Here - Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization

Transcription

Agenda
Hampton Roads
Transportation Planning Organization
Board Meeting
March 17, 2011
The Regional Board Room, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia
10:30 am 1.
CALL TO ORDER
2.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (Limit 3 minutes per individual)
3.
SUBMITTED PUBLIC COMMENTS
4.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA:
5.
Minutes
6.
FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment: VDOT
7.
FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Revision: Virginia Beach
8.
Hampton Roads 2030 LRTP and FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program
Air Quality Conformity: Final Report
9.
FY 2012-2015 Transportation Improvement Program: Draft Project List
10.
Freight Transportation Advisory Committee: Membership
11.
FY 2012 Federal Grant Application: Rural Transportation
REGULAR AGENDA:
10:45 am 12.
Transportation Project Prioritization: CTAC Resolution
10:50 am 13.
Transportation Project Prioritization: Recommended List of Projects and Studies
11:10 am 14.
Allocating CMAQ and RSTP Funds Through FY 2017
11:15 am 15.
Transit Vision Plan: Final Report and Resolution
11:30 am 16.
High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail: Status Update
11:55 pm 17.
HRTPO Board Action Items: Three-Month Tentative Schedule
18.
Correspondence of Interest
19.
For Your Information
12:00 pm 20.
Old/New Business
ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER
The meeting is scheduled to be called to order by the Chair at 10:30 am.
AGENDA ITEM #2: PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Members of the public are invited to address the HRTPO Board. Each speaker is limited to three
minutes.
AGENDA ITEM #3: SUBMITTED PUBLIC COMMENTS
There are no recently submitted written public comments. Any new written public comments
will be distributed as a handout at the meeting.
AGENDA ITEM #4: APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Members are provided an opportunity to add or delete items from the agenda. Any item for
which a member desires consideration by the HRTPO Board should be submitted at this time, as
opposed to under “Old/New Business”.
Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Meeting – March 17, 2011
AGENDA ITEM #5: MINUTES
SUBJECT:
Minutes of previous HRTPO Board meeting.
BACKGROUND:
Minutes of the HRTPO Board meeting held on January 20, 2011 and of the Retreat held on
February 17, 2011 are attached.
Attachment 5-A
Attachment 5-B
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The HRTPO staff recommends approval of the minutes.
Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (TPO)
Board Meeting Minutes of January 20, 2011
The Hampton Roads TPO Board Meeting was called to order at 10:28 a.m. in the Regional
Boardroom, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia, with the following in attendance:
HRTPO Voting Members:
William D. Sessoms, Chairman (VB)
Molly Joseph Ward, Vice-Chair (HA)*
Alan P. Krasnoff (CH)
Clifton Hayes (Alternate, CH)
Bruce C. Goodson (JC)
McKinley Price (NN)
Paul D. Fraim (NO)
Linda T. Johnson (SU)
Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr. (YK)*
Amy Inman (Alternate, DRPT)*
Philip Shucet (HRT)
Dennis Heuer (VDOT)
Jeff Florin (Alternate, VPA)
Mark Rickards (WATA)
HRTPO Voting Members Absent:
Christian D. Rilee (GL)
Stan D. Clark (IW)
Kenneth I. Wright (PO)
Gordon C. Helsel (PQ)
Clyde Haulman (WM)
Jerry Bridges (VPA)
Delegate John Cosgrove (GA)**
Delegate Glenn Oder (GA)**
Senator John Miller (GA)**
Senator Yvonne B. Miller (GA)**
HRTPO Nonvoting Members:
Amar Dwarkanath (Alternate, CH)
Brenda Garton (GL)
Mary Bunting (HA)
W. Douglas Caskey (IW)
Robert C. Middaugh (JC)
Neil A. Morgan (NN)
Stanley Stein (NO)
Kenneth L. Chandler (PO)
J. Randall Wheeler (PQ)
Selena Cuffee-Glenn (SU)
James K. Spore (VB)
Jackson C. Tuttle, II (WM)
William Harrison (CTAC)
Ivan Rucker (FHWA)
William Bell (FTAC)
Colonel Glenn Grothe (U.S. Army)
Wendy Vachet (Alternate, USN)
HRTPO Nonvoting Members Absent:
William E. Harrell (CH)
James O. McReynolds (YK)
Jeffrey Breeden (FAA)
Irene Rico (FHWA)
Tony Cho (FTA)
Letitia A. Thompson (FTA)
Wayne Shank (NAA)
Ken Spirito (PAC)
Capt. Mark Ogle (USCG)
Capt. Mary Jackson (USN)
Randall P. Burdette (VDOA)
*Late arrival or early departure
**General Assembly Session in Progress in Richmond, VA
HRTPO Board Minutes – January 20, 2011 - Page 1
Attachment 5-A
Others Recorded Attending:
John Gergely, Drake Hoffman, Steve Klute, Henry Ryto (Citizens); Earl Sorey, Ella Ward
(CH); Brian DeProfio, Keith Cannady (HA); Thomas Slaughter (NN); Jeff Raliski, Tara
Sotherland, Rod Woolard (NO); Eric Nielsen (SU); Mark Schnaufer (VB); Chris Collins
(VDOT); Ray Amoruso (HRT); Aubrey Layne (CTB); Rich Clifton (RK&K); Debbie Messina
(The Virginian Pilot); Peter Huber (Willcox and Savage); Dana Dickens, Donna Morris
(HRP); Mark Geduldig-Yatrofsky (Portsmouthcitywatch.org); Ray Taylor (FHR); Randy
Lougee (CTAC and LWV-SHR); Dean McClain (HRCC); Steve Romine (LeClair Ryan); Beth
Brown, Patrick Terpstra (WVEC-TV 13); Martha McClees (VB Vision); Chip Craft, Alex
Metcalf (TEMS); Germaine Fleet (Biggs & Fleet); HRPDC and HRTPO Staff: Dwight Farmer,
Jessica Banks, Sam Belfield, John Carlock, Rick Case, Rob Case, James Clary, Jennifer
Coleman, Nancy Collins, Kathlene Grauberger, Greg Grootendorst, Jim Hummer, Rob Jacobs,
Whitney Katchmark, Michael Kimbrel, Brian Miller, Kendall Miller, Keith Nichols, Joe
Paulus, Benito Pérez, Kelli Peterson, Andy Pickard, Camelia Ravanbakht, Stephanie Shealey,
Dale Stith, Joe Turner, and Chris Vaigneur.
Public Comment Period
Three people requested to address the HRTPO Board. Chairman Sessoms asked them to
limit their comments to three minutes.
Mr. John Gergely
Thank you. This is an article by Tom Silverstri in the Richmond Times Dispatch. The title is
“Regional Unity is Almost a Tradition Now”. Here is the first paragraph: For the second
consecutive year, the capital region’s nine localities agreed on a list of priorities for needed
legislative actions in Congress and the General Assembly. Well, that article sure couldn't be
written about this area because regional unity doesn't exist in this TPO. It is all one sided. And
the Peninsula members, you just sit there and say nothing. You are doing a disservice to your
constituents. Your cities and counties send money here and we get nothing out of it. For
example, light rail. The Peninsula Light Rail seed money went to fix the west (inaudible) Highspeed rail – you-all agreed to support a new high-speed Norfolk Southern 460 rail service and
you also agreed to add a daily run from a train to the Peninsula CSX and work to upping the
speed limit. That was great, but in a resolution, the discussions of the third Peninsula train
and increased speed are watered down to the statement – endorses the enhancement. Then, in
your legislative agenda, Resolution 2010-09, all mention of the Peninsula route is completely
gone. I was here when it happened. It slipped through quickly – I didn’t know what happened.
All of a sudden, one bullet was gone and another replaced, and I don't know if anyone can
honestly sit out there and tell me that that wasn't preordained. To Peninsula members, several
bus loads of passengers come down to the Peninsula every day to catch our train. So if rail
service ever does come to the Southside we will lose our passenger base over there which may
be good or bad, and naturally the Southside route will eventually be over budget so where is
the money going to come from? By cancelling the Peninsula route. Just think about it. Now,
the Third Crossing which at your last meeting Dr. Ravanbakht said that the TPO staff added a
new connector per Mayor Fraim's request. No public discussion. No engineering studies, just
Mayor Fraim's request to add a new twist to an old scam, and somebody renamed it the
Patriot's Crossing. Who wouldn’t be against the Patriot's Crossing? Well, I call it a Corporate
Welfare Crossing – a shipping and truck industry crossing subsidized by tolls from the
Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel. Where did the Patriot’s Crossing name come from? It wasn't
Attachment 5-A
mentioned in here. This leads some of the public to wonder if there are other discussions and
meetings going on that we don't hear about. And all of a sudden, Patriot's Crossing is the big
thing. It is discussed in the paper, TV, and it is even a bill in the General Assembly, but there is
no Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel bill, just a weak mention of a cost benefit study. Mayor
Price, there aren't any bills about I-64 above Jefferson Avenue either. No matter what these
guys promise you sir, you will never get it. Any funds come to this region will be siphoned
away by this Patriot’s Crossing. It’s time for you Peninsula members to stand up for your
people or just get us out of this organization. Thank you.
Mr. Henry Ryto
Good morning. My name is Henry Ryto, resident of Virginia Beach. I just have a couple of
things to say to you this morning, I will be brief. One of the things you have before you now on
your front burner is the 2034 long-range plan. At the same time you have DRPT working on
the regional vision plan and there are a number of projects in that plan, the first part of that
plan which will be slated to be done by 2035. Therefore I would urge you to incorporate those
2035 projects into your 2034 plan to ensure they are lined up and get federal funding. I myself
coming down here this morning, I wasn't going to speak until about 8:15 this morning. Came
down this morning and I met a gentleman on the bus. It was his second day of utilizing HRT
for his commute to work. I helped give him directions, how to navigate through the system. He
calculated that by taking the bus instead of driving to and from work how much money he
would save per week and realized it was significant so he was doing it. Hopefully many more
of our residents would start doing that which will help with many of these congestion
problems that you have to tackle in these meetings. In the post-Katrina gasoline price spike,
the joke of the buses was “they will all be on here with us soon”. Now that we are starting to
get a hundred dollar per barrel oil, or it is in that range, just be ready folks, it will be really
ugly before it is over. Thank you.
Mr. William Bell
Thank you, Mayor. My name is Bill Bell and most of you know me as the co chair of the Freight
Technical Advisory Committee. You will recall FTAC is what we call that at our meetings, was
formed as a subcommittee of this body for the purpose of advocating transportation needs of
freight and to promote the economic benefits that result from the movement of freight across
the region. At our last meeting on January 12th, the entire committee, including co-chair Stan
Clark, thought it would be useful to provide a brief update, or status, on our activities.
Unfortunately, our timing wasn't particularly good in terms of providing information to this
body and so the Committee nominated me to come here and give you a brief update on what
we have been doing. I, like the previous speakers, will be brief. I want to talk about four
things. The first thing is that we have been stood up almost a year and during that year we
have been focused on understanding the HRTPO processes, practices, and procedures, and the
staff has done a great job in keeping FTAC informed of the development of the prioritization
tool, as well as the outcomes of that tool. We understand the HRTPO will take steps to
prioritize projects using the results of the prioritization tool as one of many inputs into that
decision-making process. We endorse that. As a result of our review of those processes and
development tools, etc., we recommend that projects be approved with significant value being
placed on the impact of that project, as it relates to the system as a whole, such that entire
corridors for commerce and commuters are improved, rather than simply moving a bottleneck
to a different location. Once all the projects are looked at from this system-wide approach,
approval of individual projects should be directed to projects along that entire corridor where
adequate existing and new sources of revenue are available. We are also working on two
projects that may be of interest to this body. The first is a presentation that the members of
Attachment 5-A
that committee will start providing to help explain how increased transportation costs impact
all residents, from businesses where the impact is obvious, to those who are retired and
deciding that they want to go to the store to get a head of lettuce. The second project that we
are working on is a sensitivity analysis. And it is a financial sensitivity analysis that we hope
will show what the potential increase transportation costs might do for the businesses on the
frontline of moving goods throughout the region and beyond. Thank you very much for the
opportunity to provide this status.
(Ms. Inman arrives)
Submitted Public Comments
Chairman Sessoms stated there was written public comments in the agenda packet.
Consent Agenda
Chairman Sessoms outlined the Consent Agenda as follows:
•
•
Minutes
FY 2011 Unified Planning Work Program Amendment: HRT
Mr. Heuer Moved to approve the Consent Agenda as written; seconded by Mayor Fraim.
The Motion Carried.
(Mayor Ward arrives)
2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Amendment: Patriot’s Crossing and
Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel Studies, and
FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment: Patriot’s
Crossing and Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel Studies
Mr. Farmer introduced Mr. Chris Collins of the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) to discuss items 7 and 8 on the agenda regarding the Patriot’s Crossing and the
Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel Studies. Mr. Collins explained that VDOT is seeking to
amend the 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the FY 2009-2012
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to include the Patriot’s Crossing and the
Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Studies. He noted he had briefed the Transportation
Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) at its January 5th meeting and received its approval.
He stated VDOT is seeking to reevaluate the Hampton Roads Crossing Study (HRCS) in
order to secure approval to advance portions of the HRCS described now as the Patriot’s
Crossing. The project will consist of a new four-lane tunnel and bridge system between I564 Inter-modal Connector in Norfolk, the Monitor Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel, and
State Route 164 via Craney Island Road and Rail Connector. These are components of the
approved Hampton Roads Crossing Study/Third Crossing that is currently in the LRTP for
Preliminary Engineering (PE) Only. Currently, there is an approved environmental
document and VDOT has completed the location study. VDOT hopes to secure federal and
Attachment 5-A
state approval needed to move forward with the study. He noted he briefly discussed the
study with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and at its request, VDOT will
prepare an environmental assessment. VDOT plans to utilize an on-call consultant who will
commence work as soon as the terms of the scope have been negotiated.
Mr. Collins explained he was unable to currently answer any technical questions; however,
he anticipated the cost of the study to be approximately $500,000 and estimated fifteen
months to complete the re-evaluation.
Mr. Collins stated the second part of the presentation pertains to VDOT’s request to
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel
Study covering an area from I-664 to I-564. VDOT conducted interviews and is currently
negotiating with the top-ranked firm with an estimated commence date in March 2011.
The EIS will focus on problems and solution at the existing facility. VDOT anticipates the
study to cost approximately $5 million and three years to complete.
Mr. Shucet explained he has a business relationship through his consulting practice with a
firm that may become involved with the Patriot’s Crossing and the Hampton Roads Bridge
Tunnel studies. He stated it was therefore prudent and proper for him to abstain from
voting on items 7 and 8 of the HRTPO Agenda. He further stated he would not participate
in any discussion related to either item and asked that his abstention on agenda items 7
and 8 be recorded for the minutes. Chairman Sessoms replied that Mr. Shucet’s comments
would be included in the January minutes.
Mr. Goodson asked if there is a difference in the Patriot’s Crossing and the Third Crossing
Study completed ten years ago. He also asked how much of the previous study information
could be used in the new study. Mr. Collins replied he hoped to utilize all of the previous
study information since this study is a re-evaluation of the Third Crossing study. Mr.
Collins noted there is some information in the Third Crossing Study pertaining to the
Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel that can be recycled as well. It is a different study and
unique in its purpose and need and the problems it seeks to solve, hence that type of
information will be new. The Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel study will be more robust in
the sense that it is starting anew, and the Patriot’s Crossing study will be a re-visitation of
the old study.
Ms. Vachet inquired if there is a rail component to the Patriot’s Crossing. Mr. Collins noted
that could only be answered once the study begins.
Mayor Price asked why the study would go forward without a rail component. Mr. Collins
replied the Patriot’s Crossing is only a portion of the entire Third Crossing Project and a rail
component will be evaluated within that reduced concept. He stated whether the project
could move forward without a rail element is a decision for the Commonwealth
Transportation Board (CTB).
Mr. Heuer commented that VDOT is re-examining the existing environmental document in
order to identify if the project can be accomplished in a phased approach. He indicated
Attachment 5-A
there was a rail component attached to one of the Third Crossing phases on the MonitorMerrimac Bridge-Tunnel and this study is to incrementally apply this component earlier
than the rest.
Mr. Collins stated there is currently a phasing element in the approved EIS and one of the
principal purposes of the re-evaluation is to review that phasing and determine what can
advance at this time and in what order.
Mayor Fraim Moved to amend the 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the
FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to include the Patriot’s
Crossing and the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel studies; seconded by Mr. Florin. The
Motion Carried with Mr. Shucet abstaining.
Mayor Fraim commented that in the original Third Crossing study, there was a multi-modal
light rail tube planned because heavy rail could not be engineered under the water. He
stated the original dream of light rail was to ride from Williamsburg, under the harbor,
over to Norfolk, and then to the Virginia Beach Oceanfront. He noted that the first vision
for light rail in Hampton Roads was from Williamsburg to Virginia Beach with a spur to
Downtown Norfolk.
Transportation Project Prioritization: Next Steps
Mr. Farmer introduced Ms. Ravanbakht to report on the status of the prioritization process
and the next steps involved with emphasis on the HRTPO retreat in February 2011. Ms.
Ravanbakht stated the HRTPO Board approved a 2034 LRTP Vision Statement along with a
set of goals that will support the development of a fiscally constrained LRTP that will be
based on a regional perspective and will support the economic vitality of the region,
improving the security, accessibility, safety, mobility, and environment by producing a
document and a blueprint for the next twenty years.
Ms. Ravanbakht noted that in December 2010, the HRTPO Board approved the
Prioritization of Transportation Projects Report which includes:
• an evaluation of all LRTP candidate projects
• scores for the Project Utility, Project Viability, and Economic Vitality components for
all LRTP candidate projects
• an overall final score combining all three components for all LRTP candidate
projects
She commented that two studies for High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail have also
been completed. Ms. Ravanbakht explained VDOT has provided a revenue forecast for
fiscal years 2012 – 2034 that will be utilized in the LRTP.
Ms. Ravanbakht stated she will briefly list all items and studies that have been completed in
the past eighteen months in order to include and use them in the 2034 LRTP. A total of $12
Attachment 5-A
billion is forecasted for operations and maintenance and $1.4 billion for construction of
major transportation projects. The construction figure is based on traditional sources of
funding which does not include any funding from PPTA projects, local funds, or transit. She
noted that the $1.4 billion is a draft figure and may further be reduced.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has given guidance to HRTPO staff regarding
the use of Public-Private Partnership (P3) projects in the LRTP. Any P3 projects that are
included in the LRTP should be reasonably expected to have funding sources available. She
stated there needs to be clear expressions of support by the Governor and all other
appropriate local regional decision makers, a strategy in place for securing all
requirements in terms of environmental process and documentations approval, and an
indication that the state or a local jurisdiction has had past success in implementing a P3
project. Finally, state-enabling legislation should be in place or efforts should be shown
that legislation is underway and there is interest from the investment community.
Ms. Ravanbakht explained the FHWA has cautioned the inclusion of too many Preliminary
Engineering (PE) projects in the LRTP. The Virginia FHWA has expressed concern that the
HRTPO currently has seven projects with an approximate cost of $600 million in the 2030
LRTP.
The Virginia Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation Center (VMASC) has completed a study
regarding transportation alternatives and HRTPO staff has requested VMASC staff present
an overview of its study results at the February Retreat.
Ms. Ravanbakht stated HRTPO staff has briefed the HRTPO Advisory Committees regarding
the prioritization process and has received their comments which will be available to the
Board at the March meeting. The HRTPO Retreat is scheduled for February 17th and by the
March 17th HRTPO Board meeting, the transportation project prioritization list will be
completed. June 2011 is the deadline to complete and approve the fiscally constrained list
of projects by the HRTPO Board.
