APPendix j - ENHANCEMENT Evaluations
CDTC developed a basis for evaluating candidates for funding
under the Transportation Enhancements Program (TEP). The basis for Round Two evaluation of
proposals from within the Capital District reflects several changes to the
Round One methodology.
In evaluating proposals to Round One of the TEP, a team of
CDTC and New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Region One staff
used a methodology approved by the CDTC Planning Committee on
¨
Benefit to Enhancement Region and Environment
¨
Enhancement of Transportation Plans, Projects
¨
Relationship To/Support for Other Plans,
Projects
¨
Size of Matching Share, Assurance of
Availability
¨
Direct User Benefits to Immediate Proposal Area
and Environment
¨
Innovation/Creativity/Mix of Activities
¨
Supportiveness of Master Planning in Recognized
Areas of Special Significance
¨
Level of Community, Regional Support
While the Guidebook-based
methodology was helpful in providing a framework for objective assessment of
the merits of each proposal, discussions after the completion of Round One
raised several concerns with this basis, particularly the following:
¨
the criterion set seemed to place too much
weight on regional rather than local benefits
¨
on a related note, trails or other sorts of
"tourism-oriented" proposals tended to be the only ones which could
score well on most or all of the criteria
¨
safety benefits seemed not to get adequate
weight
¨
partly related to the safety point, many
important projects in urban areas did not see their true benefits reflected in
point scores
¨
there was no explicit opportunity to consider
cost-effectiveness in rankings
As a result, while there were 12 types of projects
eligible for TEP funding, most proposals faring well in the rankings were for
trail developments or extensions. In
addition, higher-cost proposals tended to fare better than lower-cost
proposals.
For Round One of the TEP, the
CDTC/NYSDOT evaluation team needed to base its evaluations on the Guidebook, for applicants developed
their proposals based on the Guidebook's
listing of criteria. That is, as the Guidebook contained the first
indications of what the basis for proposal evaluation would be, the team did
not have the opportunity to introduce additional criteria, for it would
arguably have been unfair to applicants to have their proposals evaluated based
on a different set of criteria from those presented in the Guidebook.
For Round Two, a CDTC document discussing the evaluation
methodology to be applied to Capital District proposals was provided to
potential applicants at the informational workshop held at the start of the
Round Two TEP effort and thereafter, with the CDTC document positioned as a
companion document to the Guidebook. The CDTC document noted that while the
CDTC evaluations would be more rigorous, considering criteria beyond those set
forth in the Guidebook, applicants
would not be compelled to do any more
work in preparing proposals than would be expected based strictly on the Guidebook.
CDTC and NYSDOT Region One staff met to discuss their concerns
with the Round One approach and to identify possible changes to the evaluation
methodology which would ensure that evaluations of Round Two proposals would be
based on broader opportunities for success.
The group identified a series of modifications to the Round One
evaluation process dealing with criteria and process. The CDTC Planning Committee discussed and
concurred with these possible modifications at its
1. Presentation
of evaluation findings and preliminary rankings to the Planning Committee by
Enhancements project category, to facilitate Committee consideration of
prioritized candidate lists reflecting a wider range of project types.
2. Addition
of a new sub-criterion within the "Benefits" criterion group (see
Modification 4 for a discussion of criterion groups) dealing with safety
impacts. (In addition, as will
be detailed later on in this document, the descriptions of the existing
criteria in this group have been modified for purposes of clarity and
consistency.)
3. Reallocation
of maximum point scores to reduce bias toward very large projects.
4. The
aggregation of criteria into three criterion groups within which
evaluators would have a defined degree of flexibility in allocating points.
5. Provision
to the Planning Committee of indications of how the proposals fare under supplemental
screening criteria employing "A" through "C" grades
for feasibility
and cost-effectiveness.
6. Application
of model-based
or otherwise quantitative assessments of potential proposal impact wherever
possible (e.g., using the bicycle and/or pedestrian versions of the CDTC
regional travel model). These
assessments would be inputs to evaluator consideration of how proposals fare
for level of benefit and cost-effectiveness.
7. Provision
to the Planning Committee of evaluators' "overall impression" rankings for
each project. These rankings may differ
from point score-based rankings; in cases where these differences are
significant, reviewers could provide one-sentence descriptions of why in their
estimations the discrepancies exist.
