Agenda Hampton Roads

Transportation Planning Organization Board Meeting April 21, 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: Chesapeake 7. FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment: Newport News 8. FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment: Norfolk 9. FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment: James City County

10. FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment: James City County REGULAR AGENDA: 10:45 am 11. 2034 Long-Range Transportation Plan Project List Amendment: U.S. Route 460 10:55 am 12. I-64 Peninsula Study Environmental Impact Statement: VDOT 11:05 am 13. Review of the VDOT FY 2012-2017 Six-Year Improvement Program 11:10 am 14. HRTPO Annual Obligation Report 11:20 am 15. INRIX National Traffic Scorecard 11:30 am 16. HRTPO Title VI Plan 11:40 am 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

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board Meeting – April 21, 2011

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 Written public comments received during this period are attached. 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”.

1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HRTPO Public Comment ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ RE: Hampton Roads FY 2012-2015 TIP, Draft Project List Name: Mr. Ray Taylor Date: Originally Submitted -March 9, 2011

TPO Staff comments in blue, March 31, 2011 Reactions to Staff comments in red, April 7, 2011 Subject: The TPO’s Annual Listing of Obligated Projects Public Comment Input (Via Email) This input responds to the TPO’s Public Notice which encourages public review and comments on the Draft List of Projects to be included in the region’s next Four Year Program, namely the Hampton Roads FY 2012-2015 TIP. Background. Federal legislation, U.S. Code 23 CFR 450, makes the following points as concerns regional MPO TIP documents:

1. U.S. Code 23 CFR 450.324 (Development of the TIP), paragraph (a), states that “The TIP shall cover a period of no less than four years, be updated at least every four years, and be approved by the MPO and the Governor”.

Notice that the regional TIP is to be approved by the Governor or his or her designated representative, oftentimes the state’s Secretary of Transportation. Also, for information, the MPO that serves Northern Virginia as well as the Richmond MPO each produce an annual TIP as do other large MPOs nationwide.

Recommend that the HRTPO discuss and approve a policy that will establish procedures for producing the TIP on an annual basis. Unlike a long range plan, the TIP is an obligations and budgeting document that needs annual attention rather than once every four years. In this vein and for the same reason, the Commonwealth produces its Six Year Program (SYIP) on an annual basis, for example.

HRTPO Staff Comment: HRTPO staff agrees that it would be beneficial to update the TIP more frequently than every three to four years and believes a schedule to update the document every two years would be the most effective. I think this is Excellent. Moving to a process that produced the region’s TIP once every two years would be a great initial step forward.

However, such any update plan would require the participation of VDOT and DRPT for the following reason. I see it differently: There is nothing in the statutory guidance below that prevents an MPO from producing an internal Annual TIP which I think should be done for two reasons: (a) as an internal regional process that would help produce the TPO’s annual Letter or Resolution every May for the CTB just prior to its approving the state’s next SYIP, and (b) for regional and local stakeholder and public awareness purposes. There is huge merit in having an Annual TPO TIP. No matter what the state may or may not do about this, the TIP is a Program, and a Program with its budgetary

Attachment 3

2

element, should be done annually—even the state does its SYIP program annually. Recommend the HRTPO develop an Annual TIP starting in January and ending in April each year.

From 23 CFR 450.324(a) – “The TIP may be updated more frequently [than once every four years], but the cycle for updating the TIP must be compatible with the STIP development and approval process.” For this reason, the HRTPO cannot update the TIP on an annual basis unless the state updates the STIP on an annual basis. NOTE: HRTPO staff reviewed the 14 Virginia MPOs and determined the following:

• For all of the MPOs fully within Virginia, the current TIP is the FY 09-12 TIP. • For the Bristol MPO and the Kingsport MPO (which both include a portion of

Tennessee), the current TIP is the FY 11-14 TIP. However, for most, if not all of the projects in the Virginia sections of the TIPs, only FY11 & FY12 obligations are shown. Well, it looks likely something is out of whack here (and below as well). If there is one STIP process that we must adhere to as suggested above, and if it is the TIPs, per federal regulations, that feed the STIP, then we should not have some 2-year TIPs, some 4-year TIPs and some 6-year TIPs. This goes to the findings of the recent JLARC Audit report that clearly identified multiple issues associated with the VDOT central office’s handling of two state Programs and the regional and statewide transportation programming processes. These issues need attention rather than more of the same.

• For the National Capitol Region Transportation Planning Board (which includes D.C. and a portion of Maryland), the current TIP is the FY11-16 TIP. However, for most of the projects in the Virginia sections of the TIP, only FY11 & FY12 obligations are shown. Furthermore, TPB staff said they are moving toward a 2-year schedule for development of the TIP.

2. U.S. Code 23 CFR 450.326 (TIP relationship to STIP), paragraph (b), states that “After

approval by the MPO and Governor, the TIP shall be included without change, directly, or by reference, in the STIP”.

Notice that this federal language requires that the (corroboratively developed) regional TIP “shall be included without change” in the statewide STIP. For multiple reasons, the important federal message here is that there is a federal requirement that Transportation be planned and programmed on a regional basis in coordination, of course, with state and transit agency participation. The TPO’s TIP is central to fulfilling these policy requirements. It is essential that the region’s TIP be developed as, and be recognized as, being the official, TPO Board-approved regional input to the state’s SYIP and STIP processes and not be treated as a mere log that records later what the state has done or what the state plans to do.

3. U.S. Code 23 CFR 450.330 (Project Selection in the TIP), paragraph (c), states that “In areas

designated as TMAs, all funded projects (except NHS, IM, and BR projects) shall be selected by the MPO in consultation with the State … from the approved TIP”.

The text on this article continues to say that NHS, BR and IM projects shall be selected by the State “in cooperation with the MPO from the approved MPO TIP”. The term TMA stands for Transportation Management Area. The nation’s largest MPOs are designated as TMA-

Attachment 3

3

level MPOs with added responsibilities, for example, “the development of congestion management systems, the TIP project selection procedures, and they are subject to a joint federal certification review of the planning process at least every three years”. The Hampton Roads TPO is a TMA-level (large) MPO.

Comments on the Draft List of Projects for the region’s next TIP:

1. Which projects will be in the regional four year TIP and which will not be in the TIP? The List of Projects has three sections which include (a) a list of 134 projects with projected funding spread programmatically and appropriately across the four-year period of the TIP; (b) another list of 112 projects with no funding over the four-year period of the TIP, and (c) another list of Grouped Projects.

In my mind, the TIP is a Program for projects that will be funded. Therefore, it should include the 134 projects that are funded as well as those special case Grouped Projects that are funded. The other list of 112 unfunded projects is useful as a what-might-come-next list and could usefully be included as an Appendix apart from being included in the actual TIP document. This is not a small point. Given the importance of the regional TIP, clarity as to what is in the TIP (and funded) and what is not in the TIP is important for TPO board members and stakeholders alike. In the final FHWA-approved version of the TIP at the top of every page, there is a statement that reads: “Funding shown represents obligations in dollars” meaning that federal approval of the TIP represents legally obligated federal dollars across the four-year period of the TIP even beyond the state’s biennial budgeting window of time. This assures financial programming stability over the four-year period of the TIP document.

Recommend separating the funded and unfunded regional transportation projects in the TIP document with the region’s funded projects being listed in the TIP document and with the unfunded list-of-what-might-come-next projects being listed separately in the Appendix. One can see here yet another virtue for producing the regional TIP on an annual basis as is done by the TPB for Northern Virginia, for example.

HRTPO Staff Comment: HRTPO staff agrees with the recommendation to move the projects for which no planned obligations are shown to the appendix. I think this is Excellent. In the previous 4-year TPO TIP, 73 percent of the projects listed had zero dollars obligated. It was nearly impossible to find the real projects, and everyone just gave up. The previous TIP was of little practical value. Using an Appendix to show future aspiration projects (those with no funding) will help a great deal. At the same time, more must be done to make the TIP readable, practical and user-friendly. The every year, standard, maintenance, annual ITS, and other routine operational support transportation projects should be separated from the new construction and new design/development projects. TPO board members, this year, prioritized, fiscally-constrained and approved a 20-year list of long range plan transportation projects. They wrestled with 155 candidate projects and rigorously selected about 55-60 projects for the 20-year Plan. Now, with the next TIP, board members want to be able to see in the next 4-year TIP, very clearly, which of these 55-60 projects are (will be) in the next TIP. Recommend adopting the Appendix method cited above and also recommend making the list of TIP projects more useable and readable by having two

Attachment 3

4

categories of projects in the main section of the TIP—those that are the product of the TPO board’s decision-making process and those that are routine and boiler plate. In addition, the heading at the top of the pages showing TIP projects will be changed to state “Funding Shown Represents Planned Obligations in Dollars”, since the obligations shown in the TIP are planned obligations, not actual obligations, and federal approval of the TIP does not legally obligate federal dollars.

I disagree with this course of action. Recall that U.S. Code 23 CFR 450.324 (Development of the TIP), paragraph (a), states that “The TIP shall cover a period of no less than four years, be updated at least every four years, and be approved by the MPO and the Governor”. Recall also that U.S. Code 23 CFR 450.326 (TIP relationship to STIP), paragraph (b), states that “After approval by the MPO and Governor, the [TPO’s] TIP shall be included without change, directly, or by reference, in the STIP”. This means that the TPO board initially approves what is, in effect, a draft TIP, but once that draft TIP is approved by the Governor and inserted in the state’s STIP, subsequently approved by FHWA, then that data which is in the TPO’s TIP contains obligated dollars, not planned dollars. In any case, federal regulations require that MPOs and state DOTs work collaboratively to produce a 4-year regional Program that depicts budgeted and obligated dollars. Toward this end, the federal government funds MPO organizations handsomely with talented and professional staffs, and the region contributes thousands of man-hours in demanding TTAC and other venues to develop the regional TIPs which must result in something that is real and more than a mere input. For thirty years, the TPO TIPs in Hampton Roads identified the funding in its TIP documents as “obligated dollars”. This is what the final TIP document does actually mean (after Governor-approval and FHWA STIP approval). Recommend retaining the words obligated dollars in the TPO TIP document. 2. TPO’s Project Prioritization process for the TIP. Given the two funded and unfunded

lists of projects described above, one assumes that a regional Hampton Roads programmatic prioritization process has already accomplished based on policies this year which, for example, might have been “advance the most ready projects”; or “develop shovel ready projects”; or “focus on bridge repairs and bridge security”, etc.

For a proper review of the TIP List of Projects, board members and others need to know what assumptions have been made and what competitive programming policies are being pursued. It seems at this point that the state VDOT central office (with some TPO Staff input) has served as the primary prioritization driver for this TIP. Per federal regulations, however, and referring to the quote above—“TMA-level MPOs have added responsibilities such as TIP project selection procedures”—is a statement which reflects the federal effort to plan and program transportation at the regional level as much as is practical and in coordination with state and transit agencies.

The TPO here in Hampton Roads has developed and completed a truly outstanding prioritization process for the 20-year, Long Range Plan some of which, at least today, can be applied to the short term TIP Program now being developed. Professionals know, however, that prioritizing at the vision-driven, long term, 20-year Plan level is one thing, and prioritization at the highly competitive, budget and obligations-driven, 4-year, short term TIP level is another thing.

Attachment 3

5

Recommend providing information about the project prioritization process being used for this next regional TIP. In the longer term and for future years, recommend developing and documenting the TPO’s unique prioritization process to be used in the development of its annual TIP documents.

HRTPO Staff Comment: Currently, prioritization of projects in the TIP depends upon a number of things. First, since federal regulations require the TIP to be consistent with the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), prioritization of projects in the LRTP naturally affect the prioritization of projects in the TIP. This is accurate in meaning that a transportation project must be in the regional 20-year Plan before it can be entered into the regional 4-year TIP Program. But, I suggest splitting a hair here—the prioritization process used to develop the list of projects for the 20-year Plan is driven heavily by network and system needs and by measures of project utility. As has been made clear in recent years, especially with the determination of Secretary Connaugton, the Programming process needs to advance projects and needs to stop accruing so many unobligated dollars tied to projects that cannot or are not ready to advance. The point here is that the prioritization process for the 4-year TIP or 6-year SYIP is different. The Program or TIP prioritization process must be driven heavily by programmatic readiness factors and by project status readiness factors in order to best consume the obligated dollars made available by FHWA and to prevent amassing unobligated dollars. In the beginning of the development of a TIP, VDOT and the localities, and DRPT and the transit agencies, work together to draw projects from the LRTP that are priorities for each locality and transit agency. I see this differently, and this goes to the core definition of the duties of an MPO:

U.S. Code § 450.300 (Purpose) and sub-section (a): “Sets forth the national policy that the MPO designated for each urbanized area is to carry out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive multimodal transportation planning process, including the development of a metropolitan transportation plan and a transportation improvement program (TIP), that encourages and promotes the safe and efficient development, management, and operation of surface transportation systems to serve the mobility needs of people and freight ..” Elsewhere in Code, the continuing, cooperative and collaborative process is one that takes place between the regional MPO, the state DOT and duly-established public transit agencies within the MPO boundary area.

The TIP is an MPO (or TPO) product, not a joint VDOT-locality product. For the transportation planning and programming processes, the localities bring their priorities to the TPO board which then makes the decisions that produce the region’s 20-year Plans and 4-year Programs. These documents do not come from VDOT-locality effort to “work together to draw projects from the LRTP that are the priorities” for the TIP as is noted above. For other than regional planning and programming, VDOT and VDOT District offices do work endlessly with localities for design, permitting, scheduling, land-use coordination when scoping, getting ready for and doing construction. Or, this is what I believe should be happening. We could continue with the past pattern of not regionally planning and programming, but why then have a TPO?

Attachment 3

6

Much of the project prioritization for the TIP depends upon the System. Here is a summary of prioritization for each System:

The text here is useful background information in that it lists, explains and gives rules for accessing eleven categories (or buckets) of funding resources available. This information is not particularly germane to the subject of this paper—developing and reviewing the region’s 4-year TIP document. Here for discussion purposes, there seems to me to be a sense of “our hands are tied with all these rules” and so we have little regional role in developing the TIP. There will always be rules for anything, anywhere—good for that—and there will always be higher authority to deal with—good for that too. I suggest a different approach, one that recognizes all these rules, figures how to best work with them, and then generates the best possible regional TIP using the required TPO board process which, by structure, has the federally required elements of collaboration with voting state, transit agency and TPO board members (including VDOT, DRPT, VPA, four Legislators, two transit agencies and more, plus supporting multi-representative TTAC and other Advisory Committees). The TPO organization is too well funded, too huge and too important. Instead of the TIP prioritization being the product of VDOT-locality “working together”, it, by law, must be the product of the challenging, yet effective, Regional TPO decision-making process. • Interstate System

o Statewide Discretionary Program – No formula distribution to districts o CTB determines priorities based on input from the recommended candidate list,

and based on TPO board input, public input from the Fall Transportation meetings, and guidance on the development of the SYIP

• Primary System o District Program – Funds are allocated to each district, based in part on TPO board

input and on approved TPO board TIP documents through state allocation formula o CTB determines priorities based on input from the recommended candidate list,

based in part on TPO board input and on approved TPO board TIP documents public input from the Fall Transportation meetings, and guidance on the development of the SYIP

• Secondary System o County Program – Funds are allocated to each county, based in part on TPO board

input and on approved TPO board TIP documents through state allocation formula and federal formula STP funds

o Residency Administrators and County Boards of Supervisors determine recommended priorities and pass them to the regional TPO board to be addressed during the TPO board’s decision-making process that develops the regional 20-year Plan and the regional 4-year TIP.

• Urban System o City/Town Program – Funds are allocated to each city/town through state allocation

formula and federal formula STP funds for transportation projects that are in the TPO board approved TIP

o Locality determines priorities for inputs to the TPO board’s TIP development process.

• CMAQ & RSTP Funds—recommend separating these two transportation project categories; they have different functions and have different rules when it comes to flexing FHWA funds to FTA and FRA public transportation projects, etc.

Attachment 3

7

o Allocated by the MPO using approved project selection process o Funds can be used on all systems and transit

• Bridge o VDOT Structure and Bridge (S&B) Division allocates funds to districts based on the

square footage of deficient structures in the district o S&B consolidates the district lists and allocates Bridge funds to projects based on

district priorities and allocations • Highway Safety Program

o Applications for projects are solicited from localities and VDOT districts and regions

o Projects are ranked based on the federally required benefit/cost ratio and compete on a statewide basis

• Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety o Applications are solicited from rail companies, localities, and VDOT districts and

regions o Projects are initially ranked using the Federal Railroad Administrations (FRA)

approved regression equation o Final ranking is developed based on input from the applicants, railroad companies,

a diagnostic field review, and the FRA regression equation • Capital Project Revenue Bonds

o CTB discretion • Equity Bonus Funds

o CTB discretion 3. Front-loaded programming. In the List of Projects, there appears to be a pattern of front-

loading the funding for the region’s programmed transportation projects. In the draft TIP list of projects, 96 (or 72 percent) of the 134 funded projects contain funding in the first year of the TIP (FY-2012) whereas only 21 (or 16 percent) of the 134 funded projects contain funding during the last year of the TIP (FY-2015). In general terms, one should expect a nominal, inflation-adjusted, somewhat stable annual level of available funding and not a front loaded availability of funds.

For MPO organizations, careful programming in the mid and out-years of a TIP is one professional way to sequence projects around the region and also a necessary way to groom projects with PE, ROW and design funding leading to construction funding during the later years of a TIP (or for the next TIP). During the recent GA-sponsored, JLARC Audit of transportation planning and programming, VDOT submitted strong comments claiming, among other allegations, that MPOs are not skilled in the programming process and that “MPOs tend to front-load funding on projects so that they are fully funded in a single year rather than funding the projects based on the planned project development schedule”.

The comments in this overall paragraph are not intended to fault our TPO Staff which, in my mind, has moved aggressively and professionally far forward in advancing regional needs based on regional criteria and with a regional list in accordance with federal process. But more effort is needed in order to make the regional TIP become a strong and effective input to the overall state managed programming (SYIP and STIP) process

Attachment 3

8

rather than a mere record of what the state, later, has done or will do. Per federal intent, the regional TIP is an input to the state SYIP, not vice versa.

Recommend reviewing the project list with its layout of funding over the four year period of the TIP to ensure best programming principles are being applied here ate the regional level.

HRTPO Staff Comment: In Virginia, the function of obtaining federal authorization to obligate federal funds takes place between VDOT and FHWA or DRPT and FTA, or DRPT and FRA (like other MPOs in Virginia and North Carolina, we need to include FRA category projects in our regional Plan and Program documents). The TPO cannot obligate federal funds, so the only thing the TPO can do at this time with regard to obligations is question VDOT about planned obligations shown in the draft TIP project list. I see this in a different way. Instead of seeing a negligible, not-worth-the-effort role, I see an immensely important regional TPO role. True, the TPO does not directly obligate federal dollars, but, using federally-mandated regional planning and programming procedures, the TPO has enormous and nearly direct impact on that process. This is especially the case when the TPO’s procedures are rigorous, disciplined, aim to end the occurrence of unobligated dollars, uses deep objective based prioritization processes, sequences projects skillfully and annually across the four years of its regional TIP, etc. We may not fill the role of the Chief of Naval Operations (or be the Secretary of Transportation), but our ship (our MPO) will have the best calibrated missile system (best and tightest TIP) that will spend the money in the TIP faster and more efficiently than the competitive MPOs. This, in future years would help us gain “fair share” of federal funding, and not be left out of rail planning, which, obviously and as often reported, has been the case for many years. 4. Public review process. The draft list of projects for the region’s next TIP that has been

posted was just that—a list of projects showing the programming of federal and other transportation funds. There were no funding summaries by Fiscal Year or by Project Type and there were no transportation category summaries provided which makes worthy review nearly impossible.

Questions arise such as, What revenue assumptions have been made, and What are the region’s priorities based on obligations that have been assigned to the various transportation project types such as Rail, Interstates, Urban roads, etc. Surely, this information will be included in the Final TIP document as in the past, but at this interim stage of approving the list of projects for the TIP, this kind of summary data should be provided at least in some tentative or draft manner to help stakeholders understand the upcoming regional TIP.

Recommend providing the important Draft revenue and other summary tables even at this interim stage of the TIP development process. Also recommend moving Rail projects from the Grouped projects list to the normal list of projects.