Congestion Management Process – The State of Transportation in Hampton Roads:
Final Report
Mr. Farmer introduced Mr. Keith Nichols to present The State of Transportation Report.
Mr. Nichols explained the HRTPO staff produces the State of Transportation in Hampton
Roads report every two years as part of the Congestion Management Process (CMP). The
report details the current status of all facets of the transportation system in Hampton
Roads, including roadway usage, bridge conditions, costs of congestion, commuting
characteristics, roadway safety, truck data, transit usage, bicycle and pedestrian facilities,
highway funding, and operations.
Mr. Nichols provided a slide that illustrated how different components of the Hampton
Roads population, region, and transportation system grew over the last decade. Between
2000 and 2009 there was an increase of six percent in the total lane miles, or total roadway
capacity, in the region; however, it is somewhat misleading in that approximately 70
Attachment 5-A
percent of this growth is in local roadways. The population in Hampton Roads also
increased six percent over the last decade with licensed drivers increasing slightly more
than the total population.
Mr. Nichols continued and highlighted the following points of interest:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The amount of daily travel has been mostly flat in Hampton Roads since 2003.
The percentage of Hampton Roads residents that drive alone to work has increased
each decade.
Public transportation use in Hampton Roads increased 9 percent from 2000 to
2009, despite a 25 percent decrease between 2008 and 2009.
The number of passengers on Amtrak trains in Hampton Roads increased 27
percent between 2006 and 2010.
After increasing 49 percent from 2000 – 2008, general cargo volumes at the Port of
Virginia dropped 16 percent last year.
The number of crashes in Hampton Roads has decreased from 33,108 in 2004 down
to 24, 005 crashes in 2009.
Truck travel decreased 10 percent between 2008 and 2009
Finally, Mr. Nichols presented a slide that illustrated how Hampton Roads compares to 35
other metropolitan areas with populations between one and three million people. Of
particular interest, Hampton Roads ranks 31st out of the 51 states in fuel prices, seventh
highest in the metropolitan areas with single commuters driving to work, and the second
worst with the busiest hour travel time tax based on Inrix figures. Mr. Nichols concluded,
stating that although there is some good news for the area, there are still many congestion
issues that loom for Hampton Roads.
Mayor Fraim asked which metropolitan area had the worst figure for busiest hour travel
time tax. Mr. Nichols replied he could not currently remember, although he believed it was
San Diego, CA.
Mr. Shucet stated Mr. Nichols’ presentation was one of the best he had viewed during the
HRTPO Board meetings. He noted that in terms of reporting data clearly and concisely, and
in a manner that one can understand, it was a great piece of work.
Mayor Fraim Moved to approve the State of Transportation in Hampton Roads: Final
Report; seconded by Mr. Goodson. The Motion Carried.
Regional Performance Measures
Mr. Farmer introduced Mr. Rob Case to present a summary of the Regional Performance
Measures (RPM). Mr. Case explained HRTPO staff had prepared regional performance
measures to be submitted to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) in
accordance with legislation passed by the General Assembly in 2009 and 2010. The
Attachment 5-A
Secretary of Transportation has stated the measures will be used to allocate dollars to area
projects.
Mr. Case outlined the HRTPO staff goals for selection of the measures as follows:
•
•
•
•
Choose at least one RPM for each of the ten categories listed in the legislation.
Choose RPMs recommended by VDOT.
Choose RPMs that can be used to compare performance from year to year and to
compare performance of one metro to another.
Choose RPMs that can be calculated using readily available data.
He presented a slide that outlined the specific performance measures and noted that an
eleventh category was added by HRTPO staff to include maintenance because most of the
funding in the 2034 LRTP is allotted for maintenance. Mr. Case stated financial
performance measures were added as suggested by the FHWA and VDOT at the October
2010 TTAC meeting.
Mr. Heuer commented that VDOT figures were utilized in the bridge portion of the
maintenance performance measures and asked why HRTPO staff did not use VDOT figures
for the pavement section. Mr. Case deferred the question to Mr. Nichols who stated the
VDOT database contained all necessary information regarding city and state bridges;
however, the VDOT database only contained pavement information on county and
interstate roadways which are maintained by VDOT. City roads are not included in the
VDOT database.
Mr. Shepperd asked if the performance measures were unique to Hampton Roads or were
comparable to other regions. Mr. Case replied VDOT compiled a list of recommended
measures in order to have all Virginia regions utilize essentially the same measures.
HRTPO staff has added additional measures to those recommended by VDOT.
Mr. Florin inquired if a financial measure could be added that illustrates at how successful
the Hampton Roads region is in obtaining highway and maintenance dollars as compared
to other regions. Mr. Case replied the performance measure described by Mr. Florin could
be added into the report.
Mr. Shepperd Moved to approve the Hampton Roads Regional Performance Measures to
include one more financial performance measure as described by Mr. Florin; seconded by
Mayor Johnson. The Motion Carried.
Hampton Roads Strategic Long-Term High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail: Phase
1(B) Blueprint Study: Final Report
Mr. Farmer introduced Dr. Alex Metcalf of TEMS and explained that once TEMS had
completed Phase 1 of the high-speed rail study, the HRTPO Board gave authorization to reengage the consultant to develop Phase 1(B), a blueprint for the implementation of the
Attachment 5-A
project and its funding. Dr. Metcalf stated the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) chose
the Washington-Richmond Corridor and the Richmond-Hampton Roads Corridor as two of
its high-speed rail designated corridors in 1992 and 1995 respectively. He noted the
Southeast High-Speed Rail Compact is the responsible body for high-speed rail planning,
funding, development, and operations in Virginia.
Dr. Metcalf presented a slide that illustrated the Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor
population by route mile indicating there was heavy population for the WashingtonHampton Roads Corridor and the Raleigh to Atlanta Corridor but low population for the
connecting corridor from Raleigh to Petersburg.
He explained the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement ACT (PRIIA) of 2008
provided grants of up to 80 percent federal funding for high-speed rail development and
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, with its $8 billion in
funding, jump-started the intercity high-speed rail systems in the United States. The FRA
has comprised four funding tracks to assist with corridor development:
•
•
•
•
Track 1: Construction Grants: 80 percent Federal
Track 2: EIS/Preliminary Engineering: 80 percent Federal
Track 3: Service Planning Grants: 50 percent Federal
Track 4: Alternative Capital Grant: 50 percent Federal
Dr. Metcalf indicated Hampton Roads could utilize Track 3 for Service Planning ($300,000
to $500,000 needed funding) and Track 2 for EIS/Preliminary Engineering funding of
which $10 million is needed. He noted that if the corridor is able to employ a PrivatePublic Partnership (PPP), Hampton Roads might be able to seek federal funding of less than
80% and would place itself in better position to receive funds.
An institutional arrangement will be needed to support the environmental, engineering,
implementation, and overall management of the Hampton Roads-Richmond-Washington
high-speed rail corridor. Institutional arrangements relate to the organizational structure
and agreements between participating entities, such as MPOs, states, and communities
responsible for undertaking or overseeing project-related activities. Dr. Metcalf stated the
Southeast High-Speed Rail Compact would most likely be the best authority for a Virginia
led high-speed rail corridor. Dr. Metcalf presented a slide summarizing one possible
organizational arrangement of the institutional framework.
Dr. Metcalf stated the analysis of the potential needs of the Hampton Roads-RichmondWashington DC High-Speed Rail Corridor suggests:
•
•
•
The Corridor is FRA designated and is a candidate for immediate funding.
While the HRTPO has the ability to fund ongoing studies, a specific institutional
structure must be set forth to obtain FRA funding.
The Southeast High-Speed Rail Compact is the authority to apply, receive, and spend
Federal, state, and local grants and contributions.
Attachment 5-A
•
The Corridor project will need to be managed by a technical staff led by an Executive
Director and staff.
In conclusion, Dr. Metcalf presented a slide summarizing the timetable, emphasizing the
need to complete the base study, implement community outreach, and discuss the SDP
application with the FRA before May 2012 when the SDP application must be submitted.
Mr. Heuer asked if money was available in the HRTPO budget to begin Phase 2 of the
Hampton Roads Strategic Long-Term High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail study. Mr.
Farmer replied there is some money set aside in the HRTPO budget for Phase 2; however,
more funding would be needed. He noted the HRTPO staff was currently working on the FY
2012 budget. Mr. Heuer stated the high-speed rail process was advancing incrementally
whereas it should be viewed holistically. Mr. Farmer replied Dr. Metcalf has clearly
outlined the total costs necessary to be ready for the May 2012 application process when
$10 million will be needed for the environmental phase.
Ms. Inman asked for clarification regarding the length of the rail corridor for the
environmental phase and asked if the corridor was from Hampton Roads to Richmond to
Washington D.C. Mr. Farmer replied affirmatively and that the $10 million environmental
phase was for this particular corridor.
Mr. Goodson inquired what type of work the Virginia Department of Rail and Public
Transportation (DRPT) was conducting on this Corridor and if the HRTPO would be
duplicating DRPT’s efforts. Ms. Inman stated duplication of effort was a concern of DRPT as
it was currently in a position to advance the Tier II high-speed rail environmental
document between Richmond and Washington D.C. DRPT has already received $54 million
to perform the environmental work and she stated she was not sure how the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) would react to an application from the HRTPO for the same
effort.
Mr. Goodson asked if the HRTPO was in competition with itself. Ms. Inman replied she
believed the FRA would see it that way.
Mayor Krasnoff agreed with Mr. Heuer’s earlier comments regarding budgetary concerns
and noted that Dr. Metcalf spoke of private funding; however, he stated the localities are
not prepared to fund a project as large as high-speed rail.
Chairman Sessoms stated Hampton Roads should still have the vision for high-speed rail in
the region and in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and it was a project that should stay in the
forefront for the HRTPO. He commented that it was troubling that the HRTPO could be in
conflict with DRPT in both duplication of efforts and in the spirit of the project. He asked
Mr. Farmer to consult with DRPT staff and hopefully move towards a common approach.
Mr. Florin expressed his appreciation regarding the Phase 1(B) blueprint study, stating
helpful information was brought forth from the study in terms of viewing the corridor as a
whole, rather than a piece meal approach. He commented that if the study was presented
Attachment 5-A
to DRPT, it might aid in achieving more common ground. Mr. Shucet agreed with Mr.
Florin’s suggestion as did Chairman Sessoms.
Ms. Vachet indicated it would be helpful to examine the corridor as to discover synergies
within the federal families from Hampton Roads to Washington D.C.
Mr. Spore commented that if the HRTPO was to be ready by the May 2012 application
deadline, it must act quickly and he hoped that Mr. Farmer could begin the negotiating
process on the Phase 2 study, as the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) has
advised.
Mr. Florin Moved to approve the Hampton Roads Strategic Long-Term High-Speed and
Intercity Passenger Rail: Phase 1(B) Blueprint Study: Final Report and for the Executive
Director to consult with DRPT and provide a recommendation to the HRTPO Board;
seconded by Mayor Price. The Motion Carried with Ms. Inman abstaining.
(Mr. Shepperd departs)
HRTPO Board Action Items: Three Month Tentative Schedule
Chairman Sessoms highlighted the three month summary of upcoming action items in the
HRTPO agenda.
Chairman Sessoms acknowledged the items in the Correspondence of Interest section of
the Agenda packet.
Chairman Sessoms noted the items in the For Your Information section of the Agenda
packet.
Old/New Business
Mayor Fraim suggested the February HRTPO Retreat agenda include an item regarding an
HRTPO Executive Committee. Mr. Farmer stated it would be placed on the agenda.
Mayor Krasnoff announced that Mayor Gordon Helsel of Poquoson had been elected to the
House of Delegates representing the 91st district. He asked Mr. Wheeler to convey
congratulations to Mayor Helsel.
Mr. Wheeler suggested the HRTPO Retreat be convened for the entire afternoon on
February 17th to complete its agenda. Chairman Sessoms stated the HRTPO Board should
do its best to stay on track at the retreat; however, if necessary, the discussion should
continue to its fruition.
Attachment 5-A
Adjournment
With no further business to come before the Hampton Roads TPO, the meeting adjourned
at 11:59 a.m.
William D. Sessoms, Jr.
Chairman
Dwight L. Farmer
Executive Director/Secretary
Attachment 5-A
Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (TPO)
Summary Retreat Minutes of February 17, 2011
The Hampton Roads TPO Board Meeting was called to order at 11:45 a.m. in the Regional
Boardroom, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia, with the following in attendance:
HRTPO Voting Members in Attendance:
William D. Sessoms, Chairman (VB)
Molly Joseph Ward, Vice-Chair (HA)*
Alan P. Krasnoff (CH)
Christian D. Rilee (GL)
Stan D. Clark (IW)*
Bruce C. Goodson (JC)
McKinley Price (NN)
Paul D. Fraim (NO)
Kenneth I. Wright (PO)
Linda T. Johnson (SU)
Robert Barclay (Alternate, SU)
Clyde Haulman (WM)
Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr. (YK)
Amy Inman (Alternate, DRPT)
Philip Shucet (HRT)
Adam Jack (Alternate, VDOT)
Jodie Love (Alternate, VPA)
Mark Rickards (WATA)
HRTPO Nonvoting Members in Attendance:
William E. Harrell (CH)
Mary Bunting (HA)
W. Douglas Caskey (IW)*
Stanley Stein (NO)
Kenneth L. Chandler (PO)
Selena Cuffee-Glenn (SU)
James K. Spore (VB)
William Harrison (CTAC)
Ivan Rucker (FHWA)
William Bell (FTAC)
Capt. George Bonner (Alternate, USCG)
Wendy Vachet (Alternate, USN)
HRTPO Executive Director:
Dwight L. Farmer
Other Participants:
Angela Jacobs (FHWA)
Jim Oliver (HRCCE)
HRTPO Voting Members Absent:
Gordon C. Helsel (PQ)
Dennis Heuer (VDOT)
Jerry Bridges (VPA)
Delegate John Cosgrove (GA)**
Delegate Glenn Oder (GA)**
Senator John Miller (GA)**
Senator Yvonne B. Miller (GA)**
HRTPO Summary Retreat Minutes – February 17, 2011 - Page 1
Attachment 5-B
HRTPO Nonvoting Members Absent:
Brenda Garton (GL)
Robert C. Middaugh (JC)
Neil A. Morgan (NN)
J. Randall Wheeler (PQ)
Jackson C. Tuttle, II (WM)
James O. McReynolds (YK)
Jeffrey Breeden (FAA)
Irene Rico (FHWA)
Tony Cho (FTA)
Letitia A. Thompson (FTA)
Wayne Shank (NAA)
Ken Spirito (PAC)
Colonel Glenn Grothe (U.S. Army)
Capt. Mark Ogle (USCG)
Capt. Mary Jackson (USN)
Randall P. Burdette (VDOA)
* Late or Early Departure
**General Assembly Session in Progress in Richmond, VA
A.W. Anderson, John Gergely, Henry Ryto (Citizens); Amar Dwarkanath (CH); Dianne
Randall Foster, Brian DeProfio (HA); Jeff Raliski, Tara Sotherland, Rod Woolard (NO); Eric
Nielsen (SU); Mark Schnaufer (VB); Robin Grier, Koustubh Jain, Eric Stringfield (VDOT);
Aubrey Layne (CTB); Debbie Messina (The Virginian Pilot); Jon Cawley (Daily Press); Ray
Taylor, Bruce Williams (FHR); Rich Clifton (RK&K); Carolyn McPherson (Light Rail Now,
Inc.); Iris Rodriguez (FHWA); Ellis James (Sierra Club Observer); Martha McClees (VB
Vision); Karen McPherson (Kimley-Horn); Sean Jessup, Allison Mall (Moffatt &
Nichol/FTAC); Jim Flatterty (Whitney, Bradley & Brown, Inc.); Mike Robinson
(VMASC/ODU); Chris Guthkelch, Susan Orr (ERC); HRPDC and HRTPO Staff: Jessica Banks,
Sam Belfield, John Carlock, Rick Case, Rob Case, Jennifer Coleman, Nancy Collins, Greg
Grootendorst, Julia Hillegass, Frances Hughey, Jim Hummer, Rob Jacobs, Michael Kimbrel,
Brian Miller, Kendall Miller, Keith Nichols, Joe Paulus, Benito Pérez, Kelli Peterson, Camelia
Ravanbakht, Stephanie Shealey, Dale Stith, and Chris Vaigneur.
Two people requested to address the HRTPO Board. Chairman Sessoms asked them to
limit their comments to three minutes.
Mr. John Gergely
Hello, my name is John Gergely from Newport News. I am a resident of Newport News. My
original intention here was to talk about this fourth study that has come out. It was in our
paper the other day by a group of people called TRIP in Northern Virginia that did a statewide study on priorities for economic growth, not congestion, economic growth, the excuse you
all use for the third crossing. In this study, and I am sure you all know about it, number two on
a state-wide study is the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel Extension. Number five is the Third
Crossing. After I walked in this morning, I walked over to that board and I find out that studies
don’t matter. We have had four studies already and most of them show the Hampton Roads
Bridge Tunnel is the main thing for reducing congestion and now best for economic growth.
You fudged your own study. You have got the Patriot’s Crossing now 228 something that was
never even voted on or formally introduced to this group. All of a sudden it has got a 228 when
a month ago it didn’t have anything. I do a lot of data analysis in my career and there is an old
axiom that if you torture the data long enough it will finally confess. Well you guys water
boarded it. This is disgusting. No General Assembly members present because you know they
Attachment 5-B
are gone and you are going to push this Third Crossing right down our throats as much as you
can and it is going to kill the growth around here. It’s going to kill all of our congestion,
everything. Mayor Ward, you desperately are going to need to fill up Fort Monroe soon, you
need to get renters. You think they are going to come and lease property to live or to work
there if they can’t get across the bridge tunnel, particularly if it is being tolled for that Third
Crossing; you call it Patriot’s Crossing now, well there is not a bit of patriotism in that crossing.
It is nothing but corporate welfare. Thank you very much.
Carolyn McPherson
Good morning. Thank you. I am Carolyn McPherson. I am the Director of Light Rail Now, a
grassroots organization in Virginia Beach trying to provide advocacy and education for light
rail in our region. First of all I want to commend you on having a priority setting process that
is evidence and criteria based. Having done that kind of work in a prior life in terms of
strategic planning with a large Fortune 500 company, I know how difficult that can be, with
such disparate and competing and desperately needed priorities, so I commend the
organization for doing that. I also would like to commend you for ranking light rail as a high
priority in the working group that you will be considering this afternoon, but most of all for
having the foresight to come together as an organization to talk about the priorities for our
region. I thank you for doing that on behalf of the transportation organizations. Thank you.
Chairman Sessoms introduced Mr. Jim Oliver, Retreat Facilitator and thanked him for his
time.
Mr. Farmer explained he had consulted with Mr. Oliver over the past several weeks to
prepare for the HRTPO Retreat and he is in attendance to progress the retreat forward in
a timely manner.
Mr. Oliver stated there are many responsibilities placed on the HRTPO by the federal and
state government and it has made incredible strides in the past two years with its reform
process. He noted that the HRTPO’s prioritization process is perhaps the best example of
the region’s collaborative effort to work together for Hampton Roads.
HRTPO Operating Budget
Mr. Farmer introduced Ms. Collins, Chief Financial Officer, to brief the HRTPO on the
budget and anticipated revenue stream. He indicated the HRTPO is facing potential cuts
with no increases in federal or state funding and it would be the localities’ fiduciary
responsibility to match that funding.
Ms. Collins stated the approved HRTPO Board FY2011 budget reflected a total revenue of
$3.4 million with $2.9 million budgeted for core operations. She presented a slide that
graphically illustrated the projected sources of HRTPO funding for FY2012. The $3.1
million for core operations is approximately $200,000 more than budgeted in FY2011
with a total pass through of slightly more at $540,000. Lastly, the bar graph slide
indicated the comparisons of revenue from 2011 to 2012 which are almost the same per
year. Staff is currently reviewing the anticipated expenditures to complete the FY2012
budget and plans are to submit the budget for HRTPO approval at the May Board
meeting.
Attachment 5-B
Value Pricing
Mr. Farmer introduced Ms. Angela Jacobs, Manager of the Value Pricing Pilot Program, from
the Federal Highway Administration D.C. Headquarters Office to explain value pricing. She
stated that currently there are six pricing programs under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA-LU) legislation that the federal government
created to allow for opportunities for tolling.
The Value Pricing Pilot Program is one of the more familiar programs because the majority
of all implemented congestion pricing projects that have received either pricing funding or
the authority to toll have come under this program.
Ms. Jacobs stated the six pricing programs either focused on congestion management or
financing and explained there is a vast difference between tolling as opposed to pricing. In
general, tolls are applied to a facility to finance construction of that project; whereas, the
goals of the pricing program are to reduce congestion. With the congestion pricing
program, the objective is to manage congestion on existing facilities especially during peak
periods.
Approximately six years ago, the Secretary of Transportation at that time, decided to