8. Addition
of new
parties to the evaluation team and solicitation of feedback from the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Issues Task Force during the evaluation period as a source
of "reality checks."
The Round Two Transportation Enhancements Program (TEP)
candidate evaluation methodology applies eleven criteria:
¨
Environmental
Benefit (worth up to 10 points, excluding bonus)
¨
Economic
Benefit (up to 10 points, excluding bonus)
¨
Access/Patronage
Benefits (up to 10 points, excluding bonus)
¨
Transportation
System Enhancement (up to 10 points, excluding bonus)
¨
Local
Benefit and Community Enhancement (up to 15 points, excluding bonus)
¨
Safety
Benefits (up to 15 points, excluding bonus)
¨
Relationship
To/Support for Other Plans, Projects (up to 10 points, excluding bonus)
¨
Size of
Matching Share (up to 5 points, excluding bonus)
¨
Level of
Community, Regional Support -- Letters of Support, Resolutions, Endorsements
(up to 5 points, excluding bonus)
¨
Innovation/Creativity
(up to 5 points, excluding bonus)
¨
Mix of
Eligible Enhancements (up to 5 points, excluding bonus)
The “ranging structure” prepared by CDTC staff presents
details on how scores would be determined for each of these criteria, for
example, what would merit fifteen points for "benefits to immediate
proposal area and environment" as opposed to nine, or none. The structure gives sample indications of
what might garner a proposal different point scores on individual criteria, and
allows the evaluator to review guiding language from the Round One TEP
Guidebook and CDTC interpretations and key in scores accordingly. The structure is reflected in a spreadsheet
template, a completed version of which can be printed out and kept on file for
each proposal. In addition, narrative
rationales for scores may be included in the printouts.
Following presentation of the ranging structure, a sample
application of the new structure to a series of proposals previously considered
by CDTC for both Round One of the TEA-21 TEP and the final round of the ISTEA
TEP is presented, to illustrate the types of changes to evaluation outcomes
which could result from use of the new methodology.
For four criteria, the point scores are direct functions of
some quantifiable attribute:
¨
points for "Relationship to/Support for
Other Plans, Projects" would be assigned based on how many such plans or
projects are cited and/or known (and can validly be considered to be supported
by the proposal)
¨
points for "Size of Matching
Share/Assurance of Availability" would be assigned based on where the
indicated matching share falls into a series of percentage ranges
¨
points under the
"Innovation/Creativity" criterion would be assigned based on definable
unique features and "model project" potential
¨
point assignments under the “mix” criterion
would be based on how many TEP-eligible activities were incorporated into the
proposal
For the remaining criteria, the ranging structure sets forth
four illustrative "levels of success" that a proposal might achieve,
with narrative descriptions of each:
zero% (no success); 20% (low success), 60% ("high medium"
success), or 100% (high success). These
levels would correspond to zero, two, six and ten point scores for the ten
point criteria; zero, three, nine and fifteen point scores for the fifteen
point criteria; and zero, one, three and five point scores for the five point
criteria. Again, these are illustrative; evaluators would award
whatever point scores within the maximums were deemed appropriate based on
individual proposal attributes.
In examining the ranging structure, it should be borne in
mind that by such measures as transportation benefit or economic development,
most TEP proposals would be seen at best as only having "low success"
(that is, two points out of ten) potential compared to activities such as
highway construction or the development of a new office building. It is arguably not appropriate to consider
the potential benefits of Enhancement-type projects against the reference of
all possible investments. Thus, the
maximum potential (100%) “level of success” will be
based on what is possible for TEP-type
projects in the Capital District.
This determination will require a combination of staff knowledge of
existing TEP-type projects (including completed projects which were not funded
under TEP but would have been eligible) and what the theoretical "best
case" benefit of an Enhancement project could be. Staff would document the bases for all point
scorings, and would have this supporting information available if needed when
it presents the results of its reviews to the Planning Committee for approval
before transmission to the statewide Transportation Enhancements Advisory
Committee (TEAC).
|
Project
Name |
|
|||
Project
Sponsor |
|
||||
Project
Number: |
01-R1-0##-CDTC |
||||
|
SCORE |
0 |
|
||
SCORE-BASED
RANK |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
"OVERALL
IMPRESSIONS" RANK: |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
FEASIBILITY
(A/B/C): |
|
(A=HIGH/B=MEDIUM/C=LOW) |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
(A/B/C): |
|
(A=HIGH/B=MEDIUM/C=LOW) |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this |
|
|
|
|
max |
proj |
|
|
|
|
Score |
Score |
|
|
“Benefits” Criterion Group |
|
||||
SUBTOTAL
(Max 70): |
0 |
|
|||
|
|
10 |
0 |
B1.