Attachment 3

9

HRTPO Staff Comment: HRTPO staff would have preferred to include the information mentioned in the public comment above with the draft TIP project list when it was made available for public review, but the compressed timeframe for developing the TIP precluded that. This comment is appreciated and understood. Other MPOs, like us, seem to always receive federally-required financial information from VDOT late and full of errors. The recent JLARC Audit report has produced a series of recommended corrective actions for the Virginia statewide and regional transportation planning and programming procedures. In addition, Secretary Connaughton is determined to tighten up the statewide and regional programming processes. A better day for this central office-TPO process of sharing financial information in a timely and useful way is hopefully on the near horizon. The information mentioned will be included when the draft TIP document is posted for public review prior to the request for final Board approval in June 2011. With regard to the comment on Rail projects – for the most part, the grouped rail projects are small projects at individual rail crossings. HRTPO staff will review the grouped rail projects and relocate any substantial rail projects to the “normal” list of projects. I would say that this topic needs substantially more attention than is indicated in the foregoing comment. With regard to passenger rail (FRA projects), Chairman Sessoms and a half dozen other TPO board members have stated that “we are behind and we must catch up.” The Peninsula Amtrak line has one of the poorest levels of on-time-performance in the nation; the Newport News train station is a huge eyesore; no grant request for federal support for either the Peninsula or Southside rail lines or train stations has been discussed or submitted to FRA, etc. The North Carolina grant request which was recently awarded $461 million dollars for service to Raleigh and Charlotte (two metros that are smaller than Hampton Roads) contained an interrelated list of 22 rail corridor improvement projects—a package of projects that made sense and that was organized. The grant request noted that every individual project was listed in their TIP. The Richmond MPO and other MPOs in Virginia, likewise, list individual rail improvement projects (even down to rubberized crossing upgrades) in their TIPs. I recommend significantly elevating the visibility of rail improvement projects that impact Hampton Roads and that are within our MPO boundary by moving them from the unseen grouped list of projects this year to the level of individually listing these projects, and in time, listing interrelated projects as a package of rail improvement projects. 5. MPO Notes. Every project is portrayed in the TIP using a table of data by fiscal year, as

well as places for project description, project location, UPC number, etc. One of the available data boxes for each project is titled MPO Note. This information box, however, has not been used for any project. In my judgment, this is a missed opportunity that could be used, for example, to record reasons why a project received no funding, or to note that this project will be fully funded within the duration of this four year TIP, or that this project will become shovel ready during the period of this TIP and thus become eligible for a federal grant award, or that for tactical reasons this project has been advanced or delayed, and in so many other instances.

Using this MPO Note data box could help the TPO Staff in many ways to answer questions before they are asked. These notes, likewise, would be very useful to TPO

Attachment 3

10

board members and stakeholders and they could also be a method for documenting this region’s concerns about a particular project for state level and CTB decision-makers.

Recommend the TPO Staff selectively use the MPO Note data element to its best advantage and for the region’s benefit as well.

6. Summary.

In my mind and based upon conversations with other MPO organizations, the regional TIP is by far, the most important of all MPO documents. This is the document where the rubber meets the road—it is the document that presages actual project funding using budget year revenue sources and using federally obligated funding sources (NHS, IM, HSR, BR, etc.) over four years or beyond the state and local budgeting windows.

Hundreds of MPO organizations have undergone broad MPO reform processes over the past 15 years. Similarly, our TPO has recently invested over three years in its broad reform process with, so far, widely recognized and very impressive results. The progress of reforms—from board structure, to Bylaws, to Advisory bodies, to public participation and EJ methods, to prioritization procedures and long range planning skills amounts to a wonderful story. The end of the line in any MPO reform process is the TIP, and that is probably the most important and most challenging, remaining reform task for our TTAC, TPO Staff and TPO. Some of the needed reform in the TIP development process can be addressed this year before the state releases its next annual SYIP document, but most of the hard work will need to be addressed over the next twelve months so as to be really ready for the next, May 2012, state SYIP document.

The TIP challenge is part of a larger picture and cannot be addressed in a vacuum. The GA-sponsored JLARC Audit Final Report has required at least three VDOT reports on how programming in Virginia can be reformed so as to better include the state’s 14 MPOs and so as to better adhere to federal regulations. The recently passed SB-1112 legislation and the recent establishment of the Virginia Association of MPOs (VAMPO) will also impact the TIP and programming processes significantly over the next twelve months.

Recommend that added UPWP tasking and added TPO Staff attention be approved so as to best advance programming skills and programming results here in H. Roads. It can be said that as the largest MPO wholly within the state of Virginia, that the HRTPO can and should be the leader of regional and statewide TIP, SYIP and STIP reform in Virginia. But, for now, as noted above, recommend using an annual TIP, including only funded projects in the TIP, developing a TIP prioritization process, end the front-loading, use the MPO Note, etc.

Attachment 3

1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HRTPO Public Comment ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ RE: HRTPO Annual Obligations Report (AOR) Name: Mr. Ray Taylor Date: March 31, 2011 Subject: HRTPO Annual Listing of Obligated Projects Public Comment Input (Via Email) Background and Desired Outcomes:

1. Statutory Requirements: As delineated in U.S. Code, article 23 CFR § 450.332 (Annual listing of obligated projects), MPO organizations, the State and public transportation agencies shall cooperatively develop a listing of projects for which funds under 23 U.S.C. or 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 were obligated in the preceding program year. The listing “shall be published or otherwise made available in accordance with the MPO’s public participation policy for its regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)”. The listing “shall identify, for each project, the amount of Federal funds requested in the TIP, the Federal funding that was obligated during the preceding year, and the Federal funding remaining and available for subsequent years”. 2. Purpose of the Annual Obligations Report (AOR): This above statutory provision for the AOR “is intended to increase the transparency of government spending on transportation projects and strategies in metropolitan areas to State and local officials, and to the public at large”. This task involves promoting accuracy and responsiveness in financial planning and adoption of a proactive approach to sharing information with the public in a meaningful way, at an appropriate time, and in a user-friendly format. 3. As a practical matter—the benefits of self-assessment: In effect, the AOR report is a report card—it is a performance measure. When federal agencies (FHWA, FTA and FRA) are persuaded to approve and to obligate funding for your projects in the process of approving regional transportation plans and programs, they actually want you to spend the money as efficiently as possible. They do not want to obligate funds and then see them not used, because this creates a long series of problems. In the real world, it is possible from time to time that a region cannot spend the funds that were obligated (project delays prevented contracting for the project’s next phase; foul weather slowed the project down; unexpected permitting delays were encountered, etc.). On the other hand, and lacking discipline, it is also possible that an MPO (and/or its individual jurisdictions) sought and obtained obligated funds unwisely or too early, or that it sought and obtained obligated funds for too many projects as place holders without realizing that so many projects could not be

Attachment 3

2

advanced concurrently, or before they were ready to advance or ready to use the funds. Or, in effect, the regional program (TIP) had become a list of programmed projects that could not or were not advancing thus causing the obligated funds to lie idle and thus causing those funds to become the dreaded “unobligated funds” that are ceremoniously discovered from time to time. 4. Value of the AOR to the feds and to the region: The AOR is required by FHWA, FTA and FRA as a way for them to see where funds are moving and being used efficiently and where not. These same findings, each year, are equally beneficial to MPO Boards of Directors and their Advisory Committees. Accordingly, the TPO Staff should produce an Annual Lessons Learned Paper that draws from the AOR’s results, e.g., and as appropriate, what were our root causes for not using available funds, and what will we do next year. It is a good thing to shoulder accountability and, as they say, to follow the money, or know where it is going or not going.

5. Procedures for developing the AOR: Ideally, this AOR document would be developed and posted for stakeholder and public review by 31 December which is within the required three months following the end of the previous programmatic fiscal year. As the primary source of the financial information, the state agencies need to provide their financial information in a timely way to the MPO. The MPO, then, would review the data for accuracy and create the user-friendly and readable AOR report, perhaps using regional maps to depict where funds were spent during the last fiscal year, and by using readable tables that clearly depict the difference between what funds were in fact obligated for transportation projects at the beginning of the year (per the TIP), and what funds were actually expended (actually used) during the previous year. 6. The AOR document’s end results—lessons learned every year: Did we spend the money obligated to us last year? Did the projects that we decided to fund last year in our TIP actually advance? If not, did the state retrieve the money or did the feds execute a rescission? To answer these questions, we need to have a readable and useful AOR document. But, because there are so many different categories of transportation projects and so many different categories of funding sources, the AOR report could quickly become a ghostly mirage of numbers (which has been the case starting at the state level and down to the MPOs for several years. The TPO, aided by the state agencies and transit agencies (perhaps using an annual AOR Team) must be determined in its effort to produce a useable AOR report, one that can crisply yield lessons learned each year. This will not be easy, but it must be done. For starters, I would suggest producing one number—the percent of total obligated dollars actually spent (used) in Hampton Roads by the end of the last fiscal year (30 October) compared to the total of obligated dollars that were available (and programmed in the TPO’s TIP) at the beginning of the last fiscal year (amount spent divided by amount that was available). Then, these same ratios could be computed for each of the different categories of projects. In an earlier sentence above, it was noted that this will not be easy—it took us eight months to reconcile CMAQ project unobligated funds last year, and CMAQ is but a fraction of the total

Attachment 3

3

listing of projects in a TIP and addressed in an AOR report. Many projects are multi-year projects and so determining financial efficiently in any one year could be difficult and other challenges will arise. But, these difficulties can and must be addressed and solved at the regional level and primarily by the TPO Staff. An effective AOR assessment will lead to increased regional efficiency and increased professionalism in the development of the annual regional TIP. It will result in more dollars being used in our region and less dollars being removed from our region and going elsewhere each year. It will result in an increased TPO, TPO Staff and TTAC capacity to be responsive and effective when funding levels change—up or down—and we sure know this happens often with little advance notice. The Problem or Better Yet, The Challenge:

1. Background and the importance of the AOR: In past years, and still today, we do not have an AOR report for Hampton Roads that is useful. As a result, we are not gathering lessons learned each year. There are many reasons why Hampton Roads (as is well known) obtains markedly less than fair share each year when the state’s annual program (SYIP) is released in June, but without doubt, the absence of an effective and useful AOR is one of those reasons. 2. Previous AOR reports and the current FY-2010 AOR: Last year (December 2009) and in previous years, the AOR was posted “for public review and comment”, but it was without explanation, and in a format that no human being could possibly read. This year, the TPO Staff was more alert and it posted the (still-unreadable) AOR in mid-January (late) with the following comment: “Although TPO staff is still reviewing the information submitted by VDOT, that information has been made available here to meet the federal deadline of making the listing available to the public no later than 90 calendar days following the end of the [federal] program year. TPO staff will complete its review of the information and post a more informational report in the near future”. This status has been briefed to the Technical Committee and to the TPO Board. It is now late March, and this unfortunate situation continues. 3. Statewide: Other MPOs in Virginia have encountered the same difficulties. As just one example, the Richmond MPO has refused to post its AOR document as required by federal regulations for at least two out of the last three years, because there were scores of errors in the data provided.

4. Root causes: There are many root causes to the problem: a. The AOR document is inextricably tied to the regional TIP, but in Virginia, the

TIP and its utility has been displaced by the state’s SYIP document. There is hope that the findings of the recent and substantial JLARC Audit of statewide planning and programming will lead to a modernization of the state level procedures now in use. There is further hope that the new VAMPO organization and the tenets of the recent SB-1112 legislation will also drive the process in Virginia to Attachment 3

4

one that better adheres to federal regulations and to one that better recognizes and properly employs the talents and staffs of at least the state’s largest MPO organizations. b. There is a long history in Virginia of MPOs not being involved in the

programming process and therefore not being involved in assessing its effectiveness or performance on an annual basis. Work is needed to generate TTAC and TPO Staff training on this topic and to generate a climate of accountability within MPO staffs which authorizes them to shoulder the regional responsibility of caring for and assessing the regional effectiveness of its regional planning and programming actions. The bottom line and the principle question is: Did the region really use its obligated funds last year? And, whatever the answer may be, what were the positive or negative lessons learned? The TPO Staff, supported by the TTAC, must answer these questions in a timely way, and as appropriate, identify, obtain Board approval and implement corrective actions, every year.

c. The VDOT central staff nearly always sends data to MPOs late (clearly, not in a timely way). VDOT’s data is nearly always incomplete and full or errors (scores of projects in the TIP but not in the AOR document and vice-versa; projects that were completed a year ago in the AOR but not relevant; projects for rural and other MPO areas listed in the Hampton Roads AOR, etc.). This needs serious attention. Recent new efforts to assign programming talent to the regional (VDOT District) staffs may or may not work out. Let’s hope this does work, but I am not confident about this for many reasons.

d. The Technical Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC): As normal process in Hampton Roads, it is the Technical Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC) that does the initial spadework in developing the region’s TIP. It is, therefore, this committee which should want to determine the region’s effectiveness in using the obligated dollars it has gained. In Hampton Roads, however, the TTAC is prone to steep jurisdictional competition. Past state and regional policies contributed to this heritage. But, things are now changing. There are many, very promising reform and modernization activities now going on in Hampton Roads TPO organization. We can expect that the resulting culture change and increased regional discipline will move into the TTAC organization and impact its work. This is vital. In fact, the full repair of the annual TIP process and the annual AOR process can never be fully achieved without an awakening, a new commitment, and a new regionally-based discipline in the TTAC organization. 5. Recommendations: a. Establish an AOR Team in Hampton Roads: Establish an AOR Team to work on the current (non-useful) AOR document. For starters, suggest including one board member, 4 TPO Staff, 3 TTAC, 1 state district office, 1 state central office, and 1 transit representative on the Team.

Attachment 3

5

b. Change the format of the TIP: In order for the board and others to see the results of TPO decisions that took 150 candidate projects, distilled them down to about 50-60 fiscally constrained projects in the 20-year Plan, and then distilled that down to the 4-year TIP with about 15 new construction projects, the TIP format must be changed. This action will also markedly improve the readability and value of the AOR report. In brief, the TIP should contain at least two lists of projects, one being those projects listed in the 20-year Plan that are candidates for design and construction, and a second list for all other routine ITS, operational, safety and maintenance activities. c. VAMPO: The TPO Staff and the AOR Team should coordinate and take these TIP-improvement and AOR-improvement topics to every meeting of VAMPO in order to cultivate/coordinate an improved central office routine of providing financial information to MPOs in a more timely way and in a more readable, accurate and useable fashion. d. The next UPWP: Add a new task—develop an effective AOR process—to the TPO’s next UPWP document. e. New policy and new timetable—by January of each year: Establish a policy and goal whereby the TPO Staff, aided by the TTAC, will complete the regional assessment of AOR results and produce a full set of Lessons Learned and recommended corrective actions by mid-January of each year for TPO Board review and approval. The AOR report is, potentially, a uniquely valuable tool and performance measure for the regional TPO. Its data enables the TPO to better grasp the region’s success in the interminably competitive world of transportation programming and funding. From the skills and knowledge derived by knowing these results, it enables the TPO and the region to be poised and more responsive to opportunities and funding changes as they arise.

Attachment 3

1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HRTPO Public Comment ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Name: Raymond Taylor Date: March 9, 2011 Subject: Hampton Roads FY 2012-2015 TIP: Draft Project List Public Comment Input (Via Email) This input responds to the TPO’s Public Notice which encourages public review and comments on the Draft List of Projects to be included in the region’s next Four Year Program, namely the Hampton Roads FY 2012-2015 TIP. Background. Federal legislation, U.S. Code 23 CFR 450, makes the following points as concerns regional MPO TIP documents: 1. U.S. Code 23 CFR 450.324 (Development of the TIP), paragraph (a), states that “The TIP

shall cover a period of no less than four years, be updated at least every four years, and be approved by the MPO and the Governor”. Notice that the regional TIP is to be approved by the Governor or his or her designated representative, oftentimes the state’s Secretary of Transportation. Also, for information, the MPO that serves Northern Virginia as well as the Richmond MPO each produce an annual TIP as do other large MPOs nationwide.

Recommend that the HRTPO discuss and approve a policy that will establish procedures for producing the TIP on an annual basis. Unlike a long range plan, the TIP is an obligations and budgeting document that needs annual attention rather than once every four years. In this vein and for the same reason, the Commonwealth produces its Six Year Program (SYIP) on an annual basis, for example. HRTPO Staff Comment: HRTPO staff agrees that it would be beneficial to update the TIP more frequently than every three to four years and believes a schedule to update the document every two years would be the most effective. However, such any update plan would require the participation of VDOT and DRPT for the following reason. From 23 CFR 450.324(a) – “The TIP may be updated more frequently [than once every four years], but the cycle for updating the TIP must be compatible with the STIP development and approval process.” For this reason, the HRTPO cannot

Attachment 3

2

update the TIP on an annual basis unless the state updates the STIP on an annual basis.

NOTE: HRTPO staff reviewed the 14 Virginia MPOs and determined the following:

• For all of the MPOs fully within Virginia, the current TIP is the FY 09-12 TIP.

• For the Bristol MPO and the Kingsport MPO (which both include a portion of Tennessee), the current TIP is the FY 11-14 TIP. However, for most, if not all of the projects in the Virginia sections of the TIPs, only FY11 & FY12 obligations are shown.

• For the National Capitol Region Transportation Planning Board (which includes D.C. and a portion of Maryland), the current TIP is the FY11-16 TIP. However, for most of the projects in the Virginia sections of the TIP, only FY11 & FY12 obligations are shown. Furthermore, TPB staff said they are moving toward a 2-year schedule for development of the TIP.

2. U.S. Code 23 CFR 450.326 (TIP relationship to STIP), paragraph (b), states that “After

approval by the MPO and Governor, the TIP shall be included without change, directly, or by reference, in the STIP”. Notice that this federal language requires that the (corroboratively developed) regional TIP “shall be included without change” in the statewide STIP. For multiple reasons, the important federal message here is that there is a federal requirement that Transportation be planned and programmed on a regional basis in coordination, of course, with state and transit agency participation. The TPO’s TIP is central to fulfilling these policy requirements. It is essential that the region’s TIP be developed as, and be recognized as, being the official, TPO Board-approved regional input to the state’s SYIP and STIP processes and not be treated as a mere log that records later what the state has done or what the state plans to do.

3. U.S. Code 23 CFR 450.330 (Project Selection in the TIP), paragraph (c), states that “In areas designated as TMAs, all funded projects (except NHS, IM, and BR projects) shall be selected by the MPO in consultation with the State … from the approved TIP”. The text on this article continues to say that NHS, BR and IM projects shall be selected by the State “in cooperation with the MPO from the approved MPO TIP”. The term TMA stands for Transportation Management Area. The nation’s largest MPOs are designated as TMA-level MPOs with added responsibilities, for example, “the development of congestion management systems, the TIP project selection procedures, and they are subject to a joint federal certification review of the planning process at least every three years”. The Hampton Roads TPO is a TMA-level (large) MPO.

Attachment 3

3

Comments on the Draft List of Projects for the region’s next TIP: 1. Which projects will be in the regional four year TIP and which will not be in the

TIP? The List of Projects has three sections which include (a) a list of 134 projects with projected funding spread programmatically and appropriately across the four-year period of the TIP; (b) another list of 112 projects with no funding over the four-year period of the TIP, and (c) another list of Grouped Projects. In my mind, the TIP is a Program for projects that will be funded. Therefore, it should include the 134 projects that are funded as well as those special case Grouped Projects that are funded. The other list of 112 unfunded projects is useful as a what-might-come-next list and could usefully be included as an Appendix apart from being included in the actual TIP document. This is not a small point. Given the importance of the regional TIP, clarity as to what is in the TIP (and funded) and what is not in the TIP is important for TPO board members and stakeholders alike. In the final FHWA-approved version of the TIP at the top of every page, there is a statement that reads: “Funding shown represents obligations in dollars” meaning that federal approval of the TIP represents legally obligated federal dollars across the four-year period of the TIP even beyond the state’s biennial budgeting window of time. This assures financial programming stability over the four-year period of the TIP document.

Recommend separating the funded and unfunded regional transportation projects in the TIP document with the region’s funded projects being listed in the TIP document and with the unfunded list-of-what-might-come-next projects being listed separately in the Appendix. One can see here yet another virtue for producing the regional TIP on an annual basis as is done by the TPB for Northern Virginia, for example. HRTPO Staff Comment:

HRTPO staff agrees with the recommendation to move the projects for which no planned obligations are shown to the appendix. In addition, the heading at the top of the pages showing TIP projects will be changed to state “Funding Shown Represents Planned Obligations in Dollars”, since the obligations shown in the TIP are planned obligations, not actual obligations, and federal approval of the TIP does not legally obligate federal dollars.

Attachment 3

4

2. TPO’s Project Prioritization process for the TIP. Given the two funded and unfunded lists of projects described above, one assumes that a regional Hampton Roads programmatic prioritization process has already accomplished based on policies this year which, for example, might have been “advance the most ready projects”; or “develop shovel ready projects”; or “focus on bridge repairs and bridge security”, etc. For a proper review of the TIP List of Projects, board members and others need to know what assumptions have been made and what competitive programming policies are being pursued. It seems at this point that the state VDOT central office (with some TPO Staff input) has served as the primary prioritization driver for this TIP. Per federal regulations, however, and referring to the quote above—“TMA-level MPOs have added responsibilities such as TIP project selection procedures”—is a statement which reflects the federal effort to plan and program transportation at the regional level as much as is practical and in coordination with state and transit agencies. The TPO here in Hampton Roads has developed and completed a truly outstanding prioritization process for the 20-year, Long Range Plan some of which, at least today, can be applied to the short term TIP Program now being developed. Professionals know, however, that prioritizing at the vision-driven, long term, 20-year Plan level is one thing, and prioritization at the highly competitive, budget and obligations-driven, 4-year, short term TIP level is another thing.

