Loading...
12/09/2014 - Energy and Environment Advisory CommissionENERGY & ENVIRONMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION Information Packet Communications A. Trinity School Solar Panel Installation B. Complete Streets Information C. City Fleet Information NEXT ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION WORKSHOP TUESDAY, JANUARY 13TH, 2015 7:00 P.M. CONFERENCE ROOM 2A & 2B NEXT REGULAR ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10TH, 2015 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Renewable Energy & Installation www.ips-solar.com 651-789-5305 Eagan School Goes Solar Innovative Power Systems Brings Solar to Trinity School at River Ridge EAGAN, MINN.— October 16th, 2014— Trinity School at River Ridge is now being powered, in part, by solar energy. The Solar panels were installed at no cost to the district by Innovative Power System’s Solar on Schools Program. Solar power provides multiple economic and educational benefits for schools. The system totals 39.36 kilowatts and is expected to produce 50,000 kWh annually, enough to power 6 average Minnesota homes. “The Solar on Schools program provides an educational opportunity for students and reduces the districts utility bills, saving over $140,000 over the next 30 years” explains IPS’s CEO Ralph Jacobson. School Administrator Steve Hendrickson explains Trinity will “end up saving 8-12% on monthly energy costs.” The environmental impact will be significant. Each year the panels will prevent 75,000 pounds of CO2 emissions, an equivalent to 5,015 planted trees. Hendrickson reports: “we decided to go solar when alumnus, Michael Tambornino, approached us with the program.” After their interested had sparked, the economic and environmental benefits pushed Hendrickson to move forward with the project. Federal and state incentives helped to facilitate the project at Trinity. IPS’s Solar on Schools allows the district to buy power from the panels at a discount to Xcel for a period of years, after which the solar company may sell the panels to the school for $1. The panels – manufactured by tenKsolar out of Bloomington, Minn – qualified for the Made-in-Minnesota incentive program through Xcel. New incentives are available this year and every year until 2024. Homeowners, business-owners, and government are also eligible. Contact: Michael Tambornino Innovative Power Systems 1413 Hunting Valley Road St. Paul, MN 55108 Phone: (651) 789-5305 Email: michaelt@ips-solar.com Date: October 16th, 2014       Public Works Committee November 5th 2014 MN Statute – 2010 o Evolution of “Context-Sensitive Design” Transportation System providing: o Safe Access All Street Users Age Ability o Increase in physical activity o Variety of Modes Transit, Bicycles and Walking MnDOT Policy 2009-present o Cities involved in policy-making o Design and Planning Philosophy (long held by Eagan) o Continued movement away from “autos only” o Not “all modes for all roads” Features Vary ◦Context, topography, road function, speed of traffic, pedestrian and bicycle demand, and other factors Safety & Accessibility Needs Motorists, Pedestrians, Transit Users and Vehicles, Bicyclists, and Commercial and Emergency Vehicles Needs Vary ◦Urban, Suburban, and Rural settings Sidewalks/trails Paved shoulders Bike lanes Safe crossing points Accessible curb ramps Pedestrian refuge medians Bus stop access Sidewalk “bump-outs” at intersections Access to adjacent trails in a “corridor” Intersection improvements All MnDOT Projects – starting 2015 ◦Cooperative Agreements State Trunk Highways 3, 13, 55, 149 ◦Long-term and snow/ ice maintenance responsibility on trails– challenge Must Provide Report of Complete Streets Design Considerations (Form) Local Streets (State Aid or non-collector) o Encouraged but not required Council Resolution of Support (2011) 120+ miles of Trail/ Sidewalk Community Trail System Policy (filled most gaps) o Winter Maintenance Program ADA Pedestrian Ramps (~15 years) 240+miles of City streets 60+ Rain gardens – Storm water management Continue Consideration - All Modes for Construction Projects o Feasibility Report – review of CS Traffic Calming o Roundabouts, bumpouts, narrowing streets, driver speed feedback signs o 4-lane to 3-lane transitions (Wescott Road) Public Works Capital Improvement Program (streets, trails) Showcase Eagan/ Streets Alive – Public Education Safe Routes to Schools Program (Red Pine Elementary) Traffic Signal Upgrades o Audio prompts, timers o Flashing yellow arrows o Synchronized signals Cedar Grove Area o Pedestrian, Bike Facilities o Transit Station, drop-offs o Transportation improvements MnDOT Complete Streets Policy Project Report Purpose The purpose of the Complete Streets Project Report is to document and track the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s implementation of Policy OP004 Complete Streets. The information captured in the report will enable MnDOT staff to keep senior leaders briefed on complete