Environmental Benefit |
|
|
|
10 |
0 |
B2.
Economic Benefit |
|
|
|
10 |
0 |
B3.
Transportation Benefit 1: Enhancement
of Access/Patronage |
|
|
|
10 |
0 |
B4.
Transportation Benefit 2: Enhancement
of Transportation System |
|
|
|
15 |
0 |
B5.
Local Benefit and Community Enhancement |
|
|
|
15 |
0 |
B6.
Safety Benefits |
|
"Support" Criterion
Group |
|
||||
SUBTOTAL
(Max 20): |
0 |
|
|||
|
|
10 |
0 |
S1.
Relationship To/Support for Other Plans, Projects |
|
|
|
5 |
0 |
S2.
Size of Matching Share |
|
|
|
5 |
0 |
S3.
Level of Community, Regional Support:
Letters of Support, Resolutions, Endorsements |
|
“Innovation” Criterion Group |
|
||||
SUBTOTAL
(Max 10): |
0 |
|
|||
|
|
5 |
0.0 |
I1. Innovation/Creativity: Project is innovative or could serve as a
model for similar enhancement projects. |
|
|
|
5 |
0.0 |
I2. Mix of Activities: Project encompasses two or more eligible
transportation enhancement activities. |
|
|
TOT |
100 |
0 |
|
|
Note: For each criterion,
space will be provided to enter information to clarify the basis for assigning
a particular score. To save space, this
is not represented in the criterion discussions.
Also note that the examples provided for low/medium/high
potentials under each criterion should not be taken to be the only examples with regard to benefiting
groups or project types which could qualify for points at the indicated level
of success. Furthermore, the
"medium" and "high" determinations could be the results of
some cumulative consideration, e.g., the achievement of more than one type of
"low-level" benefit.
Benefits Criterion Group |
|
|||
|
sample |
max |
this |
|
|
raw |
wtd |
proj |
|
|
score |
score |
score |
|
|
|
10.0 |
0 |
B1. Environmental Benefit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Criterion Definition: The extent to which the project would
preserve or positively influence natural, cultural or historic resources,
scenic quality, air or water quality, wildlife habitat or migration. |
|
0 |
0.0 |
|
NONE
(project not likely to produce ANY environmental benefit) |
|
1 |
2.0 |
|
LOW
(project likely to have some minimal environmental benefit) |
|
3 |
6.0 |
|
MEDIUM
(project likely to have modest but significant environmental benefit) |
|
5 |
10.0 |
|
HIGH
(project likely to provide substantial environmental benefit) |
|
7.5 |
15.0 |
|
EXTRAORDINARY (150% of maximum) |
|
|
|
|
In general, this category
focuses on the "natural" environment; however, the Guidebook
notes that the rater has broad
discretion to interpret and define these terms. For example, the rater will form an opinion
on "what is a cultural resource?" (there
are many answers: one interpretation might be "areas of historical or
archeological significance", while another could be "areas where
human social interactions may occur").