Recommend providing information about the project prioritization process being used for this next regional TIP. In the longer term and for future years, recommend developing and documenting the TPO’s unique prioritization process to be used in the development of its annual TIP documents. HRTPO Staff Comment:

Currently, prioritization of projects in the TIP depends upon a number of things. First, since federal regulations require the TIP to be consistent with the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), prioritization of projects in the LRTP naturally affect the prioritization of projects in the TIP. In the beginning of the development of a TIP, VDOT and the localities, and DRPT and the transit agencies, work together to draw projects from the LRTP that are priorities for each locality and transit agency. Much of the project prioritization for the TIP depends upon the System. Here is a summary of prioritization for each System:

• Interstate System o Statewide Discretionary Program – No formula distribution to

districts o CTB determines priorities based on input from the recommended

candidate list, public input from the Fall Transportation meetings, and guidance on the development of the SYIP

Attachment 3

5

• Primary System

o District Program – Funds are allocated to each district through state allocation formula

o CTB determines priorities based on input from the recommended candidate list, public input from the Fall Transportation meetings, and guidance on the development of the SYIP

• Secondary System o County Program – Funds are allocated to each county through

state allocation formula and federal formula STP funds o Residency Administrators and County Boards of Supervisors

determine priorities

• Urban System o City/Town Program – Funds are allocated to each city/town

through state allocation formula and federal formula STP funds o Locality determines priorities

• CMAQ & RSTP Funds

o Allocated by the MPO using approved project selection process o Funds can be used on all systems and transit

• Bridge

o VDOT Structure and Bridge (S&B) Division allocates funds to districts based on the square footage of deficient structures in the district

o S&B consolidates the district lists and allocates Bridge funds to projects based on district priorities and allocations

• Highway Safety Program o Applications for projects are solicited from localities and VDOT

districts and regions o Projects are ranked based on the federally required benefit/cost

ratio and compete on a statewide basis

• Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety o Applications are solicited from rail companies, localities, and

VDOT districts and regions o Projects are initially ranked using the Federal Railroad

Administrations (FRA) approved regression equation o Final ranking is developed based on input from the applicants,

railroad companies, a diagnostic field review, and the FRA regression equation

• Capital Project Revenue Bonds o CTB discretion

Attachment 3

6

• Equity Bonus Funds o CTB discretion

3. Front-loaded programming. In the List of Projects, there appears to be a pattern of front-loading the funding for the region’s programmed transportation projects. In the draft TIP list of projects, 96 (or 72 percent) of the 134 funded projects contain funding in the first year of the TIP (FY-2012) whereas only 21 (or 16 percent) of the 134 funded projects contain funding during the last year of the TIP (FY-2015). In general terms, one should expect a nominal, inflation-adjusted, somewhat stable annual level of available funding and not a front loaded availability of funds. For MPO organizations, careful programming in the mid and out-years of a TIP is one professional way to sequence projects around the region and also a necessary way to groom projects with PE, ROW and design funding leading to construction funding during the later years of a TIP (or for the next TIP). During the recent GA-sponsored, JLARC Audit of transportation planning and programming, VDOT submitted strong comments claiming, among other allegations, that MPOs are not skilled in the programming process and that “MPOs tend to front-load funding on projects so that they are fully funded in a single year rather than funding the projects based on the planned project development schedule”. The comments in this overall paragraph are not intended to fault our TPO Staff which, in my mind, has moved aggressively and professionally far forward in advancing regional needs based on regional criteria and with a regional list in accordance with federal process. But more effort is needed in order to make the regional TIP become a strong and effective input to the overall state managed programming (SYIP and STIP) process rather than a mere record of what the state, later, has done or will do. Per federal intent, the regional TIP is an input to the state SYIP, not vice versa.

Recommend reviewing the project list with its layout of funding over the four year period of the TIP to ensure best programming principles are being applied here ate the regional level. HRTPO Staff Comment:

In Virginia, the function of obtaining federal authorization to obligate federal funds takes place between VDOT and FHWA or DRPT and FTA. The TPO cannot obligate federal funds, so the only thing the TPO can do at this time with regard to obligations is question VDOT about planned obligations shown in the draft TIP project list.

Attachment 3

7

4. Public review process. The draft list of projects for the region’s next TIP that has been posted was just that—a list of projects showing the programming of federal and other transportation funds. There were no funding summaries by Fiscal Year or by Project Type and there were no transportation category summaries provided which makes worthy review nearly impossible. Questions arise such as, What revenue assumptions have been made, and What are the region’s priorities based on obligations that have been assigned to the various transportation project types such as Rail, Interstates, Urban roads, etc. Surely, this information will be included in the Final TIP document as in the past, but at this interim stage of approving the list of projects for the TIP, this kind of summary data should be provided at least in some tentative or draft manner to help stakeholders understand the upcoming regional TIP.

Recommend providing the important Draft revenue and other summary tables even at this interim stage of the TIP development process. Also recommend moving Rail projects from the Grouped projects list to the normal list of projects. HRTPO Staff Comment:

HRTPO staff would have preferred to include the information mentioned in the public comment above with the draft TIP project list when it was made available for public review, but the compressed timeframe for developing the TIP precluded that. The information mentioned will be included when the draft TIP document is posted for public review prior to the request for final Board approval in June 2011. With regard to the comment on Rail projects – for the most part, the grouped rail projects are small projects at individual rail crossings. HRTPO staff will review the grouped rail projects and relocate any substantial rail projects to the “normal” list of projects.

5. MPO Notes. Every project is portrayed in the TIP using a table of data by fiscal year, as well as places for project description, project location, UPC number, etc. One of the available data boxes for each project is titled MPO Note. This information box, however, has not been used for any project. In my judgment, this is a missed opportunity that could be used, for example, to record reasons why a project received no funding, or to note that this project will be fully funded within the duration of this four year TIP, or that this project will become shovel ready during the period of this TIP and thus become eligible for a federal grant award, or that for tactical reasons this project has been advanced or delayed, and in so many other instances. Using this MPO Note data box could help the TPO Staff in many ways to answer questions before they are asked. These notes, likewise, would be very useful to TPO board members and stakeholders and they could also be a method for documenting this region’s concerns about a particular project for state level and CTB decision-makers.

Attachment 3

8

Recommend the TPO Staff selectively use the MPO Note data element to its best advantage and for the region’s benefit as well. HRTPO Staff Comment:

The MPO Note data box is used to document revisions to project information that occurs due to amendments and administrative modifications that are requested after the initial TIP document has been approved by the Board. Staff believes this use of the MPO Note data box is very beneficial for keeping track of changes to project information in the TIP between full updates of the document. The TIP is revised, on average, more than once per month and each revision is documented in the appropriate MPO Note data box. In addition, on the HRTPO website, there is a separate document that lists all of the revisions made since the current TIP was approved in June 2008. That document is currently 10 pages long. 6. Summary. In my mind and based upon conversations with other MPO organizations, the regional TIP is by far, the most important of all MPO documents. This is the document where the rubber meets the road—it is the document that presages actual project funding using budget year revenue sources and using federally obligated funding sources (NHS, IM, HSR, BR, etc.) over four years or beyond the state and local budgeting windows. Hundreds of MPO organizations have undergone broad MPO reform processes over the past 15 years. Similarly, our TPO has recently invested over three years in its broad reform process with, so far, widely recognized and very impressive results. The progress of reforms—from board structure, to Bylaws, to Advisory bodies, to public participation and EJ methods, to prioritization procedures and long range planning skills amounts to a wonderful story. The end of the line in any MPO reform process is the TIP, and that is probably the most important and most challenging, remaining reform task for our TTAC, TPO Staff and TPO. Some of the needed reform in the TIP development process can be addressed this year before the state releases its next annual SYIP document, but most of the hard work will need to be addressed over the next twelve months so as to be really ready for the next, May 2012, state SYIP document. The TIP challenge is part of a larger picture and cannot be addressed in a vacuum. The GA-sponsored JLARC Audit Final Report has required at least three VDOT reports on how programming in Virginia can be reformed so as to better include the state’s 14 MPOs and so as to better adhere to federal regulations. The recently passed SB-1112 legislation and the recent establishment of the Virginia Association of MPOs (VAMPO) will also impact the TIP and programming processes significantly over the next twelve months.

Attachment 3

9

Recommend that added UPWP tasking and added TPO Staff attention be approved so as to best advance programming skills and programming results here in H. Roads. It can be said that as the largest MPO wholly within the state of Virginia, that the HRTPO can and should be the leader of regional and statewide TIP, SYIP and STIP reform in Virginia. But, for now, as noted above, recommend using an annual TIP, including only funded projects in the TIP, developing a TIP prioritization process, end the front-loading, use the MPO Note, etc. HRTPO Staff Comment: HRTPO staff appreciates the thorough review and thoughtful comments regarding the draft TIP list and the upcoming new TIP document. Staff will take advantage of many of the comments presented above as we endeavor to continue to improve the Hampton Roads Transportation Improvement Program. Submitted by Ray Taylor, March 9, 2011

Attachment 3

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board Meeting – April 21, 2011

AGENDA ITEM #5: MINUTES SUBJECT: Minutes of previous HRTPO Board meeting. BACKGROUND: Minutes of the HRTPO Board meeting held on March 17, 2011 are attached. Attachment 5 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The HRTPO staff recommends approval of the minutes.

HRTPO Board Minutes – March 17, 2011 – Page 1

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) Board Minutes of March 17, 2011

The Hampton Roads TPO Board Meeting was called to order at 10:41 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) Alan P. Krasnoff (CH) Clifton Hayes (Alternate, CH) Christian D. Rilee (GL)* George Wallace (Alternate, HA) Stan D. Clark (IW) Bruce C. Goodson (JC) McKinley Price (NN) Paul D. Fraim (NO) W. Eugene Hunt (PQ) Linda T. Johnson (SU)

Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr. (YK)* Amy Inman (Alternate, DRPT) Delegate John Cosgrove (GA) Delegate Glenn Oder (GA) Senator John Miller (GA) Senator Yvonne B. Miller (GA) Philip Shucet (HRT) Dennis Heuer (VDOT) Jeff Florin (Alternate, VPA) Mark Rickards (WATA) HRTPO Nonvoting Members in Attendance: William E. Harrell (CH) Brenda Garton (GL) Mary Bunting (HA) Robert C. Middaugh (JC) Neil A. Morgan (NN) Stanley Stein (NO) Kenneth L. Chandler (PO) J. Randall Wheeler (PQ)

Selena Cuffee-Glenn (SU) Jackson C. Tuttle, II (WM) James O. McReynolds (YK) William Harrison (CTAC) Ivan Rucker (FHWA) Colonel Glenn Grothe (U.S. Army) Commander Kemit Spears (Alternate, USN) HRTPO Executive Director: Dwight L. Farmer

Other Participants: Thelma Drake (DRPT) HRTPO Voting Members Absent: Molly Joseph Ward, Vice-Chair (HA) Kenneth I. Wright (PO)

Clyde Haulman (WM) Jerry Bridges (VPA)

Attachment 5

HRTPO Board Minutes – March 17, 2011 – Page 2

HRTPO Nonvoting Members Absent: W. Douglas Caskey (IW) James K. Spore (VB) Jeffrey Breeden (FAA) Irene Rico (FHWA) Tony Cho (FTA) Letitia A. Thompson (FTA)

William Bell (FTAC) Wayne Shank (NAA) Ken Spirito (PAC) Capt. Mark Ogle (USCG) Capt. Mary Jackson (USN) Randall P. Burdette (VDOA) * Late or Early Departure Others Recorded Attending: John Gergely, Henry Ryto (Citizens); Earl Sorey, Ella Ward (CH); Brian DeProfio, Dianne Randall Foster (HA); Beverly Walkup (IW); Michael King, Jerri Wilson (NN); John Keifer, Bryan Pennington, Jeff Raliski (NO); Eric Nielsen (SU); Phil Pullen (VB); Eric Stringfield, Christopher Voigt (VDOT); Aubrey Layne (CTB); Debbie Messina (The Virginian Pilot); Jon Cawley, Cory Neal (Daily Press); Will Christopher, Ray Taylor (FHR); Rich Clifton (RK&K); Carolyn McPherson (Light Rail Now, Inc.); Ellis James (Sierra Club Observer); Karen McPherson (Kimley-Horn); Rowena Fullinwider, Jack Hornbeck, Dean McClain, Henri Parks, Candace Reid (HRCC); Chris Lloyd (McGuire Woods Consulting); Meredith Judy (Rhodeside & Harwell); Wendy Vachet (US Navy); Scott Lovell (PB); Jim Oliver (HRCCE); Mark Geduldig-Yatrofsky (Portsmouthcitywatch.org); Christy Everett (Chesapeake Bay Foundation); James Openshaw (CTAC); Peter Huber (Willcox and Savage); Germaine Fleet (Biggs & Fleet); HRPDC and HRTPO Staff: Camelia Ravanbakht, Jessica Banks, Sam Belfield, John Carlock, Rick Case, Jennifer Coleman, Nancy Collins, Kathlene Grauberger, Greg Grootendorst, Frances Hughey, Jim Hummer, Rob Jacobs, Michael Kimbrel, Joe Paulus, Benito Pérez, Kelli Peterson, Dale Stith, Joe Turner, and Chris Vaigneur. Public Comment Period Four people requested to address the HRTPO Board. Chairman Sessoms asked them to limit their comments to three minutes. Mr. Jack Hornbeck

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Members of the TPO. Good morning. My name is Jack Hornbeck and I’m President of the Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce and I am here on behalf of our 1,800 member firms. We are pleased that the federal government is attempting to provide significant funding for the development of high-speed and intercity passenger rail service. Our chamber has joined not only with other regional and local business organizations represented here today that you will hear from in just a moment, but we are also working with the Raleigh, North Carolina and Richmond, Virginia Chambers as part of a two-state, three-region coalition to ultimately develop high-speed passenger rail within the Raleigh, Petersburg, Hampton Roads, Richmond, and Washington, D.C. Corridor. As has been demonstrated previously, there is no doubt that Hampton Roads’ demographics enhance the case to be made. At the moment, we do not know how the funding issue will ultimately shake out, but we encourage the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization to look at opportunities now to ensure that we are ready to take advantage of the federal government’s interest in developing high-speed and passenger rail service. Thank you.

Attachment 5

HRTPO Board Minutes – March 17, 2011 – Page 3

Aubrey Layne I do want to take one moment for you to notice that I do have on silver and blue today for the Monarchs. My name is Aubrey Layne, and I speak to you today as the Hampton Roads representative of The Commonwealth Transportation Board. Over the last few years it has been fashionable to talk about Hampton Roads receiving its fair share of transportation dollars, but I want to talk to you about today is that I think there has been some structural changes that make that a reality and maybe even more. First of all we have a new administration with the Governor that not only lived and worked here but very much understands our transportation needs. We have a Secretary of Transportation who is very versed in the maritime industry and understands what it means to our port, to our shipyards, and to our military. We have a new Commissioner of VDOT who is very much focused on accountability, and not so much driven by political means. And, we have, of course a new Director of Rail and Public Transportation who is a native of the area who will speak to you later today who has already shown how she can help us by bringing, making conventional rail on the Southside and improvements on the Peninsula a reality. In addition, we now have three members on the Commonwealth Transportation Board, so we have at least as many as Northern Virginia, and more than most of the other areas in the state. Finally, capping all this off, we are now presented with a list from the Governor of transportation projects across the state, and Hampton Roads stands to win fairly big in this, particularly when you consider that of $1.5 billion that has been set aside for public private partnerships, so there are a lot of things that look good for us on the horizon, but they are not happening without some action on our part, and that's what I want to talk to you about three things today. First of all, I would very much encourage you to complete your work on prioritization. That is going to be the name of the game, not only for these projects coming up, but also in the future. We are now having to program not just construction monies but RSTP and CMAQ monies over the six-year plan. The State of Virginia is now pre-driven by federal dollars on construction in many of its programs. All our state money is going to fund maintenance to fund our agencies and to fund debt service and the federal program is use it or lose it. So I would encourage you to get our prioritization lined up on all our programs and make sure these funds are being used effectively. The second thing that I would encourage you to do is to continue your efforts of outreach not only to the CTB, the Administration, but all the agencies you deal with. We have made good strides in that fact. We have had a presentation at the CTB Board. You have taken it upon yourself to allow this meeting to be happening on a Thursday instead of a Wednesday to allow the CTB members to come here, but it is a two-way street, and I would also encourage you to send representatives to the CTB. We have some public hearings coming up on the 27th of this month particularly for our six-year plan, and I would encourage you that we show a consensus about our projects and what we want in that plan, because the Governor's plan does not include everything that we need here and we are in a competition and we need to be not only prioritized but on a consensus in that. The last thing that I would ask you to consider is I would encourage you to embrace accountability and control of all the funds that run through this organization and I say that with the very most selfish means possible for our region, because if we have accountability, we have control. As the CTB District Member, I am now charged with having to sign off, not only the allocation but the effectiveness of these programs. The Secretary has charged all the agencies to deliver to us at each meeting, a listing of programs across the State where monies are not being moved, or they are sitting there. This happened yesterday. It just so happened that Hampton Roads was the recipient. We picked up almost five million dollars on our highways for guardrail and signage improvement. So I would encourage you to embrace that because if we know about those things we can take those monies and allocate them to jobs and localities and across the region here before it gets to Richmond, and I would rather us be in charge of that than a bureaucrat, with all due respect, in Richmond and I have to defend on why somebody wants to move monies from our

Attachment 5

HRTPO Board Minutes – March 17, 2011 – Page 4

district. So I will conclude by saying, we have a great opportunity and it is time for us to take some action. Now I opened my comments by talking about what's our fair share. I can tell you I have been there two years and I have not got one project moved forward in Hampton Roads across the state talking about what is fair or our fair share. We are in a competition and we need to be the best team on the field, and quite frankly I am tired of losing. So I would ask us all to take some accountability for ourselves and let’s go get these monies that are out there for us to take. Thank you very much for your time today. Barry Bishop Good morning. I’m Barry Bishop. I’m here this morning speaking on behalf of the Greater Norfolk Corporation, as well as our counterpoint organizations – the Virginia Beach Vision, the Portsmouth Partnership, and the Chesapeake Alliance in support of the TPO continuing to work with your high-speed rail consultant to develop a scope of work towards a TIER II EIS between Hampton Roads and Richmond. I would hasten to add that it goes without saying that our efforts should complement and not in any way compete with our teammates at the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation. We are all painfully aware of the uncertainty regarding what funding, if any, will be available and when, particularly in the short term. But that said, our goal should be to be ready when the funding becomes available so that we are in the front of the line instead of the back of the line. Thank you. Will Christopher Mayor Sessoms, Dr. Drake, from my City of Norfolk Mayor Fraim, and distinguished friends, good morning. I want to thank the business community for their comments this morning. I represent the younger generation, the next generation, and we care deeply for the wonderful region of Hampton Roads and for its future quality of life. We appreciate the brave steps this Board is taking towards 21st century transportation infrastructure, and we are encouraged by what your transportation consultant has done so far. We would like to see that work continue so that we can be better prepared in the future to advance our region. It was brought to my attention that it would be my generation and younger that would primarily be riding high-speed rail. A growing number of us think of transit and infrastructure projects as strategic investments fundamental to the growth and success to Hampton Roads and if the Brookings Institute and Richard Florida are correct, we are moving toward urbanization and mega regions making multi-modal transportation even more critical environmentally and economically. We see high-speed rail as the connective fiber to a 21st century economy. We see high-speed rail as the pipeline bringing in talent, diversity, innovation, and jobs into our region. We are also realizing that we can't pave our way out of some of these challenges. I attended the high-speed rail public hearing last year where over one thousand people attended, spoke, and supported bringing quality rail to Hampton Roads. My colleagues and I were there along with many military people, university people, young people; a very diverse group. We are proud to have you representing these eager citizens. My goal is to trigger board support for gathering data and better preparing ourselves. On behalf of the group I speak to you of today, please continue supporting and funding the TPO’s transportation consultant. If we slow down the process we may not be in line when funding is available. Let's continue to invest in our future. Thank you.

Submitted Public Comments Chairman Sessoms stated there were no submitted public comments in the agenda packet. Attachment 5

HRTPO Board Minutes – March 17, 2011 – Page 5

Approval of the Agenda Chairman Sessoms asked if there were any additions or deletions to the agenda. Mr. Harrison asked to add CTAC Membership Term Renewals to the agenda as New Business under Agenda Item #20. Mr. Clark Moved to approve the agenda with the addition of CTAC Membership Term Renewals as a New Business item; seconded by Delegate Oder. The Motion Carried. Consent Agenda Chairman Sessoms outlined the Consent Agenda as follows:

• Minutes • FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment: VDOT • FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Revision: Virginia Beach • Hampton Roads 2030 LRTP and FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Air Quality Conformity: Final Report • FY 2012-2015 Transportation Improvement Program: Draft Project List • Freight Transportation Advisory Committee: Membership • FY 2012 Federal Grant Application: Rural Transportation Mr. Farmer asked to re-assign Agenda Item 9, the FY 2012-2015 Transportation Improvement Program: Draft Project List, from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda as the first item to discuss. Mayor Johnson Moved to approve the Consent Agenda re-assigning the FY 2012-2015 Transportation Improvement Program: Draft Project List from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda; seconded by Mayor Fraim. The Motion Carried.