investigate more innovative ways to deal with congestion and the Urban Partnership (UPA)
and the Congestion Reduction Demonstration (CRD) Programs were implemented. From
these programs, six projects received approximately $850 million in FY2007, 2008, and
2009 federal funding throughout the United States.
Ms. Jacobs noted there are several potential impacts of pricing including:
•
Road pricing in the form of congestion pricing can act as a tool for demand
management.
•
Offering a reliable alternative to frequently congested roadway corridors.
•
Transit is a major component of many of the successful pricing projects in the
United Stated and abroad.
It is necessary to educate the public regarding pricing because it assists in the
understanding that pricing can generate revenue to build additional capacity and/or
maintain existing systems, and it can significantly increase the efficiency of these systems.
She noted that pricing can be integrated into long-range transportation plans.
Ms. Jacobs concluded, stating more tolling and pricing information can be found at
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/index.htm.
Chairman Sessoms asked what type of project would require the HRTPO to implement
pricing. Ms. Jacobs replied there is no one kind of project that requires value pricing.
Financing for road projects is severely limited and value pricing provides the opportunity
to fund a project.
Attachment 5-B
Mr. Farmer asked what type of federal guidelines regarding variable pricing are in place if
the HRTPO decided to implement a tolling strategy on an interstate. Ms. Jacobs stated the
only program that requires variable pricing is the value pricing program in order to
manage congestion.
VMASC Hampton Roads Alternative Study
Mr. Farmer introduced Dr. Mike Robinson from the Virginia Modeling, Analysis and
Simulation Center (VMASC) to brief the HRTPO on its Transportation Alternatives Study
(Phase 2).
Mr. Shucet interjected that because his consulting practice has relationships with firms that
are or may become involved with certain projects included in the list of project priorities, it
is appropriate for him to abstain from participating in the discussion of Agenda items 5 and
6 on the HRTPO Retreat Agenda. He respectively asked that his statement be recorded and
retained for the HRTPO’s official record. Chairman Sessoms indicated it would be included
in the minutes.
Dr. Robinson explained that VMASC completed its first study of the proposed Hampton
Roads Transportation Alternatives in 2008 at the request of the General Assembly Joint
Subcommittee. Phase 2 of the study began in 2009 and was completed in November 2010.
He noted that his primary co-researchers on the project were Dr. Asad Khattack and Dr.
Mecit Cetin, Professors in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at Old
Dominion University (ODU).
The General Assembly Joint Subcommittee members requested a different metric be
utilized in Phase 2 of the study to examine which transportation alternatives provide the
greatest improvement in intraregional travel during congested periods in the year 2034.
He noted that since the study anticipates conditions that are twenty-five years out, it was
assumed that the current Midtown Tunnel Expansion and the Martin Luther King Freeway
Extension projects have been completed. Population growth and redistribution estimates
were provided by HRTPO staff. The study assessed the capabilities of the transportation
system itself, and because the imposition of tolls can significantly shift driver behavior,
they were eliminated from all roads in the study.
Dr. Robinson stated VMASC’s methodology involved creating a detailed peak period
dynamic rush hour model based on the average annual daily traffic model that is now at the
HRTPO. The model was then integrated into a mesoscopic transportation simulation. It
was determined which areas were most likely to have critical accidents and incidents and
incorporated them into the simulation and network performance during peak a.m. and p.m.
periods. Dr. Robinson explained that a mesoscopic simulation allows for the modeling of a
large number of vehicles with some degree of human behavior element.
Eight different alternatives were analyzed in the simulation and the two best performing
alternatives, the Patriots Crossing and the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel (HRBT)
Expansion were then compared head to head. A side-by-side comparison yielded a finding
for the Patriots Crossing as the best alternative 73% of the time for best total trips.
Attachment 5-B
Dr. Robinson concluded, stating under the tested conditions and for the applied metrics,
the Patriots Crossing provides the most improvement in intraregional travel and the
expanded HRBT provides the most improvement in congestion at the HRBT.
Ms. Vachet asked Dr. Robinson to define intraregional as used in the VMASC study. Dr.
Robinson replied intraregional was defined in the study as VMASC’s view of the region.
The study boundaries went north to Williamsburg, west to Bowers Hill, utilizing the major
water crossings, and all major nodes of traffic throughout the region.
Mr. Goodson stated that during an accident in one of the tunnels, it was customary to close
both lanes of traffic as opposed to only one. He asked if this scenario was used in the study.
Dr. Robinson replied the accidents were only staged on the bridge structures and not
directly in the tunnels.
Mr. Bell asked for data regarding business assumptions used in the study. Dr. Robinson
stated business destinations were kept the same especially along the Norfolk Waterfront,
NOB Norfolk, and the Shipyard area. The southern areas of Hampton and Newport News
were utilized, along with the Town Center area in Virginia Beach and Greenbrier in
Chesapeake. The Oceanfront was used primarily as a tourist destination in the study.
Ms. Inman asked if the study was conducted as an academic exercise. Dr. Robinson stated
the initial study was undertaken at the request of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee.
As a result of further discussions with the Subcommittee, VMASC was asked to do a second
study to assess which of the proposed alternatives would provide the most benefit to the
average person in a typical day.
Ms. Inman inquired if transit was considered in the study. Dr. Robinson replied VMASC
was not asked to analyze any transit issues in the study.
Transportation Project Prioritization
Mr. Farmer stated the prioritization process, a year and a half in the making, was complex
yet objective in nature. He believed the HRTPO may have a national model to evaluate a
wide range of transportation projects including roadway and other modes of
transportation. He introduced Ms. Ravanbakht to summarize the process and to outline
recommendations from the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) and
HRTPO staff.
Attachment 5-B
Ms. Ravanbakht stated the 2034 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), once completed,
will serve as the blueprint for the region’s transportation infrastructure. She summarized
the LRTP process timeline which began in 2008 and will conclude in January 2012 as
follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Creation of an LRTP vision and goals
An extensive community outreach program
Collection of candidate transportation projects
Evaluation and prioritization of transportation projects utilizing the prioritization
tool
Develop a fiscally constrained list of projects
Air quality conformity analysis for final list of projects
Final approval by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) of the LRTP
Ms. Ravanbakht explained there were approximately 155 candidate projects totaling $30
billion; however, the forecasted revenue for the region for the next twenty years totals only
$2 billion of traditional sources. She noted there is potential funding from PPTA projects.
The prioritization tool is composed of the project utility, project viability, and economic
vitality components. The tool was used to evaluate projects in six categories and the
results were summarized in the Prioritization of Transportation Projects – Project
Evaluation and Scoring Report, which was approved by the HRTPO Board in December
2010.
From the approximate 150 candidate projects, thirteen regional projects emerged and
HRTPO staff created a one-summary page for each which is included in the handout
material for this agenda item.
HRTPO staff combined the project recommendations provided by TTAC with the
Governor’s Transportation Funding Proposal. In order to achieve this, staff began with the
committed projects, used projects and prioritization scores from the Governor’s funding
proposal, and with those two, staff was able to develop a list of recommended project
studies, projects for construction, and additional projects for future consideration.
Ms. Ravanbakht explained that the potential passage of the Governor’s Transportation
Funding proposal could fund sixty-six projects in Hampton Roads. In addition, there is $1.5
billion identified for major PPTA projects, including two projects, the Midtown
Tunnel/MLK Extension and the Route 460 Corridor.
The six project studies recommended for the 2034 LRTP by TTAC are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Route 460
I-64 Peninsula Corridor
Patriots Crossing
Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel
High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail
Virginia Beach Transit Extension
Attachment 5-B
Once these project studies are completed, the projects can be ranked utilizing the
prioritization tool to determine which one should go to construction in the LRTP.
Ms. Ravanbakht presented a slide that illustrated those projects recommended for
construction in which funding has been identified. She then outlined the additional
projects for future consideration, and although funding had not been identified, she
indicated they are critical for Hampton Roads, including:
•
•
•
•
I-64/I-264 Interchange Phasing
I-64 (Ft. Eustis Blvd. To Route 199/Exit 242)
I-64 Southside Phasing (High-Rise Bridge)
I-64 Interchange at Ft. Eustis Blvd.
Ms. Ravanbakht summarized the next steps in the prioritization process and noted HRTPO
staff will be asking for the Board’s approval on the transportation project priorities at the
March 17, 2011 meeting.
Mr. Goodson stated the HRTPO Board is considering a plan that does not add any lane miles
from the Peninsula to the Southside for the next twenty years. He noted the plan assisted
with the inter-regional traffic issues; however, it is creating a divide that will continue to
worsen over the years.
Mayor Fraim expressed his concern regarding such an effort and noted the key element to
the VMASC study is that there is unused capacity at the Monitor Merrimac Bridge Tunnel.
He commented that the results from the previous Third Crossing Study indicated if the
Third Crossing was built, it would shift approximately 17% of the HRBT traffic. Mobility
would improve throughout the region as well as from the Peninsula to the Southside.
Mr. Goodson stated it would be a difficult issue to explain to the public that existing tunnels
would now be tolled with no additional infrastructures built, nor any other evacuation
assistance. Chairman Sessoms noted that Route 460 was a component of the Governor’s
Transportation Funding Proposal and if passed, Route 460 would provide an evacuation
alternative for the area.
Mayor Price expressed his concern regarding the exclusion of the HRBT in the 2034 LRTP,
stating the addition of the Patriots Crossing would only shuffle the traffic bottleneck areas
rather than relieve them.
(Mayor Ward departs)
Mr. Bell stated it is the Freight Technical Advisory Committee’s (FTAC) responsibility to
study the economic benefits resulting from free flowing commerce. FTAC is comprised of
individuals from the business community whose businesses send, receive, or manage
freight and it also receives significant input from the Virginia Port Authority. FTAC
recommends the HRTPO Board utilize a system approach to the transportation network in
Hampton Roads. Once a system is agreed upon, decisions need to be made regarding the
projects that could be completed now versus later. Mr. Bell stated that FTAC understands
that there will be no substantial transportation improvements in the region without
Attachment 5-B
imposing tolls; however, it is important to consider the location and amount of the tolls.
The cost of goods is decreasing as the cost of transportation is increasing, and if that shift is
disproportionate in Virginia, producers will bypass Hampton Roads.
Mr. Shepperd asked if there was a completed study that determines at what point
businesses would not use the port because of excess tolls. Mr. Bell replied FTAC is in the
process of researching that data.
Mayor Krasnoff agreed that the freight industry should not be exploited in order to
accommodate other vehicle traffic; however he noted that once a toll is set for a project, it
becomes the guideline that is set forth by FHWA and is the means by which VDOT views the
project. There is the potential for years of more study if it is decided to lower a toll rate out
of concern that it is too high.
Mr. Oliver stated once the LRTP is approved, there will be more opportunities to discuss
the pros and cons of tolling as a funding mechanism.
Mr. Clark explained that FTAC was tasked with responsibility of viewing the transportation
issues with regards to freight and if there is an extrapolation on the tolls, it will go beyond
the freight industry and will affect commerce between communities of Hampton Roads.
Mr. Spore expressed his appreciation to the HRTPO staff and all those involved in creating
an exceptional report and commented that it will be an excellent tool for the HRTPO to
utilize.
Chairman Sessoms stated the HRTPO Board will officially review the list of transportation
priorities at the March 17, 2011 meeting.
(Mr. Caskey and Mr. Clark depart)
High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail: Status Report
Mr. Farmer explained that after the completion of the Hampton Roads Strategic Long-Term
High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail: Phase 1(B) study, a blueprint program to
illustrate the short- and long-run timing of steps, key milestones, critical actions,
institutional structures, and funding requirements, the Transportation Advisory Committee
(TAC) and the High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Task Force (HSIPR) recommended
to proceed to Phase 2 to complete preliminary assessments to prepare for an application to
the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in May 2012 for the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) funding.
The anticipated application amount is $10 million to initiate a NEPA action for the entire
corridor from Hampton Roads to Washington D.C.; however, that would represent a
duplication of efforts by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT).
At the January 20, 2011 meeting, the HRTPO Board approved the blueprint study to be
released and for the Executive Director to coordinate more fully with DRPT Director
Thelma Drake and Planning and Project Manager Ms. Inman. Mr. Farmer reported that Ms.
Attachment 5-B
Drake has concerns regarding the ultimate status of the Federal FRA Program for HighSpeed Rail, and the federal dollars for such a program and project. Ms. Drake informed Mr.
Farmer that new information from the FRA would be available on March 1st which would
provide guidance and clarity regarding many of the issues at hand.
Mr. Farmer recommended, albeit with much uncertainty, that the HRTPO remain in
conversation with DRPT in order to clarify DRPT’s reservations regarding the HRTPO’s
involvement in high-speed rail. He also recommended the HRTPO Board continue working
with TEMS, the high-speed rail consultant, to evaluate the status of the federal programs
and to work in harmony with DRPT regarding the federal program and dollars.
Mr. Farmer suggested the scope of the high-speed rail project be from Hampton Roads to
Petersburg so there is clearly no duplication of efforts on the part of the HRTPO and DRPT.
The HRTPO Board agreed with Mr. Farmer.
HRTPO Board Executive Committee
Mr. Oliver stated the governance structure of the HRTPO is built to accomplish what is best
for the region and he believes the HRTPO has been successful over the past two years
because of strong member attendance.
In order to determine if the HRTPO desires to establish an Executive Committee, it must
first ask itself if the current structure is providing the fastest and most sustainable
outcome.
He noted that the drafting of the HRTPO Bylaws was a wonderful piece of work and the
structure utilized in creating the bylaws would be necessary in order to form the Executive
Committee. He suggested the Board first discuss the vision of the Executive Committee to
determine if it is needed by the HRTPO. Lastly, he recommended the formation of a HRTPO
advisory committee to determine the size, makeup, and other pertinent issues regarding
the Executive Committee.
Mayor Fraim explained the HRPDC and the HRTPO have worked at creating separate
identities and with the HRPDC having an established Executive Committee, he thought it
might be beneficial to the HRTPO. He noted that in the future the HRPDC and the HRTPO
may have separate Executive Directors which would involve many issues that would
generally fall in the purview of an Executive Committee.
Chairman Sessoms agreed with Mayor Fraim and indicated that an Executive Committee
would be better equipped to handle personnel issues.
Mr. Goodson indicated any personnel issues could be dealt with in the Personnel and
Budget Committee. He noted that because the HRTPO member set-up is different than that
of the HRPDC, it would be difficult to establish an Executive Committee.
Mayor Johnson stated that although she believed an Executive Committee could be of
benefit to the HRTPO, it must not be allowed to become stronger than the HRTPO itself.
Attachment 5-B
After more discussion, Chairman Sessoms recommended to table the discussion regarding
an Executive Committee for the foreseeable future.
Adjournment
With no further business to come before the Hampton Roads TPO, the meeting adjourned
at 1:40 p.m.
William D. Sessoms, Jr.
Chairman
Dwight L. Farmer
Attachment 5-B
AGENDA ITEM #6: FY 2009-2012 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
AMENDMENT: VDOT
SUBJECT:
A request by Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to amend the FY 2009-2012
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to add one project in Hampton.
BACKGROUND:
Attached is a request from VDOT to amend the Hampton Roads FY 2009-2012 TIP to add the
following project:
•
UPC# 93081 – Bridge Replacement: Bridge Street over Salters Creek in Hampton. Obligate
$40,000 Bridge Replacement funds (plus $10,000 match) to FFY11 Preliminary
Engineering (PE) Phase.
The public review and comment period for this TIP amendment request began on February 23,
2011 and ran through March 9, 2011.
Attachment 6
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The HRTPO staff and the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee recommend approval of
this TIP Amendment.
Attachment 6
Attachment 6
MPO TIP Report
1/20/2011 2:53:39 PM
Hampton Roads MPO
Urban Projects
UPC NO
93081 SCOPE
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
SYSTEM
Urban
JURISDICTION
Hampton
OVERSIGHT
NFO
PROJECT
Bridge street over Salters Creek VA Str. 8009
DESCRIPTION
FROM: Bridge street over Salters Creek VA Str. 8009 TO: Bridge street over Salters Creek Str 8009
ADMIN BY
Locally
PROGRAM NOTE TIP AMD to add PE to FFY11 and obligate $40,000 BR funds. (RMF 1-20-11)
ROUTE/STREET
0000
FUND SOURCE
PE
BR
TOTAL COST
MATCH
FY09
$10,000
FY10
$0
$1,875,000
FY11
$0
FY12
$40,000
$0
MPO Note
1
Attachment 6
AGENDA ITEM #7: FY 2009-2012 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
AMENDMENT: VIRGINIA BEACH
SUBJECT:
A request by the City of Virginia Beach to reallocate Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ) funds from one project to another.
BACKGROUND:
Attached is a request from the City of Virginia Beach to transfer CMAQ Improvement Program
funds from one project to another as follows:
•
Transfer $1,135,000 in FY 2008 CMAQ funds from the Citywide Signal System Upgrade
Phase II (UPC# 77277) project to the Virginia Beach Dynamic Message Sign and Systems
Detectors (UPC# 95983) project.
Project UPC# 95983 is related to project UPC# 77277 and, according to the City’s letter, final
design reviews on UPC# 95983 revealed additional work required to complete the project. This
TIP revision includes revising the cost estimate for UPC# 95983 from $1,515,000 to $2,650,000.
Should the HRTPO Board approve the reallocation of CMAQ funds, the FY 2009-2012 TIP will be
amended to account for the fund transfer.
The public review and comment period for this TIP amendment request began on February 23,
2011 and ran through March 9, 2011.
Attachment 7
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
the CMAQ fund transfer and associated TIP Amendment.
Attachment 7
AGENDA ITEM #8: HAMPTON ROADS 2030 LRTP AND FY 2009-2012 TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY: FINAL REPORT
SUBJECT:
Draft conformity analysis and proposed finding of conformity for the amended 2030 Long-Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP) and FY 2009-2012 TIP.
BACKGROUND:
In November 2010, the HRTPO Board acted to amend the Hampton Roads 2030 LRTP. The
federally-required air quality conformity analysis has been completed in draft form for both the
amended 2030 LRTP and the associated FY 2009-2012 TIP. The draft conformity analysis
documents that all applicable regulatory requirements, including the emission budget tests, are
satisfied by the LRTP and TIP as amended. A finding of conformity for the amended 2030 LRTP
and FY 2009-2012 TIP is therefore proposed.
The federally-required air quality conformity analysis was initiated with an Interagency
Consultation Group (ICG) meeting on December 1, 2010 to review the proposed schedule,
methodologies, models, assumptions, and projects lists for modeling for the conformity analysis.
Two public review periods of two weeks duration each have been undertaken. First, the project
lists for the 2030 LRTP and FY 2009-2012 TIP, as amended, were subjected to public review for
the two-week period ending December 20, 2010. The second public review is for the draft air
quality conformity analysis and its recommendation for a finding of conformity, and is scheduled
to be initiated on February 23, 2011 and end on March 9, 2011.
Federal regulations require areas in nonattainment or maintenance of one or more of the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) to conduct conformity analyses to show that
transportation plans and programs when amended or updated would still “conform” with
regional air quality plans and therefore not worsen air quality. The Hampton Roads area is in