Examples of indicators might be: |
|
|
|
|
·
Natural resources conserved or protected |
|
|
|
|
·
Cultural resources conserved or protected |
|
|
|
|
·
Historic resources preserved or enhanced |
|
|
|
|
·
Scenic quality preserved or enhanced |
|
|
|
|
·
Air and/or water quality directly improved as a result |
|
|
|
|
·
Wildlife habitat/migration areas are preserved, restored, created, or
otherwise enhanced |
|
sample |
max |
this |
|
|
raw |
wtd |
proj |
|
|
score |
score |
score |
|
|
|
10.0 |
0 |
B2. Economic Benefit |
|
|
|
|
Criterion Definition: The extent to which the project would
improve the quality of life through job creation, increased tourism, economic
development, balanced distribution of funds and other socio-economic
factors. Should be considered in the
context of what is possible in these areas for an Enhancements-level project. |
|
0 |
0.0 |
|
NONE
(project not likely to produce ANY economic benefit) |
|
1 |
2.0 |
|
LOW
(project likely to have some minimal economic benefit) |
|
3 |
6.0 |
|
MEDIUM
(project likely to have modest but significant economic benefit) |
|
5 |
10.0 |
|
HIGH
(project likely to provide substantial economic benefit) |
|
7.5 |
15.0 |
|
EXTRAORDINARY (150% of maximum) |
|
|
|
|
This category focuses on the
potential for positive economic impacts resulting from an enhancement
project. Examples follow: |
|
|
|
|
·
Additional jobs are created in the community |
|
|
|
|
·
Existing jobs will be retained within the community |
|
|
|
|
·
Tourism and visitor revenues will be enhanced through: |
|
|
|
|
·
Additional hotel occupancy, increased restaurant and retail sales |
|
|
|
|
·
Potential for "return-trips" increased |
|
|
|
|
·
Economic Development potential (e.g. marketability of the community) is
enhanced through: |
|
|
|
|
·
Improved community aesthetics |
|
|
|
|
·
Perception of a higher "quality of life" |
|
|
|
|
·
Economically challenged individuals are assisted. |
|
sample |
max |
this |
|
|
raw |
wtd |
proj |
|
|
score |
score |
score |
|
|
|
10.0 |
0 |
B3. Transportation Benefit 1: Enhancement of Access/Patronage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Criterion Definition: The extent to which the project would
increase or improve access to activity centers (business, school, recreation,
shopping, etc.). Access is to be
considered both in a general sense and for particular groups such as people
with disabilities. |
|
0 |
0.0 |
|
NONE
(project not likely to produce ANY transportation access/patronage benefit) |
|
1 |
2.0 |
|
LOW
(project likely to have some minimal transportation access/patronage benefit) |
|
3 |
6.0 |
|
MEDIUM
(project likely to have modest but significant transportation
access/patronage benefit) |
|
5 |
10.0 |
|
HIGH
(project likely to provide substantial transportation access/patronage
benefit) |
|
7.5 |
15.0 |
|
EXTRAORDINARY (150% of maximum) |
|
|
|
|
The focus of this category
should be on the enhanced mobility (especially with non-traditional modes) of
persons or on significant improvement in the quality of the trip experience
(improved access to sites, etc.).
Examples here are best expressed in the form of questions: |
|
|
|
|
·
What activity centers will be connected? Are the connections genuinely enhanced? |
|
|
|
|
·
What is the current level of connectivity/access (i.e. how dramatic are
effects of the proposed improvements)? |
|
|
|
|
·
Is user safety/security a current issue? |
|
|
|
|
·
Is access guaranteed to all individuals (e.g. |
|
sample |
max |
this |
|
|
raw |
wtd |
proj |
|
|
score |
score |
score |
|
|
|
10.0 |
0 |
B4. Transportation Benefit
2: Enhancement of Transportation
System |
|
|
|
|
Criterion Definition: The extent to which the
project would build, extend or connect local and regional transportation
systems for the purpose of facilitating non-motorized and/or intermodal travel. |
|
0 |
0.0 |
|
NONE
(project not likely to produce ANY transportation system enhancement) |
|
1 |
2.0 |
|
LOW
(project likely to have some minimal transportation system enhancement) |
|
3 |
6.0 |
|
MEDIUM
(project likely to have modest but significant transportation system
enhancement) |
|
5 |
10.0 |
|
HIGH
(project likely to provide substantial transportation system enhancement) |
|
7.5 |
15.0 |
|
EXTRAORDINARY (150% of maximum) |
|
|
|
|
This category concentrates on
the development of the intermodal transportation
system envisioned by the ISTEA legislation and reinforced in TEA-21. Whereas the previous category looked at how
the proposed project meets user "demand", this category looks at
the "supply" aspects of the transportation equation. Examples include: |
|
|
|
|
·
Transportation modes being connected (e.g. bikes and pedestrians, bikes
