June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation

Transportation Advisory Group

Scenarios Development Workshop

June 28, 2012

Introductions

� Steve Thieken, B&N� Project Manger

� Jamie Snow, B&N� Senior Transportation Planner & Modeler

� Joel Mann, Kittelson & Associates� Senior Planner

Meeting Purpose

� Brainstorm and discuss concepts to include in

the long range transportation plan

� The concepts presented and scenarios

developed will form the basis/first step for the

project team’s analysis of alternatives and

ultimately the recommended plan

Agenda

� Part 1 - Set the Stage

� Review and discuss Draft Transportation Goals, Objectives, Measures

� Review Conceptual Development Map (from regional visioning process)

� Overview of current transportation

� Discuss funding

� Review the “toolbox” of concepts

� Part 2 - Build the Scenarios

� Develop three Scenarios (small group work)

� Report-out from each group (larger group)

� Compare/contrast scenarios and discussion (larger group)

� Work to merge into three consensus “hybrid” Scenarios (larger group)

Process

Overall Planning Process

� Regional Visioning Process (basically complete)

� Transportation Advisory Group

� Meeting 1 – Kickoff/Existing Conditions/Goals (May 17th)

� Meeting 2 – Alternatives Workshop (today)

� Meeting 3 – Alternatives Analysis Review (September)

� Meeting 4 – Draft Recommended Plan Review (late October)

� Public Engagement

� Open House (late October)

� Stakeholder Discussions (ongoing)

� Website

Transportation Planning Process

Source: Transportation Planning Process Key

Issues, 2007, A Publication of the

Transportation Planning Capacity Building

Program

LRTP Process

Improvement Ideas and Strategies

� Concepts should be rooted in:

Community’s

Vision, Goals and

Objectives

Deficiencies and

Needs in System

Regional Vision

for Growth

Improvement Ideas

and Strategies

Goals, Objectives, Measures

Transportation Advisory GroupIt’s Time to Chart Our Future


Community’s

Vision, Goals and

Objectives

Deficiencies and

Needs in System

Regional Vision

for Growth

Improvement Ideas

and Strategies

Draft LRTP Goals

Regional Visioning Process•Stakeholder Meetings (January)

•Idea Gathering Meetings (January)

TAG Meeting #1 (May 17th)•Goals Exercise

Eight Metropolitan Planning Factors•FHWA

•SAFETEA-LU

Draft LRTP Goals,

Objectives, and

Measures

Draft LRTP Goals





•SAFETEA-LU

Draft LRTP Goals,

Objectives, and

Measures

Regional Visioning Process (quick review)

� Regional Visioning Group

� Kickoff Meeting (November 8th)

� General Workshop (December 7th)

� Goal Writing Workshop (February 29th)

� Stakeholder Interviews (January 24th – 26th)

� Public Meetings

� Idea Gathering (January 25th and 26th)

� Understanding Future Growth (March 28th)

� Community Choices Workshop (June 6th)

Goals & Vision

Statements

Idea Gathering

Meetings

Stakeholder

Interviews

&

Regional Visioning Process

� Step 1 - Developing Goals and Vision Statements

Understanding

Future Growth

&Goals & Vision

Statements

Principles &

Regional Vision


� Step 2 - Developing Principles and Regional Vision

Technical

Findings

Principles &

Regional Vision

Transportation and

Comprehensive

Plans


� Principles and Vision Plan feed the LRTP

Transportation Vision Statement

� Vision Statement from Crossroads effort:

Moving… A balanced, safe, attractive, and accessible

transportation system will reduce congestion, improve

connectivity and support and direct future growth

integrating private vehicles and expanding public

transportation, biking, and walking networks.

� One of the five broad vision statements for the region

� Crossroads also produced goals and objective that

were at the last TAG meeting

Draft LRTP Goals





•SAFETEA-LU

Draft LRTP Goals,

Objectives, and

Measures

TAG #1 Feedback

GROUP 1

Goal: Preserve, Improve and Enhance LOS on Arteries and

Connector roads.

Objective 1.1- Improve travel times.

Objective 1.2- More people per vehicle.

Goal: An Operational system that all modes can use efficiently.

Objective 2.1- By [DATE] we will have a set of operational and

enforcement guidelines.

Objective 2.2- Add the human touch back into operations.

Goal: Promote pedestrian traffic outside municipal boundaries.

Goal: New freight infrastructure that is not based on roads/trucks.

Goal: Expand airport for Multi functional air travel.

GROUP 3

Goal: Integrated Transportation system that includes where all

modes are viable to the public.

Objective 1- 5% bicycle trips 2030.

Objective 2- 20% of all trips on foot.