maintenance for the ozone NAAQS, and federal and related state conformity requirements
therefore apply. To meet the emission budget tests as required under the federal rule, emission
forecasts for ozone precursors for the entire regional transportation system following the
implementation of the LRTP and TIP as amended must be shown to be less than or equal to the
regional emission totals or “budgets” specified in the applicable air quality (maintenance) plan.
The applicable maintenance plan for Hampton Roads was developed in 2007 by the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality working with the Hampton Roads Air Quality Committee.
The Hampton Roads maintenance plan specifies emission budgets for ozone precursors (nitrogen
oxides, or NOx, and volatile organic compounds, or VOC) for modeling years 2011 and 2018.
Enclosure 8 – Executive Summary of Draft Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
the final air quality conformity analysis and finding of conformity for the amended 2030 LRTP
and amended FY 2009-2012 TIP, subject to any adverse public comments.
AGENDA ITEM #9: FY 2012-2015 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: DRAFT
PROJECT LIST
SUBJECT:
The draft project list for a full update of the TIP and STIP has been made available for public
review and comment.
BACKGROUND:
The Hampton Roads Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a multi-year program for the
implementation of surface transportation projects within the Hampton Roads Metropolitan
Planning Area (MPA). The TIP is developed by the HRTPO in cooperation with state
transportation agencies and local public transportation operators. A TIP contains all federallyfunded and/or regionally-significant projects that require an action by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) or the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Before any federallyfunded or regionally-significant surface transportation project can be built in the MPA, it must be
included in a current TIP that has been approved by the HRTPO Board.
The current FY 2009-2012 TIP was originally approved by the HRTPO Board in June 2008 and
has been updated on a regular basis since then. Work has begun on the development of a new FY
2012-2015 TIP for Hampton Roads. The basic steps for development of the TIP may be
summarized as follows:
1.
VDOT, Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), HRTPO, and local
public transit agencies coordinate to develop the draft TIP project list, drawing projects
from the approved Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).
2.
The draft TIP project list is tested for Air Quality Conformity. This step ensures that
implementation of the transportation projects in the TIP will conform with regional air
quality plans and not worsen air quality.
3.
The final TIP document is approved by the HRTPO Board.
Public participation activities are included throughout the TIP development process. The public
is encouraged to review and comment on the draft TIP project list, the Air Quality Conformity
Analysis, and the draft TIP document prior to final approval by the HRTPO Board.
The HRTPO staff is currently working on Step 1 above, and the draft TIP project list has been
made available for public review. The public review and comment period for the draft project list
and appendix materials began on February 23, 2011 and ran through March 9, 2011.
Enclosure 9 – Draft FY 2012-2015 TIP Project List
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
the draft project list and appendix materials so that work may begin on the Air Quality
Conformity analysis in April 2011.
AGENDA ITEM #10: FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE: MEMBERSHIP
SUBJECT:
The HRTPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC) has proposed two replacements
for FTAC membership.
BACKGROUND:
Attached are two letters from Mr. Jeffrey Florin, a member of the FTAC, to the HRTPO Executive
Director dated January 26, 2011, requesting HRTPO Board appointment of two individuals to the
FTAC to replace two existing FTAC members.
•
Mr. Curtis Hall, Target Import Warehouse, to replace Mr. Jeff Frye, Target Import
Warehouse.
•
Mr. Ron Drogan, The CrossGlobe Group, to replace Mr. Bill Franks, The CrossGlobe Group.
Attachment 10
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Appoint Mr. Curtis Hall and Mr. Ron Drogan to the FTAC.
Attachment 10
Attachment 10
AGENDA ITEM #11: FY 2012 FEDERAL GRANT APPLICATION: RURAL TRANSPORTATION
SUBJECT:
In order to apply for FY 2012 Transportation grants, the HRTPO must follow certain
requirements set forth by Federal and State agencies.
BACKGROUND:
The Virginia Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration require the
HRTPO Board to formally authorize the Executive Director to apply for Federal funds during FY
2012. The Executive Director is requested to sign an Authorizing Resolution directing staff to
assist VDOT and administer State, Planning, and Research Funds in carrying out the Rural
Transportation Planning Program.
Attachment 11
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The HRTPO staff recommends authorization of the HRTPO Executive Director to execute the
resolution and file an application for the FY 2012 Rural Transportation Grant.
HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION
BOARD RESOLUTION 2011-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION
DIRECTING STAFF TO ASSIST THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN
TRANSPORTATION RELATED MATTERS AS NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF 23 USC 135.
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is seeking assistance in transportation
planning related matters for the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) to
comply with based on the provisions of 23 USC 135; and
WHEREAS, the Federal State, Planning and Research (SP&R) funds in the amount of $58,000 are being
made available to the HRTPO for the period of July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the HRTPO elects to provide the local share match of $14,500 to utilize SP&R funds for the
benefit of the local jurisdictions comprising the Hampton Roads region.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization that
the Executive Director is directed, for and on behalf of the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning
Organization, to furnish such documents and other information as may be required to qualify for
authorization under the agreement with VDOT and to administer such SP&R funds made available,
certifying that they shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of 23 CFR Part 420, State,
Planning and Research Program Administration.
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board at its
meeting on the 17th day of March, 2011.
Dwight L. Farmer
Hampton Roads Transportation
Planning Organization
Attachment 11
AGENDA ITEM #12: TRANSPORTATION PROJECT PRIORITIZATION: CTAC RESOLUTION
SUBJECT:
The HRTPO Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) approved a resolution
supporting the regional transportation project prioritization and selection process for the longrange transportation plan.
BACKGROUND:
Since the HRTPO Transportation Project Prioritization began in 2009, the HRTPO staff has
coordinated with its advisory committees and the public to gain input for the recommended list
of projects and studies for inclusion in the fiscally constrained 2034 Long-Range Transportation
Plan (LRTP). During its most recent meeting on March 10, 2011, the CTAC is scheduled to
approve a resolution supporting the HRTPO’s efforts in regional transportation project
prioritization.
Mr. Bill Harrison, CTAC Chair, will brief the HRTPO Board on this item.
Handout 12
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Endorse the resolution.
AGENDA ITEM #13: TRANSPORTATION PROJECT PRIORITIZATION: RECOMMENDED LIST
OF PROJECTS AND STUDIES
SUBJECT:
Efforts to assist the HRTPO Board in determining transportation project priorities continue with
an anticipated approval by the HRTPO Board in March 2011.
BACKGROUND:
The development of the “Prioritization of Transportation Projects: Project Evaluation and Scoring”
report was initiated in July 2009. The intent of this task was to provide the HRTPO Board with
scores for projects based upon a combination of Project Utility, Project Viability, and Economic
Vitality. The final report was approved by the HRTPO Board at its December 15, 2010 meeting,
with a recommendation that the HRTPO Board determine priorities in March 2011.
The HRTPO staff opened a public comment period on December 20, 2010 to solicit input on the
prioritization of transportation projects for Hampton Roads. The deadline for public comments
was January 24, 2011. Additionally, the HRTPO staff held public meetings, on February 2, 2011
for the Southside, and February 23, 2011 for the Peninsula, to provide information to the public
regarding Transportation Project Priorities for Hampton Roads.
During the February 17, 2011 HRTPO Board Retreat, the HRTPO staff presented a list of
Recommended Transportation Projects and Studies, which incorporated projects in the
Governor's Transportation Funding Proposal.
Ms. Camelia Ravanbakht, Deputy Executive Director, will present the recommended list of
Transportation Projects and Studies.
Enclosure 13 – Transportation Project Prioritization: Recommended List of Projects and Studies
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
the Recommended Transportation Project and Studies Priorities list.
AGENDA ITEM #14: ALLOCATING CMAQ AND RSTP FUNDS THROUGH FY 2017
SUBJECT:
In conjunction with the development of the FY 2012-2017 SYIP, VDOT has requested that MPOs
provide information on their CMAQ and RSTP allocations through FY 2017 by March 21, 2011.
BACKGROUND:
During the March 2, 2011 meeting, the HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee
(TTAC) approved a program of projects in Hampton Roads to receive available Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program and Regional Surface Transportation
Program (RSTP) funds through fiscal year (FY) 2017. The HRTPO Board previously approved
CMAQ and RSTP projects and allocations through FY 2015, so the available funds for those years
were made up of funds held in reserve during the last Project Selection Process, plus additional
funds resulting from increases in the preliminary allocations provided by VDOT for those years,
which were substantial.
The attached tables show the following information for projects for which the TTAC has
recommended new or additional allocations:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Table 1 – Shows the Current CMAQ Allocations on affected projects
Table 2 – Shows the recommended Additional New CMAQ Allocations
Table 3 – Shows the Revised CMAQ Allocations
Table 4 – Shows the Current RSTP Allocations on affected projects
Table 5 – Shows the recommended Additional New RSTP Allocations
Table 6 – Shows the Revised RSTP Allocations
Table 2 includes a total of $50,392,000 in additional/new CMAQ allocations to 12 previouslyapproved CMAQ projects and 15 new CMAQ projects. Table 5 includes a total of $93,364,520 in
additional/new RSTP allocations to 14 previously-approved RSTP projects.
Should the HRTPO Board approve the additional/new CMAQ and RSTP projects and allocations,
an amendment to the FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) will be
processed to incorporate the new project and funding information.
A public review and comment period for the TIP amendment began on March 2, 2011 and ran
through March 16, 2011. Any public comments received will be handed out during the March 17,
2011 HRTPO Board meeting.
Ms. Camelia Ravanbakht, Deputy Executive Director, will brief the HRTPO Board on this item.
Attachment 14
the Additional New CMAQ & RSTP Allocations (Tables 2 & 5), as well as the TIP amendment to
incorporate the new project and funding information into the FY 2009-2012 TIP.
TABLE 1
RECOMMENDED CMAQ PROJECTS AND ALLOCATIONS
FY 2011 - 2017
CURRENT ALLOCATIONS
Num
Juris/Agency
UPC #
Project Name
Attachment 14
1
Chesapeake
New
Emergency Vehicle Preemption
2
Chesapeake
New
Traffic Management Center & System Additions
3
Gloucester Co
New
Bicycle-Pedestrian Improvements to Route 1216
4
Gloucester Co
New
5
Gloucester Co
New
6
Hampton
83199
Big Bethel Rd/HRCP Intersection
7
Hampton
83200
Big Bethel Rd/Radford
Hampton
83454
Big Bethel Rd/Todds Ln Intersection Improvements
83370
Fox Hill/Mercury Intersection
T1822
Norfolk LRT
T1823
TRAFFIX Funding
T9126
Purchase 27 Replacement 40' Buses
11
Hampton
Hampton Roads
Transit
Hampton Roads
Transit
Hampton Roads
Transit
HRTPO
New
12
James City Co
82961
Monticello Ave Geometric Changes
13
Newport News
T9097
Amtrak Station Relocation Project
14
Newport News
New
Citywide ITS Upgrades
15
Newport News
13478
J Clyde Morris Corridor Bike Trail - Phase II
16
Newport News
98829
Jefferson Ave Corridor Improvements (T9128)
17
Newport News
83254
Mariners Museum Multi-purpose Trail
18
Newport News
New
Riverside Hospital Bus Transfer Center
19
Portsmouth
New
Intersection Improvement - Portsmouth Blvd/Elmhurst Ln
20
Regional
New
Regional Opticom Preemption Strategic Plan & Deployment
21
Suffolk
New
Harbour View Area Traffic Signal Coordination
22
Suffolk
New
Intersection Improvement - Bridge Rd/Bennetts Pasture Rd
23
Suffolk
New
Intersection Improvement - Bridge Rd/Lee Farm Ln
24
Suffolk
New
Portsmouth Blvd Park & Ride Lot
25
Virginia Beach
84366
Intersection Improvement - Indian River Rd/Kempsville Rd
26
Williamsburg Area
Transit Authority
New
New Service - Mounts Bay Route
27
York County
84484
Capitol Landing Bikeway
8
9
10
FY-11
FY-12
FY-13
FY-14
FY-15
FY-16
FY-17
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,686,205
$6,737,876
$6,175,919
$90,000
CMAQ = Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program - A federal transportation funding program.
UPC # = Universal Project Code - A unique number used to identify a project.
Prepared by: HRTPO Staff on March 8, 2011
TABLE 2
FY 2011 - 2017
ADDITIONAL NEW ALLOCATIONS
Num
Juris/Agency
UPC #
Project Name
FY-11
FY-12
FY-13
FY-14
FY-15
FY-16
FY-17
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
1
Chesapeake
New
2
Chesapeake
New
$1,000,000
3
Gloucester Co
New
$375,000
$375,000
4
Gloucester Co
New
$105,000
$105,000
$440,000
$430,000
$430,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
5
Gloucester Co
New
6
Hampton
83199
$500,000
$130,000
Attachment 14
Hampton
83200
Hampton
83454
83370
T1822
Norfolk LRT
T1823
TRAFFIX Funding
T9126
11
Hampton
Hampton Roads
Transit
Hampton Roads
Transit
Hampton Roads
Transit
HRTPO
New
12
James City Co
82961
13
Newport News
T9097
14
Newport News
New
15
Newport News
13478
16
Newport News
98829
17
Newport News
83254
$750,000
18
Newport News
New
$250,000
19
Portsmouth
New
20
Regional
New
21
Suffolk
New
22
Suffolk
New
23
Suffolk
New
24
Suffolk
New
25
Virginia Beach
84366
26
Williamsburg Area
Transit Authority
New
27
York County
84484
7
8
9
10
$70,000
$675,000
$70,000
$2,000,000
$300,000
-$250,000
$250,000
$669,188
$865,406
$300,000
$865,406
$9,000,000
$9,000,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$300,000
$500,000
$60,000
$500,000
$150,000
$162,381
$3,337,619
$750,000
$133,569
$616,431
$350,000
$350,000
$750,000
$385,650
$5,319,151
$3,295,199
$227,000
$1,000,000
TABLE 3
FY 2011 - 2017
REVISED ALLOCATIONS
Num
Juris/Agency
UPC #
Project Name
FY-11
FY-12
FY-13
FY-14
FY-15
FY-16
FY-17
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
1
Chesapeake
New
2
Chesapeake
New
$1,000,000
3
Gloucester Co
New
$375,000
$375,000
4
Gloucester Co
New
$105,000
$105,000
$440,000
$430,000
$430,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
5
Gloucester Co
New
6
Hampton
83199
$500,000
$130,000
Attachment 14
Hampton
83200
Hampton
83454
83370
T1822
Norfolk LRT
$2,000,000
T1823
TRAFFIX Funding
$1,000,000
T9126
11
Hampton
Hampton Roads
Transit
Hampton Roads
Transit
Hampton Roads
Transit
HRTPO
New
12
James City Co
82961
13
Newport News
T9097
14
Newport News
New
15
Newport News
13478
16
Newport News
98829
$150,000
17
Newport News
83254
$750,000
18
Newport News
New
$250,000
19
Portsmouth
New
20
Regional
New
21
Suffolk
New
22
Suffolk
New
23
Suffolk
New
24
Suffolk
New
25
Virginia Beach
84366
26
Williamsburg Area
Transit Authority
New
27
York County
84484
7
8
9
10
$70,000
$675,000
$70,000
$300,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,686,205
$6,487,876
$6,425,919
$669,188
$865,406
$300,000
$865,406
$9,000,000
$9,000,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$300,000
$500,000
$500,000
$150,000
$162,381
$3,337,619
$750,000
$133,569
$616,431
$350,000
$350,000
$750,000
$385,650
$5,319,151
$3,295,199
$227,000
$1,000,000
TABLE 4
RECOMMENDED RSTP PROJECTS AND ALLOCATIONS
FY 2010 - 2017
CURRENT ALLOCATIONS
Num
Juris/Agency
UPC #
Project Name
Dominion Boulevard - Replace Steel Bridge and Road
Widening
97715 Wythe Creek Rd Widening
1
Chesapeake
2
5
Hampton
Hampton Roads
Transit
Hampton Roads
Transit
Isle of Wight
58297 US 258 Widening
6
James City Co
98811 Longhill Rd Corridor Study (T9095)
7
Newport News
8
Newport News
9
Norfolk
10
0
Norfolk
f lk
11
Norfolk
4483 Atkinson Blvd - Construct New Road
Peninsula Rapid Transit Project (AA & Other Studies)
T1821
(Previous HRT Project UPC# T1821)
North Military Hwy & Robin Hood Rd Widening &
84243
Improvement
North Military Hwy Widening & Improvement - Lowery Rd
9
9783
83
to Northampton Blvd
52147 Wesleyan Dr Widening
12
Suffolk
61407 Nansemond Pkwy Phase 2
13
Suffolk
95050 Route 58 Lane Reversal
14
Virginia Beach
3
4
56187
T1822 Norfolk LRT
FY-10
FY-11
FY-12
FY-13
FY-14
FY-15
FY-16
FY-17
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
$8,000,000
$8,494,544
T9091 Systemwide Bus Stop Sign Program
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$300,000
$1,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,566,808
$591,968
$1,308,032
$300,000
$700,000
$500,000
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$2,693,440
$1,000,000
$
000 000
$2,000,000
$2
000 000
$3,000,000
$3
000 000
$4,282,369
$
282 3 9
RSTP = Regional Surface Transportation Program - A federal transportation funding program.
$2,323,000
$3,503,982
$3
03 982
Attachment 14
TABLE 5
FY 2010 - 2017
ADDITIONAL NEW ALLOCATIONS
Num
Juris/Agency
UPC #
Project Name
Widening
FY-11
FY-12
FY-13
FY-14
FY-15
FY-16
FY-17
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
1
Chesapeake
2
5
Hampton
Hampton Roads
Transit
Hampton Roads
Transit
Isle of Wight
6
James City Co
$200,000
7
Newport News
$955,876
8
Newport News
9
Norfolk
10
0
Norfolk
f lk
3
4
56187
FY-10
T1822 Norfolk LRT
$2,000,000
$864,119
$3,671,753
11
Norfolk
12
Suffolk
13
Suffolk
14
Virginia Beach
$1,446,498
$12,323,015
$6,083,615
$8,316,385
$2,000,000
$238,199
$500,000
$900,000
$10,000,000 $31,205,722
-$125,000
-$1,000,000
$1,000,000
-$1,000,000
$ 000 000
$1,000,000
$
000 000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$2,300,000
$484,338
$4,200,000
T1821
84243
Improvement
9
9783
83
to Northampton Blvd
$3,000,000
Attachment 14
TABLE 6
FY 2010 - 2017
REVISED ALLOCATIONS
Num
Juris/Agency
UPC #
Project Name
Widening
FY-11
FY-12
FY-13
FY-14
FY-15
FY-16
FY-17
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
Allocated
1
Chesapeake
2
5
Hampton
Hampton Roads
Transit
Hampton Roads
Transit
Isle of Wight
$500,000
$900,000
6
James City Co
$300,000
$200,000
7
Newport News
8
Newport News
9
Norfolk
10
0
Norfolk
f lk
11
Norfolk
T1821
84243
Improvement
9
9783
83
to Northampton Blvd
12
Suffolk
13
Suffolk
14
Virginia Beach
3
4
56187
FY-10
T1822 Norfolk LRT
$10,000,000
$9,941,042
$3,364,119
$6,171,753
$300,000
$1,500,000
$484,338
$7,200,000
$12,323,015
$6,083,615
$8,316,385
$4,566,808
$591,968
$1,308,032
$238,199
$955,876
$700,000
$10,000,000 $31,205,722
$375,000
$0
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$2,693,440
$0
$3,000,000
$3
000 000
$3,000,000
$3
000 000
$4,282,369
$
282 3 9
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$2,300,000
$5,323,000
$3,503,982
$3
03 982
Attachment 14
AGENDA ITEM #15: TRANSIT VISION PLAN: FINAL REPORT AND RESOLUTION
SUBJECT:
The Hampton Roads Regional Transit Vision Plan Final Report is ready for approval.
BACKGROUND:
The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) has managed the
development of Phase 2 of a Transit Vision Plan (TVP) for Hampton Roads. The goal of the TVP is
to lay out a robust transit network which can provide substantial mobility by means other than
the automobile. The information and recommendations from the TVP will support the
development of a fiscally constrained 2034 LRTP for the region.
Ms. Amy Inman briefed the TTAC on draft recommendations for the Hampton Roads Regional
Transit Vision Plan during the November 3, 2010 meeting. The draft recommendations were
made available for public review during the month of November 2010. In addition, DRPT held
two public information sessions on the TVP:
•
•
November 30, 2010 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm at City Center Oyster Point in Newport News
December 1, 2010 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm at HRT Administrative Office in Norfolk
The final report is enclosed.
Attached is a resolution endorsing the Hampton Roads Regional Transit Vision Plan.
Ms. Amy Inman of DRPT, and Ms. Meredith Judy of Rhodeside & Harwell, will brief the HRTPO
Board on this item.
Enclosure 15 – Hampton Roads Regional Transit Vision Plan: Final Report
Attachment 15
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
•
The HRTPO staff and the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee recommend
approval of this report.
•
The HRTPO staff recommends approval of the resolution.
HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION
BOARD RESOLUTION 2011-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION
ENDORSING THE TRANSIT VISION PLAN.
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, in partnership with Hampton
Roads Transit and Williamsburg Area Transit Authority, has developed the Hampton Roads Regional
Transit Vision Plan, a report which provides a framework for coordinated transit and land use decision
making across jurisdictional boundaries;
WHEREAS, the Hampton Roads Regional Transit Vision Plan provides a concept for a regional rapid
transit network that connects major employment and population centers in Hampton Roads;
WHEREAS, a mutually agreed upon transit vision can assist in prioritizing movement of people
throughout the region with a variety of transportation options;
WHEREAS, the Hampton Roads Regional Transit Vision Plan promotes the use of existing infrastructure
and public right-of-way to the maximum extent possible;
WHEREAS, the Hampton Roads Regional Transit Vision Plan promotes efficient transportation options,
leading to distribution of travel across multiple modes of transportation, including rail, bus, bicycle, and
walking, thereby maximizing transportation resources;
WHEREAS, the creation of viable transportation options requires local and regional commitment to