streets implementation and identify trends or common problems that may benefit from new guidance and resources. Applicability All MnDOT construction projects that directly affect transportation system users will require completion of this form, beginning with the 2015 construction season. Projects such as stormwater tunnels, slope stabilization, relamping, preventive and routine maintenance, emergency repairs, etc are categorically exempted from this requirement. The project report should be updated as appropriate throughout the life of a project. The report may be started when developing a project charter, but a version of the report completed as much as possible must be submitted as an attachment to the scoping report. Given that some questions cannot be answered in the scoping phase (such as signed maintenance agreements), a revised version of the report must be turned in with final plans at the end of final design. Background In November 2013, MnDOT adopted a complete streets policy that requires the principles of “complete streets” be considered at all phases of planning and project development. The accompanying technical memorandum details the responsible agents for complete streets implementation at each phase of project development. It requires documentation of considerations for all users in the scoping and design phases of MnDOT projects. Specific reasons are identified that may be cited for not providing provisions. Finally, the memorandum requires the agency to develop and track process indicators as well as performance measures in order to evaluate implementation. Since adopting the policy, an internal working group of planners, designers, and engineers led by the Office of Project Management and Technical Support along with the Office of Transportation System Management met with districts and offices throughout the agency and spoke with leaders in complete streets initiatives around the country. Those conversations led to the Complete Streets Project Report. 1 Complete Streets Project Report Summary Project Type (check all that apply): New Construction Reconstruction Pavement Replacement New Bridge Bridge Replacement Bridge Redecking Bridge Elimination Other – Explain: ---- Existing Site Characteristics (check all that apply): Rural Exurban/Transition Suburban Small Urban Large Urban ---- Special Roadway Designations (check all that apply): Designated State Bikeway Scenic Byway Oversize/Overweight Super Load Route Twin Trailer Network House Moving Route Primary Freight Network District: Project Number: Metro Only Scoping Database Number: Fiscal Year: Version* Project Charter (complete as much of this report as is practicable) Scoping Report (complete as much of this report as possible) Final Design (report should be fully completed) Date of Last Revision: , Project Manager , Assistant District Engineer * This report is designed to be a living document. It should be revised/revisited at key points in the project development process. Please indicate the current project development stage and the date this form was completed/revised. Overall Project Improvements Check all that apply: Sidewalk Curb Extension/Bump-out Bikeable Shoulder Roundabouts Shared Use Path Curb cuts with ramps Park & Ride Facility Bike Lanes Improved Crosswalks Pedestrian Refuge Islands Access Management Landscaping OSOW Pass Through Bus Lanes/Shoulder Lighting Improvements Lane Removal Center Left Turn Lanes Adjusted Lane Widths Truck Acceleration Lanes Bus Shelter Lowered Traffic Speeds Signalized Timing Improvement Improved Rail Crossing Bike Sharrows 2 Provisions by User Group Pedestrian Provisions Users are legally prohibited from using the roadway. Absence of current and future need over the expected life of the project (Describe under Reasons to Not Include Improvements). Explain reasons to not include improvements: Existing conditions are adequately meeting pedestrian needs (Including cross movements and parallel routes). Describe existing provisions: Additional improvements for pedestrians are included in the scope (describe below) Existing conditions are not adequately meeting pedestrian needs and the scope of work does include substantial improvements. Describe improvements included in the scope: Existing conditions are not adequately meeting pedestrian needs and the scope of work does not include improvements or only minor/marginal improvements (check at least one of the boxes below and explain in the area provided). Detrimental environmental or safety impacts outweigh the benefits of enhanced pedestrian access Inability to negotiate with a local government to assume the operations and maintenance responsibility of the facility Local government opposition or right of way acquisition would require excessive expenditure of time, money and resources Preservation project: risk analysis and fiscal constraints indicate MnDOT may significantly diminish critical preservation of existing assets by expanding scope Explain