FY 2012-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): Draft Project List Mr. Farmer explained that work had begun on the development of a new FY 2012-2015 TIP for Hampton Roads. The basic steps for development of the TIP are 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 to regional air quality plans and not worsen air quality. 3. The final TIP document is approved 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. Mr. Farmer stated that normally he would not rush through this process; however, VDOT has requested that Step 1 be approved quickly in order for the air quality conformity Attachment 5

HRTPO Board Minutes – March 17, 2011 – Page 6

analysis to begin. He noted that the HRTPO Board will have an opportunity at the April meeting to discuss the draft project list in greater detail. Mayor Johnson Moved to approve the FY 2012-2015 Transportation Improvement Program: Draft Project List. Senator Yvonne Miller stated the HRTPO Board should approve the list; however, she expressed concern regarding various discrepancies that should be corrected when it is brought back to the Board in April. Chairman Sessoms agreed with Senator Yvonne Miller. Delegate Oder asked if the project list is what the HRTPO Board refers to as the four-year plan. Mr. Farmer replied affirmatively, but it was more commonly identified as the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in which the dollar expenditures are programmed. He indicated VDOT had hoped to engage the Board much earlier in the process; however, VDOT had been overwhelmed with its programming process. Delegate Oder inquired if the projects in the TIP were projects that will be built over the next four years. Mr. Farmer replied affirmatively and noted that once the project is in the TIP, it is moving towards implementation. Chairman Sessoms stated there was a motion on the floor. The vote was taken and The Motion Carried. (There was no second to the motion) Transportation Project Prioritization: CTAC Resolution Mr. Shucet stated that due to his involvement with a proposal concerning the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel submitted under Virginia’s Public Private Transportation Act, and that he may have future commercial interest in other projects that are among the projects being prioritized by the TPO, it is appropriate for him to abstain from participating in the discussion of or voting on agenda items 12 and 13. He asked that his written statement be retained and included in the TPO minutes. Chairman Sessoms indicated it would be included in the March minutes. Mr. Harrison stated the Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) met on March 10, 2011 and the list of prioritized transportation projects was reviewed by members. The Committee drafted CTAC Resolution 2011-01 supporting the list which was to be voted on by the HRTPO Board at the March meeting. However, the CTAC acknowledged in the resolution that the list of prioritized transportation projects did not include any additional lane miles across the Hampton Roads Harbor. The Committee resolved that the HRTPO Board find alternative additional and innovative funding sources to address the critical needs for additional lane miles across the Hampton Roads Harbor and to maximize the capacity of existing lane miles across the harbor in order to protect the safety, health, welfare, and prosperity of the citizens of Hampton Roads. Mr. Farmer asked Mr. Harrison if there was any action needed on this item. Mr. Harrison replied it was for informational purposes only.

Attachment 5

HRTPO Board Minutes – March 17, 2011 – Page 7

Transportation Project Prioritization: Recommended List of Projects and Studies Chairman Sessoms explained the prioritization process began two years ago and the recommended list of projects and studies is included in the HRTPO agenda packet. Mayor Krasnoff Moved to approve the Transportation Project Prioritization: Recommended List of Projects and Studies; seconded by both Mayor Price and Mayor Johnson. The Motion Carried. Allocating CMAQ and RSTP Funds Through FY 2017 Ms. Ravanbakht stated VDOT had initiated the development of the next six-year improvement program, and in conjunction with that, all Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) were requested to submit their latest projects and allocations through FY2017 with a deadline of March 21st. HRTPO staff consulted with the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) and on March 2nd, TTAC members approved a list of allocations. Ms. Ravanbakht outlined the three strategies utilized to determine which projects would receive allocations and explained that Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) projects that were already in the pipeline received first priority. Second, additional projects that were prioritized at the last selection process in 2009 received allocations, and finally, funds were distributed based on the “shovel readiness” of the projects. Ms. Ravanbakht noted there was an additional $50 million and $96 million for CMAQ and RSTP funding respectively. The new funding was allocated to twelve previously approved CMAQ projects and fifteen additional projects. There were no new RSTP projects; however, the additional funding was allocated to fourteen previously approved RSTP projects. Mayor Krasnoff Moved to approve the additional CMAQ and RSTP projects and allocations and the associated TIP amendment; seconded by Mayor Johnson. Mr. Heuer stated the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) recommended allocating the additional CMAQ and RSTP monies to projects already underway. He expressed his concern regarding the funding of new projects when several regionally significant projects already in the six-year plan did not receive any funds. He indicated he would be compelled to vote against the HRTPO Staff and TTAC recommendations. Chairman Sessoms stated Mr. Heuer’s statement was disturbing and asked if a vote was necessary today. Ms. Ravanbakht replied affirmatively with a VDOT deadline of March 21st. Ms. Ravanbakht commented that all of the projects included in the CMAQ and RSTP tables were now fully funded with the exception of one or two. TTAC members reviewed all of the projects and chose ones that, with some additional monies, could be fully funded.

Attachment 5

HRTPO Board Minutes – March 17, 2011 – Page 8

Chairman Sessoms expressed concern that VDOT and the HRTPO were not on the same page regarding the CMAQ and RSTP funding. Mr. Farmer agreed with Chairman Sessoms. Senator Yvonne Miller asked for a comparison of the six and four-year transportation plans. Mr. Farmer replied the six-year program is VDOT’s program of allocations which is approved by the CTB; whereas, the four-year program, the TIP, is the responsibility of the MPO. He indicated he had expressed his concern for over a decade that these two programs still co-existed individually. Senator Yvonne Miller asked Mr. Heuer to explain his concern with the document set forth by the HRTPO Staff and TTAC. Mr. Heuer commented he had hoped to keep the discussion on a broad level. Chairman Sessoms suggested Mr. Farmer and Mr. Heuer consult after the meeting regarding any problems with the allocations. Ms. Ravanbakht stated the deadline of March 21st was given to the HRTPO by the VDOT Central Office. Chairman Sessoms noted the importance of evaluating the discrepancies, yet because action was needed immediately and TTAC had reviewed and recommended the figures, he commented that there was a motion and a second on the floor and a vote should be taken. Mr. Shepperd asked Mr. Heuer to provide details regarding specific dollar amount concerns. Mr. Heuer replied he did not have exact figures; however, he could point out certain projects that were either over or under funded. He noted that it was his belief that all concerns could be addressed. Senator Yvonne Miller suggested language be added to the motion in order to approve the CMAQ and RSTP allocations immediately and resolve any issues later. Mr. Shucet voiced his concern regarding the presumption that the allocations would be approved. He indicated the HRTPO Board should discuss and vote on the issues with no preconceived notions that an item will be approved. He regarded Mr. Heuer’s concerns as compelling and asked what would happen if the allocations were not approved. Mr. Heuer replied VDOT hoped to present the plan to the public on April 27th and include an explanation of the inclusion of CMAQ funding into the six-year plan. He again expressed his concern with adding new projects to the plan when regionally significant projects already in the plan did not receive additional funding. He stated the General Assembly and the public have made it clear to VDOT to utilize monies as efficiently as possible. Mr. Shepperd asked if the HRTPO Board could amend the CMAQ and RSTP allocations in the future. Chairman Sessoms replied he was uncertain of that answer. Chairman Sessoms reiterated his suggestion that Mr. Farmer and Mr. Heuer convene immediately, along with the localities if necessary, to reach an effective conclusion to the issue. He noted that Mr. Aubrey Layne, Hampton Roads’ CTB member had indicated the CTB will step in and remove funding if it has not been allocated appropriately. Attachment 5

HRTPO Board Minutes – March 17, 2011 – Page 9

Delegate Oder stated it was his intention to support the motion; however, it appeared to him that perhaps HRTPO staff and TTAC had identified more projects than there was available money, as it appeared that some of the projects could not be fully funded. Chairman Sessoms commented it was his belief that there was funding for almost all the projects. Mayor Johnson suggested Ms. Ravanbakht be given the opportunity to respond to the questions. Delegate Oder asked if the allocations indicated in the CMAQ and RSTP allocation tables were actual or wishful monies. Mr. Farmer replied it was actual money for a project. Delegate Oder inquired if $42 million was sufficient to build Atkinson Boulevard. Mr. Heuer replied he did not know the exact number for that project. Mayor Krasnoff asked if there are any VDOT representatives included on the TTAC, and if so, did such representatives voice concerns at the March meeting. Ms. Ravanbakht replied that VDOT has three voting members who were present at the March TTAC meeting. She stated the vote to approve the CMAQ and RSTP allocations at the meeting was unanimous. Senator Yvonne Miller suggested the HRTPO Board vote immediately based on this new information. Mr. Goodson asked if any of the projects will be removed from the list during internal discussions after the HRTPO Board vote. Mr. Farmer stated he would inform the Board if any projects are removed. Mayor Krasnoff’s motion to approve the CMAQ and RSTP allocations through FY 2017, which was seconded by Mayor Johnson, went to vote. The Motion Carried with Mr. Heuer and Mr. Shucet voting in opposition. Hampton Roads Regional Transit Vision Plan: Final Report Ms. Inman, Project and Planning Manager for DRPT, thanked the HRTPO Board for the opportunity to present the Hampton Roads Regional Transit Vision Plan Final Report, a report that emphasizes public transportation. She explained the plan goals and remarked 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 5

HRTPO Board Minutes – March 17, 2011 – Page 10

Ms. Inman introduced Ms. Meredith Judy of Rhodeside and Harwell, to brief the HRTPO Board 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 re-evaluation 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. Mayor Fraim Moved to approve the Hampton Roads Regional Transit Vision Plan: Final Report and HRTPO Board Resolution 2011-02 in support of the plan; seconded by Mr. Clark. Mr. Shucet expressed his appreciation to DRPT and its leadership in preparing the Transit Vision Plan and stated there is a need to increase the awareness and benefits of public transportation. He noted that more people drive to work alone now than in 1990 and only three percent utilize public transportation. Mayor Hunt commented the plan did not contain any references to the area’s military installations which may be one reason the figures regarding single drivers are high. Chairman Sessoms stated that Oceana was included in the light rail portion of the plan. Ms. Inman acknowledged there were only bus connections on the Peninsula. Regarding the motion on the floor, the vote was taken. The Motion Carried.

Attachment 5

HRTPO Board Minutes – March 17, 2011 – Page 11

(Mr. Shepperd departs) High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail: Status Report Mr. Farmer stated the HRTPO Board, at the February 2011 Retreat, directed him to attend to the following:

• Change the boundaries of the High-speed rail project from “Hampton Roads to Washington D.C.” to “Hampton Roads to Richmond” only. • Work with the Consultant to develop a get-ready scope of work. • Work with Ms. Drake and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) to address their concerns. Mr. Farmer explained he had met with the Consultant, and to avoid duplicating efforts and any appearance of competitiveness, the boundaries of the project are now from Hampton Roads to Richmond. A get-ready scope of work will be developed and he stated Ms. Drake was in attendance today to inform the Board of DRPT’s efforts, concerns, and thoughts regarding high-speed and intercity passenger rail. He then introduced Ms. Drake, Director of DRPT. Ms. Drake expressed her appreciation to the HRTPO in having her at the meeting to speak on behalf of public transportation. Ms. Drake explained DRPT currently has plans for 79 mph conventional passenger rail from the Norfolk Harbor Park through Petersburg, up to Richmond and Boston, same seat. In January 2010, the Commonwealth of Virginia received an award for high-speed rail funding and the public incorrectly assumed the speeds for high-speed rail would range from 150-250 mph. She acknowledged the perceived definitions of passenger rail have caused much confusion; however, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has begun to associate new vocabulary with the different passenger rail services, including: • Conventional Passenger Rail: 79 mph service • Emerging High-speed Passenger Rail: 90-110 mph service • Core Express High-speed Passenger Rail: 150-250 mph service Ms. Drake stated the conventional passenger rail service has a start up cost of $100 million and DRPT has the approval of the General Assembly and the CTB with the majority of the money in hand. She noted DRPT is under contract with Norfolk Southern who will begin work in the near future with service beginning most likely in 2013. The emerging high-speed passenger rail Tier I was submitted by DRPT in December 2010 and to increase speeds to 90 mph it will cost $475 million with an additional $68 – $100 million for 110 mph. Time savings between 79 mph conventional passenger rail and 90 mph emerging high-speed passenger rail is three minutes in service which increases to eight minutes with 100 mph service. She commented that Amtrak has outlined its vision plan for the Northeast Corridor of approximately 400 miles, with speeds of 220 mph and a time frame for implementation of

Attachment 5

HRTPO Board Minutes – March 17, 2011 – Page 12

25 years and a cost of $118 billion. She indicated the FRA had not contacted Amtrak regarding the plan. Ms. Drake stated there is still much uncertainty with federal spending. At the federal level, the House of Representatives position regarding high-speed rail funding is that it should be recalled. The Senate position is it should remain where it is and even increased by a billion dollars. She indicated that if the Federal Government is truly serious about high-speed rail projects, there needs to be a financial commitment and regulations must be waived to allow the projects to be brought to fruition. Currently, passenger rail service in the United States is co-mingled on the freight line; owned by freight railroad lines. The railroad companies set the speeds and determine the capacity of how many trains can go on the line. The Virginia State Constitution does not allow a transit agency to own a railroad and that may become an issue as DRPT moves forward with a vision or a high-speed rail plan. She noted that perhaps a legislative change will be needed at some point in the future. She believes there should be a national and Virginia policy with regards to rail. Ms. Drake explained it was difficult for DRPT to negotiate with CSX to obtain one train slot to utilize on its North-South route to Petersburg. One issue at hand is the Appomattox River Bridge, which is a large choke point on the CSX line because two tracks lead into one at the bridge. Ms. Drake stated DRPT has three emerging high-speed rail projects in development: Washington, D.C. to Richmond Main Street, Richmond Main Street to Raleigh, NC, and Hampton Roads to Washington, D.C. She expressed her frustration regarding the time frames involved with passenger rail, citing that FRA has not contacted her regarding the Hampton Roads to Washington, D.C. project or an eleven mile smaller project in Richmond. She noted that once contact is established, the environmental process will encompass an eight year span. In conclusion, Ms. Drake commented that the DRPT Lynchburg service is less than a year and half old and has already tripled its ridership predictions. It is the best running passenger state-sponsored rail in the Amtrak system and DRPT earned initial revenue this year to use towards future projects. She thanked the HRTPO Board for the opportunity to attend and explain the facts and procedures regarding passenger rail service. Senator John Miller asked if there would be expanded or improved passenger rail service on the Peninsula. Ms. Drake replied DRPT was working with CSX, Amtrak, and the Newport News City Manager, Mr. Neil Morgan in order to improve the service in Newport News. Delegate Cosgrove asked why the environmental process was so lengthy. Ms. Drake stated the federal government sets that process, and yet she understands that exceptions have been made and believes it is time for a procedural change. Delegate Cosgrove agreed with Ms. Drake regarding the need to change the regulations especially due to the fact that existing track and right-of-way will still be utilized. Attachment 5

HRTPO Board Minutes – March 17, 2011 – Page 13

Senator Yvonne Miller stated that with so many attractions in Hampton Roads, high-speed passenger rail could be profitable; however, she expressed her concern that it has not progressed as quickly as it should. She noted that to maintain the military’s presence in the area, high-speed rail will become a necessity. She suggested the HRTPO work with DRPT in order to assist both in obtaining their goals. Ms. Drake stated the military is enthusiastic that DRPT will be implementing passenger rail from Norfolk to Richmond and then up to Washington, D.C. Passengers who board in Norfolk at 5:00 a.m. could expect to be at the Pentagon by 9:30 a.m. after catching the Metro in Alexandria where passengers would disembark the train. (Mr. Rilee departs) Senator Yvonne Miller commented that DRPT has a good plan, but believes more will be required of Hampton Roads in the future. Ms. Drake stated in the future, it may be possible to travel from New York or Washington, D.C. to the Virginia Beach Oceanfront which would be a tourism boom. Mr. Farmer remarked that one of the recommendations from the HRTPO Retreat follows the vein of what Senator Yvonne Miller has indicated; to monitor, with DRPT, where the federal program is heading with regards to rail, and how and when the HRTPO can apply for funds. He stated once the federal program is defined, he hopes the HRTPO, as advised from DRPT, will be able to advance to and through the Tier II process. Ms. Drake stated she was unsure of the HRTPO’s time frame and reminded the Board that it must go through the Tier I process first. Mr. Shucet expressed his concern that the FRA had not contacted DRPT regarding the awarded funding and stated Hampton Roads should work to change the lengthy time frames involved in the process. Senator Yvonne Miller Moved to authorize the Executive Director to continue the work with the high-speed rail consultant to evaluate the status of federal programs, work in harmony with DRPT regarding its efforts, and craft a scope of work that is responsive to the federal program and not duplicate DRPT’s efforts; seconded by Mr. Florin. Delegate Cosgrove asked who would receive Florida’s $2.2 billion since the state decided not to purse high-speed rail. Ms. Drake replied applications are currently being accepted for the funding with a deadline of April 14th. A portion of the funding is 100 percent federal money while the other is an 80/20 percent match with DRPT seeking funding from the latter. Regarding the motion on the floor, the vote was taken. The Motion Carried. HRTPO Board Action Items: Three Month Tentative Schedule Chairman Sessoms outlined the three month summary of upcoming action items in the HRTPO agenda. Mr. Heuer asked that the VDOT Six-Year Improvement Plan Public Meeting

Attachment 5

HRTPO Board Minutes – March 17, 2011 – Page 14

on April 26th at 6:00 p.m. in The Regional Building Boardroom be added to the schedule. Chairman Sessoms acknowledged Mr. Heuer’s request. Correspondence of Interest Chairman Sessoms highlighted the items in the Correspondence of Interest section of the Agenda packet. For Your Information Chairman Sessoms noted the items in the For Your Information section of the Agenda packet. Old/New Business Mr. Harrison stated the Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) Bylaws require the HRTPO Board to appoint CTAC members. Initially, CTAC members were appointed on staggered terms; therefore, Mr. Harrison requested a motion to approve a second term of three years for those CTAC members who were originally appointed for only one year. Sharyn Fox City of Newport News Randy Lassiter City of Norfolk Archie Whitehill City of Norfolk Richard Green City of Suffolk John Malbon City of Virginia Beach Ray Taylor City of Virginia Beach He also asked the HRTPO Board to authorize HRTPO staff to work with the appropriate members of the Board to fill positions on the CTAC that are vacant. Mr. Clark Moved to approve second terms of three years each for the six named CTAC members; seconded by Mayor Johnson. The Motion Carried. Delegate Cosgrove expressed his surprise that it was necessary for a CTB member to address the HRTPO Board during the public comment period rather than allotting special time for them. Chairman Sessoms stated he agreed with Delegate Cosgrove and suggested CTB members be added to the table at future HRTPO Meetings. Adjournment With no further business to come before the Hampton Roads TPO, the meeting adjourned at 12:14 p.m. William D. Sessoms, Jr. Dwight L. Farmer Chairman Executive Director/Secretary Attachment 5

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board Meeting – April 21, 2011

AGENDA ITEM #6: FY 2009-2012 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AMENDMENT: CHESAPEAKE

SUBJECT: A request by the City of Chesapeake to amend the FY 2009–2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to reallocate Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program funds. BACKGROUND: Attached is a request from the City of Chesapeake to amend the Hampton Roads FY 2009-2012 TIP to reallocate:

• $440,853 RSTP funds, including State match, from the following completed projects to project UPC# 56187: Dominion Boulevard – Widen from 2 to 4 lanes and replace Steel Bridge: • $327,644 RSTP, including State match, from project UPC# 12543: Kempsville Road – Reconstruct to 6 lanes. • $28,588 RSTP, including State match, from project UPC# 17637: Greenbrier Parkway – Intersection Improvements at Eden Way North. • $36,442 RSTP, including State match, from project UPC# 17636: Military Highway – Upgrade signal at Greenbrier Parkway. • $1 RSTP, including State match, from project UPC# 17827: Bike Path on Cedar Road. • $48,178 RSTP, including State match, from project UPC# 52152: Military Highway – Construct acceleration lane at Bainbridge Boulevard.