support land-uses, including increased density, and mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented development or
redevelopment; and
WHEREAS, the information and recommendations from the Hampton Roads Regional Transit Vision
Plan will support the development of a fiscally constrained 2034 Long-Range Transportation Plan for
the region.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization
endorses the Hampton Roads Regional Transit Vision Plan.
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board at its
meeting on the 17th day of March, 2011.
William D. Sessoms
Chairman
Dwight L. Farmer
Attachment 15
AGENDA ITEM #16: HIGH-SPEED AND INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL: STATUS UPDATE
SUBJECT:
Review the next phase of analysis for the Hampton Roads Strategic High-Speed and Intercity
Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Plan.
BACKGROUND:
A consultant specializing in passenger rail planning was secured for the HRTPO in January 2010
to evaluate the potential passenger rail service alternative defined by the October 30, 2009
HRTPO Board resolution with respect to both the CSX/I-64 and Norfolk Southern/Route 460 rail
corridors. A Preliminary Vision Plan (Phase 1) has been completed for the HRTPO and approved
by the HRTPO Board in June 2010. The initial findings of the Preliminary Vision Plan
demonstrated utility and the potential for providing high-speed rail services between Hampton
Roads-Richmond-Washington, D.C.
This assessment indicated that both corridors are
economically and financially feasible as they meet the thresholds established by the Federal
Railroad Administration for a public/private partnership to build and operate passenger rail in
Hampton Roads.
The HRTPO Board also voiced a desire to more fully understand the development steps of an
enhanced Passenger Rail and High-Speed Rail alternatives program and the level of responsibility
of the HRTPO in the development process. As such, in Phase 1(B), the consultant developed a
“blueprint” program to show the short- and long-term timing of steps, key milestones, critical
actions, institutional structures, and funding requirements for a High-Speed and Intercity Rail
Plan with speeds ranging between 110-mph and 150-mph. The HRTPO Board approved the
Hampton Roads Strategic Long-Term High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Plan – Phase 1(B)
Blueprint Study during the January 20, 2011 meeting. The Blueprint Study sets out a 15-20 year
program (2010-2030) to bring high-speed rail to the Hampton Roads-Richmond-Washington,
D.C. High-Speed (HRRW) Rail Corridor.
During the February 17, 2011 HRTPO Board Retreat, the Executive Director recommended to
continue coordinating with the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) to
clarify DRPT’s reservations regarding the HRTPO’s involvement in high-speed rail as well as
continue working with the high-speed rail consultant to evaluate the status of the federal
programs and to work in harmony with DRPT regarding the federal program and dollars.
A. Mr. Dwight Farmer, Executive Director, will brief the HRTPO Board on the status of this
item.
B. Ms. Thelma D. Drake, DRPT Director, will brief the HRTPO Board on this item.
The HRTPO staff and the High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Task Force recommend
authorization of the Executive Director to continue working with the high-speed rail consultant
to evaluate the status of the federal programs, work in harmony with DRPT regarding their
efforts, and craft a scope of work that is responsive to the federal program and not duplicative of
DRPT’s efforts.
AGENDA ITEM #17: HRTPO BOARD ACTION ITEMS: THREE MONTH TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
April 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
•
•
FY 2012 Unified Planning Work Program: Draft Report
May 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
•
•
•
•
HRTPO Operating Budget
2034 Fiscally-Constrained LRTP: Air Quality Conformity
FY 2012 Unified Planning Work Program: Final Report
June 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2034 Fiscally-Constrained LRTP: Air Quality Conformity
FY 2012 Unified Planning Work Program: Draft Report
FY 2012-2015 Transportation Improvement Program: Final Report
FY 2012-2015 Transportation Improvement Program: Air Quality Conformity Final Report
Six-Year Improvement Program: Briefing
Regional Land Use Map: Final
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
For informational purposes.
AGENDA ITEM #18: CORRESPONDENCE OF INTEREST
A.
HISTORIC TRIANGLE COLLABORATIVE COMMENTS ON THE I-64 PENINSULA EIS
Attached is a letter, dated February 14, 2011, from Mr. Sanford Wanner, Chair of the
Historic Triangle Collaborative, transmitting the group’s comments on the I-64 Peninsula
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to Mr. Rich Butula of McCormick Taylor, Inc.
Attachment 18-A
B.
Attached is a letter, dated March 7, 2011, from Isle of Wight County, which adopted a
Resolution supporting the Patriots Crossing Transportation Project and the opposition of
tolls on the James River Bridge.
Attachment 18-B
Attachment 18-A
Attachment 18-B
Attachment 18-B
AGENDA ITEM #19:
A.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
CITIZEN TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES
The summary minutes of the January 13, 2011 Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee
meeting are attached.
Attachment 19-A
B.
TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES
The summary minutes of the February 2, 2011 and March 2, 2011 Transportation
Technical Advisory Committee meetings are attached.
Attachment 19-B1
Attachment 19-B2
C.
FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES
The summary minutes of the January 12, 2011 and January 31, 2011 Freight
Transportation Advisory Committee meetings are attached.
Attachment 19-C1
Attachment 19-C2
D.
HRTPO FINANCIAL REPORT
Attachment 19-D
E.
AMPO SUMMARY OF THE 2012 WHITE HOUSE BUDGET
The Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO) summary of the 2012
White House Budget is attached.
Attachment 19-E
F.
UNOBLIGATED CMAQ/RSTP FUNDS: STATUS REPORT
In response to a request by the TTAC during its meeting on April 7, 2010, VDOT conducted
a review of Hampton Roads highway projects funded with Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program and Regional Surface Transportation
Improvement Program (RSTP) funds. VDOT completed its initial review on June 22, 2010,
identifying more than $70 million in CMAQ and RSTP funds (including match) that might
possibly be available for reallocation to projects in need of funding.
For the VDOT review, CMAQ and RSTP projects were organized into the following four
categories:
Category Description
A
B
C
D
Projects that appear to be completed and funded
with only CMAQ and/or RSTP funds
Projects that appear to be underway and funded
with only CMAQ and/or RSTP funds
Projects that appear to be completed and funded
with CMAQ and/or RSTP funds, plus other funds
Projects that appear to be underway and funded
with CMAQ and/or RSTP funds, plus other funds
Total
Initial Estimate of
Funds That Might Be
Available for
Reallocation
$11.0 million
$30.3 million
$3.7 million
$28.5 million
$73.5 million
The TTAC recommended that the reconciliation of projects in Categories A and C (projects
that appear to be completed) be conducted first. The process required meeting with
nearly every locality to systematically review each project included in the VDOT review to
determine the specific steps necessary to financially close the project so that surplus
funding can be released.
During the March 2, 2011 TTAC meeting, Ms. Kim Farrar, VDOT Hampton Roads District
Director of Program Investment Management, provided the results of the reconciliation of
projects in Categories A and C in terms of CMAQ and/or RSTP funds available for
reallocation: $4.3 million for Category A and $2.9 million for Category C, for a total of $7.2
million, or approximately 49 percent of VDOT’s initial estimates.
HRTPO staff has
recommended that localities prepare TIP amendment requests for the reallocation of
those funds to be processed in April 2011. This information is summarized in the attached
letter from Ms. Farrar, dated March 8, 2011.
Attachment 19-F
G.
VDOT COMMISSIONER RECOMMENDS ADVANCING ROUTE 460 PROPOSALS
On March 2, 2011, the VDOT Commissioner announced that he has approved the
advancement of three private-sector proposals to build a new U.S. Route 460 between
Petersburg and Suffolk. In making his determination, the Commissioner considered a
resolution provided by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) and a
recommendation from the U.S. Route 460 Independent Review Panel (IRP). The
Commissioner has directed VDOT staff and the Virginia’s Office of Transportation Public
Private Partnerships (PPTA Office) to address recommendations provided by the CTB and
IRP.
The PPTA Office has revised the procurement schedule and will issue the Request for
Detailed Proposals on March 25, 2011; at which time all three proposers will be invited to
submit detailed proposals.
H.
VDOT RECEIVES PPTA PROPOSALS FOR HAMPTON ROADS BRIDGE-TUNNEL
On March 2, 2011, VDOT announced that prior to the competition period deadline, the
PPTA Office, in coordination with VDOT, received two competing proposals from private
firms, Cintra Infraestructuras S.A. and Hampton Roads Mobility Group, seeking to develop
and operate the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel and Interstate 64 from the I-664
interchange in Hampton to the I-564 interchange, in the City of Norfolk.
The PPTA Office will review the two competing proposals to determine conformance with
the requirements of 2010 Va. Acts ch. 126. Prior to May 1, 2011, the PPTA Office will make
a presentation to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) detailing its
recommendation of whether to advance the proposal for consideration by an Independent
Review Panel.
Previously, VDOT received an unsolicited proposal on September 29, 2010, by Hampton
Roads Crossing, a group of international infrastructure developers and construction
companies.
I.
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PROPOSAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS
On March 1, 2011, the Economic and Fiscal Impacts of the Construction Phase of
Transportation Funding in Virginia and its Region report was released. This report,
prepared for the Secretary of Transportation, analyzes the economic and fiscal impact of
the construction spending activities of the transportation investment in the
Commonwealth of Virginia and its nine transportation districts, based on the VDOT
illustrative list of 900 projects. The report finds that Virginia's economy would expand by
$13.1 billion and support 105,642 additional jobs over six years if the Governor's
transportation plan is fully implemented.
The illustrative project list valued at $4.4 billion is available at:
http://www.virginiadot.org/news/resources/Statewide/sectran/Combined_Master_1-1311_V10_SOT-No_Phase.pdf
The full report "Economic and Fiscal Impacts of the Construction Phase of Transportation
funding in Virginia and its Regions" is available at:
http://www.virginiadot.org/news/resources/Statewide/sectran/Plan_VDOT_Executive_S
ummary.pdf
J.
NEW OZONE STANDARD: STATUS REPORT
The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) provided the following update
on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) reconsideration of the 2008 ozone
standard. The EPA announced this reconsideration in September 2009 and proposed a
new standard within a range of 60 to 70 parts per billion in January 2010. After one delay
in setting the final standard, EPA has again requested an extension of the timeline for
finalizing the standard to no later than July 31, 2011. This request was submitted to the
court that has jurisdiction over a lawsuit related to the standard on December 8, 2010.
The court has not yet responded to this request.
Summary Minutes of the
Hampton Roads Citizen Transportation
Advisory Committee (CTAC) Meeting
January 13, 2011
The Hampton Roads Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) Meeting was
called to order at 5:06 p.m. in the Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) Boardroom, HRT
Headquarters, 3400 Victoria Boulevard, Hampton, Virginia, with the following in
attendance:
Hampton Roads CTAC Members:
William Harrison, Chairman (VB)
Shepelle Watkins-White, Vice-Chair (CH)
Philip Olekszyk (GL)
Sharyn Fox (NN)
Yukari Hughes ( NN)
Randy Lassiter (NO)
Randy Lougee (NO)
Hampton Roads CTAC Members Absent:
Kathy Corley (CH)
Roberta Edwards (CH)
Michael Jones (IW)
Ricky Clifton (NN)
Howard Manly (NN)
Kirsten Tynch (PO)
HRTPO Staff:
Rob Case
Dwight Farmer*
Kathlene Grauberger
Brian Miller
James Openshaw (NO)
Archie Whitehill (NO)
Kristen Wells (PO)
Tuck Bowie (VB)
Delceno Miles (VB)
Ray Taylor (VB)
Richard Green (SU)
Wanda Cooper (VB)
John Malbon (VB)
Prescott Sherrod (VB)
Dewey Hurley (WM)
Henry Lewis (YK)
Kendall Miller
Andy Pickard
Camelia Ravanbakht
*Late arrival
There was no public comment.
There were no submitted public comments.
Approval of Agenda
Chair Harrison asked if there were any items to add to the agenda. Hearing none from the
Committee, he stated he wanted CTAC members to view the video from the October 2010
CTAC Summary Minutes – January 13, 2011 - Page 1
Attachment 19-A
HRPTO Board meeting in which Chair Harrison spoke with regards to the CTAC
Resolutions. He asked to add the item to the agenda following the approval of the minutes.
Ms. Miles Moved to approve the agenda with the one amendment; seconded by Ms.
Watkins-White. The Motion Carried.
Summary Minutes of November 10, 2010 CTAC Meeting
Chair Harrison stated he would abstain from voting since he was not in attendance at the
November meeting. Ms. Miles Moved to approve the minutes as written; seconded by Ms.
Fox. The Motion Carried with Chair Harrison abstaining.
Video of CTAC Discussion at the October HRTPO Board Meeting
After viewing the CTAC discussion of the October HRTPO Board Meeting, Chair Harrison
explained that he viewed the role of CTAC as an advisory responsibility to the HRTPO
Board. He stated that if there is an issue CTAC wishes to tackle, a discussion would be held,
followed by a vote, and if necessary, a CTAC resolution to be presented to the HRTPO
Board. He noted that CTAC could utilize its voice to assist the HRTPO and must recognize
that its diversity is its strong point.
Ms. Lougee asked if CTAC Resolution 2010-01 should be transmitted again to the State
legislators and the Federal Congressional teams. Ms. Ravanbakht replied it could be retransmitted, but stated she wanted to first consult with Mr. Farmer.
Mr. Taylor commented that he believed CTAC and its two approved resolutions are having
an impact on the HRTPO Board and has ricocheted outwards. He noted the issues of new
funding will be raised in the General Assembly Session the following year as opposed to
this year. He suggested CTAC follow-up in a year’s time with another resolution regarding
a regional gas tax surcharge. Chair Harrison indicated that CTAC could re-address the
transportation funding resolution in October 2011.
Mr. Taylor thought it prudent to follow-up on the scheduled military briefings with the
Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) referred to in CTAC Resolution 2010-02.
Chair Harrison stated the Committee could ask Mr. Aubrey Layne of the CTB to inform
CTAC of the scheduled briefings, and if none had occurred by Summer 2011, the Committee
should bring it back to the HRTPO Board.
Transportation Project Prioritization
Mr. Pickard explained his presentation would review the following core information
needed to assist with prioritization:
•
•
•
Vision and Goals
Prioritization Scores
Revenue forecast
Attachment 19-A
•
•
•
Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects
Preliminary Engineering (PE) Projects
Schedule
Mr. Pickard presented a slide outlining the 2034 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)
Goals, which were approved by the HRTPO Board on January 20, 2010.
He summarized the Prioritization scores from the Bridge and Tunnel Projects, Highway
Projects, Highway Interchange Projects, Intermodal, and Transit projects. The scores were
published in the Prioritization of Transportation Projects: Project Evaluation and Scoring
Report and was approved by the HRTPO Board on December 15, 2010.
Mr. Pickard noted that revenue estimates will be analyzed beginning with FY 2012 and the
2034 LRTP will have an influence on what projects will utilize the estimated funds. Future
funding forecasts will include working with HRT, the Williamsburg Transit Authority
(WATA) and the localities to include transit and local revenues, respectively. He stated
VDOT estimates there will be a total of $1.4 billion for major regional projects and $12.2
billion for maintenance and smaller-scale projects for FY 2012 to FY2034.
He noted there are indicators that PPPs will be reasonably expected to be available due to
clear expressions of support by the Governor and other appropriate local and regional
decision makers.
Mr. Pickard explained Preliminary Engineering (PE) Only projects apply to a variety of
work other than right-of-way and construction. There are currently seven projects in the
amended 2030 LRTP for PE at a cost of $600 million. The FHWA has expressed concern
over the number of PE projects in the current 2030 LRTP; however, a scan of MPOs in
Virginia and other national MPOs indicates usage of PE Only projects in LRTPs are not
uncommon. Currently it is TTAC’s policy to review PE projects on a case-by-case basis. For
the 2034 LRTP, the LRTP Subcommittee has suggested that guidance of up to five percent
of revenues be used for PE projects.
At its December 15, 2010 meeting, the HRTPO Board expressed its desire to have priorities
determined by March 2011. Mr. Pickard stated the Board would conduct its annual retreat
with prioritization as its topic. June 2011 is the deadline for the completion and approval
of the fiscally constrained list of projects by the Board.
Mr. Pickard concluded by asking CTAC members to provide comments regarding the
regional transportation priorities to him by January 27, 2011.
Chair Harrison explained the next CTAC meeting will convene on March 10th and the
HRTPO Board on March 17th, and stated the Committee would not be able to meet the
agenda deadline for the Board meeting. Mr. Farmer replied it would be difficult for CTAC to
discuss all the projects involved with prioritization process. He noted that the TAC, TTAC,
Attachment 19-A
and FTAC are focused on the prioritization process. He suggested CTAC examine individual
issues it strongly regards and utilize its voice in this manner.
After more discussion, CTAC decided to wait until after the February 17th HRTPO Board
retreat before it took action. Mr. Case suggested that if the Committee chose to voice its
opinion on the prioritization process, it could narrow its focus and comment on a particular
category within the process.
Mr. Bowie asked for clarification regarding the TAC’s role in the prioritization process. Mr.
Farmer replied the HRTPO Board Members will rely on advice from the TAC members if
they have difficulties.
Chair Harrison stated CTAC did not have the technical capability to criticize any of the
prioritization rankings. He suggested CTAC view portions of the HRTPO Retreat video,
discuss it, and then draft a resolution.
Mr. Olekszyk asked who has influence over the prioritization rankings. Mr. Farmer replied
that the figures could not be changed; the HRTPO Board had already approved the
rankings. He noted that a project’s score was a tool used to assist the Board members in
determining which projects should be funded; however, a project could have only the third
highest score, but could still be determined to be the top priority.
Chair Harrison asked Committee members to send their comments to Mr. Pickard by
January 27th, and at the March 10th CTAC meeting, the Committee would view all the
compiled comments and view the HRTPO retreat video.
2034 Long Range Transportation School Outreach Program
Ms. Miller stated the 2034 LRTP Town Hall Meeting at Thoroughgood Elementary School in
Virginia Beach was a success with over 275 people in attendance. She explained that in
addition to presenting the Draft Prioritization of Transportation projects, HRTPO staff gave
an overview of its programs and projects to the community. She noted that another Town
Hall Meeting was planned for Spring 2011 in the City of Norfolk, and currently HRTPO staff
was involved with outreach projects at Hampton and Old Dominion Universities.
Social Media
Ms. Miller stated staff is developing an HRTPO Facebook page and encouraged the
members to “friend” the HRTPO, leave comments, and recommend the page to their
friends.
Overview of MPO Citizen Committees and Their Function
Ms. Miller explained that after the discussion at the November CTAC meeting regarding the
role of CTAC members, HRTPO staff researched other MPO Citizen Committees in order to
better assist CTAC members find their voice as members. She noted that although the
HRTPO currently transmits a weekly blog regarding meeting updates, staff will be
Attachment 19-A
implementing a bi-monthly update for CTAC members only to help them stay better
informed.
Ms. Miller will be contacting individual CTAC members in the coming months to initiate
small community conversations in members’ localities and neighborhoods.
The
conversations will consist of ten to twelve citizens and the goal is to engage them in the
transportation process and receive their input on local issues. She commented that before
implementing the community conversations, HRTPO staff is holding two public meetings
regarding the 2034 Project Prioritization Plan on February 2nd and 23rd in Chesapeake
and Newport News respectively.
Chair Harrison explained that a CTAC member can be introduced at any group event
HRTPO staff is attending and the member can distribute their email address to receive
comments that can later be brought for discussion at CTAC meetings. Members can utilize
the HRTPO staff as a vehicle to communicate to other citizens through its scheduled
commitments throughout the region.
Ms. Watkins-White stated that while attending group events, she has taken the opportunity
to inform the group about CTAC and has invited them to come share their thoughts through
the public comment period.
Ms. Fox noted that she has made others aware of CTAC through her facebook page and has
linked documents for their viewing.
Mr. Farmer stated these methods of communication were excellent ways to inform the
public about the HRTPO. He reminded the members that they could engage the public
through already established mechanisms; however, they could not act as agents of the
HRTPO.
Ms. Miles asked how a CTAC member should treat an issue reported to them by another
citizen. Chair Harrison replied the CTAC member should call Mr. Farmer or Ms. Miller and
request the issue be placed on the next CTAC agenda.