Objective 3- Public transit system 15min headways in urban areas.

Goal: Transportation system that provides an acceptable traffic flow

during peak commuting periods.

Objective 1 - Improving Key congestion areas.

Objective 2- Increase vehicle occupancy by 30%.

Goal: Reduce injury & death

Objective 1 - Design of future transportation project reduce

accidents.

GROUP 2

Goal: Improve Ingress/Egress to the Core (density) of the

community.

Objective 1- Reduce time for people to core.

-Travel time for people (all modes).

Objective 2- Increase ability to get more people to/from core.

- Number of people (all modes) trips.

- Commuting (Population, Jobs, Students).

Objective 3- Increase route options (all modes).

Goal: Increase Alternatives to traveling (using traditional

transportation systems)

Objective 1- Increase telecommuting /Electronic technology

capacity, students to classes.

-Number of people telecommuting and

number of students taking classes remotely

-Efficiency of broadband system (or other).

Objective 2- Support Development/Land Use patterns that

decrease need to travel.

-Increase in mixed use neighborhoods.

-Trips.

Goal: Reduce personal auto use.

Objective 1- Reduce number of people reliant on personal

autos.

-Personal Auto Ownership

-Auto Volumes

Objective 2- Reduce land area needed for personal travel

-Land Area used for parking

Draft LRTP Goals





•SAFETEA-LU

Draft LRTP Goals,

Objectives, and

Measures

Federally Required Planning Factors

1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;

2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users;

3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users;

4. Increase accessibility and mobility of people and freight;

5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns;

6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight;

7. Promote efficient system management and operation; and

8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.

Resource: SAFETEA-LU

Draft LRTP Goals





•SAFETEA-LU

Draft LRTP Goals,

Objectives, and

Measures

Goals Feedback

Rating by Person Average

Rating1 2 3 4 5 6 7

How well do these eight transportation goals and respective

objectives capture the community's needs and desires?3 4 2 3 3 3 3 3

How important do you believe this goal is?

Goal #1 8 10 9 10 10 3 8.3

Goal #2 10 9 2 8 8 7 7.3

Goal #3 7 9 2 9 4 10 6.8

Goal #4 7 8 7 9 6 5 7

Goal #5 10 10 10 10 5 7 8.7

Goal #6 10 8 5 9 7 8 7.8

Goal #7 10 10 10 10 2 6 8

Goal #8 5 5 5 6 1 2 4

LRTP Goal #1

Goal #1: A multimodal transportation system that efficiently moves people and goods

OBJECTIVES MEASUREMENTS

Objective 1A: To eliminate/reduce current congestion

and multimodal traffic flow restrictions on arterial and

collector roadways

Change in delay

and travel time

for pedestrians

Change in delay

and travel time

for bicyclists

Change in

delay and

travel time

for

automobiles

Change in

delay and

travel time

for bus and

PRT

Objective 1B: To ensure that future development and

related transportation improvements address capacity

and connectivity needs proactively rather than

reactively

Change in number of transportation improvements built

prior to and concurrently with growth and development

(rather than reactive to)

Objective 1C: Improve ingress/egress to the most

densely developed / highest activity areas of region

(the core)

Change in time to

travel to and from

core

Change in number

of people

traveling to and

from core

Change in number of routes and

connection options to and from

the core (all modes)

Objective 1D: Provide adequate transportation

capacity and access to support current businesses

Change in access

to current

clusters of

businesses

Change in travel

time to current

clusters of

businesses

Objective 1E: Focus capacity improvements for all

modes in areas of desired future growth and

development that support the public’s vision for the

region

Change in number of improvements

planned, designed, and/or constructed in

areas of desired growth

Change in amount of growth

and development in areas

identified as priority areas in

regional vision

LRTP Goal #2

Goal #2: A transportation system in which all modes are highly integrated and connected


Objective 2A: To allow for convenient transfer

from one mode to another in the region (i.e.

biking to bus, vanpooling to bus, etc) to

maximize travel efficiency

Change in number of

multimodal trips

Change in travel time /

travel delay for trips

Change in cost of travel

Objective 2B: To encourage the use of the most

efficient mode based on the characteristics of a

particular trip

Change in number of

people walking

Change in number of

people bicycling

Change in number of

people riding the bus

and PRT

Objective 2C: Increase the geographic area in

which people have convenient access to non-

automobile modes

Change in number of

travel options to

individuals in all

populated areas

Change in amount of county served by non-auto

transportation modes

Objective 2D: Reduce reliance on automobile

for travel

Change in number of

person trips by non-

automobile modes

Change in auto ownership

Objective 2E: Better serve those who do

not/cannot own and drive a personal

automobile.