• $14,460 CMAQ funds, including State match, from completed project UPC#72797: Greenbrier Parkway – Extend northbound left turn lane at Woodlake Drive, to project UPC# T9111: Liberty Street Transfer Station. • $155 CMAQ funds, including State match, from completed project UPC#72797: Greenbrier Parkway – Extend northbound left turn lane at Woodlake Drive, to project UPC# 16109: Signal Interconnect – Cedar Road/Dominion Boulevard intersection to Steel Bridge. In addition, the City of Chesapeake has identified $324,292 of CMAQ funds to be relinquished and made available for transfer to other CMAQ projects in the region, from the following completed projects: • $126,148 CMAQ, including State match, from project UPC#72797: Greenbrier Parkway – Extend northbound left turn lane at Woodlake Drive. • $85,904 CMAQ from project UPC# 17637: Greenbrier Parkway – Intersection Improvement at Eden Way North. • $112,240 CMAQ from project UPC# 52357: Ramp extension on Greenbrier Parkway from I-64 to Woodlake Drive.

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board Meeting – April 21, 2011

Should the HRTPO Board approve the reallocation of RSTP and CMAQ funds, the FY 2009-2012 TIP will be amended to account for the fund transfers. The proposed TIP Amendments have been made available for public review and comment. The public review and comment period for the TIP Amendment request began on March 30, 2011 and ran through April 13, 2011. No comments were received. Attachment 6 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The HRTPO staff and the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee recommend approval of the fund transfer and associated TIP Amendments.

Attachment 6

Attachment 6

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board Meeting – April 21, 2011

AGENDA ITEM #7: FY 2009-2012 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AMENDMENT: NEWPORT NEWS

SUBJECT: A request by the City of Newport News to transfer Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program funds. BACKGROUND: Attached is a request from the City of Newport News to amend the Hampton Roads FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to transfer:

• $809,477 in CMAQ funds from the following completed projects to project UPC# T10458: Oakland Industrial Park/Sidewalk Phase 2: • $59,000 CMAQ, including Local and Urban funds match, from project UPC# 19022: J. Clyde Morris Boulevard – Intersection Improvement at Diligence Drive. • $288,812 CMAQ, including Local and Urban funds match, from project UPC# 19023: Jefferson Avenue: Intersection Improvement at Thimble Shoals Boulevard. • $235,235 CMAQ, including Urban funds match, from project UPC# 52349: Oakland Industrial Park/Sidewalk Phase 1. • $181,144 CMAQ from project UPC# 52347: ITS Fiber Link. It should be noted that the City of Newport News will provide the 20% Local match ($45,286) for these funds unless Urban funds can be found to cover the match. Should the HRTPO Board approve the reallocation of CMAQ funds, the FY 2009-2012 TIP will be amended to account for the fund transfers. The proposed TIP Amendment has been made available for public review and comment. The public review and comment period for this TIP Amendment request began on March 30, 2011 and ran through April 13, 2011. No comments were received. Attachment 7

RECOMMENDED ACTION: The HRTPO staff and the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee recommend approval of the fund transfer and associated TIP Amendment.

Attachment 7

Attachment 7

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board Meeting – April 21, 2011

AGENDA ITEM #8: FY 2009-2012 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AMENDMENT: NORFOLK

SUBJECT: A request by the City of Norfolk to transfer Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program funds. BACKGROUND: Attached is a request from the City of Norfolk to amend the Hampton Roads FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to transfer:

• $123,469 in CMAQ funds from the completed project UPC# 52353: Norfolk Citywide Smart Traffic Center Operations Network to project UPC# T1822: Norfolk Light Rail Transit. It should be noted that the City of Norfolk will provide the 20% Local match ($30,867) unless Urban funds can be found to cover the match. 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 proposed TIP Amendment has been made available for public review and comment. The public review and comment period for this TIP amendment request began on March 30, 2011 and ran through April 13, 2011. No comments were received. Attachment 8 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The HRTPO staff and the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee recommend approval of the fund transfer and associated TIP Amendment.

Attachment 8

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board Meeting – April 21, 2011

AGENDA ITEM #9: FY 2009-2012 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AMENDMENT: JAMES CITY COUNTY

SUBJECT: A request by James City County to transfer Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program and Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds. BACKGROUND: Attached is a request from James City County to amend the Hampton Roads FY 2009-2012 TIP to transfer:

• $969,548 in CMAQ and RSTP funds from the following completed projects to project UPC# 17633 Croaker Road Multipurpose/Road: • $4,870 CMAQ funds from project UPC# 85554: Jamestown 2007 Transportation System. Twenty percent (20%) Local match to be provided. • $512,000 CMAQ funds, including State match, from project UPC# 87944: Mooretown Road Bikeway. • $3,081 RSTP funds, including State match, from project UPC# 17632: Bikeway – Colonial Parkway Connection. • $300,000 CMAQ funds, including State match, from project UPC# 77065: Route 5 – Install right-turn lane from northbound Route 615 onto eastbound Route 5. • $149,597 CMAQ funds from project UPC# 57364: Route 614 Bikeway. Twenty percent (20%) Local match to be provided. Should the HRTPO Board approve the reallocation of CMAQ and RSTP funds, the FY 2009-2012 TIP will be amended to account for the fund transfer. The proposed TIP Amendment has been made available for public review and comment. The public review and comment period for this TIP amendment request began on April 11, 2011 and runs through April 25, 2011. Attachment 9

RECOMMENDED ACTION: The HRTPO staff and the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee recommend approval of the fund transfer and associated TIP Amendment subject to no receipt of any adverse public comments during the public review and comment period.

1 | P a g e

Code Compliance Environmental Division Planning and Zoning (757) 253-6620 (757) 253-6670 (757) 253-6685 codecomp@james-city.va.us environ@james-city.va.us planning@james-city.va.us

April 8, 2011 Dwight L. Farmer, PE Executive Director Hampton Roads Metropolitan Planning Organization 723 Woodlake Drive Chesapeake, VA 23320 Dear Mr. Farmer: RE: Transportation Improvement Program Amendment Transfer of Surplus CMAQ and RSTP Funds to Croaker Road Multipurpose/Road project (UPC# 17633). James City County requests that the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) amend the FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program to transfer CMAQ and RSTP funds from the projects designated below to Croaker Road Multipurpose/Road project (UPC# 17633). It should be noted a scoping meeting has been completed and the project is currently under design. All projects have been completed except for UPC# 87944 – Mooretown Road Bikeway. James City County intends to request that this project be cancelled. Project Category Fund Type Amount • UPC# 85554 A CMAQ $4,870 (local match to be provided) Jamestown 2007 Transp. System. • UPC# 87944 Mooretown Road Bikeway A CMAQ $512,000 (includes state match) • UPC# 17632

Bikeway – Colonial Parkway Connection A RSTP $3,081 (includes state match) • UPC# 77065

RT 5 – Install RTL from C CMAQ $300,000 (includes state match) NB RTE 615 onto EB RTE 5

• UPC# 57364 RTE 614 Bikeway C CMAQ $149,597 (local match to be provided) TOTAL $969,548

Development Management 101-A Mounts Bay Road P.O. Box 8784 Williamsburg, VA 23187-8784 P: 757-253-6671 F: 757-253-6822 devman@james-city.va.us

jccEgov.com

Attachment 9

2 | P a g e

Current cost estimates, allocations, obligations, expenditures, and funds available for transfer associated with the affected project(s) have been confirmed with VDOT.

The new 1.5 mile off-road multi-use path will begin in front of the James City County Library, along Croaker Road (Route 607) in the SW direction, towards Richmond Road. It will crossover the railroad bridge and intersects with Richmond Road (Route 60).

It is requested that the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee and the HRTPO consider these actions during their April 2011 meetings. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Steven W. Hicks Development Manager SWH/BK cc: Mr. Robert Middaugh, County Administrator – James City County Mr. Dennis Heuer, P.E., District Administrator – VDOT

Mr. Eric Stringfield, District Transportation and Land Use Director – VDOT Ms. Kimberly Pryor-Spence, Assistant Program Director – VDOT Ms. Sonya Hallums-Ponton, District Project Manager - VDOT Mr. Michael Kimbrel, Principal Transportation Engineer – HRTPO

Attachment 9

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board Meeting – April 21, 2011

AGENDA ITEM #10: FY 2009-2012 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AMENDMENT: JAMES CITY COUNTY

SUBJECT: A request by James City County to add a project in the Hampton Roads FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and to transfer Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds to the new project. BACKGROUND: Attached is a request from James City County to amend the Hampton Roads FY 2009-2012 TIP to add a new project and transfer funds to the project, as follows:

• Add the Skiffes Creek Connector (UPC# 100200) as a Preliminary Engineering (PE) and Right of Way (RW) Only project. • Transfer $10,000,000 in RSTP funds, including the State match, from project UPC# 13496: Route 60 Relocation and Upgrading to project UPC# 100200: Skiffes Creek Connector. Should the HRTPO Board approve the reallocation of RSTP funds, the FY 2009-2012 TIP will be amended to account for the fund transfer. The proposed TIP Amendment has been made available for public review and comment. The public review and comment period for this TIP amendment request began on March 30, 2011 and ran through April 13, 2011. No comments were received. Attachment 10

RECOMMENDED ACTION: The HRTPO staff and the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee recommend approval of the fund transfer and associated TIP Amendment.

1 | P a g e

Code Compliance Environmental Division Planning and Zoning (757) 253-6620 (757) 253-6670 (757) 253-6685 codecomp@james-city.va.us environ@james-city.va.us planning@james-city.va.us

April 8, 2011 Dwight L. Farmer, PE Executive Director Hampton Roads Metropolitan Planning Organization 723 Woodlake Drive Chesapeake, VA 23320

RE: Transportation Improvement Program Amendment – Route 60 Relocation & Upgrading (UPC 13496) and Skiffes Creek Connector (UPC 100200)

Dear Mr. Farmer: James City County requests that the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) amend the FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program to include the Skiffes Creek Connector (UPC 100200) (SCC) which was recently added to the 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan as a stand-alone project for Preliminary Engineering and Right-of-Way. James City County also requests a transfer of funds from the Route 60 Relocation & Upgrading project (UPC 13496) to the SCC project (UPC 100200) in the amount of $10 million so that the SCC can be funded for Preliminary Engineering ($3,000,000) and Right-of-Way ($7,000,000). As the result of recent funding challenges, the Route 60 Relocation and Upgrading project has not been funded for construction. Due to the lack of further funding for the Route 60 Relocation and Upgrading project, the available funds will be better spent to move forward with the SCC project which is anticipated to fulfill many of the goals of the Route 60 Relocation and Upgrading project. Current cost estimates, allocations, obligations, expenditures, and funds available for transfer associated with the affected project(s) have been confirmed with VDOT.

Development Management 101-A Mounts Bay Road P.O. Box 8784 Williamsburg, VA 23187-8784 P: 757-253-6671 F: 757-253-6822 devman@james-city.va.us

jccEgov.com

Attachment 10

2 | P a g e

The following is a breakdown of the funds requested for transfer:

FISCAL YEAR FUND TYPE AMOUNT FY03 RSTP (includes 20% state match) $1,830,000.00FY04 RSTP (includes 20% state match) $4,950,000.00FY05 RSTP (includes 20% state match) $3,220,000.00

TOTAL: $10,000,000.00 The SCC will provide strategic connectivity between Route 60 and Route 143 to redirect industrial traffic away from James River Elementary School and remove traffic from the Lee Hall community in the City of Newport News. This improvement is also critical to the regional transportation system to provide improved access to Virginia’s ports and enhanced accessibility to existing corporate citizens such as Busch Gardens, AB InBev Brewery, and the Wal-Mart Distribution Center in James City County. It is requested that the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee and the HRTPO consider these actions during their April 2011 meetings. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Steven W. Hicks Development Manager SWH/bk cc: Mr. Robert Middaugh, County Administrator – James City County Mr. Neil Morgan, City Manager – Newport News Mr. Michael King, Manager of Community Planning – Newport News Mr. Dennis Heuer, P.E., District Administrator – VDOT

Mr. Eric Stringfield, District Transportation and Land Use Director – VDOT Ms. Kimberly Pryor-Spence, Assistant Program Director – VDOT Mr. Michael Kimbrel, Principal Transportation Engineer – HRTPO

Attachment Map of Skiffes Creek Connector

Attachment 10

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board Meeting – April 21, 2011

AGENDA ITEM #11: 2034 LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN PROJECT LIST AMENDMENT: U.S. ROUTE 460

SUBJECT: A request by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to include U.S. Route 460 Corridor Improvements project in the 2034 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) for full construction. BACKGROUND: During the November 17, 2011 meeting, the HRTPO Board approved the VDOT request to amend the 2030 LRTP to include construction improvements to the U.S. Route 460 corridor based on guidance provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and VDOT that the U.S. Route 460 project met the fiscal-constraint guidelines and concluded that the project could be included in the 2030 LRTP (Attachment 11). Also during the March 17, 2011 meeting, the HRTPO Board approved a regional prioritized fiscally-constrained List of Projects and Studies to be included in the 2034 LRTP. The approved List of Projects and Studies includes 24 construction projects and 7 ongoing transportation studies, including the U.S. Route 460 Corridor Improvements study. On March 25, 2011, Virginia’s Office of Transportation Public Private Partnerships issued the Request for Detailed Proposals for development and operation of the new U. S. Route 460. In addition to this PPTA project making progress, the Governor has identified the construction of a new U.S. Route 460 as a top priority and has also identified $1.5 billion for four major statewide projects, one of which is the U.S. Route 460 project. Since the March HRTPO Board meeting, VDOT has requested the U.S. Route 460 Corridor Improvements project be included in the 2034 LRTP for full construction. Including this project in the 2034 LRTP would allow the PPTA process to continue to move forward as well as eliminate the need to amend the 2034 LRTP at a future date for Air Quality Conformity. Attachment 11 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The HRTPO staff and the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee recommend approval of the U.S. Route 460 construction project for inclusion in the 2034 LRTP.

Attachment 11

Attachment 11

Attachment 11

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board Meeting – April 21, 2011

AGENDA ITEM #12: I-64 PENINSULA STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: VDOT

SUBJECT: A review regarding the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) I-64 Peninsula Study Environmental Impact Statement. BACKGROUND: VDOT is undertaking a three-year study to assist the Commonwealth to appropriately plan for growing transportation needs along the I-64 corridor from I-95 in Richmond to I-664 in Hampton. The purpose of the I-64 Peninsula Study is to build on previous analyses of the corridor and secure the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) approval for the entire corridor by identifying transportation problems, proposing and evaluating solutions, and reviewing tolls. The outcome of the study will be a location decision by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) with NEPA approval from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Spring 2011 Newsletter on the project is attached. Mr. Nick Nies, VDOT Project Manager, will brief the HRTPO Board on this item. Attachment 12 RECOMMENDED ACTION: For discussion and informational purposes.

WILLIAMSBURG

RICHMOND

NORFOLKCHESAPEAKE

VIRGINIA BEACH

HAMPTON

WELCOME

Virginia Department of Transportation

SPRING 2011

4

MILESTONE SCHEDULE AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

If you are not ready to provide your comments

tonight, you may submit them by April 30, 2011 to:

Rich Butala

McCormick Taylor, Inc.

North Shore Commons A

4951 Lake Brook Drive, Suite 275

Glen Allen, VA 23060

If you prefer, you can e-mail information to:

RAButala@mccormicktaylor.com.

Project Initiation January

Citizen Information Meeting March

Scoping & Data Collection May

Purpose & Need Development August

Preliminary Concept Development & Screening September

Alternatives Development & Analysis November

Citizen Information Meeting November

Environmental Studies & Impact Analysis March

Toll Diversion Study May

Draft Environmental Impact Statement June

Location Public Hearing August

Commonwealth Transportation Board Decision October

Final Environmental Impact Statement November

2011 2012 2013

Virginia Department of TransportationVDOT ensures nondiscrimination and equal employment in all programs and

activities in accordance with Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964. If you need more information or special assistance for persons with

disabilities or limited English proficiency, contact VDOT’s Civil Rights Division,

at 800-367-7623 or TTY/TDD 711.

SUBMITTING COMMENTS

Please review the materials and share your

thoughts by using the comment form

provided. You can also submit your

comments using the on-line comment form

by accessing the VDOT website page for

this project at www.virginiadot.org/projects/

hamptonroads/i-64_peninsula_study.asp.

The on-line comment form can be accessed

tonight at the computer station provided

at tonight’s meeting. When submitting

electronically, please reference “I-64 Peninsula

Study: CIM Comments” in the subject line.

There will be other opportunities for public

participation in the study, including scheduled

public meetings such as another Citizen

Information Meeting (November 2011) and

a Location Public Hearing (August 2012).

In addition, the public can access the VDOT

Website www.virginiadot.org/projects/

hamptonroads/i-64_peninsula_study.asp at

any time to review all of the materials

presented at tonight’s meeting and the dates,

times and locations of future meetings.

For additional information, please call

VDOT’s Project Manager Mr. Nicholas Nies

at 804-786-1092 or

Nicholas.Nies@VDOT.Virginia.gov.

Public Involvement Opportunity*

*

*

*

Document will be Available for Public Review and Comment

In addition to this information, displays you

see tonight and on the project website provide

information on the overall limits of the study

and the study process and schedule.

Representatives of VDOT and its consultants

are available to answer your questions and

listen to your thoughts and concerns. We

welcome your written comments and a

comment form has been included with this

handout for your use.

SCOPING/CITIZEN INFORMATION MEETINGS

Wednesday, March 23, 2011 City Center Conference Room

Fountain Plaza II

700 Town Center Drive

Newport News, VA 23606

5:00 PM – 8:00 PM

Thursday, March 24, 2011New Kent Welcome Center Facility

7324 Vineyards Parkway

New Kent, VA 23124

5:00 PM – 8:00 PM

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), in

conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration, is

studying potential improvements to address existing and

future transportation needs in the I-64 Corridor from I-95

in the City of Richmond to I-664 in the City of Hampton. The

study area is defined as the area directly north and south of

the existing I-64 corridor through the counties of Henrico, New

Kent, James City and York, and the cities of Richmond, Newport

News and Hampton. The purpose of this meeting is to provide

you with project information and receive your input on the

scope of issues to be addressed in the study. Specifically, today’s

meeting will focus on:

PURPOSE AND NEED – Before any alternatives can be developed,

the study team needs to collect information to fully define the project

purpose and the existing and future transportation needs of the I-64

corridor.

SENSITIVE FEATURES – We will also need to collect information on

the sensitive features along the I-64 corridor including environmental/

natural resources, socioeconomic/human resources, and cultural

resources such as historic sites.

PENINSULA STUDYENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

STATE PROJECT: 0064-M11-002, P101

PENINSULA STUDYENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Attachment 12

2 3

What is a location study?A location study consists of environmental, traffic, and engineering studies, as well as public

involvement and outreach efforts. An important element of this location study involves

preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to meet requirements of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other related laws.

What is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)?Congress enacted NEPA in December, 1969, and President Nixon signed it into law on

January 1, 1970. NEPA was the first major environmental law in the United States and

established this country’s national environmental policies. To implement these policies,

NEPA requires agencies to undertake an assessment of the environmental effects of their

proposed actions prior to making decisions. Following this environmental review process

leads to better informed decisions and increased citizen involvement.

What is an EIS and what will it include?Once the Candidate Build Alternatives are identified, the EIS will examine potential environmental

impacts based on detailed studies, field reviews and resource agency input. The resources to be

studied include:

Air Quality Parks & Recreation Areas

Cultural/Historic Properties Social & Economic Considerations

Farmlands Threatened/Endangered Species

Hazardous Materials Wetlands, Streams & Other Waterbodies

Noise Impacts

How long will it take to conduct the study?The study began in January 2011 and is scheduled to end in 2014.

When would anything approved in this study actually be built?The environmental process has to be completed before any construction can occur. If a ‘build’

option is selected, design and construction documents must also be prepared and the right of

way acquired. The entire process will take several years, assuming funding availability.

Why does it take VDOT so long to plan a highway?VDOT must follow many required laws and regulations, collect substantial amounts of

information, carefully consider all relevant factors, consult with citizens and elected officials,

coordinate with other government agencies, develop and consider a range of alternatives, and

fully document all these efforts. In short, highway planning in this day and age is a complex

process that takes time to complete.

How much will the entire project cost?It depends entirely on the alternative decided upon by the Commonwealth Transportation

Board (CTB). The CTB is comprised of citizens appointed by the Governor. If a build solution is

selected, costs will depend on the type of facility (e.g. type of access-control, interchange vs.

intersection), the number of access points, and the number of lanes. The EIS will include cost

estimates for different alternatives.

Where will the road improvements be located?VDOT compiles factual information to meet NEPA requirements for impartial review of all

alternatives, including the No-Build. The CTB makes the ultimate decisions regarding the

implementation of any build alternative. This decision is made following the completion of the

Draft EIS and the Location Public Hearing.

