CVTA TAC leans to add separate activity-centers goal for transit scoring; forms subcommittee to refine safety measure

Miles, CBTA staff lead on scoring, told the Central Virginia Transportation Authority Technical Advisory Committee on Nov. 4 that staff tested three ways to incorporate “activity centers” into transit project scoring and is leaning toward creating a new, stand‑alone goal for activity‑center connection. "This is the one that staff is leaning toward," Miles said, describing a reweighting that would allocate 20% to activity centers while preserving the existing measures within the other goals.

The recommendation grew out of three tested scenarios: adding activity centers as a fifth measure under the existing accessibility goal with equal weighting; keeping activity centers inside accessibility but with a low weight; or creating a separate goal for activity‑center connection and reallocating weights so activity centers carry distinct influence. In staff’s preferred option, the western Pulse extension benefited noticeably because it intersects several activity centers, narrowing score gaps among projects.

Why it matters: how activity centers are counted will change which transit projects rank higher for limited regional funds. Members said they want the scoring to reflect equity and practical transit outcomes without double‑counting the same benefits.

The meeting’s key point of contention was how safety is calculated in the transit context. "Miles, explain how safety is measured in this because there's a huge gap," said Todd, citing a large score difference on the North–South project. Miles answered that staff uses a VMT‑shift approach (estimating mode shift from single‑occupant vehicle to transit) combined with crash weighting that emphasizes fatalities and serious injuries versus property‑damage‑only crashes.

Tiffany of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) told the TAC that DRPT’s merit process typically treats safety as an additional weight and that transit safety scoring frequently emphasizes technology, customer‑facility improvements (lighting, pedestrian access), emergency‑response value and asset condition — not only crash counts. "We do provide some measures for safety," Tiffany said, and offered to share DRPT's technical guidance with CBTA staff.

Members pressed that a safety measure tied to highway crash counts can unfairly favor transit projects located on high‑crash corridors and suggested either lowering safety’s weight for transit or developing transit‑specific safety metrics (for example, percent of guideway in dedicated lanes, stop‑level pedestrian improvements, or transit‑specific countermeasures). Several members favored a separate transit table so transit projects compete with each other rather than against highway projects.

Action and next steps: TAC agreed to form a small subcommittee to refine transit measures and safety weighting (members volunteered: Todd, Amy, Dorona, Frank, and DRPT’s Tiffany, with staff support). Staff will run additional scenarios showing alternative weightings and present findings at the December TAC meeting.

The TAC tabled final framework edits on transit scoring until that subcommittee reports back.