reasons to not include improvements: 3 Bicycle Provisions Users are legally prohibited from using the roadway. Absence of current and future need over the expected life of the project (Describe under Reasons to Not Include Improvements). Explain reasons to not include improvements: Existing conditions are adequately meeting bicycle needs (Including cross movements and parallel routes). Describe existing provisions: Additional improvements for bicyclists are included in the scope (describe below) Existing conditions are not adequately meeting bicycle needs and the scope of work does include substantial improvements. Describe improvements included in the scope: Existing conditions are not adequately meeting bicycle needs and the scope of work does not include improvements or only minor/marginal improvements (check at least one of the boxes below and explain in the area provided). Detrimental environmental or safety impacts outweigh the benefits of enhanced bicycle access Inability to negotiate with a local government to assume the operations and maintenance responsibility of the facility Local government opposition or right of way acquisition would require excessive expenditure of time, money and resources Preservation project: risk analysis and fiscal constraints indicate MnDOT may significantly diminish critical preservation of existing assets by expanding scope Explain reasons to not include improvements: 4 Freight Provisions Users are legally prohibited from using the roadway. Absence of current and future need over the expected life of the project (Describe under Reasons to Not Include Improvements). Explain reasons to not include improvements: Existing conditions are adequately meeting freight needs (Including cross movements and parallel routes). Describe existing provisions: Additional improvements for freight are included in the scope (describe below) Existing conditions are not adequately meeting freight needs and the scope of work does include substantial improvements. Describe improvements included in the scope: Existing conditions are not adequately meeting freight needs and the scope of work does not include improvements or only minor/marginal improvements (check at least one of the boxes below and explain in the area provided). Detrimental environmental or safety impacts outweigh the benefits of enhanced freight access Inability to negotiate with a local government to assume the operations and maintenance responsibility of the facility Local government opposition or right of way acquisition would require excessive expenditure of time, money and resources Preservation project: risk analysis and fiscal constraints indicate MnDOT may significantly diminish critical preservation of existing assets by expanding scope Explain reasons to not include improvements: 5 Transit Provisions Absence of current and future need over the expected life of the project (Describe under Reasons to Not Include Improvements). Explain reasons to not include improvements: Existing conditions are adequately meeting transit needs (Including cross movements and parallel routes). Describe existing provisions: Additional improvements for transit are included in the scope (describe below) Existing conditions are not adequately meeting transit needs and the scope of work does include substantial improvements. Describe improvements included in the scope: Existing conditions are not adequately meeting transit needs and the scope of work does not include improvements or only minor/marginal improvements (check at least one of the boxes below and explain in the area provided). Detrimental environmental or safety impacts outweigh the benefits of enhanced transit access Inability to negotiate with a local government to assume the operations and maintenance responsibility of the facility Local government opposition or right of way acquisition would require excessive expenditure of time, money and resources Preservation project: risk analysis and fiscal constraints indicate MnDOT may significantly diminish critical preservation of existing assets by expanding scope Explain reasons to not include improvements: 6 Other User Groups Not Already Discussed List any other user groups with needs in the project area: (Examples include, but are not limited to: rail, ATVs, snowmobiles, Amish, agricultural equipment, waterway users, etc.) Absence of current and future need over the expected life of the project (Describe under Reasons to Not Include Improvements). Explain reasons to not include improvements: Existing conditions are adequately meeting ______ needs (Including cross movements and parallel routes). Describe existing provisions: Additional improvements for ______ are included in the scope (describe below) Existing conditions are not adequately meeting ______ needs and the scope of work does include substantial improvements. Describe improvements included in the scope: Existing conditions are not adequately meeting ______ needs and