appendix C: Project ranking

Project  Ranking Criteria:

 

·           Land Use: A project that provides or promotes connections or access to multiple land uses (e.g. primary generators such as dense residential neighborhoods with high numbers of bicycle commuters with areas of dense employment) will rank favorably according to the land use criteria. Facilities that provide intra- or inter-neighborhood access to schools, for shopping trips, access to transit, access to public open space/parks would also rank favorably according to the land use criteria. Longer corridor projects that “connect” more land uses will tend to rank higher as they are assigned greater points over shorter projects that do not connect generators with destinations, or vice versa.

·           Current Bicyclist Demand: Higher points are awarded to those projects that currently have significant usage, based on land uses, population, corridor aesthetics, etc.  Justification for this criteria is that corridors or spot locations currently receiving high demand may or may not be optimally designed for safety and functionality and additional improvement would benefit a large number of existing bicyclists.

·           Latent Bicyclist Demand:  Higher points are awarded to projects likely to generate significant usage, based on land uses, population, corridor aesthetics, etc.  Justification for this criteria is that existing corridors or spot locations may be viewed by high percentage of local residents/potential users as undesirable from a safety or operational perspective.  If safety or functionality is improved, even high use facilities may increase in use levels.

·           Technical ease of Implementation: Technical ease of implementation focuses on the actual engineering challenges of a project, emphasizing the point that typical physical requirements of bicycle projects such as parking removal, traffic lane removal, or lane re-striping are not technically challenging from an engineering perspective.  Physical solutions are often readily apparent but may require development of political support, addressed under "Political Ease of Implementation," or that specific operational issues be addressed specifically to demonstrate that no negative impacts will occur to other modes. This criteria addresses specifically the technical, physical aspects of the engineering solution.

·           Political Ease of Implementation: Maximum points are assigned for an easy, popular project.  If significant neighborhood opposition is a known factor, if support of local elected official is not anticipated, or if other political opposition to a particular aspect of the assumed engineering solution (such as parking removal) is anticipated, then the project received fewer points under this criteria.  NOTE: Projects that are supported by current or adopted planning efforts by regional or local agencies receive points under this criteria, for example, projects that were recently identified in the Regional Pedestrian Needs Assessment Study that have the potential to serve both pedestrians and bicyclists.. In addition, projects that are supported by existing or anticipated funding should receive points under this criteria.

·           Overcomes Barrier / Connectivity: Maximum points should be assigned to recommended facilities that would address a major safety concern for bicyclists using bridges, interchanges, and other environments difficult for bicyclists to navigate.  Higher points should be assigned to roadways with high speed, high traffic volume, wide road width, difficult intersections or other obstacles to bicycle travel. Maximum points should be assigned for filling a gap in the existing network.

·           Public Input:  This is based directly on public input received during public workshops, results from the public surveys, direct conversations with staff, and an informal survey of local elected officials.  Points were assigned in correlation to the number of comments and perceived interest of workshop attendees.

Ranking Value Summary:

 

Land Use

0 - Does not go to specific destination and is not part of school, employment, or transit route

1 - Makes some connection or part of significant route

2 - Multiple connections or school route

3 - Multiple connections and school route or significant employment/shopping route

Political Ease of Implementation

0 - Very expensive, sensitive issue/area, widespread opposition

1 - Public interest uncertain, not mentioned in other plans or jurisdiction unknown

2 - Known public support and/or in another plan - may have some barriers

3 - Known public support and in another plan, potential funding available in the short term

Technical Ease of Implementation

0 - Engineering very difficult, expensive

1 - Difficult, environmental issues, jurisdiction questions

2 - Relatively easy terrain,  known road or right of way width adequate, project engineering not prohibitive

3 - No significant impediments (based on type of route)

Current and Latent Demand

0 - Little or no current use and little expected with improvement

1 - Cyclist use currently, serves very small population - limited potential for increased use

2 - Route used frequently and more use likely or new class I that has significant public support

3 - Route heavily used will likely see increased use with improvement

Overcomes Barrier/Connectivity

0 - Does not provide significant connection, safety improvement or improved access

1 - Provides limited connection or safety improvement to a significant route

2 - Provides connection on significant route or makes cyclist environment better

3 - Provides multiple connections, closes significant gap, significantly improves safety or aleviates barrier

Public Input/Support

0 - public or staff opposition

1 - Unknown support

2 - Support from either public and staff

3 - General support - moderate priority

4 - High support from both public and local entity

5 - high support and identified as a priority