Is there funding to construct?As of today, there is no funding for construction of any improvements. Once an alternative is

selected, VDOT will examine possible funding sources. Allocations of funding for construction

are made annually with the update of the Six-Year Program.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT

Conceptual transportation needs which will be

addressed in this study include:

Capacity

Roadway Deficiencies

Safety

Freight Traffic

Economic Development and Tourism

Emergency Preparedness

Military Connectivity

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

PROJECTINITIATIONSCOPINGPURPOSE AND

NEED

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT

TECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

FINALENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

RECORDOF DECISION

CITIZEN/AGENCYINFORMATION

MEETINGS

CITIZEN/AGENCYINFORMATION

MEETINGS

LOCATIONPUBLIC

HEARINGS

COMMONWEALTHTRANSPORTATIONBOARD DECISION

The Location Study Process consists of the following components:

STUDY PROCESS

During the study process, the Purpose

and Need for the project is developed and

documented as part of a Draft Environmental

Impact Statement. The Purpose and Need

identifies the transportation problems or other

needs the project is intended to address. The

Purpose and Need serves as the basis for the

development and comparison of potential

solutions to address the goals of the study.

VDOT has identified preliminary Purpose and

Need elements based upon the findings of the

Major Investment Study which was conducted

in 1999.

What are Human, Natural, and Cultural Environmental Resources?

These resources include:

Residences & Businesses

Industrial Developments

Community Centers, Libraries & Schools

Tourism Attractions

Noise Sensitive Areas

Air Quality

Farmlands & Farming Operations

Hazardous Materials

Parks & Recreation Areas

Wetlands, Streams & other Waterbodies

Federal & State Endangered and/or

Threatened Species

Historic Properties

Archaeology Sites

CURRENT STUDY ACTIVITIES

The Study Team is currently gathering

information on existing conditions and

resources to initiate and support the studies

necessary to complete the Environmental

Impact Statement. This information

includes:

Review of Previously Conducted Studies

Traffic Data Collection and Analysis

Acquisition of Available Mapping and

Data

Inventory of Existing Infrastructure

Conditions (roads, bridges,

interchanges, etc.)

Inventory of Sensitive Human, Natural,

and Cultural Environmental Resources

Some of these resources that have been

noted to date can be seen on the series of

aerial maps displayed at this meeting. We

encourage you to review these maps and

discuss any items that you are aware of

within the I-64 study corridor with a study

team member. Our goal is to mark up

these maps with the sensitive resources

in your area so that study team can best

understand the community’s concerns

along this corridor.

Following the initial data collection efforts

that are being conducted in this early stage

of the project, in depth environmental and

engineering studies will be conducted

to assess the existing conditions and

determine potential impacts of the

alternatives that will be developed later

in the process.

PROJECT BACKGROUND

VDOT is undertaking this three-year

study to help the Commonwealth of

Virginia appropriately plan for growing

transportation needs along the I-64 corridor

from I-95 in the City of Richmond to I-664

in the City of Hampton. This corridor is of

high value to the Commonwealth, which the

Virginia Surface Transportation Plan 2035

(VTrans2035) identified as a “Corridor of

Statewide Significance”. I-64 is a vital link

to the Historic Triangle and the Peninsula

for the transport of people and goods and

is important for military access, tourism,

and hurricane evacuation. VTrans2035

encourages I-64 improvements to balance

“mobility, environmental quality, and

sustainable transportation” and consider

“accessibility, reducing greenhouse gases

and other emissions, improving quality

of life with more transportation choices

and supporting the major population and

commercial centers along the corridor.”

In 1999, VDOT completed a Major

Investment Study (MIS) along the I-64

corridor. The MIS identified the preliminary

Purpose and Need elements for the study

corridor. In addition to the MIS, a number

of other transportation studies, as well

as improvement projects, have been

conducted along different segments of the

corridor. While the results of those studies

and projects have been useful, the purpose

of the I-64 Peninsula Study is to build

on the previous analyses and secure the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

approval for the entire length of the corridor

by identifying transportation problems,

proposing and evaluating solutions, and

reviewing tolls. The outcome of this

study will be a location decision by the

Commonwealth Transportation Board and

NEPA approval from the Federal Highway

Administration.

To complement the I-64 Peninsula Study,

VDOT has extended its review of

improvements along the I-64 corridor

by conducting a study to secure NEPA

approval for improvements at the Hampton

Roads Bridge-Tunnel from I-664 in

Hampton to I-564 in Norfolk.

PENINSULA STUDYENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

PENINSULA STUDYENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Attachment 12

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board Meeting – April 21, 2011

AGENDA ITEM #13: REVIEW OF THE VDOT FY 2012-2017 SIX-YEAR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

SUBJECT: A review regarding the development, priorities, and responsibilities regarding the FY 2012-2017 Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP). BACKGROUND: The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) will provide a brief overview of the development process, priorities, and responsibilities related to the upcoming Draft FY 2012-2017 SYIP. The Draft FY 2012-2017 SYIP will be released to the Commonwealth Transportation Board on April 20, 2011 with a regional Public Hearing in Hampton Roads scheduled for April 27, 2011 to receive public comments. Mr. Adam Jack, District Planning and Investment Manager of VDOT, will brief the HRTPO Board on this item. RECOMMENDED ACTION: For discussion and informational purposes.

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board Meeting – April 21, 2011

AGENDA ITEM #14: HRTPO ANNUAL OBLIGATIONS REPORT SUBJECT: The FY 2010 Annual Listing of Obligated Projects is currently under review. BACKGROUND: The Annual Listing of Obligated Projects (Annual Listing) includes all projects and strategies listed in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for which Federal funds were obligated during the immediately preceding federal fiscal year. In accordance with federal regulations, the Annual 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. According to 23 CFR 450.332, in metropolitan planning areas, on an annual basis, no later than 90 calendar days following the end of the program year (federal fiscal year, which ends on September 30th), the State, public transportation operator(s), and the metropolitan planning organization shall cooperatively develop a listing of projects for which funds under 23 USC or 49 USC Chapter 53 were obligated in the preceding program year. The HRTPO staff received the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) portion of the Annual Listing on December 30, 2010. Although the HRTPO staff had not had the opportunity to review the information in the Annual Listing, staff posted the document (Enclosure 14) to the HRTPO website in order to meet the federal deadline and included a special note to that effect. The HRTPO staff completed its review of the Annual Listing and forwarded comments to VDOT on February 3, 2011, along with a request for a revised Annual Listing. This information was presented to the TTAC during its March 2011 meeting. Mr. Mike Kimbrel, Principal Transportation Engineer, will brief the HRTPO Board on this item. Enclosure 14 – FY 2010 Annual Listing of Obligated Projects RECOMMENDED ACTION: For discussion and informational purposes.

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board Meeting – April 21, 2011

AGENDA ITEM #15: INRIX NATIONAL TRAFFIC SCORECARD SUBJECT: A review of the INRIX National Traffic Scorecard 2010 Annual Report. BACKGROUND: INRIX collects information regarding roadway speeds from over four million trucks, delivery vans, and other fleet vehicles equipped with GPS satellite locator devices, as well as consumer cellular GPS-based devices. The data collected from these sources is processed in real-time, creating traffic speed information for major freeways, highways, and arterials across the United States. INRIX has produced the National Traffic Scorecard report each year since 2007. The National Traffic Scorecard details the status of congestion in the largest 100 metropolitan areas across the country. The INRIX National Traffic Scorecard 2010 Annual Report provides a comprehensive analysis of the state of traffic congestion in 2010 across America and how it changes versus 2009. Mr. Keith Nichols, Senior Transportation Engineer, will brief the HRTPO Board on this item. RECOMMENDED ACTION: For discussion and informational purposes.

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board Meeting – April 21, 2011

AGENDA ITEM #16: HRTPO TITLE VI PLAN

SUBJECT: An update to the HRTPO’s Title VI Plan. BACKGROUND: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits federal agencies and sub-recipients of federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race, color, and national origin. It also protects participants or clients of programs that receive federal funding. Subsequent laws and Presidential Executive Orders added handicap, sex, age, and income status to the criteria for which discrimination is prohibited. As a sub-recipient of Federal financial assistance, the HRTPO is required to comply with Title VI and subsequent non-discrimination laws, as well as provide an overview of how the HRTPO addresses Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice and Executive Order 13166 on Limited English Proficiency (LEP). The purpose of the HRTPO’s Title VI Plan is to describe the measures taken by the HRTPO to assure compliance with the rules and regulations associated with Title VI and subsequent nondiscrimination laws, Environmental Justice, and LEP. The HRTPO Title VI Plan was approved by the HRPTO Board in July 2009. Subsequently, the Title VI Plan was submitted to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for review and was approved in November 2010. The Title VI Plan has since been updated to reflect the recent changes in the HRTPO Staff and Board (Enclosure 16). Additionally, the Title VI Plan has been enhanced with detailed Environmental Justice guidelines and outreach strategies for minority, low-income, and LEP populations to comply with Executive Orders 12898 and 13166. Attached is a resolution endorsing the HRTPO Title VI Plan (Attachment 16). Ms. Kendall Miller, Public Involvement/Community Outreach Administrator, will brief the HRTPO Board on this item. Enclosure 16 – HRTPO Title VI Plan Attachment 16 RECOMMENDED ACTION:

• Approve the Revised HRTPO Title VI Plan. • Approve the resolution.

HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION BOARD RESOLUTION 2011-03

A RESOLUTION OF THE HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION ENDORSING THE HRTPO TITLE VI PLAN. WHEREAS, the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) is the metropolitan planning organization designated by the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia as the responsible body for the urban transportation planning process for the Hampton Roads metropolitan planning area; WHEREAS, Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act provides that no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance; WHEREAS, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 broadened the scope of Title VI coverage by expanding the definition of terms “program or activities” to include all programs or activities of Federal-aid recipients, sub-recipients, and consultants, whether such programs or activities are federally funded or not; WHEREAS, subsequent laws and Presidential Executive Orders added handicap, sex, age or income status to the criteria for which discrimination is prohibited; WHEREAS, the HRTPO, as a sub-recipient of Federal financial assistance, is required to comply with Title VI and subsequent nondiscrimination laws; WHEREAS, the HRTPO Title VI Plan is incorporated in the metropolitan transportation planning process as part of the Unified Planning Work Program and Public Participation Plan which identify the planning strategies and activities to be undertaken by the HRTPO to reach out to minority, low-income and Limited English Proficiency populations; and WHEREAS, the HRTPO Title VI Plan ensures the HRTPO is in compliance with nondiscrimination requirements as outlined in Title 23 CFR and 49 CFR and related laws and provides specific information on how to file a nondiscrimination complaint. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization endorses the HRTPO Title VI Plan. APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board at its meeting on the 21st day of April, 2011. William D. Sessoms Chairman Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization

Dwight L. Farmer Executive Director/Secretary Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Attachment 16

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board Meeting – April 21, 2011

AGENDA ITEM #17: HRTPO BOARD ACTION ITEMS: THREE MONTH TENTATIVE SCHEDULE May 2011 Thursday, May 19, 2011

• HRTPO Operating Budget • FY 2012-2015 Transportation Improvement Program: Draft Report • FY 2012 Unified Planning Work Program: Draft Report • High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail • 2034 Fiscally-Constrained LRTP List of Projects for Air Quality Conformity • Virginia Statewide Multimodal Freight Study

June 2011 Thursday, June 16, 2011

• High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail • FY 2012 Unified Planning Work Program: Final Report • FY 2012-2015 Transportation Improvement Program: Final Report • FY 2012-2015 Transportation Improvement Program: Air Quality Conformity Final Report • FY 2012-2017 Six-Year Improvement Program • Regional Land Use Map: Final

July 2011 Thursday, July 21, 2011

• High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail • Hampton Roads Military Transportation Needs Study: Draft Report • U.S. Route 460 Corridor Study (Isle of Wight County): Final Report • HRTPO Citizen’s Guide: Final Report

RECOMMENDED ACTION: For informational purposes.

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board Meeting – April 21, 2011

AGENDA ITEM #18: CORRESPONDENCE OF INTEREST A. SENATOR YVONNE B. MILLER HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER RAIL LETTER Attached is a letter dated April 5, 2011 from Senator Yvonne B. Miller to U.S. Senator Mark Warner requesting assistance in how the Commonwealth and the region can advance their efforts in improving better and improved passenger rail service. Attachment 18-A B. FY 2009-2012 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND FY 2030 LONG-

RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN: TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY ANALYSIS Attached is a letter dated March 24, 2011 from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requesting that EPA initiate its formal 30-day review of the Transportation Conformity Analysis final report of the HRTPO Amended FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program and 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hampton Roads 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area. Attachment 18-B C. HRTPO: THANK YOU LETTER Attached is a letter dated March 21, 2011 from the Executive Director to the HRTPO Board members congratulating the HRTPO Board for its action taken during the March 17, 2011 meeting to approve the Prioritized List of Transportation Projects and Studies. The letter also includes a letter dated March 18, 2011 from the HRTPO Chair to the Virginia Governor certifying that the HRTPO Board approved the fiscally constrained Prioritized List of Transportation Projects and Studies for the inclusion in the 2034 Long-Range Transportation Plan. Attachment 18-C D. CITY OF POQUOSON: MEMBERSHIP UPDATE Attached is a letter dated March 15, 2011 from the City of Poquoson notifying the HRTPO that the Poquoson City Council elected Mr. W. Eugene (Gene) Hunt, Jr. as Mayor and formally appointed him as the voting member to the HRTPO Board. Attachment 18-D

Attachment 18-A

Attachment 18-B

THE REGIONAL BUILDING • 723 WOODLAKE DRIVE • CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA 23320 • TEL 757.420.8300 • FAX 757.523.4881

WILLIAM D. SESSOMS, JR., CHAIRMAN • MOLLY J. WARD, VICE CHAIR

DWIGHT L. FARMER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARYMarch 21, 2011 Board Members, Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization RE: Prioritization of Transportation Projects Dear HRTPO Board Members: I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the HRTPO Board for its action on March 17, 2011, to approve the Prioritized List of Transportation Projects and Studies. Your individual and collective efforts represent an unprecedented 18 months of focused dialogue to develop and approve an objective analysis of critically needed transportation improvements. Letters (see attached) regarding the HRTPO Board’s approval were sent to our members of the United States Congress and Virginia General Assembly, Governor McDonnell, Virginia Transportation Secretary Connaughton, Hampton Roads’ Commonwealth Transportation Board Members and others letting them know of your action and its significance. Again, you are to be congratulated on your efforts to come together with one voice from the region to let state and federal leaders know you have "prioritized" your transportation needs. I would also like to take just a moment to let you know that I believe the staffs from the HRTPO, VDOT, DRPT, HRT, WATA, VPA, the Navy and local governments have worked extremely hard to create a state-of-the-art set of evaluation metrics to objectively and comprehensively evaluate alternative transportation improvements for the region of Hampton Roads. Their tireless dedication, energy and skill sets have resulted in what I believe is a State and national model for project evaluation. Thank you again for your unprecedented efforts and cooperation to make this effort such a resounding success. Sincerely, Dwight L. Farmer Executive Director DLF/kp Attachment Attachment 18-C

Attachment 18-C

Attachment 18-C

Attachment 18-C

Attachment 18-D

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board Meeting – April 21, 2011

AGENDA ITEM #19: FOR YOUR INFORMATION A. CITIZEN TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES The summary minutes of the March 10, 2011 Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee meeting are attached. Attachment 19-A B. TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES The summary minutes of the April 6, 2011 Transportation Technical Advisory Committee meetings are attached. Attachment 19-B C. FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES The summary minutes of the March 3, 2011 Freight Transportation Advisory Committee meetings are attached. Attachment 19-C

D. HRTPO FINANCIAL REPORT Attachment 19-D E. VDOT PUBLIC HEARING: FY 2012-FY 2017 SIX-YEAR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has announced a series of tentative public hearing dates and locations for its FY 2012-2017 Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP). The SYIP is the Commonwealth Transportation Board's (CTB) program for allocating funding for rail, public transportation, commuter assistance, bicycle, pedestrian, interstate, and primary highway transportation projects in future years. The Draft FY 2012-2017 SYIP will be released to the CTB on April 20, 2011 with four statewide Public Hearings to receive public comments. Below are a list of hearing dates and locations:

• April 27, 2011, 6:00 p.m. The Regional Building, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, VA • May 4, 2011, 7:00 p.m. VDOT District Office, Potomac Conference Center, 4975 Alliance Drive, Suite 1N201, Fairfax, VA

• May 12, 2011, 6:00 p.m. Salem District Auditorium, 731 Harrison Avenue, Salem, VA

• May 18, 2011, 6:00 p.m. VDOT Central Office Auditorium, 1401 East Broad Street, Richmond, VA

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board Meeting – April 21, 2011

F. TTAC ELECTION OF OFFICERS The April 6, 2011 Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) meeting was the final meeting for TTAC Chair Richard Drumwright, who is retiring from the Williamsburg Area Transit Authority and putting a close to a career that has spanned more than thirty years. In anticipation of Mr. Drumwright's departure, and in accordance with TTAC Bylaws, a Nominating Committee was appointed during the March TTAC meeting to recommend officers to serve until the Annual Organizational meeting in October 2011. During the April TTAC meeting, the Nominating Committee recommended Mr. Earl Sorey of Chesapeake for Chair and Mr. Michael King of Newport News for Vice-Chair. The recommendations of the Nominating Committee were approved unanimously. Following the elections, Mr. Sorey, on behalf of the TTAC, presented Mr. Drumwright with a Resolution of Appreciation for his many years of service to the Hampton Roads region. The HRTPO staff congratulates Mr. Sorey and Mr. King, and extends best wishes to Mr. Drumwright as he enters a well-earned retirement.

G. I-64 PENINSULA STUDY: HRTPO STAFF PARTICIPATION The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is evaluating potential improvements to address existing and future transportation needs in the I-64 Corridor from I-95 in the City of Richmond to I-664 in the City of Hampton. At the request of VDOT, the HRTPO staff has accepted an invitation to become a participating agency in the development of the Environmental Impact Statement for the I-64 Peninsula Study project. In addition, at the request of the VDOT consultant, the HRTPO staff has identified concerns regarding the project’s potential environmental or socioeconomic impacts that could substantially delay the project. Attachment 19-G H. U.S. DOT REGULATIONS REVIEW: HRTPO STAFF TECHNICAL COMMENTS As mandated by Executive Order 13563, the U.S. DOT has recently conducted a review of its existing regulations to evaluate their continued validity and determine whether they are crafted effectively to solve current problems. As part of this review, the U.S. DOT invited the public to participate in a comment process designed to help the U.S. DOT ensure that it has a plan for periodically analyzing existing significant rules to determine whether they should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed, and identify specific rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome. As the representative metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the region, the HRTPO submitted the attached technical comments and policy suggestions regarding regulations pertinent to the functions of the MPO. Attachment 19-H

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board Meeting – April 21, 2011

I. VIRGINIA STATEWIDE MULTIMODAL STUDY RELEASED The Virginia Statewide Multimodal Freight Study – Phase II was released on April 11, 2011. The study presents findings and recommendations to improve freight movement across the Commonwealth of Virginia. The study was completed under the direction of the Secretary of Transportation’s Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment. As a member of the VTrans2035 Committee, the HRTPO staff acted as a participating agency in the development of the Statewide Multimodal Freight Study. Phase I of the study was completed in 2007. The Virginia Statewide Multimodal Freight Study – Phase II consists of the following: • Statewide Freight Study − Identifies projects from all modes (rail, port, airport, and highway) that are most important to freight movement, including both programmed near-term projects and potential long-term projects. It also includes potential policies, actions, and initiatives that supplement capital projects. • Multimodal Freight Corridor and Sub-region Profiles − Provides concise descriptions of the geography, economic structure, commodity flows, transportation facilities, and potential capital projects within each of the eleven multimodal freight corridors and four sub-regions in Virginia. • Potential Freight Strategies − Strategies to be considered have been proposed in several areas, including business information and outreach, intelligent transportation systems, transportation system/demand management, freight planning, and funding.

Executive summaries and complete reports for both Phase I and II are now available on The Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment website at http://www.vtrans.org/. The HRTPO staff will coordinate with the Secretary of Transportation’s Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment to have a briefing of the study in the near future.

CTAC Summary Minutes – March 10, 2011 - Page 1

Summary Minutes of the Hampton Roads Citizen Transportation

Advisory Committee (CTAC) Meeting March 10, 2011

The Hampton Roads Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) Meeting was called to order at 5:10 p.m. in the Regional Building Boardroom, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia, with the following in attendance: Hampton Roads CTAC Members in Attendance: William Harrison, Chairman (VB) Shepelle Watkins-White, Vice-Chair (CH) Philip Olekszyk (GL) Michael Jones (IW) Yukari Hughes ( NN) Randy Lassiter (NO) Randy Lougee (NO) James Openshaw (NO) Kirsten Tynch (PO) Hampton Roads CTAC Members Absent: Roberta Edwards (CH) Ricky Clifton (NN) Sharyn Fox (NN) Howard Manly (NN)

Tuck Bowie (VB) Richard Green (SU) John Malbon (VB) Delceno Miles (VB) Prescott Sherrod (VB) Ray Taylor (VB) Dewey Hurley (WM) Henry Lewis (YK) Archie Whitehill (NO) Kristen Wells (PO) Wanda Cooper (VB) HRTPO Staff: Dwight Farmer Kathlene Grauberger Brian Miller

Benito Pérez Camelia Ravanbakht Public Comment Period There was no public comment. Submitted Public Comments 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, Mr. Bowie Moved to approve the agenda as written; seconded by Ms. Tynch. The Motion Carried.