the scope of work does not include improvements or only minor/marginal improvements (check at least one of the boxes below and explain in the area provided). Detrimental environmental or safety impacts outweigh the benefits of enhanced ______ access Inability to negotiate with a local government to assume the operations and maintenance responsibility of the facility Local government opposition or right of way acquisition would require excessive expenditure of time, money and resources Preservation project: risk analysis and fiscal constraints indicate MnDOT may significantly diminish critical preservation of existing assets by expanding scope Explain reasons to not include improvements: Document Number: 1375884, Page 1 of 4 Policy Statement The Minnesota Department of Transportation requires that the principles of “Complete Streets” are to be considered at all phases of planning and project development in the establishment, development, operation, and maintenance of a comprehensive, integrated, and connected multi modal transportation system. Reason for Policy Minnesota Statutes 174.75 directed MnDOT to implement a “Complete Streets” policy for the state trunk highway system after consultation with stakeholders, state and regional agencies, local governments, and road authorities. This policy affects virtually all phases of road activity on trunk highways, from planning to maintenance. As defined by the law, "Complete Streets" is the planning, scoping, design, implementation, operation, and maintenance of roads in order to reasonably address the safety and accessibility needs of users of all ages and abilities. Complete streets considers the needs of motorists, pedestrians, transit users and vehicles, bicyclists, and commercial and emergency vehicles moving along and across roads, intersections, and crossings in a manner that is sensitive to the local context and recognizes that the needs vary in urban, suburban, and rural settings. MnDOT developed this policy along with Technical Memorandum 14-08-TS-02 to uphold, complement and elevate existing state and federal laws and departmental direction that support an integrated, multimodal transportation system. This policy is prepared in accordance with Minnesota statutes and rules, federal statutes and regulations. Principal Points Consistent with MnDOT’s mission of providing the highest quality, dependable multimodal transportation system, both the Minnesota GO Vision adopted in November 2011 and the Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan (SMTP), 2012-2031 establish a vision for a transportation system that:  Provides safe, convenient, efficient and effective movement of people and goods.  Is accessible regardless of socioeconomic status or individual ability. The SMTP also establishes a statewide strategy of improving accessibility and safety for everyone traveling on, along or across roads. The policy and Technical Memorandum provide direction on the implementation of “Complete Streets” pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 174.75 and also provide a framework to achieve the following transportation goals listed in (or envisaged by) Minnesota Statutes 174.01, Subdivision 2 :  Minimize fatalities and injuries for transportation users throughout the state;  Provide multimodal and intermodal transportation facilities and services to increase access for all persons and businesses and to Complete Streets MnDOT Policy OP004 Policy Contents Policy Statement Reason for Policy Who Needs to Know this Policy Procedures Forms/Instructions Definitions Responsibilities Appendices Frequently Asked Questions Related Information History Effective Date as signed by Responsible Senior Officer Last Update New policy Responsible Senior Officer o Susan Mulvihill, P.E. Deputy Commissioner & Chief Engineer sue.mulvihill@state.mn.us 651-366-4800 Policy Owner o Mark Gieseke Director, Transportation System Management mark.gieseke@state.mn.us 651-366-3770 o Policy Contact o Mark B. Nelson Manager, Planning and Data Analysis mark.b.nelson@state.mn.us 651-366-3794 OPERATIONS & ENGINEERING Document Number: 1375884, Page 2 of 4 ensure economic well-being and quality of life without undue burden placed on any community;  Ensure that the planning and implementation of all modes of transportation are consistent with the environmental and energy goals of the state;  Increase use of transit as a percentage of all trips statewide by giving highest priority to the transportation modes with the greatest people-moving capacity and lowest long-term economic and environmental cost;  Promote and increase bicycling and walking as a percentage of all trips as energy -efficient, nonpolluting, and healthy forms of transportation; For MnDOT’s preservation projects on the trunk highway system, consideration of “Complete Streets,” competing objectives, and creation of new assets must be balanced with asset preservation needs and other constraints (fiscal, right of way, etc.) in