Mr. Bowie commented that he sits on many professional boards and has encouraged
discussion regarding transportation issues. He asked if HRTPO staff would speak to these
groups if asked. Mr. Farmer replied affirmatively.
Mr. Lassiter stated he did not believe CTAC members represented the communities since
members do not have the right to act as agents of the CTAC or the HRTPO. Chair Harrison
replied that members can go to any public body and inform the citizens about CTAC and its
relationship to the HRTPO. Members can encourage citizens to come to both the CTAC and
HRTPO Board meetings and give public comment regarding any transportation issue that is
important to them. CTAC’s responsibility is to advise the HRTPO Board, and the Committee
members are charged with bringing thoughts to the table where the Committee will gather
and discuss those thoughts, and ultimately advise the HRTPO Board.
Attachment 19-A
There is an article regarding HRTPO’s involvement in the Thoroughgood Elementary
School Outreach Program/2034 LRTP.
Old/New Business
There was no old/new business.
Adjournment
With no further business to come before the Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee,
the meeting adjourned at 6:52 p.m.
Attachment 19-A
Hampton Roads Transportation Technical
Advisory Committee (TTAC) Meeting
February 2, 2011
The Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) Meeting was
called to order at 9:30 a.m. in the Regional Boardroom, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake,
Virginia, with the following in attendance:
TTAC Voting Members:
Mark Shea (CH)
Earl Sorey (CH)
Gary Walton (CH)
Anne Ducey-Ortiz (GL)
Lynn Allsbrook (HA)
Keith Cannady (HA)
Jane Hill (IW)
Michael Stallings (IW)
Steven Hicks (JC)
Carl Jackson (Alternate, NN)
Michael King (NN)
Tom Slaughter (NN)
Robert Brown (NO)
Jeff Raliski (NO)
David Scott (NO)
Richard Hartman (PO)
Mark Yehlen (PO)
Ellen Roberts (PQ)
Sherry Earley (SU)
Robert Lewis (SU)
Robert Gey (VB)
Heather Ham (Alternate, VB)
Phil Pullen (VB)
Tim Cross (YK)
Karen Waterman (HRT)
Kim Farrar (VDOT)
Eric Stringfield (VDOT)
Richard Drumwright (WATA)
TTAC Voting Members Absent:
Emily Gibson (GL)
Christopher Perez (GL)
Peter Stephenson (IW)
Ellen Cook (JC)
Luke Vinciguerra (JC)
Jackie Kassel (NN)
Susan Wilson (PO)
Debbie Vest (PQ)
Scott Mills (SU)
Mark Schnaufer (VB)
Daniel Clayton (WM)
Steve Martin (WM)
Reed Nester (WM)
J. Mark Carter (YK)
Al Maddalena (YK)
Kevin Abt (VPA)
TTAC Nonvoting Members:
Ivan Rucker (FHWA)
Wendy Vachet (Navy)
TTAC Nonvoting Members Absent:
Randy Brown (Army)
Tony Cho (FTA)
Lt. Mike DiPace (USCG)
Clifford Burnette (VDOA)
Summary TTAC Minutes – February 2, 2011 - Page 1
Attachment 19-B1
HRTPO Staff:
Jessica Banks
Sam Belfield
Rob Case
Kathlene Grauberger
Mike Kimbrel
Kendall Miller
Keith Nichols
Joe Paulus
Benito Pérez
Andy Pickard
Camelia Ravanbakht
Stephanie Shealey
Dale Stith
Richard Rudnicki, Beverly Walkup (IW); Ray Taylor (FHR); Rob Jacobs, Chris Vaigneur
(HRPDC Staff); Frank Azzalina (HRT, Inc.); Robert Heffley (Metro Marine); John Herzke
(Clark Nexsen); Karen McPherson (Kimley-Horn); Susan Mathai (RK&K); Tony Gibson,
Sonya Hallums-Ponton, Ray Hunt, Stephen Rowan, Robert Scott Jr., Christopher Voigt
(VDOT); Debbie Messina (Virginian Pilot); Henry Ryto (Resident, VB)
Chairman Drumwright noted there were no written public comments received.
Approval of Agenda
Chairman Drumwright asked for additions or deletions to the TTAC Agenda. Hearing none,
Mr. Sorey Moved to approve the agenda as written; seconded by Mr. Walton. The Motion
Carried.
Summary Minutes
Chairman Drumwright indicated the TTAC Summary Minutes of January 5, 2011 were
included in the February TTAC Agenda. He asked for any corrections or amendments to
the minutes. Hearing none, Mr. Allsbrook Moved to approve the minutes as written;
seconded by Mr. Lewis. The Motion Carried.
FY 2012 Unified Planning Work Program: Draft 1
Mr. Kimbrel stated HRTPO staff had completed Draft 1 of the FY 2012 Unified Planning
Work Program and asked TTAC members to review and submit comments to him by COB
February 16, 2011. Draft 1 and future drafts will be made available for public review.
Attachment 19-B1
Review of Unobligated CMAQ/RSTP Funds: Status Report
Mr. Kimbrel reported that TTAC had requested the Transportation Technical
Subcommittee (TTS) meet to discuss strategies for the reallocation of funds found to be
available for transfer as a result of the reconciliation process. The TTS met on January 12,
2011 and recommended the following strategies:
•
Reallocation of available CMAQ/RSTP funds should begin as soon as the availability
of the funds has been confirmed through the reconciliation process.
•
With regard to the reallocation of funds determined to be available for transfer:
¾
The locality/transit agency to which funds determined to be available for
transfer were originally allocated shall have the right of first refusal to
transfer the funds to another previously approved CMAQ or RSTP project
within that locality/administered by that transit agency.
¾
Any funds available afterwards shall go to the Balance Entry to be
reallocated to other projects that were evaluated and ranked during the
most recent CMAQ/RSTP Project Selection Process (Ranked project lists
from the TTS Meeting of December 11, 2009).
In addition to recommending the strategies listed above, the TTS approved an HRTPO staff
proposal to begin holding quarterly TTS meetings to improve the monitoring of the status
of CMAQ and RSTP projects.
Mr. Hartman Moved to approve the recommendations set forth by the TTS; seconded by
Mr. King. The Motion Carried.
Ms. Farrar stated VDOT had completed the first round of locality meetings except for
Gloucester County which had to be rescheduled. VDOT is preparing for its update for the
March TTAC meeting regarding what monies can be transferred from Categories A and C.
Ms. Ravanbakht asked if VDOT had begun work on Categories B and D of the reconciliation
process. Ms. Farrar replied VDOT wanted to complete its work with Categories A and C
before moving on to the other two categories. She noted that at the March TTAC meeting,
VDOT would provide a schedule for the locality meetings concerning Categories B and D.
Mr. Allsbrook asked if VDOT would inform the localities the final figures before the March
TTAC meeting. Ms. Farrar replied affirmatively.
Allocating CMAQ Funds Through FY 2017
Mr. Kimbrel explained HRTPO staff attended a meeting on statewide transportation
planning and programming issues on January 21, 2011 where VDOT requested that MPOs
provide information on their CMAQ allocations through FY 2017 by March 21, 2011.
Attachment 19-B1
At the meeting, VDOT staff stated there was concern by the Commonwealth Transportation
Board (CTB) regarding timely obligation and expenditure of CMAQ funds. CMAQ
allocations from FY 2012 forward must be reviewed and funds must be reallocated with
the goals of:
•
Fully funding project phases
•
Allocating funds to project phases based on estimated schedules on when each
phase will begin
In addition, the CTB has indicated a preference for funding fewer projects, but projects that
have greater impacts. Mr. Kimbrel stated that in the near future, the TTAC will need to
revisit the rules, criteria, and selection process to adjust to the new funding environment.
Mr. Kimbrel indicated that HRTPO staff recommends convening the TTS on February 10,
2011 to accomplish the necessary work on CMAQ and RSTP allocations.
Ms. Ravanbakht stated the HRTPO must be more proactive with regard to CMAQ projects;
otherwise, the VDOT Central Office has indicated it will step in and take action. She also
stated the CMAQ and RSTP allocation funding process should be revisited each year rather
than every two to three years.
Mr. Slaughter asked if TTAC will have to meet every year to allocate the future years’
money. Mr. Kimbrel replied affirmatively and stated an estimate from the previous year
would be used as a starting point for the next year. TTS will meet on a quarterly basis to
assist the effort.
Ms. Ravanbakht noted that each district will receive assistance from its CTB members and
Mr. Layne will be coordinating this process with the HRTPO.
FY 2012 - 2017 TIP/STIP Update
Mr. Kimbrel reported that the next full update of the Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) will begin in
February 2011. VDOT will provide a draft project list for the TIP and it must be reviewed
by all localities and transit agencies for accuracy. He noted that HRTPO staff should receive
the list shortly after February 9th and it will be transmitted electronically for review. The
draft project list must be approved at the March TTAC meeting.
Long-Range Transportation Plan: LRTP Amendment Procedures
Ms. Stith reported that requests for amendments to the Long-Range Transportation Plan
(LRTP) are currently received via e-mail or letter; however, a more formal process would
assist in the management of information needed for documenting LRTP amendments and
provide consistency.
Attachment 19-B1
HRTPO staff has proposed a new amendment process incorporating the following two
components:
•
An LRTP Amendment Form which specifies desired information for proposed
project
¾ Consistent information
¾ Aid in Review
¾ Minimize Follow-up
•
An LRTP Amendment “Expected Schedule”
¾ More efficient use of resources (air quality conformity requires six months)
Ms. Stith explained the expected schedule would contain “open” periods for amendments to
the LRTP either twice a year or quarterly. After discussion, Mr. Pullen Moved to approve
the LRTP Amendment Form and the quarterly open period for amendments; seconded by
Mr. King. The Motion Carried.
Fast Ferry Development Project
Mr. Drumwright introduced Mr. Bob Heffley of MetroMarine Holdings, Inc. to provide an
update regarding the Fast Ferry Development Project. Mr. Heffley stated Navy leadership
in Hampton Roads is concerned with traffic congestion problems that impact operational
readiness and quality of life. Hampton Roads’ elected officials have collaborated with the
Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) and the Virginia Department
of Transportation (VDOT) to explore the deployment of a cross harbor fast ferry system
that could serve Navy ridership. MetroMarine’s mission is to develop an executable plan
for a fast ferry system to serve the customers accessing Naval Station Norfolk and vicinities.
Mr. Heffley explained that a local public entity must apply for a project development grant
from DRPT by February 9, 2011. Matching funds of 50 or 20 percent would be identified by
mid-May and coordination for action in the General Assembly and local jurisdictions is
ongoing.
The Fast Ferry service would consist of two to three catamarans capable of transporting
approximately 95 passengers. The catamaran would travel up to 30 knots and one crossing
would be approximately 15 to 25 minutes. Mr. Heffley noted that the ferry would dock just
outside the naval base in order to also accommodate non-military passengers.
Mr. King asked for figures regarding ridership estimates. Ms. Vachet replied it is difficult to
estimate due to demographic challenges; however, the Navy believes the ridership will be
good once the project commences.
Ms. Ravanbakht asked if the Navy could apply for the project development grant. Ms.
Vachet stated the Navy does not have a federal budget nor could it apply for the grant.
Attachment 19-B1
Mr. King stated all the localities are supportive of transportation alternatives, but asked if
MetroMarine had considered the need for parking and feeder buses. Mr. Heffley replied
that the dockside infrastructure is built into the plan. He concluded by stating the plan is in
danger of running out of both time and funding and it is important to keep it moving
forward.
Regional Land Use Map
Mr. Pérez stated the HRTPO Board approved the development of a regional land use map as
part of the FY 2010 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) in June 2009. He indicated
the Regional Land Use Map has various applications for the region, including:
•
Evaluating regional land use compatibility for proposed transportation projects
•
Coordination between localities in preparations of local comprehensive plans
•
Multimodal Passenger Transportation Planning
Mr. Pérez explained the draft land use designations are a compilation of local land use and
zoning designations and presented a slide illustrating the different designations. He noted
that the LRTP Subcommittee reviewed the designations in January 2011 and comments
received will be incorporated into the map.
Mr. Pérez stated that both the TTAC and the Joint Environmental Committee are being
asked to review the regional land use designations and he also asked TTAC members to
share the information with their planning and zoning departments for input as well. He
asked that comments be provided to him by February 16, 2011. Upon approval of the
regional land use designations, tentatively set for March 2011, locality and HRTPO staff will
develop and review the application of the designations. The final map is scheduled to be
approved in May 2011.
Mr. Jackson asked if the map focused on existing or future land use. Mr. Pérez replied the
map would encompass both existing and future land use.
Mr. Shea asked if the map would include a range or years in the title such as the TIP. Mr.
Pérez stated HRTPO staff will research that question.
Transportation Project Prioritization: Recommendations to the HRTPO Board
Mr. Pickard stated efforts to assist the HRTPO in determining transportation project
priorities continue, following approval of the prioritization scores report. He noted the
LRTP Subcommittee met on January 19th and February 1st to develop recommendations
for TTAC regarding project priorities.
A handout summarizing the recommendations was distributed and Mr. Pickard reviewed
the list with the Committee.
Attachment 19-B1
Mr. Hicks stated it was his understanding that VDOT was going to complete an
environmental assessment on the I-64 Corridor Study from Jefferson Avenue to I-295 and
hopefully have it built utilizing a Public-Private Partnership (P3). He asked how this would
mesh with the LRTP. Mr. Pickard replied that there are segments of I-64 within the
confines of the revenue streams; that of I-64 between Jefferson Avenue and Ft. Eustis
Boulevard. Mr. Pickard indicated that Mr. Hicks’s statement was significant in that HRTPO
staff had acknowledged other studies and agreed that the I-64 Corridor Study should be
noted as well. Ms. Ravanbakht stated the projects were both debated in the LRTP
subcommittee and ranked utilizing the prioritization tool and the I-64 segment listed in the
recommendations had the highest utility score.
Mr. Hicks asked if the I-64 project from Fort Eustis Boulevard to Route 199 project could be
defined as the Route 199 Lightfoot exit. It was explained that the referenced Route 199 exit
is Exit 242 near Water Country USA. Mr. Hicks stated the exit should be clearly identified in
the LRTP recommendations.
Mr. Hicks inquired if any information had been received by the FHWA regarding the
treatment of P3s in the LRTP. Ms. Ravanbakht explained that at the January 2011 HRTPO
Board meeting, there was an LRTP presentation that included FHWA guidance regarding
P3s.
Ms. Waterman clarified the language in the recommended Virginia Beach Transit Extension
Study by stating the expected completion of the study is end of the 2011 calendar year.
Mr. Sorey Moved to approve the recommended draft list of 2034 LRTP Transportation
prioritization projects; seconded by Mr. Lewis. The Motion Carried.
Chair Drumwright noted the various items in the For Your Information section of the
agenda packet. Ms. Miller highlighted item 14-C regarding the two public meetings to be
held in Chesapeake and Newport News regarding the LRTP. She stated the public comment
period for project prioritization had closed and approximately fifty comments were
received.
Ms. Ravanbakht, on behalf of the HRTPO staff, expressed her appreciation to Mr. Pickard
who is resigning his position at the HRTPO to accept a position with the FHWA in Michigan.
Chair Drumwright stated that Mr. Pickard’s support during the LRTP process contributed
to the successful efforts of both the TTAC and the LRTP Subcommittee.
Attachment 19-B1
Old/New Business
Ms. Farrar announced the retirement of Mr. Bob Scott after 38 years with VDOT.
Mr. Brown introduced Mr. David Scott, Norfolk’s newest representative to TTAC.
Adjournment
With no further business to come before the Hampton Roads Transportation Technical
Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at 10:54 a.m.
Attachment 19-B1
Hampton Roads Transportation Technical
Advisory Committee (TTAC) Meeting
March 2, 2011
The Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) Meeting was
called to order at 9:34 a.m. in the Regional Boardroom, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake,
Virginia, with the following in attendance:
TTAC Voting Members in Attendance:
Mark Shea (CH)
Earl Sorey (CH)
Gary Walton (CH)
Anne Ducey-Ortiz (GL)
Lynn Allsbrook (HA)
Keith Cannady (HA)
John Yorks (HA)
Jane Hill (IW)
Michael Stallings (IW)
Steven Hicks (JC)
Jackie Kassel (NN)
Michael King (NN)
Tom Slaughter (NN)
Robert Brown (NO)
Jeff Raliski (NO)
David Scott (NO)
Richard Hartman (PO)
Susan Wilson (PO)
Mark Yehlen (PO)
Ellen Roberts (PQ)
Sherry Earley (SU)
Robert Lewis (SU)
Scott Mills (SU)
Robert Gey (VB)
Phil Pullen (VB)
Mark Schnaufer (VB)
Reed Nester (WM)
Tim Cross (YK)
Karen Waterman (HRT)
Kim Farrar (VDOT)
Tony Gibson (Alternate, VDOT)
Kevin Abt (VPA)
Richard Drumwright (WATA)
TTAC Nonvoting Members in Attendance:
Wendy Vachet (Navy)
TTAC Voting Members Absent:
Emily Gibson (GL)
Christopher Perez (GL)
Peter Stephenson (IW)
Ellen Cook (JC)
Luke Vinciguerra (JC)
Debbie Vest (PQ)
Daniel Clayton (WM)
Steve Martin (WM)
J. Mark Carter (YK)
Al Maddalena (YK)
Eric Stringfield (VDOT)
TTAC Nonvoting Members Absent:
Randy Brown (Army)
Ivan Rucker (FHWA)
Tony Cho (FTA)
Lt. Mike DiPace (USCG)
Clifford Burnette (VDOA)
Summary TTAC Minutes – March 2, 2011 - Page 1
Attachment 19-B2
HRTPO Staff:
Jessica Banks
Sam Belfield
Rob Case
Kathlene Grauberger
Mike Kimbrel
Keith Nichols
Joe Paulus
Benito Pérez
Camelia Ravanbakht
Stephanie Shealey
Dale Stith
Carl Jackson (NN); Franklin Hickman (VB); Meredith Judy (Rhodeside & Harwell, Inc.); Amy
Inman (DRPT); Rick Case, Rob Jacobs, Chris Vaigneur (HRPDC Staff); Jim Harrington (URS);
Ron Hodges (HRT); Steve Hetrick (Naztec ITS); John Herzke (Clark Nexsen); Karen
McPherson (Kimley-Horn); Rich Clifton (RK&K); Brooke Grow, Sonya Hallums-Ponton,
Lauren Hansen, Ray Hunt, Adam Jack, Jim Ponticello, Bryant Porter, Stephen Rowan, Craig
Van Dussen, Christopher Voigt (VDOT); Debbie Messina (Virginian Pilot); Henry Ryto
(Resident, VB)
Chairman Drumwright noted there were no written public comments received.
Approval of Agenda
Chairman Drumwright asked for additions or deletions to the TTAC Agenda. Mr. Lewis
Moved to approve the agenda with the addition of an agenda item following the approval of
the minutes to reinstate the TTAC Nominating Committee due to the upcoming retirement
of Chairman Drumwright; seconded by Mr. Schnaufer. The Motion Carried.
Summary Minutes
Chairman Drumwright indicated the TTAC Summary Minutes of February 2, 2011 were
included in the March TTAC Agenda. He asked for any corrections or amendments to the
minutes. Hearing none, Mr. Allsbrook Moved to approve the minutes as written; seconded
by Mr. Cross. The Motion Carried.
TTAC Nominating Committee
Mr. Lewis Moved to reinstate the TTAC Nominating Committee in order to convene before
the April TTAC meeting to discuss recommendations for officers for the remainder of the
year (October 2011) due to Chairman Drumwright’s upcoming May 2011 retirement;
seconded by Mr. Allsbrook. The Motion Carried.
Attachment 19-B2
FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment: VDOT
Mr. Gibson stated VDOT is seeking to amend the TIP to add Bridge Replacement: Bridge
Street Project (UPC# 93081) over Salters Creek in Hampton with an obligation of $40,000
BR funds (plus $10,000 match) to FFY11 PE Phase. Mr. Gibson Moved to amend the TIP to
include the Bridge Street Project in Hampton; seconded by Mr. Allsbrook. The Motion
Carried.
FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Revision: Virginia Beach
Mr. Gey stated the City of Virginia Beach is seeking a reallocation of $1,135,000 of
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program funds from the
Citywide Signal System Upgrade Phase II (UPC# 77277) project to the Virginia Beach
Dynamic Message Sign and Systems Detectors (UPC# 95983) project. Mr. Gey Moved to
amend the TIP to include the reallocation of CMAQ funds regarding the above stated
projects; seconded by Mr. Slaughter. The Motion Carried.
FY 2010 Annual Listing of Obligated Projects
Mr. Kimbrel explained the Annual Listing of Obligated Projects includes all projects and
strategies recorded in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for which Federal
funds were obligated during the immediately preceding federal fiscal year. The listing is
made available to the public in an effort to enhance the public’s ability to participate in the
current year’s transportation planning process. It is developed cooperatively by the state,
public transportation operators, and the MPO.
Mr. Kimbrel stated the VDOT portion of the annual listing was received by the HRTPO on
December 30, 2010, and although staff was still reviewing the information submitted by
VDOT, that information was made available to the public on December 30, 2010 in order to
meet the federal deadline of no later than 90 calendar days following the end of the federal
program year. HRTPO staff has since completed its review of the annual listing and
forwarded comments to VDOT on February 3, 2011, along with a request for a revised
listing. Mr. Kimbrel commented that HRTPO staff has also requested the Annual Listings
for other MPOs in Virginia. Production of a more informational report will begin when the
two data items are received.
Unobligated CMAQ/RSTP Funds: VDOT
Ms. Farrar, VDOT District Program and Investment Management Director, reported that
VDOT had completed it reconciliation of projects in Categories A and C that was requested
by TTAC. She stated a total of $7,149,679 funds were found in Categories A and C with
$4,256,006 resulting from Category A and $2,893,673 from Category C.
Attachment 19-B2
She noted that VDOT will transmit individual tables to each locality and will work with
HRTPO staff to transfer the amounts requested by the jurisdictions. She reminded TTAC
members to be mindful with regards to the transfers to include the federal matching funds.
Mr. Sorey Moved to endorse the recommended actions which included:
A. VDOT should provide the following information to each locality by March 7, 2011:
a. The amounts of CMAQ and/or RSTP funds per project (identified by UPC#)
and per fiscal year (of original allocation) that have been confirmed to be