Change in number of

opportunities to travel

for those who do not

drive

Change in travel times for those who do not drive

LRTP Goal #3

Goal #3: A multimodal transportation system that safely moves people and goods


Objective 3A: To minimize crashes, especially injury/fatality

crashes by 50% through improvement of high crash locations

(all modes)

Change in frequency and

rate of crashes (all

modes)

Change in frequency of injury/fatality

crashes (all modes)

Objective 3B: To ensure that future growth and related

transportation improvements address transportation safety

needs in planning and design

Change in crash

frequency and rates in

areas affected by

development and

growth

Transportation improvements built prior

to and concurrently with growth and

development (rather than in reaction to

growth)

LRTP Goal #4

Goal #4: A transportation system that maximizes the efficiency of freight movement through and within the region

with minimal impacts on neighborhood and campus areas, especially areas of higher bicycle and pedestrian demand


Objective 4A: Reduce truck traffic in residential

neighborhoods and on other streets where

significant numbers of bicycles and pedestrians

are present

Change in number of

trucks in

neighborhoods

Change in number of trucks in other pedestrian/bicycle activity

areas

Objective 4B: Improve truck access to key

industrial areas

Change in time to

deliver freight

Change in amount of

freight moved

Change in amount of freight

dependent industries

Objective 4C: Increase options for freight

movement that minimizes truck traffic on non-

interstate roadways

Change in amount of freight moved by non-truck mode

LRTP Goal #5

Goal #5: Greater collaboration between local agencies, state officials, and private interests in the pursuit and funding

of transportation improvements


Objective 5A: More effective and less costly

transportation improvements by capitalizing on

common goals and needs between communities

and agencies in the region

Change in number of

policies and projects co-

sponsored by multiple

jurisdictions

Change in number of

projects funded by multiple

jurisdictions

Change in number of projects

that physically cross

jurisdictional lines

Objective 5B: Higher quality transportation system

improvements due to cost sharing and

collaboration.

Change in the ratio of

funding by state sources

versus local sources for

projects

Change in public opinion related to quality of transportation

improvements

Objective 5C: Transportation improvements that

support the public’s long-term vision for the

region

Change in number of

regional goals supported

by projects

Change in public satisfaction related to transportation

projects

LRTP Goal #6

Goals #6: A Transportation system that is attractive, sustainable, and livable.


Objective 6A: Integrate the local context of the

area into the planning, design, and

construction of transportation improvements

Change in the quality and

livability of the built

environment

Change in public satisfaction

related to transportation

projects

Change in property values.

Objective 6B: Include sustainability features in

design of transportation improvements that

minimize environmental impacts

Change in storm water

run-off due to

transportation

infrastructure and runoff

related to vehicular

byproducts.

Change in vehicle emissions

impact on air-quality

Change in negative impacts to

environment due to

transportation

Objective 6C: Address multimodal system

needs in all planning, design, and construction

of transportation improvements

Change in number of non-

automobile focused

transportation projects

planned, designed, and

constructed

Change in comfort, safety and convenience for travel (all

modes)

LRTP Goal #7

Goals #7: Reduce automobile trip demand, especially during peak travel hours


Objective 7A: Reduce the need to construct costly

transportation and parking infrastructure

improvements

Change in project funding required to meet the region’s transportation and parking

needs

Objective 7B: Invest in transportation improvements

that encourage and support development/land use

patterns that decrease need to travel

Change in number of projects that support mixed-use, transit oriented, and non-auto

centric land development

Objective 7C: Reduce automobile emissions and

improve air quality

Change in air-quality measures

Objective 7D: 20% of all trips made by walking Change in walking trips

Objective 7E: 5% of all trips made by bicycle Change in bicycle trips

Objective 7F: Increase number of trips made by

public transit by 200%

Change in bus trips Change in PRT trips Change in other public transit

trips

Objective 7F: Increase work telecommuting and

virtual lectures (WVU)

Change in number of

employees working from

home or other remote

locations

Change in number of

students taking classes

remotely

Change in person trips to/from

work and classes

Objective 7E: Increase average vehicle occupancy by

100%

Change in average occupants per vehicle

2006 – 2008 Mode Split (commuting)

80.63%

10.85%

0.90%

0.18%

3.25% 0.08%

0.10%

3.09%0.93%

WV State Drive Alone

Shared Ride

Transit

Bicycle

Walking

Taxi

Motorcycle

Telecommute

Other

75.35%

10.97%

1.91%

0.10%

6.71%0.22%

4.09% 0.66%

Monongalia County

Drive Alone

Shared Ride

Transit

Bicycle

Walking

Motorcycle

Telecommute

Other

59.72%10.21%

1.96%

0.14%

20.14%

6.78%

1.05%

City of Morgantown

Drive Alone

Shared Ride

Transit

Bicycle

Walking

Telecommute

Other

Source: Census Transportation Planning Products (CTPP)