Attachment 19-A

CTAC Summary Minutes – March 10, 2011 - Page 2

Summary Minutes of January 13, 2011 CTAC Meeting Chair Harrison asked for any additions or corrections to the minutes. Hearing none, Mr. Bowie Moved to approve the minutes as written; seconded by Mr. Jones. The Motion Carried. Chair Harrison stated it was CTAC’s one year anniversary and he commended the Committee for its efforts over the past year. He did note that better attendance by CTAC members was necessary. Transportation Project Prioritization: Recommended List of Projects Ms. Ravanbakht explained there was a brochure in front of the members summarizing the work accomplished on the prioritization process over the past two years along with a recommended list of transportation projects that will be presented to the HRTPO Board on March 17, 2011 for its approval for inclusion into the 2034 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Chair Harrison asked for the definition of fiscally constrained and inquired how the rules were established by which the HRTPO must adhere to in the LRTP process. Ms. Ravanbakht replied each project that is included in the LRTP must provide adequate funding for construction over the next twenty years. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA-LU) Legislation require all LRTPs be fiscally constrained. Mr. Lassiter asked how the prioritization tool was created. Ms. Ravanbakht outlined the project utility, project viability, and economic vitality components of the prioritization tool and described how the data was gathered and input into the tool to score the individual projects. The prioritized list of projects was based on a combination of the results of prioritization tool and comments received by both the HRTPO Board and the public. Mr. Lewis asked if the prioritization tool had been translated so the average citizen could understand it. Mr. Farmer stated he would summarize the technical analysis performed by the HRPDC Chief Economist after the conclusion of the meeting. Ms. Ravanbakht presented a slide that illustrated a pie chart depicting the 2034 LRTP revenue estimates of $12.35 billion for maintenance and $1.25 billion for construction. Maintenance must be accounted for before construction investments can be committed. Mr. Lewis asked if new maintenance avenues had been explored to lower the maintenance cost estimates. He noted that European countries are much more adept at maintaining their roads. Mr. Farmer replied that in the mid-1990s, VDOT operated under a deferred maintenance plan which has contributed to the poor conditions seen today. Ms. Ravanbakht stated HRTPO staff combined project recommendations provided by the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) with the Governor’s Transportation Funding Proposal. In order to achieve this, staff began with the committed projects, used

Attachment 19-A

CTAC Summary Minutes – March 10, 2011 - Page 3

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 four statewide PPTA projects, including two projects in Hampton Roads, the Midtown Tunnel/MLK Extension and the Route 460 Corridor. The six studies recommended for the 2034 LRTP are: • Route 460 • I-64 Peninsula Corridor • Patriots Crossing • Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel • High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail • Virginia Beach Transit Extension Mr. Olekszyk asked how the Governor’s proposed projects compared to those of the HRTPO. Mr. Farmer replied the projects were already in the prioritization list of projects and studies. Mr. Lassiter asked why some projects that are seemingly ready for construction get delayed. Mr. Harrison replied that VDOT has backlogged many projects because the funding was utilized for maintenance and the new project list becomes longer. 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 list at the March 17, 2011 meeting. Mr. Pérez then presented a slide which illustrated a visualization tool created by HRTPO staff to be utilized by the public to complement the LRTP and demonstrated how the tool worked. The visualization tool can be found at www.keephamptonroadsmoving.com. Mr. Harrison asked how the website and visualization tool could be better advertised. Mr. Olekszyk suggested uploading the tool onto the locality websites. Ms. Ravanbakht stated that Ms. Miller is in contact with the localities and will also be utilizing Constant Contacts to inform the public regarding the visualization tool. Mr. Olekszyk asked how many public comments were received regarding the LRTP. Ms. Ravanbakht commented there were two comments from CTAC members and over fifty total public comments. Chair Harrison stated CTAC has the opportunity to give its recommendation regarding the prioritization list to the HRTPO Board as it votes on this item at the March 17, 2011 meeting. He noted that he learned there would be no new lane miles over the next twenty

Attachment 19-A

CTAC Summary Minutes – March 10, 2011 - Page 4

years due to lack of funding and he believes CTAC should avail the HRTBO Board to find new revenue sources. After viewing the preliminary resolution prepared by HRTPO staff, discussion ensued and several suggestions were made by CTAC members. Ms. Tynch Moved to approve CTAC Resolution 2011-01; seconded by Mr. Sherrod. The Motion Carried. CTAC Resolution 2011-01 is attached for reference. Christopher Newport University (CNU) Community Conversations/Surveys Proposal Ms. Ravanbakht reported that the HRTPO Board and CNU entered into an agreement last year with CNU conducting several focus groups concentrating on transportation issues. CNU summarized its results and briefed both the HRTPO Board and CTAC, and recommended CNU continue its efforts by engaging the public in community conversations and surveys. She noted that since HRTPO staff will be conducting its own community conversations, it will contract with CNU to carry out one to two surveys in the next couple of years. CTAC Blog Updates Ms. Ravanbakht stated that at the January 13, 2011 CTAC meeting, Ms. Miller informed the Committee that HRTPO staff will be transmitting updates specifically designed for CTAC members. Ms. Ravanbakht outlined the design of the blog which was distributed at the meeting as a handout and indicated the blog would be initiated shortly. 2034 Long-Range Transportation Plan Public Meetings Ms. Ravanbakht explained that Ms. Miller, who was unable to attend the CTAC meeting, wanted to share information regarding the recent two public meetings held in Chesapeake and Newport News. Both meetings included a technical presentation followed by a question and answer period. Old/New Business Mr. Lassiter and Mr. Taylor both had items they wished to discuss; however, the business was not presented while approving the agenda, and therefore, must wait until the next CTAC meeting. Adjournment With no further business to come before the Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at 6:59 p.m.

Attachment 19-A

Attachment 19-A

Attachment 19-A

Summary TTAC Minutes – April 6, 2011 - Page 1

Summary Minutes of the Hampton Roads Transportation Technical

Advisory Committee (TTAC) Meeting April 6, 2011 The Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) Meeting was called to order at 9:46 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) Keith Cannady (HA) John Yorks (Alternate, 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) Sherry Earley (SU) Robert Lewis (SU) Scott Mills (SU) Travis Campbell (Alternate, VB) Robert Gey (VB) Mark Schnaufer (VB) Tim Cross (YK) Steven Hennessee (DRPT) Karen Waterman (HRT) Kim Farrar (VDOT) Tony Gibson (Alternate, VDOT) Jim Ponticello (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) Lynn Allsbrook (HA) Peter Stephenson (IW) Ellen Cook (JC) Luke Vinciguerra (JC) Ellen Roberts (PQ) Debbie Vest (PQ)

Mark Yehlen (PO) Phil Pullen (VB) Daniel Clayton (WM) Steve Martin (WM) Reed Nester (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) Attachment 19-B

Summary TTAC Minutes – April 6, 2011 - Page 2

HRTPO Staff: Jessica Banks Sam Belfield Rob Case Dwight Farmer Kathlene Grauberger Mike Kimbrel Kendall Miller

Keith Nichols Joe Paulus Benito Pérez Camelia Ravanbakht Stephanie Shealey Dale Stith Others Recorded Attending: Carl Jackson (NN); Richard Rodnicki (IW); Franklin Hickman (VB); Rick Case, Rob Jacobs, Chris Vaigneur (HRPDC Staff); John Herzke (Clark Nexsen); Karen McPherson (Kimley-Horn); Rich Clifton (RK&K); Ray Taylor (FHR); Allison Mall (FTAC Staff/Moffatt & Nichol); Barbara Creel (WATA); Sonya Lewis-Cheatham (VDEQ); Ray Hunt, Adam Jack, Koustubh Jain, Ian Johnston, Nick Nies, Christopher Voigt (VDOT); Debbie Messina (Virginian Pilot) Public Comment Period There was no public comment. Submitted Public Comments 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. Gibson asked to add an item after Item 14 regarding Route 460 and its inclusion in the 2034 LRTP. Mr. Hicks asked to add a TIP Amendment following Item 11. Mr. Gibson Moved to approve the agenda with the additions mentioned; seconded by Mr. Abt. The Motion Carried. Summary Minutes Chairman Drumwright indicated the TTAC Summary Minutes of March 2, 2011 were included in the April TTAC Agenda. He asked for any corrections or amendments to the minutes. Hearing none, Mr. Sorey Moved to approve the minutes as written; seconded by Mr. King. The Motion Carried. TTAC Nominating Committee Mr. Schnaufer explained the TTAC Nominating Committee was convened to discuss recommendations for officers for the remainder of the term which ends in October 2011, due to Chairman Drumwright’s upcoming May 2011 retirement. Mr. Earl Sorey was elected as TTAC Chairman and Mr. King as Vice-Chair. Mr. Schnaufer Moved to approve Mr. Sorey and Mr. King as Chairman and Vice-Chair; seconded by Mr. Drumwright. The Motion Carried.

Attachment 19-B

Summary TTAC Minutes – April 6, 2011 - Page 3

Mr. Sorey, on behalf of the TTAC, expressed his gratitude to Mr. Drumwright, and presented him with a Resolution of Appreciation for his thirty-plus years of service to the Hampton Roads region. CMAQ/RSTP Reconciliation Work: Status Report Mr. Kimbrel explained that during the March 2011 TTAC meeting, Ms. Kim Farrar of VDOT reported the reconciliation process was completed for Categories A and C from the VDOT Review of Unobligated Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program and Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds. The total surplus from Categories A and C was reported to be approximately $7.1 million. Mr. Kimbrel stated three localities have submitted TIP requests and a fourth one will be discussed as an additional agenda item. He noted there will be change to the total surplus from Categories A and C due to the discovery that the Regional Bikeway Network project was listed in the “Districtwide” section of the spreadsheet. The project was inadvertently included in the completed project section. The $7.1 million surplus will be reduced by $2,963,449 for this project and $375,825 for a second joint project listed in Category C. The updated surplus total of CMAQ funds in Categories A and C is approximately $3,760,726. He noted that Hampton and Virginia Beach localities are expected to submit TIP amendment requests in May. He reminded TTAC members that some of the older CMAQ funds may require a 20% local match. He also reminded the members to be careful not to accidently return any urban or local funds used to match CMAQ funding that is being relinquished. Mr. Kimbrel stated HRTPO staff would like to receive the remainder of the TIP amendment requests next month in order to close the books on Categories A and C. The Transportation Technical Subcommittee (TTS) will be meeting April 13, 2011 to discuss any local projects that might be able to utilize returned CMAQ funding. FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment: Chesapeake Mr. Walton stated the City of Chesapeake is seeking to amend the TIP to reallocate:

• $440,853 RSTP funds, including State match, from several completed projects to project UPC# 56187: Dominion Boulevard – Widen from 2 to 4 lanes and replace Steel Bridge. • $14,460 CMAQ funds, including State match, from completed project UPC# 72797: Greenbrier Parkway – Extend northbound left turn lane at Woodlake Drive, to project UPC# T9111: Liberty Street Transfer Station.

Attachment 19-B

Summary TTAC Minutes – April 6, 2011 - Page 4

• $155 CMAQ funds, including State match, from completed project UPC# 72797: Greenbrier Parkway – Extend northbound left turn lane at Woodlake Drive, to project UPC# 16109 Signal Interconnect – Cedar Road/Dominion Boulevard intersection to Steel Bridge. In addition, the City of Chesapeake has identified $324,292 CMAQ funding to be relinquished and made available for transfer to other CMAQ projects in the region. Mr. Walton Moved to amend the TIP to reallocate $440,853 RSTP funds, $14,460 CMAQ funds, $115 CMAQ funds, and to relinquish $324,292 CMAQ funds; seconded by Mr. Hicks. The Motion Carried. FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment: Newport News Mr. Slaughter stated the City of Newport News is seeking to amend the TIP to transfer $809,477 in CMAQ funds from several completed projects to project UPC# T10458: Oakland Industrial Park/Sidewalk Phase 2. Mr. Slaughter Moved to amend the TIP to transfer $809,477 in CMAQ funding; seconded by Mr. Lewis. The Motion Carried. FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment: Newport News Mr. Brown stated the City of Norfolk is seeking to amend the TIP to transfer $123,469 in CMAQ funds from the completed project UPC# 52353: Norfolk Citywide Smart Traffic Center Operations Network to project UPC# T1822: Norfolk Light Rail Transit. The City of Norfolk will provide the 20% local match ($30,867) unless Urban funds can be found. Mr. Brown Moved to amend the TIP to transfer $123,469 in CMAQ funding; seconded by Mr. Walton. The Motion Carried. FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment: James City County Mr. Hicks stated James City County is seeking to amend the TIP to add a new project and transfer funds to the project, as follows:

• Add the Skiffes Creek Connector (UPC# 100200) as a Preliminary Engineering (PE) and Right-of-Way (RW) Only project. • Transfer $10,000,000 in RSTP funds, including the State match, from project UPC# 13496: Route 60 Relocation and Upgrade to project UPC# 100200: Skiffes Creek Connector. Mr. Hicks Moved to amend the TIP to add Skiffes Creek Connector as a PE and RW Only project and to transfer $10,000,000 RSTP funds to the project; seconded by Mr. Cross. The Motion Carried.

Attachment 19-B

Summary TTAC Minutes – April 6, 2011 - Page 5

FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment: James City County Mr. Hicks stated James City County is seeking to amend the TIP to transfer $969,548 in CMAQ and RSTP funds (including State match) from several projects to Croaker Road Multipurpose/Road project (UPC# 17633). The transfers are from completed projects except UPC# 87944 Mooretown Road Bikeway, which will be cancelled. Mr. Hicks Moved to amend the TIP to transfer $969,548 in CMAQ and RSTP funding; seconded by Mr. Walton. The Motion Carried. Review of the FY 2012-2017 Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP) Process: VDOT Mr. Adam Jack, District Planning and Investment Manager of VDOT, expressed his appreciation to TTAC regarding the prioritization process as it will assist VDOT with its SYIP in a systemic way in order to move projects forward and receive more funding for the district. He explained the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) is the funding mechanism and to approve the process for transportation funds that are utilized statewide. Its primary role is to adopt a SYIP by July 1st of each year. In populations greater than 50,000, the MPO has the responsibility to develop, in cooperation with the state and transit operators, a Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that is consistent with the long-range plan. Mr. Jack stated VDOT met with the MPOs on January 21, 2011 and outlined the CTB priorities, including, but not limited to:

• Fund deficits on underway project phases • Maximize federal funds to meet federal strategy • Fund deficient bridges and pavements • Support PPTAs • Redirect inactive balances on projects The selection criteria for the Governor’s Illustrative list were also discussed at the January 21st meeting. In conclusion, Mr. Jack stated the draft FY 12-17 SYIP would be released on April 20th with a public hearing in Hampton Roads on April 27th. He encouraged all TTAC members to be in attendance and provide comments on the STIP. It is anticipated that the CTB will adopt the FY 12-17 SYIP on June 15, 2011. Mr. Hicks asked what was VDOT’s expectation in having the localities comment on the SYIP in light of the limited funding available. Mr. Jack replied it is important as a region to express priorities that pertain to the interstate, those that cross boundaries, and those that affect the region as a whole. The region has accomplished that through the prioritization process but it is important for the localities to make its comments known to the CTB

Attachment 19-B

Summary TTAC Minutes – April 6, 2011 - Page 6

members, the Secretary of Transportation, and the representatives of the Governor’s office who may in attendance. Mr. Drumwright stated he was aware of a policy shift where the State distributed a recommended language change from “shall match” to “may match” with regards to RSTP funding. Mr. Jack replied the revision was sent down from the Governor’s office and he is unsure if it has been approved. He noted that if it is approved, the language will provide better flexibility within the timeframe required for RSTP funding. Mr. Drumwright remarked that all localities need to be made aware if the policy shift is approved. Mr. Sorey remarked that the discussion regarding CMAQ and RSTP funding at today’s meeting underscores the need for the TTAC, as an advisory committee to the HRTPO Board, to have a strong focus on programming. The TTS will meet quarterly to ensure that the monies allocated are being utilized in a timely manner. I-64 Peninsula Study Environmental Impact Statement: VDOT Mr. Nicholas Nies, Project Manager, Environmental Division of VDOT, stated the I-64 Peninsula Study Process consists of the following components in addition to public hearing input:

• Project Initiation/Scoping/Purpose and Need • Alternatives Development • Technical and Environmental Studies • Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) • Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) • Record of Decision (ROD) Mr. Nies indicated that VDOT is currently in the project initiation phase and the purpose and need statement is being development. FHWA is the lead federal agency and will approve the NEPA process and the CTB will decide on what alternative, if any, will be carried forward. The VDOT Study Team sent letters in February requesting cooperating and participating agencies and Mr. Nies noted that the HRTPO was included in that distribution. The project is under an aggressive three year schedule; initiated in January 2011 with a FEIS hopefully generated in November 2013. In conclusion, Mr. Nies stated there will be numerous agency and public outreach opportunities to comment on the I-64 Peninsula Study. Ms. Vachet asked if the VDOT study team had contacted any of the Peninsula military installations, particularly NASA Langley, Ft. Eustis, Camp Peary, and the Yorktown Naval

Attachment 19-B

Summary TTAC Minutes – April 6, 2011 - Page 7

Weapons Station to determine their interested, if any, as participating agencies. Mr. Nies replied that Ft. Eustis and Camp Peary had been contacted; however he was unsure if the other installations had been contacted. 2034 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP): Status Report Ms. Ravanbakht explained the HRTPO Board approved the Transportation Project Prioritization: Recommended List of Projects and Studies at the March 17th Board Meeting. With guidance from the Executive Director, HRTPO staff transmitted a copy of the list to the CTB, the Virginia General Assembly, the Virginia Governor and the Secretary of Transportation. She indicated staff will work with VDOT to incorporate many of the projects into the SYIP and the TIP. Ms. Stith outlined the 2034 LRTP major tasks and outreach-related accomplishments to-date, including, but not limited to:

• 2034 Vision and Goals developed • Candidate projects analyzed and ranked using prioritization tool • HRTPO Board approved fiscally-constrained prioritized list of projects and studies • LRTP website and logo created • Public meetings and surveys • School Outreach program developed Ms. Stith summarized the next steps in order to complete the 2034 LRTP and highlighted that the required air quality conformity six-month process will begin in July 2011 as the 2030 LRTP is set to expire January 22, 2012. Mr. Hicks asked what the process would be if the localities needed to add a project to the LRTP after June. Ms. Ravanbakht replied the HRTPO Board will approve the final list of projects in May. Mr. Ponticello of VDOT commented that if a project is of regional significance, the air quality conformity process will have to be re-started. Ms. Ravanbakht stated the localities should submit projects now that will need approval and if the locality did not want the project included at a later date, it could be removed. Mr. Schnaufer remarked that the City of Virginia Beach had met with local CTB members who indicated money should not be spent yet on any projects outlined in the Governor’s proposal. He asked how the localities move forward in light of this information. Ms. Ravanbakht stated she participated in a conference call with FHWA and VDOT staff and it was agreed that the current list of projects can move forward. She noted that she will ask Mr. Rucker of the FHWA to transmit a letter to HRTPO staff and if anything changes after the Governor’s proposal is finalized, it will have to be re-addressed. Mr. Sorey asked for VDOT confirmation regarding the final urban allocations that are projected for the life of the LRTP. Ms. Ravanbakht replied the final figures have been released and were provided to the localities a month ago. Mr. Gibson remarked that the

Attachment 19-B

Summary TTAC Minutes – April 6, 2011 - Page 8

figures were not based on any formula. Ms. Stith interjected the urban funds were comparative to discretionary funds allocated to the urban localities and indicated HRTPO staff would re-transmit the figures after the meeting. Route 460 for Construction in the 2034 LRTP Mr. Gibson stated VDOT had reviewed the 2034 LRTP recommended list of projects and studies list and noted that the Route 460 project was categorized as a study. He indicated that VDOT would like to request to amend the list to include Route 460 as a full construction project. The current 2030 LRTP was amended to identify Route 460 as a construction project and was approved by the HRTPO Board in November 2010. FHWA has stated the project qualifies as fiscally-constrained due to the PPTA process. Mr. Gibson Moved to amend the recommended list of projects and studies for the 2034 LRTP to include Route 460 as a full construction project; seconded by Mr. Ponticello. Ms. Vachet commented that FHWA should specifically explain how a PPTA project meets the criteria of a fiscally-constrained project. Mr. Gibson stated FHWA is currently defining that process. The Motion Carried. INRIX National Traffic Scorecard Mr. Nichols stated Inrix has produced the National Traffic Scorecard report each year since 2007. The Scorecard details the status of congestion in the largest 100 metropolitan areas across the country where data is collected from over four million GPS-enabled vehicles, including taxis, shuttles, trucks, and delivery vans. Inrix measures the Peak Period Travel Time Tax which is the percentage of extra travel time the average trip takes during the peak travel periods as compared to uncongested free flow conditions. According to Inrix, the peak period travel time tax in Hampton Roads is 13 percent which is an increase from last year although traffic volume has remained relatively flat. Hampton Roads has the 5th worst peak period travel time tax among the 35 metropolitan areas in 2010. Mr. Nichols explained Inrix also measures the Worst Time Travel Time Tax which represents travel conditions during the worst 15-minute period throughout the week in each region. In Hampton Roads, the worst time travel time tax occurred at 4:30 p.m. on Fridays in 2010 and was calculated at 42 percent. In comparison to the other 35 large metropolitan areas, Hampton Roads had the 4th highest worst time travel time tax in 2010. Finally, Inrix ranked congested corridors for the first time in 2010. The East and Westbound tubes of the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel were the two corridors that qualified in the Hampton Roads area. The Eastbound and Westbound tubes ranked 67the and 221st respectively nationwide.