available for transfer to other projects.
b. Any recommendations on projects within the locality to which funds should
be transferred.
B. Localities should prepare TIP Amendment requests to be delivered to HRTPO staff
by March 18, 2011 so that the amendments can be processed in April 2011. The TIP
Amendment requests should include the following information:
a. The amounts of CMAQ and/or RSTP funds to be transferred from project(s)
(identified by UPC#) and per fiscal year (of original allocation) to project(s)
(identified by UPC#).
b. Any amounts of CMAQ and/or RSTP funds to be transferred to the Regional
Balance Entries.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Hicks. The Motion Carried.
Allocating CMAQ Funds Through FY 2017
Mr. Kimbrel stated that HRTPO staff attended a meeting on statewide transportation
planning and programming issues on January 21, 2011 where VDOT requested that MPOs
provide information on their CMAQ allocations through FY 2017 by March 21, 2011.
The Transportation Technical Subcommittee (TTS) convened on February 10, 2011 and
agreed to the following ground rules for allocating the available CMAQ and RSTP funds to
projects:
•
First, allocate funds to current CMAQ and RSTP projects in an attempt to fully fund
those projects.
•
Second, select projects and allocate funding based on the ranked project tables from
the most recent CMAQ/RSTP Project Selection Process from December 2009.
Mr. Kimbrel stated the CMAQ and RSTP projects and allocations recommended by the TTS
can be found in tables attached to the March TTAC agenda packet. Once TTAC approves the
allocations and the associated TIP amendment to incorporate them into the current TIP, it
will go before the HRTPO Board at its March 17, 2011 meeting.
Attachment 19-B2
Mr. Kimbrel noted that TTS will now meet quarterly (April, July, October, January) to track
the progress of CMAQ and RSTP projects.
Chairman Drumwright expressed his appreciation to TTS members for their hard work and
thanked Ms. Stephanie Shealey of the HRTPO Staff for her contribution at the TTS meeting.
Mr. King Moved to approve the CMAQ/RSTP projects and allocations as recommended by
the TTS; seconded by Mr. Pullen. The Motion Carried.
Mr. King Moved to incorporate the recommended CMAQ/RSTP projects into the current
TIP; seconded by Mr. Lewis. The Motion Carried.
FY 2012 – 2015 Transportation Improvement Program: Draft Project List
Mr. Kimbrel reported that at the February TTAC meeting, localities and member agencies
were advised they would receive the draft project list for the next full update of the
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) during the second week in February. HRTPO staff completed
an initial review of the draft project list and forwarded its comments to VDOT on February
17, 2011. Staff also forwarded all comments received by the localities and member
agencies.
Ms. Early asked if the Route 58 – PE Only Widening, in which the TIP amendment was
approved in December, was in the draft project list. Mr. Kimbrel replied it will be included.
Mr. Hicks Moved to approve the FY 2012 – 2015 TIP Draft Project List and appendix
materials; seconded by Mr. Shea. The Motion Carried.
Hampton Roads Regional Transit Vision Plan: Final Report
Ms. Inman, Project and Planning Manager for DRPT, explained the Transit Vision Plan goals
and stated that part one of the planning process took place in 2008 – 2009 with the
compilation of local and regional transit studies and initial corridor analyses. Part two of
the planning process from 2009 – 2010 was more extensive in nature and included locality
site visits, coordination with local planners, land use and market analysis, capital cost
estimates, ridership forecast, and public outreach.
She indicated that land use patterns will dictate how transit connections within the area
will be determined. Ideal transit-orientated development would include a mix of
commercial and residential aspects with moderate to high density, a safe and comfortable
pedestrian environment, with efficient transportation options.
Attachment 19-B2
Ms. Inman introduced Ms. Meredith Judy of Rhodeside and Harwell, to brief TTAC on the
Vision Plan recommendations. Ms. Judy stated the five modes of rapid transit
recommended in the plan are:
•
•
•
•
•
Light Rail Transit (LRT)
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) operating in its own designated right-of-way
High-Speed Ferry
Modern Streetcar
Commuter Rail
These modes were recommended based on corridor evaluations utilizing land use
planning, capital costs, ridership ranges, regional economic impact assessment, and their
contribution to the transit network and multi-modal connectivity.
Ms. Judy presented several map slides that illustrated the vision plan recommendations
and modes of transit in Hampton Roads for the years 2025, 2035, and beyond. Future reevaluation of the draft recommendations would be to:
•
•
•
•
Develop a multi-jurisdictional vision for transit, TOD, and funding/implementation
mechanisms
Revise local zoning codes to allow and encourage TOD growth patterns
Offer financial incentives to promote TOD
Offer non-financial incentives to promote TOD
Express and Enhanced Bus Service would be included as part of the vision plan in order to
provide service to lower population densities or limited TOD potential, provide links
between LRT, BRT, streetcar, and commuter rail corridors, and interim transit connections
prior to fixed-guideway construction.
Ms. Judy concluded, stating more project materials are available for review online at
www.drpt.virginia.gov.
Ms. Vachet expressed her appreciation to DRPT for undertaking the study because from the
Navy’s perspective, this type of analysis is important.
Mr. Shea Moved to approve the Hampton Roads Regional Transit Vision Plan: Final Report;
seconded by Mr. Nester. The Motion Carried.
Hampton Roads 2030 LRTP and FY 2009-2012 TIP Air Quality Conformity: Draft
Report
Mr. Chris Voigt, VDOT Air Quality Senior Engineer, explained that in November 2010, the
HRTPO Board acted to amend the Hampton Roads 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan
(2030 LRTP). The federally-required air quality conformity analysis has been completed in
draft form for both the amended 2030 LRTP and the associated FY 2009-2012
Attachment 19-B2
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), for which various amendments were
processed at the same time. The draft conformity analysis documents that all applicable
regulatory requirements, including the emission budget tests, are satisfied by the LRTP and
TIP as amended.
Mr. Voigt presented a slide that illustrated the emission budget tests for Hampton Roads.
He noted that after TTAC approval of the draft conformity analysis and finding, any public
comments received will be reviewed and the report will then go before the HRTPO Board
for approval.
Mr. Gibson Moved to recommend approval of the draft air quality conformity analysis and
finding of conformity for the amended 2030 LRTP and amended FY 2009-2012 TIP;
seconded by Mr. Sorey. The Motion Carried.
Transportation Project Prioritization: Draft Recommended List of Projects
Ms. Ravanbakht reported that during the February 2011 HRTPO Board Retreat, staff
presented a list of Recommended Transportation Projects, which expanded on the TTAC
recommendation with the incorporation of the Governor’s Transportation Funding
Proposal. Key comments from Board Members included:
•
•
Maintain vision to increase lane-miles across the harbor in the future
Ensure system-wide balance as it relates to tolling
Ms. Ravanbakht explained that the potential passage of the Governor’s Transportation
Funding proposal could fund sixty-six projects in Hampton Roads. In addition, there is $1.5
billion identified for major PPTA projects, including two projects, the Midtown
Tunnel/MLK Extension and the Route 460 Corridor.
Ms. Ravanbakht presented a slide that illustrated both committed projects with allocated
funding and recommended studies and projects with identified funding, including dollar
amounts. She then outlined additional unfunded projects for future consideration with
funding estimates.
The six recommended project studies which are scheduled for approval by the HRTPO
Board at its March 17, 2011 meeting are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Route 460
I-64 Peninsula Corridor
Patriots Crossing
Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel
Virginia Beach Transit Extension
Attachment 19-B2
The LRTP Subcommittee convened on February 24, 2011 to refine recommendations for
project priorities and currently, the format of the draft list has been modified slightly to
include a column for the ranking and the prioritization score.
Mr. Slaughter stated the City of Newport News was waiting for a revised urban
construction figure in order to determine urban projects to include in the list. Ms.
Ravanbakht replied the figures were just received and indicated staff will make the
numbers available after the meeting.
Mr. Slaughter commented that the City of Newport News is lacking $10 million to
incorporate a project into the LRTP and asked if the partially funded portion of the project
could be labeled as Phase One. Ms. Ravanbakht replied staff will have to check with the
FHWA.
Mr. Cross asked that the recommended list of projects and studies slide be updated to
include York County as one of the localities for the I-64 Fort Eustis Boulevard to Route 199
(Exit 242) project. Ms. Ravanbakht stated the table would be corrected.
Chairman Drumwright asked that the WATA Administrative Operations Center project on
slide nine be amended to reflect that the Center is located in James City County and not the
City of Williamsburg. Ms. Ravanbakht indicated staff would correct the table.
Mr. Pérez presented a slide which illustrated a visualization tool created by HRTPO staff to
be utilized by the public to compliment the LRTP.
Mr. Schnaufer stated the Southeastern Parkway project was inadvertently omitted from the
list of studies and Moved to include it in the recommended list of projects and studies, and
to also approve the project priorities list; seconded by Mr. Cross. The Motion Carried.
Regional Land Use Map
Mr. Pérez stated the HRTPO Board approved the development of a regional land use map as
part of the FY 2010 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) in June 2009. He indicated
the Regional Land Use Map has various applications for the region, including:
•
Evaluating regional land use compatibility for proposed transportation projects
•
Coordination between localities in preparations of local comprehensive plans
•
Multimodal Passenger Transportation Planning
Mr. Pérez explained the draft land use designations are a compilation of local land use and
zoning designations and presented a slide illustrating the different designations. He noted
that the LRTP Subcommittee reviewed the designations in January 2011 and comments
received will be incorporated into the map.
Attachment 19-B2
Mr. Pérez presented a color-coded slide illustrating the draft land use classification system
and stated the preliminary existing and future map will be available for review in May
2011.
Ms. Vachet stated the Military is such an important aspect of Hampton Roads that she
believed it should be color-coded as a separate identity. Several TTAC members agreed
and it was decided to add another color to the map to designate the Military.
Ms. Waterman questioned the combining of Commercial/Residential mixed use with that of
Commercial/Industrial mixed use on the map. Mr. Pérez stated staff will explore options
regarding that category.
Mr. King stated the City of Newport News requested the Regional Land Use Map and
thanked Mr. Pérez and HRPTO staff for their efforts.
Mr. King Moved to approve the Regional Land Use Designations, with the addition of a
separate designation color for the Military; seconded by Mr. Hartman. The Motion Carried.
Chairman Drumwright stated there was one item in the Correspondence of Interest section
of the agenda packet.
Chairman Drumwright highlighted the various items in the For Your Information section of
the agenda packet.
Old/New Business
There was no Old/New Business.
Adjournment
With no further business to come before the Hampton Roads Transportation Technical
Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at 11:24 a.m.
Attachment 19-B2
FREIGHT TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
OF THE HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION
JANUARY 12, 2011 MEETING
Co-Chair Stan Clark called the HRTPO Freight Technical Advisory Committee to order at
10:00 a.m. in the Virginia Port Authority (VPA) Board Room with the following in
attendance:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bill Bell, Co-Chair (Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding)
Chris Luebbers (Norfolk Southern Corp.)
Homer Crane (K Line America, Inc.)
Keith Helton (Givens Logistics)
Art Moye (Virginia Maritime Association)
Ron Drogan (The CrossGlobe Group)
Stan Clark, Co-Chair (Isle of Wight Board of Supervisors)
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Curtis Hall (Target Import Warehouse)
STAFF:
Camelia Ravanbakht (HRTPO staff)
Rob Case (HRTPO staff)
Andy Hecker (Moffatt & Nichol)
Allison Mall (Moffatt & Nichol)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mecit Cetin (ODU)
Mike Robinson (ODU/VMASC)
David Bachhuber (AECOM)
Asad Khattak (ODU)
Jun Duanmu (ODU/VMASC)
Jeff Raliski (City of Norfolk Planning Department)
HRTPO Freight Technical Advisory Committee (FTAC)
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
January 12, 2011
Page 1
Attachment 19-C1
1. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
All the meeting attendees introduced themselves and Co-Chair Stan Clark opened
the public comment period. Hearing no requests for public comment, he declared
the public comment period closed.
2. OLD BUSINESS
a. Adoption of Last Meeting’s Minutes
Co-Chair Mr. Bill Bell noted the minutes of December 8, 2010 and asked for any
revisions. There being none, Mr. Bell moved the minutes be approved as
submitted. Mr. Butch Crane seconded the motion and the minutes were
unanimously approved.
b. Update on Business Outreach Presentation
Mr. Andy Hecker updated the Committee on the business outreach movie
presentation that staff is in the process of developing. At the last meeting, staff
presented a storyboard of the movie, which was well-received. Staff has met
with vendors and organizations and is getting final pricing; once terms and
contracts are agreed upon, the Committee may be able to review a product in
about 45 days. Part of the plan is to film the Committee for the movie’s
concluding comments. At the March FTAC meeting, staff will probably have a
draft movie to show, and then will film the Committee members at a later date.
The Committee and the HRTPO Board will have the opportunity to review the
script and will be kept up-to-date with the production schedule.
Mr. Bell mentioned that it sometimes takes a while to get on groups’ schedules
(such as Chambers of Commerce, etc.), so staff may want to start scheduling
early. Ms. Camelia Ravanbakht then said that if the movie is ready in March, it
would be a good idea to get it on the HRTPO Board’s March agenda as a priority
for this upcoming year. Staff will coordinate with the HRTPO’s public outreach
staff on the project.
Mr. Stan Clark then said that he likes the presentation and the idea for the movie.
In his experience, elected officials take freight for granted. This movie will
educate lawmakers and others on the value of freight.
January 12, 2011
Page 2
Attachment 19-C1
3. NEW BUSINESS
a. Discussion of Results from Hampton Roads Regional Transportation
Prioritization Report: Project Evaluation and Scoring
Mr. Rob Case referred the Committee to the final scoring report that was passed
out, as well as the Appendix, which shows the input data that was used. The final
scores were approved by the HRTPO Board at their December 15, 2010 meeting.
Ms. Ravanbakht then went over the prioritization presentation, Prioritization of
Transportation Projects: Review of Core Information, which Andy Pickard had
presented to the Board. The presentation gives a review of the vision and goals
of the prioritization tool, as well as the scores by category. Ms. Camelia
Ravanbakht pointed out that the charts in the presentation now include the cost
of each project.
Camelia then talked about the Board’s February meeting, which is a two-hour
long “retreat” that will be held on February 17th from 11:30 am – 2:00 pm. She
pointed out that when the prioritization scores are presented to the Board at the
retreat, the high speed rail project will be included, although it wasn’t evaluated
by the tool because it does not compete with any other project.
b. Discussion of potential funding sources and fiscal constraints
The focus of the retreat will be on fiscally-constraining the list of projects. The
latest revenue forecast from VDOT has Hampton Roads receiving $1.4 billion
from “traditional funding sources” from FY12 until 2034 for major regional
transportation projects. This figure does not include the $12.2 billion that is
available for maintenance and smaller-scale projects. Additional funds may come
from other sources, e.g. localities, transit agencies, and tolls.
On January 19, the LRTP subcommittee will meet and discuss how the $1.4
billion will be allocated. At this time, the subcommittee plans to figure out the
process, not actually how each dollar is going to be allocated. The LRTP
subcommittee will then provide the Board with guidance for their retreat
meeting. The Board will need guidance from the Secretary of Transportation and
the Commissioner of VDOT about active PPTA projects such as Route 460, the
HRBT widening, and Patriot’s Crossing.
Camelia said that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has expressed
support for including private revenue when constraining long-range plans. The
January 12, 2011
Page 3
Attachment 19-C1
FHWA sent a letter to the HRTPO on November 2, 2010 indicating the
reasonableness of doing so for the 460 project because of:
•
•
•
•
Clear expressions of support by the Governor and/or other appropriate
local and regional decision makers.
An existing strategy for securing necessary approvals.
State or local jurisdiction has had past success in implementing PPTA’s.
Interest in the project from the investment community.
The FHWA has, however, indicated some concerns about including Preliminary
Engineering (PE) projects in the Long Range Plan. The LRTP Subcommittee has
suggested using 5% of revenues for PE projects. Seven such projects are
currently included in the 2030 LRTP, at a cost of approximately $600 million.
The Board expressed a desire at the December meeting to have priorities done
by March of this year. At the January 20 meeting, HRTPO staff will update the
Board on feedback from the CTAC, TTAC, and FTAC advisory committees.
The deadline for the HRTPO Board to complete the prioritized list of projects is
June 2011. Then it will be sent to VDOT for air quality conformity analysis for six
months. The 2034 LRTP document will be ready by December 2011.
Mr. Bell discussed some General Assembly members he recently saw that
indicate doubling funding for Hampton Roads, and Ms. Ravanbakht said that she
would discuss it with the LRTP subcommittee. She then said that the total cost
for all candidate projects evaluated by the prioritization tool is $30 billion.
In order for a project to be included in the 2034 LRTP, it has to have funding
streams. In regards to Governor McDonnell’s recent proposals, Mr. Case said that
where funding streams are based on debt, the money has to be paid back over
the next 23 years, thereby not providing new money for the LRTP. Ms.
Ravanbakht also pointed out that “tolls are part of the equation,” as stated by the
Governor and Secretary of Transportation.
Mr. Art Moye then asked staff to re-explain the project viability component of the
tool in regards to environmental permitting status. Ms. Ravanbakht explained
that the HRBT project does not have any permits in place, but VDOT is procuring
an EIS. Also, the FHWA has recommended that we go back to the Third Crossing
January 12, 2011
Page 4
Attachment 19-C1
EIS document and reevaluate it for the Patriot’s Crossing.
component also includes funding status.
The viability
Mr. Case said if the Patriot’s Crossing project all of a sudden gets a PPTA or a
project gets a Record of Decision (ROD), the Board will use the prioritization tool
but will also take current project status and updates into consideration. He
emphasized to the Committee that the tool is for guidance only.
c. Revise statement for FTAC feedback to HRTPO Board
The HRTPO Board meeting has been changed from the third Wednesday of every
month to the third Thursday, in order to accommodate Commonwealth
Transportation Board (CTB) members. Mr. Art Moye pointed out that The
Virginia Maritime Association (VMA) has also had to change their board
meetings from Thursday, where they have been for 90 years, because CTB and
HRTPO participation and input is so important.
FTAC would like to include a statement in the packet for the HRTPO retreat
meeting on February 17th. Since it is too late to submit something for the January
20th meeting, Mr. Bell will instead make a verbal statement (based on FTAC’s
draft resolution) to the Board at that meeting by requesting, at the beginning of
the meeting, to change the agenda. Or he may speak for three minutes during
“citizen comments,” since he is a non-voting member of the Board.
Mr. Bell’s statement will be that FTAC wants to reiterate the need to focus on
projects as a “system.” He will make a brief statement at the January meeting and
also say that FTAC will have provide a document with further comments for the
February retreat.
d. Discussion of Tolling, Scenarios and Freight Impacts
Mr. Hecker started off the discussion by pointing to the Patriot’s Crossing article
from The Virginian-Pilot. The article says that a bill for the upcoming General
Assembly session calls for the state to accept private proposals to build the
project.
FTAC staff then offered to do an analysis about the way tolling is coming on
board in Hampton Roads. Everyone is in favor of generating funding available for
projects, and tolls will be part of equation for the Midtown Tunnel, 460, the
Downtown Tunnel, the HRBT, and the Patriot’s Crossing. Hampton Roads does
not have any mechanism to have one tolling authority.
January 12, 2011
Page 5
Attachment 19-C1
Next, discussion began about the potential adverse affect that tolls could have on
the freight business. Toll costs range widely for each proposed project, and
questions remain, such as: will tolls be higher for trucks? Will there be specific
fees on containers? A concern is that supply chain costs will rise with tolls,
resulting in businesses relocating or deciding not to do business in the region.
Mr. Hecker said that he would be able to put together some high-level numbers