order to manage risks associated with diminishing MnDOT’s asset preservation capabilities and effectiveness. Local road authorities are encouraged to adopt a similar policy. Effective implementation and operation of “Complete Streets” relies upon multi-jurisdictional collaboration and responsibility for an integrated network of state and local roads. Who Needs to Know this Policy MnDOT personnel, local agency representatives, consultants, and contracts responsible planning, designing, constructing or maintaining projects along trunk highway right of way. Procedures The procedures for implementing “Complete Streets” in planning, project development and scoping, design, construction, operations and maintenance, and measurement and evaluation are specified in Technical Memorandum 14-08-TS-02. MnDOT will apply relevant Minnesota or federal statutes, rules, or industry codes as appropriate to the circumstances of the implementation of “Complete Streets” on trunk highway right of way. If a more stringent protection is prescribed by Minnesota or federal statutes, rules, or industry codes than is provided in this policy, the more stringent requirement shall prevail. Nothing in this policy shall be considered as a limit ation on the authority or responsibility of MnDOT to apply statutes and regulations as appropriate to the specific circumstances. Exemptions to Policy Exemptions to the procedures detailed in the Technical Memorandum may be granted by the MnDOT State Design Engineer for the following reasons:  Users are legally prohibited from using a roadway. Where access is legally prohibited, project managers should consider opportunities to address or remove barriers to network connectivity and crossings that are important for serving non-motorized and other modes, such as provision of interstate crossings and/or collocated but separated facilities for non-motorized users who are prohibited from using the roadway itself.  Physical constraints and future travel and attractors demonstrate absence of current and future need. Because of the long life of bridge structures, careful consideration should be given before determining not to provide for other modes at the time a new structure is constructed.  Detrimental environmental or safety impacts outweigh the benefits of enhanced multimodal access.  Constraints related to local government opposition or right of way acquisition requiring excessive expenditure of time, money and resources.  Inability to negotiate and enter into an agreement with a local government to assume the operational and maintenance responsibility of the facility. Document Number: 1375884, Page 3 of 4  Preservation projects in which risk analysis and fiscal constraints indicate MnDOT may significantly diminish critical preservation of existing assets by expanding scope and adding new “Complete Streets” assets on the projects.  Emergency and routine or localized maintenance and repair work (debris removal, sweeping, pothole patching, sidewalk patching, joint and crack repair, etc.). Forms/Instructions Forms and instructions are currently being developed. For current instructions, see Highway Project Development Process. Definitions Complete Streets “Complete Streets” is the planning, scoping, design, implementation, operation, and maintenance of roads in order to reasonably address the safety and accessibility needs of users of all ages and abilities. Highway “Highway” is a general term denoting a public way for the transportation of people, materials, goods, and services but primarily for vehicular travel, including the entire area within the right of way. MnDOT The State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, acting through the Commissioner of Transportation. Right of Way Real property or interests therein, acquired, dedicated or reserved for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a highway. Trunk Highway System All roads established or to be established under the provisions of Article XIV, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, "Public Highway System". This system includes highways that are constructed, improved, and maintained as public highways under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Transportation, including highways on the Interstate system. Responsibilities The responsibilities for planners, project managers, designers, construction managers and maintenance engineers for projects on the trunk highway system are specified in the Technical Memorandum 14-08-TS-02. State Design Engineer  Develop and maintain an exemption process  Review and approve exemption requests Manager, Planning and Data Analysis  Develop and track process indicators for implementation of “Complete Streets”  Track established performance indicators that contribute to “Complete Streets” goals Appendices Frequently Asked Questions Related Information Cost Participation for Cooperative Construction Projects and Maintenance Responsibilities (Between MnDOT and Local