and buses, bikes and autos, trains and pedestrians, etc.). Also, projects identified in transportation
plans; a part of continuing or ongoing transportation programs. |
|
|
|
|
·
System deficiencies being addressed
(e.g. Pedestrian circulation
systems, bikeway systems, etc.). |
|
sample |
max |
this |
|
|
raw |
wtd |
proj |
|
|
score |
score |
score |
|
|
|
15.0 |
0 |
B5. Local Benefit and Community Enhancement |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Criterion Definition: The extent to which the project would
provide or increase recreational or transportation opportunities for its
immediate neighbors, and would be a neighborhood amenity rather than a source
of local consternation. |
|
0 |
0.0 |
|
NONE
(project not likely to produce ANY direct user benefits of these sorts) |
|
1 |
3.0 |
|
LOW
(project likely to have some minimal direct user benefits of these sorts) |
|
3 |
9.0 |
|
MEDIUM
(project likely to have modest but significant direct user benefits of these
sorts) |
|
5 |
15.0 |
|
HIGH
(project likely to provide substantial direct user benefits of these sorts) |
|
7.5 |
22.5 |
|
EXTRAORDINARY (150% of maximum) |
|
|
|
|
The aim of this criterion is
to encourage consideration of the positive impacts a project will have at the
most local level. It is important
because some projects can have significant regional benefit while having
little benefit -- if not in fact being a nuisance -- to their immediate
neighbors. Among the considerations for this criterion will be the extent to
which the project would do the following: |
|
|
|
|
·
Create or enhance some sort of opportunity which is genuinely likely to
be used by its neighbors. |
|
|
|
|
·
Preserve community resources (e.g. neighborhoods, cultural facilities,
gathering areas, etc.). |
|
|
|
|
·
Enhance neighborhood ambiance or safety |
|
sample |
max |
this |
|
|
raw |
wtd |
proj |
|
|
score |
score |
score |
|
|
|
15.0 |
0 |
B6. Safety Benefits |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Criterion Definition: The extent to which the
project would enhance safety, particularly the safety of cyclists or
pedestrians. Can also consider the
benefit to all travelers attendant to remedying a known hazardous condition
such as a poor line of sight or narrow roadway. |
|
0 |
0.0 |
|
NO
safety benefit expected (proposal is for an effort which would in itself have
no discernible impact on any kind of safety problem, e.g., a planning or
historic preservation project) |
|
1 |
3.0 |
|
MODEST
safety benefit expected (proposal includes improvements which will call
attention to or otherwise provide guidance regarding a safety problem, but
will not substantially resolve the problem, e.g., cautionary signage,
crosswalks or other non-capital improvements) |
|
3 |
9.0 |
|
MEDIUM
safety benefit expected (proposal includes elements which will substantially
resolve but not eliminate a safety problem,
e.g., bikeable shoulder/bike lane
construction) |
|
5 |
15.0 |
|
HIGH
safety benefit expected (proposal includes a hazard remediation or
development of a new facility which would effectively eliminate a known
safety problem) |
|
7.5 |
22.5 |
|
EXTRAORDINARY (150% of maximum) |
Support Criterion Group |
|
||||
|
sample |
max |
this |
|
|
|
Raw |
wtd |
proj |
|
|
|
Score |
score |
score |
|
|
|
|
10.0 |
0 |
S1. Relationship To/Support
for Other Plans, Projects: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Criterion Definition: The extent to which the project would
implement goals in regional plans or other federal, state or local
plans. |
|
|
0 |
0.0 |
|
NONE
(project not likely to further any local, regional or state plan goals) |
|
|
1 |
2.0 |
|
LOW
(project likely to further goals in one cited or known plan) |
|
|
3 |
6.0 |
|
MEDIUM
(project likely to further goals in two or three cited or known plans) |
|
|
5 |
10.0 |
|
HIGH
(project likely to further goals in more than three cited or known plans) |
|
|
7.5 |
15.0 |
|
EXTRAORDINARY (150% of maximum) |
|
|
|
|
|
The linkage to existing plans
is critical. This is particularly true
for projects within urbanized areas under the jurisdiction of a Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO). Under the
law, MPOs must not only approve projects for
programming in their Transportation Improvement Program ( |
|
|
sample |
max |
this |
|
|
|
Raw |
wtd |
proj |
|
|
|
Score |
score |
score |
|
|
|
|
5.0 |
0 |
S2.Size of Matching Share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
MATCH: |
|
|
Criterion Rationale: A 20% minimum match is
required; the provision of a match in excess of 20% benefits the overall
program as it allows federal funds to be used for additional enhancement projects.