Attachment 19-B

Summary TTAC Minutes – April 6, 2011 - Page 9

Correspondence of Interest Chairman Sorey stated there were no Correspondence of Interest items in the agenda packet. For Your Information Chairman Sorey stated there were a number of items in the For Your Information section of the agenda packet and highlighted the VDOT public hearing on April 27, 2011. Old/New Business Mr. Hicks stated that Ms. Ravanbakht attended a public forum on March 30, 2011 in James City County regarding the extension of Mooretown Road. He expressed his appreciation to Ms. Ravanbakht for taking the time and effort to explain the 2034 LRTP process to the citizens. Adjournment With no further business to come before the Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at 11:06 a.m.

Attachment 19-B

HRTPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC) March 3, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 1

FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION

MARCH 3, 2011 MEETING

MINUTES Co-Chair Stan Clark called the HRTPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee to order at 10:00 a.m. in the Virginia Port Authority (VPA) Board Room with the following in attendance: MEMBERS PRESENT: Art Moye (Virginia Maritime Association) Bill Bell, Co-Chair (Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding) Chris Luebbers (Norfolk Southern Corp.) Homer Crane (K Line America, Inc.) Keith Helton (Givens Logistics) Ron Drogan (The CrossGlobe Group) Stan Clark, Co-Chair (Isle of Wight Board of Supervisors) MEMBERS ABSENT: Curtis Hall (Target Import Warehouse) STAFF: Jeff Florin (Virginia Port Authority) Camelia Ravanbakht (HRTPO staff) Rob Case (HRTPO staff) Keith Nichols (HRTPO staff) Andy Hecker (Moffatt & Nichol) Allison Mall (Moffatt & Nichol) OTHERS PRESENT: Augie Eckhardt (Norfolk Southern) Frank Mach (MARAD) Laura Stanton (MYMIC) Wendy Vachet (U.S. Navy)

Attachment 19-C

HRTPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC) March 3, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 2

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. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING’S MINUTES Co-Chair Bill Bell proposed that item #5 on the agenda, “Bylaw and membership discussion and revisions,” be moved to the last item to allow enough time for more timely discussions. Mr. Chris Luebbers seconded this motion, and it was passed unanimously. Mr. Bell then moved to approve the minutes from both the 1-12-11 and 1-31-11 meeting. Mr. Butch Crane seconded the motion and both minutes were approved unanimously. 3. HRTPO HYPOTHETICAL INLAND PORT STUDY Mr. Keith Nichols, senior transportation engineer at the HRTPO, is working on a study for a hypothetical inland port study. He presented an outline of the study to FTAC and discussed plans for moving forward. The study will look at the effects that an inland port facility located in the uncongested western part of Hampton Roads would have on traffic and congestion, not whether such a facility is economically feasible. At this point, Mr. Nichols is working on the existing conditions section of the study, and is getting assistance from Moffatt & Nichol (Andy Hecker) on the assumptions, which will be discussed with FTAC during an update on the study at the next meeting. Mr. Andy Hecker asked Mr. Nichols if the study would be looking at non-containerized cargo, to which Mr. Rob Case said no, it will only focus on container cargo. He explained that the plan is to take Port container data and then assume that a portion of it would be funneled through this hypothetical facility. The HRTPO will come back to FTAC and see if the numbers make sense. Mr. Chris Luebbers said that the study will require a lot of research with potential developers, and will take much longer than currently planned. Mr. Nichols clarified the purpose by saying that this study is focused on traffic relief, not economic development. Mr. Luebbers agrees that the two can be treated separately. Mr. Butch Crane then suggested that the Port Authority had already done a study like this. Mr. Jeff Florin said that the Port has looked at the possibility of an intermodal park on Route 460, and have data on the Inland Port in Winchester that can be revised with current numbers. Mr. Andy Hecker at Moffatt & Nichol has detailed historical container data. Mr. Case and Mr. Hecker agreed to talk offline.

Attachment 19-C

HRTPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC) March 3, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 3

Mr. Luebbers asked if the inland port is intended to shuttle current traffic coming from the Port, or also act as a magnet for new distribution centers. Mr. Case said that while the current inland port captures new business, this analysis of a hypothetical facility is focusing on cargo already using the Port. Mr. Florin said that the inland port was originally set up to catch cargo going to Baltimore, but it ended up being a distribution center magnet. He indicated that this could happen in the case of the hypothetical facility as well. Mr. Nichols said that the existing conditions section of the study will be done in the next few weeks and the study needs to be complete by June 30th. Mr. Florin asked if this is realistic, because he thinks that it is an aggressive schedule. Mr. Nichols said that a meeting is needed in April to share the assumptions with the FTAC. 4. DRAFT RECOMMENDED LIST OF PROJECTS Mr. Bill Bell first thanked the Committee for its ongoing productive FTAC meetings and discussions, because without them he would not have been able to make the statement at the TPO retreat. Mr. Bell said that he thought the statement was very well-received at the retreat. He said that after the retreat, many people stopped to talk to him about the effect that tolls will have on businesses, and how they hadn’t really considered that before. He said that from what he can see, people are now aware and concerned about the issue. Ms. Camelia Ravanbakht then gave a presentation to the Committee on the draft recommended list of projects for the long-range plan, a presentation which she had given to TTAC on March 2nd. There was a public meeting in Newport News on February 23rd attended by Mayor Price, other elected officials, and about 25 citizens. There was also a public meeting at the TPO offices in early February, attended by about 50 or 60 people, and more are planned between now and the summer. She reported that attendees at the meetings asked a lot of good questions about tolling. Comments from various sources have been incorporated into the draft recommended list. Ms. Ravanbakht gave an overview of what happened at the TPO retreat. She felt that the list of recommended projects was very well received, but they did not have to vote. On March 17th they will vote on the list of projects. She said that there was very little discussion on the list, other than representatives from the Peninsula noting that no lane miles to cross the harbor would be added with this plan. Ms. Wendy Vachet from the U.S. Navy added that there was also very little discussion at TTAC. Mr. Art Moye asked why that might be, and Mr. Stan Clark said that he thinks that, due to funding difficulties, people don’t want to take public stances. He thinks that the Board has heard enough about the prioritization, but without any money nobody really knows what to do. Mr. Moye believes that considerable fighting is yet to come. He explained that every time he goes to Richmond to talk to legislators, they indicate support for the Port but give somewhat vague responses since they are most likely more concerned with pleasing their constituents. Mr. Moye thinks that FTAC—made up of people who know what’s going on, know what needs to happen to ensure that the freight industry has a future, and who are

Attachment 19-C

HRTPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC) March 3, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 4

not confined by political interest—should go to Richmond and lobby. He hopes that this group will be very clear about which projects are the most important. Mr. Crane pointed out that more money should not be wasted on transportation studies when it could be spent on construction. Mr. Moye agreed, and added that the non-committal wavering in Richmond indicates that legislators do not want their opinions to be public, and that they want someone else to make the decisions. Mr. Clark then said that the only issue that really needs to be focused on is finding funding streams for new transportation projects, and pushing political leaders in Richmond for new revenue. Mr. Keith Helton said that politicians should listen to the business community, but instead they listen to constituents. He thinks that they would appreciate getting more accurate information about the industry and what the industry needs. The Committee agreed that political leaders need to hear from more than the VPA and the VMA. Hearing from a group like FTAC would probably be very well received. Ms. Ravanbakht then continued with her presentation by discussing the Governor’s transportation funding proposal, which would include money for 66 projects in Hampton Roads and statewide funds for PPTA projects (e.g. Route 460 and the Midtown Tunnel). Including projects from the Governor’s transportation funding proposal, the Recommended List of Projects is divided into these sections: Unfunded Projects for Future Consideration ($2.00 B), Recommended Studies and Projects with identified funding ($ 3.57 B), and Committed Projects ($ 1.17. B). After explaining in detail the different sections and the projects in them, Ms. Ravanbakht pointed that, although the Southeastern Pkwy study is not on the current list, the City of Virginia Beach does want it on the final list. The HRTPO and TTAC believe that it is good to have a list of critical unfunded projects because the complaint up until now has been that Hampton Roads does not have shovel-ready projects—one of the reasons that the region does not get adequate funding. Ms. Ravanbakht explained that, with an approved list of prioritized projects, Hampton Roads is more likely to get funding for transportation. In the past, Northern Virginia has received a larger share of the state’s funding because they ask for funding in stages instead of all at once, and they prioritize projects. Since Hampton Roads has never had prioritization before, this is a big step in winning the battle for funds. The next steps for the Board to take are as follows: At the March 17th meeting, the Board is anticipated to vote on the projects and studies. The approved list of projects will be complete in June and submitted to VDOT, which will then do a six-month long air quality analysis. Attachment 19-C

HRTPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC) March 3, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 5

Mr. Bell asked why VDOT did not do the air quality analysis in tandem with the prioritization, but Ms. Ravanbakht and Mr. Case assured the Committee that the project list will likely pass the air quality test. Ms. Ravanbakht indicated that, if there is a “breakthrough” on a PPTA project, the plan can be amended at any time over the next four years, as long as fiscal restraint is shown. Projects can be added or removed. Continuing with her presentation, Ms. Ravanbakht described the projects on slide 9, which are ones that the region can afford over the next 20 years. She said that The Patriot’s Crossing and the HRBT projects are not on this list because they are under study. After two years, when the studies are completed, the Board will make a decision about which one to include in the 2034 LRTP. TTAC recommended including them for study, not as projects for construction. Although Mr. Moye said that the two years was a waste of time, Ms. Ravanbakht explained that VDOT is pushing for both of these studies to be done. Mr. Moye then indicated that the freight industry needs to go before Congress or the House of Delegates and make sure that the facts about the importance of freight gets in their hands and that they understand the intensity of our objective and purpose. He said that people take business and the military—sectors that are heavily affected by transportation projects—for granted. Mr. Helton agreed, saying that comments in The Virginian Pilot are an example of citizens’ poor understanding of the value of the Port and the benefits it brings to the region and the Commonwealth. Mr. Hecker then gave an update on the freight outreach video. A media company has been selected – Pyramid Studios from Richmond, VA. FTAC staff is in the process of preparing a contract. The movie will have a positive message: the region’s valuable assets that move freight – the harbor, bridges, tunnels, etc. – need to be protected and improved. Pyramid Studios has been working with the Virginia Port Authority (VPA) for a long time, and has also produced a movie for Arlington County, VA, which promotes their effective transportation system. Mr. Hecker said he was impressed with the Arlington video. Pyramid Studios will attend an FTAC meeting when they have a draft of the script ready. 5. ANALYZING THE IMPACT OF PROPOSED TOLLS ON BUSINESSES Mr. Hecker then gave a summary of the draft tolling analysis statement that is in the meeting packets. The potential tolling study would analyze the costs and benefits that may occur from tolls, either bringing business into the region or pushing it away. The idea of the study arose because PPTA’s will likely be a way that transportation projects are funded in Hampton Roads, and PPTA’s come with tolls. High truck tolls may cause businesses who utilize the Port to locate their businesses elsewhere. Figuring out the truck toll levels that will drive businesses away—i.e. the “tipping points”—by industry, cargo type, destination, etc. is a complex analysis. FTAC does not have the

Attachment 19-C

HRTPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC) March 3, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 6

resources or funding to complete such a study, so the Committee needs help from the HRTPO in identifying funds to complete the study. Mr. Crane emphasized that, when analyzing the tolling tipping points, it’s important to analyze transportation projects as a system, not individual, separate projects. Ms. Wendy Vachet from the U.S. Navy was invited to this meeting to shed light on the Navy’s opinion on freight movement and possible tolls. She explained that the Navy is very interested in the fiscal impact that tolls may have on their operations, including freight and supply movement, jobs, and pay raises; however she said that without concrete data she cannot yet develop an official Navy stance on tolls. She offered to help the Committee obtain information. Ms. Vachet said that the Navy’s supply chain and federal supply people would have data that would be valuable to the study. She also pointed out that the Navy’s needs will get attention in Richmond, being the largest employer in Hampton Roads. Mr. Moye asked whether the Navy could say something official regarding Hampton Roads’ transportation projects. Ms. Vachet responded that the Navy has a directive not to interfere with local decision-making, especially land use, but would like to promote transportation projects as a system, especially given that Secretary Connaughton asked Secretary Gates to help prioritize $1.5 billion found in state coffers. CTAC has asked the Navy to go to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), and the Navy is planning a trip. The Committee discussed the next steps in relation to the tolling statement. CTAC wrote a resolution in October about tax and revenue options. FTAC’s statement needs to be carefully worded and include wording about the affect tolls will have on the region’s military presence. Staff will revise the statement, then follow-up at the next meeting. Mr. Clark thinks it would be a good idea to invite Admiral Quigley to hear his opinions; and he will invite him to the next meeting. 6. ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEXT MEETING DATE, PLACE, TIME The next meeting will take place on Thursday, April 7th, from 10:00 – 11:30 a.m., in the VPA Board Room. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

Attachment 19-C

Annual CurrentREVENUES Budget Month YTDVDOT- PL Sec 112 Federal 2,187,830 - 859,035 VDOT- PL Sec 112 State 273,479 - 107,379 VDOT- PL Sec 112 Local 273,479 - 107,380 HRT Match 43,420 - 11,249 WAT Match 10,000 7,404 7,404 State Pass-Through 53,420 - 11,252 Federal Pass-Through 427,363 - 90,012 VDRPT 5303 Federal 131,223 - 76,762 VDRPT 5303 State 16,403 - 9,595 VDRPT 5303 Local 16,403 - 9,597

Total Revenue 3,433,021 7,404 1,289,665

EXPENDITURES Personnel - 145,675 1,194,369 Contractual 30,000 - 2,697 Special Contracts 2,661,214 3,229 98,816 Office Services 207,603 3,263 81,972 Pass Through Expenditures 534,204 74,037 186,551 Indirect Costs - 51,115 409,616 Total Expenses 3,433,021 277,320 1,974,020

Agency Balance 0 (269,916) (684,355)

HRTPOFiscal Year 2011MARCH 31, 2011STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES

Attachment 19-D

Attachment 19-G

Attachment 19-G

Attachment 19-H

US Department of Transportation Code of Federal Regulations HRTPO STAFF TECHNICAL COMMENTS

PREPARED BY: Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization March 30, 2011

Attachment 19-H

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization | Code of Federal Regulations | HRTPO Comments | Page 1

Introduction The purpose of this document is to provide written technical comments pertaining to the USDOT’s existing regulations contained within the Code of Federal Regulations. This document was prepared by Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) staff. This document includes a detailed CFR review HRTPO staff comments, which is arranged according to Sections and Parts of the CFR For questions regarding the enclosed comments, please contact Camelia Ravanbakht, Ph.D., HRTPO Deputy Executive Director, at cravanbakht@hrpdcva.gov or via phone at (757) 420-8300.

Attachment 19-H

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization | Code of Federal Regulations | HRTPO Comments | Page 2

Code of Federal Regulations Note: Comments are cited by Section

Sample

Part #

“e-CFR Text” HRTPO Staff Technical Comment Title 23 Part 450 – Highways, Federal Highway Administration, Planning Assistance and Standards

Part 450.216 – Development and content of the statewide transportation improvement program (STIP).

“(a) The STIP shall cover a period of no less than four years and be updated at least every four years, or more frequently if the Governor elects a more frequent update schedule.” Due to the importance of keeping programming information up-to-date, it is recommended that the update period for the STIP be at least every two years, or more frequently if the Governor elects a more frequent update schedule. Updating the STIP every two years maintains a programming document that always shows planned obligations at least two years into the future. This is preferable to allowing the programming document to get down to showing only the current year’s planned obligations. Part 450.216 – Development and content of the statewide transportation improvement program (STIP).

“(b) For each metropolitan area in the State, the STIP shall be developed in cooperation with the MPO designated for the metropolitan area.” Recommend adding something to the effect of “the STIP development schedule shall take into account the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) processes for TIP development, including review of the draft TIP project list, public involvement, and meeting schedules of the technical and policy boards.” Since the MPO TIPs shall be included without change in the STIP (450.216 (b)), and since there can be repercussions if a MPO TIP is not ready in time to be included in the STIP (450.218 (c)), it is important that the cooperation between the State and the MPOs during STIP development take into account the time necessary to develop the MPO TIP.

Attachment 19-H

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization | Prelim. Nat’l Rail Plan | HRTPO Tech. Comments | Page 3

Part 450.216 – Development and content of the statewide transportation improvement program (STIP).

“(l) The STIP may include a financial plan that demonstrates how the approved STIP can be implemented...” Since the STIP is required to be fiscally constrained, it is recommended that this statement be revised to read the STIP shall include a financial plan. Part 450.218 – Self-certifications, Federal findings, and Federal approvals.

“(a) At least every four years, the State shall submit an updated STIP concurrently to the FHWA and the FTA for joint approval.” Recommend changing the sentence to read at least every two years, the State shall submit an updated STIP, for the same reasons included in the comment on 450.216 (a). Part 450.324 – Development and content of the transportation improvement program (TIP).

“(a) The TIP shall cover a period of no less than four years, be updated at least every four years, and be approved by the MPO and the Governor.” Due to the importance of keeping programming information up-to-date, it is recommended that the update period for the TIP be at least every two years. Updating the TIP every two years maintains a programming document that always shows planned obligations at least two years into the future. This is preferable to allowing the programming document to get down to showing only the current year’s planned obligations. (This change would need to be made in concert with a change to 450.216 (a) regarding the update schedule for the STIP.)

Attachment 19-H

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization | Prelim. Nat’l Rail Plan | HRTPO Tech. Comments | Page 4

Title 49 Part 262 – Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Department of Transportation, Implementation of Program for Capital Grants for Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Projects

Part 262.7 – Eligibility. “(a) A State is eligible for a grant from FRA under this section for any construction project for the improvement of the route or structure of a rail line…” Why is the state the only entity eligible for grant awards? A more effective way that ensures local and regional input would be to allow MPOs as a recipient, with state concurrence in the application. This would allow the MPO to pursue rail projects that meet the specifications of this part. By function, the MPO considers regional and local input, and is equipped with knowledge on safety, traffic flow, community quality of life, and economic development impacts of said projects.

Part 262.15 – Environmental assessment. This section goes into depth on how to conduct the environmental assessment, and options in which to cover the cost of such assessment. What this section does not mention are the pertinent parties (i.e. MPOs) that should be consulted and/or be a part of the environmental assessment process. As the transportation policy board comprised of representatives from local, state, and federal governments, transit agencies, and other stakeholders, MPOs are properly equipped with regional knowledge and should be included in the environmental assessment process as a participating agency for rail projects that are located within the metropolitan planning area. Furthermore, it defers to interpretation of NEPA to assess such stakeholders in the process. The issue with deferring to outside legislation is interpretation of NEPA that was not oriented towards rail specific projects. As such, it yields an outcome that is non-conforming to projects conducted under the oversight/guidance of the Federal Railroad Administration, leading to overlooked steps and stakeholders within the NEPA process as it pertains to rail projects. This section could be better enhanced by not only referencing NEPA, but providing a loose interpretation of NEPA as it pertains to rail (what rail oriented stakeholders should be considered; what environmental impacts as a result of typical rail projects should be looked at; what rail specific mitigation activities should be considered; etc). This provides guidance to state rail agencies, as well as provides stakeholders a medium in which to engage in the environmental assessment of rail projects. 266

Attachment 19-H

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization | Prelim. Nat’l Rail Plan | HRTPO Tech. Comments | Page 5

Title 49 Part 266 – Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Department of Transportation, Assistance to States for Local Rail Service under Section 5 of the Department of Transportation Act

Part 266.19 – Environmental impact. This section goes into detail about environmental review of rail projects. It is as a result of environmental review that there are long delays and mounting costs to all infrastructure projects. It would be beneficial to regions and the nation for the regulation to speak to a streamlined environmental review process for projects occurring on existing right-of-way, as a starting point. Long term, the environmental review and project delivery process have to be reassessed for projects to be viable and delivered in a timely and fiscally sustainable basis.

Attachment 19-H

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board Meeting – April 21, 2011

AGENDA ITEM #20: OLD/NEW BUSINESS