Plan
State Improvement Plan

Common Themes:

Sustainable, mixed-use communities
Quality transportation system
Multi-modal safety
Local economic and community development
Social equity
Asset preservation

These themes can all be grouped under:

Environmental sustainability
Economic sustainability
Social sustainability

9. PRELIMINARY LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN GOALS AND CIP CRITERIA

Environmental Sustainability:

Support sustainable, mixed-use communities
Employ renewable energy and recyclable resources
Reduce pollution, emissions and waste

Economic Sustainability:

Provide cost-effective service and capacity, supported by timely project delivery and using full range of available funding
Provide affordable services and facilities to all users
Support vibrant and sustainable local economic activity

Social sustainability:

Provide safe and secure transportation
Provide a universally integrated, multimodal transportation system for all
Offer reliable, comfortable, convenient transportation
Minimize adverse transportation impacts: noise, vibration, glare, etc.

Special Factors:

Legally Required
Maintain State of Good Repair
Committed: Fully Funded, Public Agreement or Policy Mandate

Ensure early multi-modal integration to leverage resources.

10. LINKING GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Shows a hierarchy of different elements:

THEME: Cluster of related goals.

CIP Goal: Vision statement. Corresponds to long range planning goals and the SFMTA Strategic Plan goals.

Objective: More specific, measurable outcome statement.

Performance Standard: Metrics used to determine whether objective is met.

11. LINKING GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: EXAMPLE

Shows an example of hierarchy:

THEME: Social Sustainability

CIP Goal: Offer reliable, comfortable, convenient transportation (consistent with Strategic Plan goals 1 and 2).
Objective A: Improve transit on-time performance and travel times.
Performance Standard: >85 percent schedule and headway adherence (Prop E service standard).
Performance Standard: Encourages bike parking and other convenient access to transit.

12. ISSUES TO RECONCILE FOR REVISED CIP

Quantitative (scores) or Qualitative
Equal or Weighted Criteria
Ranking All Projects Together or Comparing Only Same Modes Together
Treat Special Factors (e.g., legal) Separately?
Include Project Readiness As an Initial Ranking Factor or Assessing Readiness after Ranking is Completed
Consider Internal Efficiency/Agency Support Projects Separately?

13. ALTERNATIVE PRIORITIZATION SYSTEMS

OPTION 1. QUANTITATIVE SYSTEM (ILLUSTRATION ONLY)

CIP Scoring Criteria	Weighted Scoring Options	Transit Project	Parking Project	Bicycle Project	Pedestrian Project	Signal Project	Taxi Project	Agency Support Systems Project
Total Score (Goals/Objectives/ Performance Standards)	0-100 points	65	30	60	70	40	20	45
Special Factors Legally Required State of Good Repair Public Commitment	10 points 20 points 10 points	0 20 10	0 10 0	0 0 10	10 0 10	0 20 0	0 0 0	0 20 0
Social Sustainability	20 points	5	0	10	20	5	5	10
Environmental Sustainability	20 points	20	5	20	15	10	5	5
Economic Sustainability	20 points	10	15	20	15	5	10	10

Further refinement if necessary using project readiness and other criteria

14. ALTERNATIVE PRIORITIZATION SYSTEMS

OPTION 2. QUALITATIVE COMPARISON (ILLUSTRATION ONLY)

CIP Scoring Criteria	Qualitative Scoring Options	Transit Project	Parking Project	Bicycle Project	Pedestrian Project	Signal Project	Taxi Project	Agency Support Systems Project
Meets Majority of (Goals/Objectives/ Performance Standards)	Meets the most objectives	Med-High	Med-Low	Med-High	High	Low-Med	Low	Low-Med
Special Factors Legally Required State of Good Repair Public Commitment	Yes/No	N Y Y	N Y N	N N Y	Y N Y	N Y N	N N N	N Y N
Social Sustainability	Number of objectives met per category	1	0	1	3	1	1	1
Environmental Sustainability		3	1	3	2	1	1	1
Economic Sustainability		2	2	3	2	1	1	1

Further refinement if necessary using project readiness and other criteria

15. NEXT STEPS

Develop Prioritization Methodology - Fall 2009/Winter 2010
Develop Recommendations for Board,

CAC & Stakeholder review - Winter 2010

Public Hearing to adopt CIP Process - Early Spring 2010
Prepare CIP & FY 2011-FY 2012 Capital Budget for Board consideration - Spring 2010
Adopt FY 2011-FY 2012 Capital Budget - May 2010

Top