|
||
|
0 |
0.0 |
|
<20%
match (ineligible) |
|
|
1 |
1.0 |
|
20-24.99%
match |
|
|
3 |
3.0 |
|
25-34.99%
match |
|
|
5 |
5.0 |
|
35%
or greater match |
|
|
7.5 |
7.5 |
|
EXTRAORDINARY (150% of maximum) |
|
|
|
|
|
NYSDOT
Bonus Category Cutoffs (key bonus score into green box at left) |
|
|
|
|
0.0 |
20% |
|
|
|
|
1.0 |
21-30% |
|
|
|
|
2.0 |
31-40% |
|
|
|
|
3.0 |
41-50% |
|
|
|
|
4.0 |
51-60% |
|
|
|
|
5.0 |
60%
or greater |
|
|
sample |
max |
this |
|
|
raw |
wtd |
proj |
|
|
score |
score |
score |
|
|
|
5.0 |
0 |
S3.Level of Community,
Regional Support: Letters of Support,
Resolutions, Endorsements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Criterion Definition: Letter(s) of support from
elected officials; endorsement action from local governments (resolutions,
etc.); endorsement action from local governments (resolutions, etc.);letters of support/endorsement actions from interest
groups (e.g. Chambers of Commerce,
advocacy groups, neighborhood associations, etc.) |
|
|
|
|
This is a critical category in
that it represents the level of community and political support for the
project. While transportation projects
are often delayed (or terminated) as a result of significant opposition,
projects that have the full backing of community groups and leaders/elected officials have a
higher completion rate. Projects that demonstrate evidence of a combination
of both "grass roots" support and support from the appropriate
officials are more favorable than those that do not. The degree of support is also critical:
letters from individuals are good, but resolutions, petitions, or other
formal actions of support by groups of people are better. |
|
0 |
0.0 |
|
NO
evidence of support provided |
|
1 |
1.0 |
|
SOME
(LOW) support (e.g., one or two letters from individual citizens included in
the proposal) |
|
3 |
3.0 |
|
MEDIUM
support (e.g., one or two letter(s) from the parties described under the
"Criterion Definition"
section) |
|
4 |
4.0 |
|
HIGH
support (e.g., letter(s) from the parties described under the "Criterion
Definition" section, plus some
official support, e.g., a resolution) |
|
5 |
5.0 |
|
HIGHEST
support (outstanding indication of support, e.g., considerable quantity of
letters/resolutions, indication of plans by outside parties to provide
assistance with project implementation) |
|
7.5 |
7.5 |
|
EXTRAORDINARY (150% of maximum) |
Innovation
Criterion Group |
|
|||
|
sample |
max |
this |
|
|
raw |
wtd |
proj |
|
|
score |
score |
Score |
|
|
|
5.0 |
0 |
I1. Innovation/Creativity: Project is innovative or could serve as a
model for similar enhancement projects. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Criterion Definition: The level of
"innovativeness" or the suitability of the project as a
"model" for other projects.
Unique design or application, new technologies, development of
public/private partnerships and multi-jurisdictional projects, are all good
examples. |
|
0 |
0.0 |
|
·
Project is routinely organized, designed, planned |
|
1 |
1.0 |
|
·
Project has a couple of unique characteristics |
|
3 |
3.0 |
|
·
Project has unique characteristics / some model potential |
|
5 |
5.0 |
|
·
Project is extremely unique / definitely a model |
|
7.5 |
7.5 |
|
·
EXTRAORDINARY (150% of maximum) |
|
sample |
max |
this |
|
|
raw |
wtd |
proj |
|
|
score |
score |
score |
|
|
|
5.0 |
0 |
I2. Mix of Activities: Project encompasses two or more eligible
transportation enhancement activities. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
·
1 eligible activity |
|
3 |
3.0 |
0 |
·
2-3 eligible activities |
|
5 |
5.0 |
0 |
·
4-5 eligible activities |
|
7.5 |
7.5 |
0 |
·
EXTRAORDINARY (6+ eligible activities) |
|
|
|
0 |
<--
DOT "multiple activities" score (no need to key in -- will be
copied to DOT sheet) |
|
|
|
|
Many transportation
enhancement project proposals may technically encompass two or more eligible
activities. If they do, the TEAC will
consider this fact in their rating.
However, each individual aspect of the proposal should "stand
alone" in the sense; if the
project were split by category, each would qualify on its own merits:
(e.g. landscaping might be only a side-effect to the development of scenic
overlook and probably would not receive extra credit). |