TRANSPORTATION PROJECT EVALUATION SYSTEM

FOR HIGHWAYS, BRIDGES AND BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS

Adopted by the Chester County Planning Commission June 1997
Modified by CCPC staff 2005 and 2007

FACTOR/CRITERIA SCORE FACTOR/CRITERIA SCORE

Functional Classification Safety
Local access 1 Unknown/No impacts 0
Secondary distributor 2 Perceived hazard 1
Primary distributor 3 Distinct hazard 2
Collector 4 Documented injury problem 4
Minor arterial 5 Moderate concentration of crashes 6
Principal arterial / expressway 6 High concentration of crashes 8
Highest concentration of crashes 10
Land Use (Consistency with Landscapes) Congestion
Significantly inconsistent -5 Unknown/No impacts 0
Minor inconsistency -2 Possible problems 2
No impacts/Off-setting impacts 0 Minor peak hour problems 4
Generally consistent 2 Acute peak hour problems 6
Completely consistent 5 Acute daily problems 8
Environmental Considerations Structural (Bridges and Crossings)
Significant disruption -2 Unknown/No impacts 0
Minor disruption -1 Undocumented evidence of deficiency 2
Unknown/No impacts 0 Deficiency viewed in field inspection 4
Modest improvement 1 PennDOT documentation of problem 6
Significant improvement 2
Economic Development (Landscapes) Maintenance
Negative impacts -1 Unknown/No impacts 0
No impacts/Off-setting impacts 0 Evidence of minor problem 1
Positive local impacts 2 Evidence of major problem 3
Positive corridor impacts 4 Documentation of major problem 5
Public Transportation Compatibility Public Support
Disrupts/competes with transit/rail -1 Strong opposition -2
Unknown/No impacts 0 Minor opposition -1
Probable paratransit access 1 Unknown/No impacts 0
Potential fixed route corridor 2 Some support 1
Improvement for fixed route services 3 Strong support 2
Significant improvement for transit/rail 4
Travel Demand Management (TDM) Municipal Support
No TDM component -1 Strong opposition -2
Unknown/Not applicable 0 Minor opposition -1
Minor TDM component 2 Unknown/No impacts/Off-setting 0
Significant TDM component 4 Some support 1
Strong support 2
Multi-municipal support 3
Access Management Legislative Support
Contributes to access problems -1 Strong opposition -2
Unknown/Not applicable 0 Minor opposition -1
Alleviates existing access problems 1 Unknown/No impacts 0
Significant access improvement 2 Some support 1
Strong support 2
Full consensus 3
Potential Service Volume (ADT) (1) Availability of Funds
Less than 1,000 1 Not eligible for state/federal funds -1
1,001 – 10,000 2 Unknown 0
10,001 – 20,000 3 Eligible for state/federal funds 1
20,001 – 30,000 4 Partial funding commitments 2
Greater than 30,000 5 All funds are committed 3
(1) ADT: Average Daily Traffic volume
 TRANSPORTATION PROJECT EVALUATION SYSTEM
FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
(Modified from the Highway Evaluation System by CCPC staff)

FACTOR/CRITERIA SCORE FACTOR/CRITERIA SCORE

Functional Classification Impact on Existing Transit Facility
Local access 1 No affect on existing facility 0
Secondary distributor 2 Maintains existing facility 1
Primary distributor 3 Improvement to existing facility 3
Collector 4 Significant improvement 5
Minor arterial 5
Principal arterial 6
Land Use (Consistency with Landscapes) Transfers
Significantly inconsistent -5 Decreases potential for transfers -1
Minor inconsistency -2 No impact on transfers 0
No impacts/Off-setting impacts 0 Good transfer potential 2
Generally consistent 2
Completely consistent 5
Environmental Considerations Congestion (Along parallel or area roadway)
Significant disruption -2 Unknown/No impacts 0
Minor disruption -1 Possible problems 2
Unknown/No impacts 0 Minor peak hour problems 4
Modest improvement 1 Acute peak hour problems 6
Significant improvement 2 Acute daily problems 8
Economic Development (Landscapes) Structural (Bridges and Crossings)
Negative impacts -1 Unknown/No impacts 0
No impacts/Off-setting impacts 0 Undocumented evidence of deficiency 2
Positive local impacts 2 Deficiency viewed in field inspection 4
Positive corridor impacts 4 PennDOT documentation of problem 6

Public Transportation Compatibility Public Support

Disrupts/competes with transit/rail -1 Strong opposition -2
Unknown/No impacts 0 Minor opposition -1
Minor improvement to transit/rail 2 Unknown/No impacts 0
Significant improvement for transit/rail 4 Some support 1
Strong support 2
Travel Demand Management (TDM) Municipal Support
No TDM component -1 Strong opposition -2
Unknown/Not applicable 0 Minor opposition -1
Minor TDM component 2 Unknown/No impacts/off-setting 0
Significant TDM component 4 Some support 1
Strong support 2
Multi-municipal support 3
Attracting New Riders Legislative Support
No expected increase in new users 0 Strong opposition -2
Marginal to moderate increase 3 Minor opposition -1
Significant potential increase 5 Unknown/No impacts 0
Some support 1
Strong support 2
Full consensus 3
Potential Service Volume (ADT) (1) Availability of Funds
Less 100 1 Not eligible for state/federal funds -1
100-999 2 Unknown 0
1,000 – 4,999 3 Eligible for state/federal funds 1
5,001 – 9,999 4 Partial funding commitments 2
10,000 and over 5 All funds are committed 3
(1) ADT: Anticipated Daily Trips