for how tolls affect freight across different regions, for inclusion in the February
Board retreat packet. The Committee agreed this was a good idea. This
information needs to get to decision makers and lawmakers to address the
impact of tolls on the freight community.
Mr. Ron Drogan mentioned that he has had conversations with clients who are
trying to decide which port to use, Charleston or Virginia. He said that the
bottom line is whether tolls result in revenue gain or revenue lost.
Mr. Case said that it is good to address the issue of funding projects through
taxes or tolls, but “it’s my understanding that the PPTA proposals all require
some public money, they’re not 100% privately funded.” The state doesn’t have
enough money to pitch in for all these proposals, therefore the proposals will
compete against each other. He also said that tolls have been talked about for the
past 12 years, and have not been imposed. Elected officials in the region are
pushing to get state funds for the Midtown Tunnel so they can lower the toll rate
that is being proposed there.
Mr. Moye said that tolling is a huge deciding factor in whether a client uses a Port
or not. “Of every company we know of that isn’t doing business here, there are
probably dozens that we don’t know about, potential clients,” he said.
Mr. Clark pointed out that the public does not realize that the maritime business
is so sensitive, that even a dollar or two extra in tolls could drive business away.
Mr. Crane agreed, using the Port of LA / Long Beach as an example of economic
decline after putting a tax on containers.
Mr. Bell then said, “What we’re really talking about is sensitivity analysis.” Mr.
Hecker will send an outline of how the analysis will be conducted on January
18th or 19th, get comments from Committee, and then could get it back to the
HRTPO by February 10th. Mr. Hecker confirmed that the sensitivity analysis will
be included in the Board’s February retreat packet.
January 12, 2011
Page 6
Attachment 19-C1
4. ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEXT MEETING DATE, PLACE, TIME
In order for the updated FTAC statement to be included in the February 17th HRTPO
Board agenda, TPO staff will need it by February 10th. FTAC will need to meet to
approve the statement. Therefore, the next FTAC meeting will be an abbreviated
agenda, just for the Committee to approve the statement. Staff will send the
Committee the packet of information that will be approved by January 26th.
Dr. Cetin from ODU then asked to speak from as a public observer. He said that he
has done past studies on trucks and tolls, and has found that toll prices across the
country are disproportionally higher for 18-wheelers than for cars. Through a costbenefit analysis, several studies have shown that truckers are being tolled unfairly.
He suggested that if tolls are going to be imposed in Hampton Roads, regional
decision-makers should impose rates lower than national averages in order to make
the region more advantageous to truckers. Dr. Cetin said that he will forward the
studies to staff to incorporate into the next meeting’s materials.
Dr. Cetin also mentioned that the ODU transportation group is developing a model
for freight for the region, because the current model is not very freight-friendly.
The next meeting will take place on Monday, January 31st, from 10:00 – 11:00 a.m.,
in the VPA Board Room. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
January 12, 2011
Page 7
Attachment 19-C1
FREIGHT TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
OF THE HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION
JANUARY 31, 2011 MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
Co-Chair Stan Clark called the HRTPO Freight Technical Advisory Committee to order at
10:00 a.m. in the Virginia Port Authority (VPA) Board Room with the following in
attendance:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bill Bell, Co-Chair (Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding)
Chris Luebbers (Norfolk Southern Corp.)
Keith Helton (Givens Logistics)
Ron Drogan (The CrossGlobe Group)
Stan Clark, Co-Chair (Isle of Wight Board of Supervisors)
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Art Moye (Virginia Maritime Association)
Curtis Hall (Target Import Warehouse)
Homer Crane (K Line America, Inc.)
STAFF:
Jeff Florin (Virginia Port Authority)
Camelia Ravanbakht (HRTPO staff)
Rob Case (HRTPO staff)
Andy Hecker (Moffatt & Nichol)
Allison Mall (Moffatt & Nichol)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jeff Raliski (City of Norfolk Planning Department)
January 31, 2011
Page 1
Attachment 19-C2
1. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
All the meeting attendees introduced themselves and Co-Chair Stan Clark opened
the public comment period. Hearing no requests, he declared the public comment
period closed.
2. NEW BUSINESS
a. TPO Updates
Ms. Camelia Ravanbakht informed the Committee about the upcoming schedule
for the TPO Board. Camelia said that the Board has approved scores from the
prioritization tool for the current long-range plan update, and any changes to the
tool will be made for the next update, three years from now.
b. Discussion of revisions to TPO statement
The Committee then discussed the statement about project prioritization that
will be submitted for inclusion in the February 17th HRTPO retreat packet. The
Committee read through the prepared statement and discussed revisions to the
document. Mr. Bill Bell noted that the statement is really a comment on the
concept of prioritization, not the tool itself, resulting in a need to change the title
of the statement. The Committee made several other changes to the statement.
Mr. Bell made a motion to approve the statement with the discussed edits. Mr.
Luebbers seconded the motion and the statement was approved unanimously.
Staff will send the HRTPO the finalized version of the statement by February 7th
for inclusion in the retreat packet.
Mr. Andy Hecker asked for clarification on the “dot maps” in the final
prioritization report. He said that the map is very useful but he was wondering
what the actual counts were for each dot. Ms. Ravanbakht explained that the
maps indicate the usage and utility of each project, and demonstrate how the
projects affect the whole region. The expected traffic volumes for each project
are in the appendix of the scoring document.
The conversation then turned to the possibility of tolls being implemented
throughout the region in order to pay for projects. This topic has been in the
news a lot lately, so members indicated the importance of stating FTAC opinion
on how tolls will affect the freight community. Because of the magnitude of local
freight movements — the jobs of 343,000 Virginians depend on the Port — the
revenue gained from freight movement is vitally important to the economic wellbeing of the region and the state. If tolls are too high, new freight-related
businesses will not come to the region and existing businesses will leave.
Mr. Ron Drogan expressed his concern re: tolls in the region, which will greatly
affect CrossGlobe and similar businesses. He asked if there is an alternative to
tolls, such as a gas tax. Mr. Stan Clark agreed that an alternative to tolls needs to
January 31, 2011
Page 2
Attachment 19-C2
be found. He is concerned that the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor are
too focused on tolls and need to be more focused on finding alternatives. To do
that, they will need specific numbers such as how many jobs, businesses, and
revenue will be lost if tolls are implemented. Also, it needs to be understood that
freight moves within the region, as well as moving in and out of the region.
Mr. Keith Helton brought up how much tolls will affect small businesses. He said
that his company gets a lot of business because the area does not have tolls. In
addition, he discussed how freight includes more than people’s wants. For
instance, workers, warehouses, and a good transportation system are needed for
the Port and its related businesses to be competitive. People may want to get to
the beach five minutes earlier, but they need freight industry jobs.
Ms. Ravanbakht said that a representative from the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) will brief the TPO board on value pricing, with specific
examples of best practices and success stories. Mr. Jeff Florin said that value
pricing, which usually applies to cars, should also be applied to trucks.
Mr. Case suggested that FTAC could possibly take a stand on public vs. private
toll projects. The conventional wisdom is that tolls collected by VDOT would be
lower than tolls collected by a private company.
Mr. Bell cautioned that the Committee can’t take tolling off the table, but the
statement has to be business-sensitive.
Mr. Luebbers agreed that the Committee needs a very strong statement saying
that it is very concerned about freight and how tolls will affect it. Mr. Hecker
agreed, saying that in the public eye, tolls have a negative connotation right
away. The following tolling position for the FTAC statement on prioritization
was approved by the Committee:
FTAC agrees that the movement of freight and the location of related businesses in
Hampton Roads is pricing sensitive. Accordingly, while FTAC analysis is not yet
complete, all the members of FTAC are concerned about the loss of commerce and
jobs resulting from beneficial cargo owners taking their business to areas without
excessive tolls.
c. Discussion of truck tolling analysis prepared by FTAC staff
Mr. Hecker then gave the Committee a summary of the tolling analysis that staff
prepared, and Ms. Ravanbakht mentioned that a presentation should be done by
FTAC to the TPO on this issue. The discussion on tolling continued.
Mr. Helton questioned the idea of having lower off-peak pricing for trucks.
Although it sounds like a good idea for the truckers, it also affects warehouse
workers and businesses. If trucks are arriving at warehouses during nonHRTPO Freight Technical Advisory Committee (FTAC)
January 31, 2011
Page 3
Attachment 19-C2
business hours, it will force people to work overtime, the warehouse to stay
open at greater cost, etc. He said, “conducting business during off-peak hours is
not desirable to the actual customer.”
Other options regarding tolling were discussed, including a diesel gas tax and an
across-the-board sales tax. Mr. Case said that CTAC recommended an increase in
the gas tax.
Mr. Drogan asked whether FTAC would be promoting tolls by submitting this
truck tolling analysis to the TPO Board. Mr. Clark responded in the negative,
indicating that the Committee is not promoting tolls, it is simply trying to impact
what Richmond is going to do. Mr. Hecker added that the Committee is
discussing options for what is likely to happen.
Mr. Jeff Raliski from the City of Norfolk Planning Department brought up the idea
of a broad-based funding system of tolls. In other words, tolls would not be
implemented on each road, but rather there would be one toll for the whole
system of roads. The Committee was interested in this suggestion and thanked
Mr. Raliski for his comments.
Mr. Bell then moved to approve the documents as revised and submit them to
the TPO for inclusion in the retreat packet. Mr. Drogan seconded the motion and
the Committee unanimously approved the motion.
Mr. Bell asked Ms. Ravanbakht if she would brief the Committee concerning the
Board retreat at the next FTAC meeting, and she agreed to do so. She said that
TTAC will probably make a recommendation on the draft list of projects for the
long-range plan, but that CTAC was going to wait to see what happens at the
Board retreat, and then react. FTAC agreed to also wait and see what happens
before reacting. Any FTAC reactions or statements need to be received by the
TPO by Friday, March 4th for the March 17th Board meeting.
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEXT MEETING DATE, PLACE, TIME
The next meeting will take place on Thursday, March 3rd, from 10:00 – 11:30 a.m.,
in the VPA Board Room. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 a.m.
January 31, 2011
Page 4
Attachment 19-C2
HRTPO
Fiscal Year 2011
February 28, 2011
STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
REVENUES
Annual
Budget
VDOT- PL Sec 112 Federal
VDOT- PL Sec 112 State
VDOT- PL Sec 112 Local
HRT Match
WAT Match
State Pass-Through
Federal Pass-Through
VDRPT 5303 Federal
VDRPT 5303 State
VDRPT 5303 Local
2,187,830
273,479
273,479
43,420
10,000
53,420
427,363
131,223
16,403
16,403
-
859,035
-
107,379
107,380
11,249
11,252
90,012
76,762
9,595
9,597
3,433,021
-
1,282,261
Total Revenue
Current
Month
YTD
EXPENDITURES
Personnel
Contractual
Special Contracts
Office Services
Pass Through Expenditures
Indirect Costs
Total Expenses
Agency Balance
-
134,906
1,048,693
30,000
2,661,214
207,603
534,204
-
26,858
10,944
45,138
2,697
95,587
78,709
112,514
358,501
3,433,021
217,846
1,696,701
0
(217,846)
(414,440)
Attachment 19-D
2012 Budget Request (Reflects first year of programs and accounts under the Administration’s reauthorization bill)
HIGHWAYS: $70.5 billion in FY 2012 to invest in highways and bridges (2010 Actual $41,376B; 2011 Revised Request $42,789B)
o $2.5B - Highway Safety Improvement Program.
o $32.4B - National Highway Program (NHP) NEW
NHP streamlines and consolidates portions of several existing programs including Interstate Maintenance,
National Highway System, Bridge, and the Surface Transportation Program into two new subprograms:
• $16.8B - Highway Infrastructure Performance Program: (formula based; targets condition and
performance on an expanded NHS)
• $15.6B - Flexible Investment Program: (formula based; any federal-aid eligible highway; targets projects to
preserve, mitigate congestion, or performance improvement)
o $4.1B – Livable Communities Program (NEW)
o $1.4B- Federal Allocation Program (Federal and Tribal Lands – consolidates Federal Lands Transportation, Federal Lands
Access, Tribal Transportation, Emergency Relief, and Workforce Development)
o $661M – Research, Technology, and Education
Additional 2012 requests:
o $1.3B Transportation Leadership Awards – Competitive grants to states, MPO, Tribal governments, transportation
agencies to make reforms leading to innovative policy
o $50B – Up front economic boost (See reauthorization below)
Attachment 19-E
TRANSIT: $22 billion in FY 2012 improve the condition of transit assets, expand access, and increase transit safety (2010 Actual
$12,143B; 2011 Revised Request $10,731B)
o $10.7B Bus and Rail State of Good Repair ($7.5B is from the $50B Boost)
o $7.7B Transit Formula Grants (Transit capital investments. $3B is from the $50B Boost)
o $3.5B Transit Expansion and Livable Communities Program to improve access, invest in new projects (Consolidates Capital Investment Grants program ($3.2 billion – includes $1B from the boost), Planning Programs ($140 million), the
new Livable Communities demonstration grants ($50 million), Transit in the Parks ($28 million), and Tribal Transit ($15
million)
o $166M Safety and Operations Program – funds the new FTA rail transit safety oversight authority
o $166M Research and Technology Deployment (consolidates the Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Clean Fuels programs
($97 million), Research and Technology ($30 million), and Technical Assistance and Workforce Development ($39 million)
$150M General Fund appropriation for Washington, DC Metro
RAIL:
o
o
o
o
$8.3B Rail investment – (first year in the six-year proposal, includes $5.5 from the $50B boost) Establishes two accounts:
$4B Network Development –Competitive grants for core express, regional and feeder corridors
$4B System Preservation – Funds AMTRAK operating, capital, and debt requirements
$223M Safety and Operations – includes a rail safety user fee of $80M to offset costs with rail safety inspectors
$40M Research and Development
$5B National Infrastructure Bank (I-Bank) - leverage Federal dollars and focus on investments of National and regional
significance, provide grants, loans, and a combination of both; eligible projects include multimodal projects for highway, transit,
rail, aviation, including equipage, ports, and maritime initiatives
o Entity within USDOT, Senate confirmed Executive Director, 100 FTEs
SAFETY: $860M NHTSA (2010 Actual $873M, 2011 Revised Request $873)
$606M MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY (2010 Actual $550M, 2011 Revised Request $550)
Attachment 19-E
USDOT REAUTHORIZATION PROPOSAL
$556B six-year reauthorization
Establish surface transportation programs as subject to PAYGO
o All Transportation Trust Fund accounts have mandatory contract authority and mandatory outlays (spending). PAYGO
will help ensure fiscal discipline in the management of the fund. Ensuring spending does not exceed its dedicated
revenue
PAYING FOR THE BILL OR NOT - The Administration is committed to working with the Congress on a bipartisan basis to ensure
that the President’s proposal will be paid for fully without increasing the deficit
o For the first time, the Budget proposes to subject surface transportation spending to “PAYGO” provisions to ensure that
spending and revenue are brought in line
o The proposal would rename the Highway Trust Fund into a new Transportation Trust Fund with four accounts
Highways
Transit
High-speed passenger rail
The National Infrastructure Bank
Attachment 19-E
Proposal includes a $50 billion “Up-Front” economic boost that jump-starts job creation
o This initial funding would finance improvements to the nation’s highway, rail, transit, and aviation systems.
o These resources will be targeted towards projects that will quickly create domestic American jobs, while improving
transportation infrastructure for the next generation
o This frontloaded plan is designed to give States and localities the confidence needed to be decisive about their
investment plans and concentrate the impact of increased investment in the early years of the reauthorization
$25 B for Critical Highway Infrastructure
$450M for Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation (TIFIA)
$7.5B for Transit State of Good Repair
$3B for Urban and Rural Formula (Transit)
$1B for New Starts
$3B for Rail Network Development
$2.5B for Rail System Preservation and Renewal (AMTRAK)
$3.1B for Grants-In-Aid for Airports
$250M for FAA Facilities and Equipment
$2.2B for Cross-Border Transportation - improve the condition of Land Port of Entry (LPOEs) facilities that link
directly to the transportation infrastructure at border crossing locations
$2B for a National Infrastructure Investments (NII) (TIGER)
The Budget proposes $53B over six years to continue construction of a national high-speed rail network
o Includes funding for both Amtrak and new “core express,” “regional,” and “emerging” corridors
HIGHWAY/BRIDGE - The Budget will provide a 48 percent increase over the previous authorization ($227B)– to $336B over six
years – in funding for road and bridge improvements and construction
o Reauthorization proposal will consolidate over 55 separate highway programs into five core programs
National Highway Program
Highway Safety Improvement
Livable Communities
Federal Allocation
Research, Technology, and Education
o Reauthorization proposal establishes a performance-based highway program in critical areas of safety and state of good
repair
Attachment 19-E
TRANSIT - The Budget includes a 127 percent increase – to $119 billion over six years – in funding for transit
o Allow transit authorities (in urbanized areas of 200,000 or more in population) to temporarily use formula funds to cover
operating costs in limited circumstances
SAFETY - Almost doubles funding for highway safety investments
o $7.4 billion is provided for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for auto safety
o $4.9 billion is provided for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) for truck and bus safety
o $17.5 billion is provided for FHWA safety programs
o Gives U.S. DOT new authority to set performance goals for state implementation to reduce fatalities even further from
the current historic lows
NIB (I-BANK) $30B ($5/year/ over 6-years) - The proposal establishes a National Infrastructure Bank, which finances projects of
national or regional significance
o The Bank will reside within the U.S. Department of Transportation
o Be managed by an executive director with a board of officials drawn from the Department and other federal agencies
$32B for a “race-to-the-top” style incentive program, called the Transportation Leadership Awards
o The program would reward States and regions that implement proven strategies that further the Department’s strategic
goals, strengthen collaboration among different levels of government, focus on performance and outcomes; and
encourage the development of a multimodal transportation system that connects people to opportunities and goods to
markets. Examples may include passage of a primary seatbelt law, use of lifecycle cost analysis, aggressive deployment of
operating practices that reduce need for more costly congestion solutions and implementation of a performance-based
funding distribution system
Promoting Regional Planning: The Administration’s proposal will bolster state and metropolitan planning; award funds to high
performing communities; and empower the most capable communities and planning organizations to determine which projects
deserve funding
Attachment 19-E
The DOT Surface Transportation Reauthorization proposal will provide
o $330 million for the Department of Transportation’s ongoing campaign against America’s distracted driving epidemic
o $7 billion to promote seatbelt use, get drunk drivers off the road, and ensure that traffic fatality numbers continue falling
from current historic lows
o It will almost double the investment in highway safety infrastructure funding, providing $17.5 billion to Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) safety programs
Reauthorization proposal will, for the first time, entrust the Federal Transit Administration with the authority to oversee rail
transit safety across America
The Budget will dedicate $4.9 billion to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to provide stronger oversight,
higher standards, and tougher enforcement for trucks and buses
Reauthorization will also merge five transit programs into one state of good repair program and one specialized transportation
program
Attachment 19-E
Attachment 19-F
Attachment 19-F
AGENDA ITEM #20: OLD/NEW BUSINESS

Here - Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization

Transcription

Similar documents

Pages09and322013-02-12 15:451.0 MB

After a visit to Two Tree Stables reminded me of the

The Hampton News

Atlantic News

Beach ,i - Hampton Historical Society

Here - Sponsorship.com

Company profile - Put Sarajevo Kenya

TurnScor eBook.indd

12-21-20072013-02-12 15:4611.8 MB

to view the full presentation

Teachers Notes

Milestone: Extracting Map Features from Satellite Images

Water management techniques for resource roads