Units of Government) History of Policy Updates or Amendments New policy Document Number: 1375884, Page 4 of 4 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Gallons 165,851 156,376 172,773 165,901 160,024 163,729 157,209 157,081 166,172 145,000 150,000 155,000 160,000 165,000 170,000 175,000 City of Eagan Fleet - Annual Total Gallons of Fuel (2005-2013) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Miles 1,478,981 1,500,013 1,513,186 1,530,983 1,477,907 1,384,778 1,377,835 1,377,367 1,361,374 1,250,000 1,300,000 1,350,000 1,400,000 1,450,000 1,500,000 1,550,000 City of Eagan Fleet - Annual Total Mileage (2005-2013) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total MPG 8.9 9.6 8.8 9.2 9.2 8.5 8.8 8.8 8.2 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 City of Eagan Fleet - Annual Unit Average MPG (2005-2013) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Cost $309,336 $354,482 $418,048 $505,838 $292,730 $384,818 $455,508 $476,358 $508,811 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 City of Eagan Fleet - Annual Fuel Total Cost (2005-2013) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Fleet Size (Mobile Equip)196 201 204 204 207 208 211 212 217 185 190 195 200 205 210 215 220 City of Eagan Fleet - Total Number of Mobile Equipment and Units (2005-2013) Total City Fleet Summary (2005-2013) Mobile Units 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Gallons 165,851 156,376 172,773 165,901 160,024 163,729 157,209 157,081 166,172 Total Miles 1,478,981 1,500,013 1,513,186 1,530,983 1,477,907 1,384,778 1,377,835 1,377,367 1,361,374 Total Cost $309,336 $354,482 $418,048 $505,838 $292,730 $384,818 $455,508 $476,358 $508,811 Total MPG 8.9 9.6 8.8 9.2 9.2 8.5 8.8 8.8 8.2 Fleet Size (Mobile Equip)196 201 204 204 207 208 211 212 217 Ethanol Study - 2013 Totals and Costs Current Fleet vehicles that are E85 compatible: Vehicles Gallons of Fuel Used Cost using E10 (mandated)** x1.3* Functional cost using E85 20 police patrol vehicles 46,900 $126,600 x1.3 $152,400 7 detective vehicles 3,300 $8,900 x1.3 $10,700 14-pickups and light trucks 8,300 $22,400 x1.3 $27,000 41 total vehicles 58,500 $157,900 x1.3 $190,100 *E85 has 27% less energy; it takes 1.3 gallons to equal 1 gallon of regular gasoline. **State contract fixed fuel price in 2013 was $2.50 for E85 and $2.70 for E10 Light Vehicle Condition Index G:\BUDGET\Light Vehicle Condition Index - form Factor Points Veh. # Veh. # Veh. # Veh. # Veh. # Age One point for each year of chronological age that vehicle exceeds “Target Replacement Standards.” Miles/Hours One point for each 10,000 miles of use/500 hours of use. Type of Service (1-5) 1, 3, or 5 points are assigned based on the type of service that vehicle receives. For instance, a police patrol car would be given a 5 because it is in severe duty service. In contrast, an administrative sedan would be given a 1. Reliability (1-5) Points are assigned as 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 depending on the frequency or repair/downtime. A 5 would be assigned to a vehicle that has 4.0 to 5.0% downtime or more; 4 for 3.0 to 4.0% downtime; 3 for 2.0 to 3.0% downtime, 2 for 1.0 to 2.0% downtime; and 1 point would be assigned for vehicles with less than 1% downtime. M & R Costs (1-5) 1 to 5 points are assigned based on total life M & R costs equal to or greater than the vehicle’s original purchase price, while a 1 is given to a vehicle with life M & R costs equal to 20% or less of its original purchase cost. Condition (1-5) This category takes into consideration body condition, rust, interior condition, accident history, anticipated repairs, etc. A scale of 1 to 5 points is used with 5 being poor condition. Cost Per Mile (1-5) Points are assigned as 1,2,3,4, or 5 depending on the cost per mile relative to class. A 5 would be assigned to a vehicle with costs per mile in excess of 20% for the class. 4 – 15%>than class; 3 – 10%>than class; 2 – 05%> than class; 1 – equal to class. Total Notations for chart VCI points: 0 to 11 points Condition I Excellent 12 to 15 points Condition II Good 16 to 20 points Condition III Qualifies for replacement 21 points and above Condition IV Needs immediate consideration VEHICLE COMPARISON SHEET FOR 2015 BLANK VEHICLE YEAR MAKE/MODEL BODY STYLE ORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE CURRENT “BLUE BOOK” VALUE EST. COST TO REPLACE AS IS VCI MILES/HOURS AS OF AVG. ANN. MILES/HOUS (LAST 3 YRS.) EST. COST TO REFURBISH RISK FACTOR DEPARTMENT/ REQUESTED YEAR OF REPLACEMENT Risk Factor (independent) (Not calculated in VCI) A high “risk factor” is a determination that the vehicle is projected to operate at a cost higher than (>) the vehicle class. A medium “risk factor” is a determination that the vehicle is projected to operate at a cost equal to (=) the vehicle class. A low “risk factor” is a determination that the vehicle is projected to operate at a cost lower than (<) the vehicle class. G:budget\vehiclecomparison.blank