LRTP Goal #8

Goals #8: A multimodal transportation system that enhances the homeland security of the region


Objective 8A: Heighten awareness of homeland security

needs related to transportation

Change in occurrences of security issues being considered

Objective 8B: Improve understanding of critical

transportation system related homeland security issues in the

region

Change in knowledge of critical homeland security issues

Objective 8C: Incorporate homeland security needs in

transportation project planning, design, and construction

Change in number of projects and policies that include homeland security

considerations

Addressing the Eight Planning Factors

SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors Draft LRTP Goal1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by

enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency.X X X X X X

2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and

non-motorized users.X X X X X X

3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and

non-motorized users.X X X

4. Increase accessibility and mobility of people and freight. X X X X X X

5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation,

improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between

transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and

economic development patterns.

X X X X X X X

6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation

system, across and between modes, for people and freight.X X X X X

7. Promote efficient system management and operation. X X X X X X

8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. X X X X X X

Regional Vision – Growth

Framework



Community’s

Vision, Goals and

Objectives

Deficiencies and

Needs in System

Regional Vision

for Growth

Improvement Ideas

and Strategies

Conceptual Framework Map

� Michael Insert final version

Concepts

� Preserve Open – Areas that are permanently protected from development (parkland)

� Reserve Open – Areas of steep slopes that are subject to development but should be protected.

� Restricted (floodplain) – Areas that are subject to development, but where development is restricted due to a high risk of flooding.

� Priority Growth – Areas where development should be encouraged. Includes growth in new areas and redevelopment within existing areas. Development should be consistent with the Principles (enhance the community’s vitality, provide for a greater mix of uses, improve mobility, expand housing choices, and attractive)

� Infill and Redevelopment – Existing developed areas where additional growth, consistent with the Principles is generally appropriate, but not a strategic priority.

� Controlled Growth – Developing areas, or currently undeveloped land where more growth is likely due to proximity to existing thoroughfares, infrastructure and adjacency to recent development. Growth in these areas generally expands the footprint of the urban area and should be controlled to minimize negative impacts.

� Limited Growth – All other areas of that are subject to development, but where increased intensity is generally not desired. These areas include both existing open space and existing development.


� A visual representation of the Vision for growth

� Preliminarily based on:

1. Results of Understanding Future Growth workshop

2. Work with Comprehensive Plan Committees

Patterns we found in the Understanding Future Growth Workshop:

Redevelopment at higher intensities

• All of the groups placed at least half of their chips on areas with existing

development

• Many chips were stacked on specific sites that participants felt had

redevelopment potential, indicating that development should occur at

higher intensities.

Group

5Group

2

Examples:


Infill Development

• Most of the groups placed development in undeveloped areas near existing

development.

• This infill pattern of development would plug holes in the urban fabric, placing

development in areas already served by existing infrastructure, and allowing the

urban area to expand in a contiguous pattern.

Group

4Group

2

Examples:


Greenfield development is limited and clustered

• Groups understood the difficulty in limiting all “greenfield” development.

• Development happening in currently undeveloped areas should be both near

existing development and/or clustered to “minimize sprawl” and “preserve

open space” rather than occur in a haphazard “leap-frog” pattern.

Group

2Group

3

Examples:


Very limited development in outlying areas

• Groups allocated very limited growth for the surrounding region.

• Some identified areas south, along I-79 as suitable for some development, while fewer

placed development in the western part of the county.

Group

4Group

3Group

2

Examples:


� Michael Insert final version

Conceptual Framework Map Summary

� A visual representation of the Vision

� Represents the intended approach to growth in the

region

� Policy recommendations of the Comprehensive

Plans and Long Range Transportation Plan should

aim to make this reality

� Will be refined based on:

� Market analysis and forecasts

Countywide Land Use Projections

Housing

•Demand for almost 17,200 more housing units by 2037

•Increase of 42.9% in 25 years (1.6% per year)

•There are 11,700 more housing units in 2012 than in 1990


Retail

•Demand for 2.8 million square feet of retail space by 2037


•Translates into 4,115 more retail & restaurant jobs

•There are about 3,200 more retail & restaurant jobs in 2012 than in 1998


Sub-Area Projections

Incorporating Future Growth

Model Inputs

•Roadway Network

•Regional Vision

•Economic Development Analysis

Travel Demand Model Process

•Trip Generation

•Trip Distribution

•Mode Split

•Highway Assignment

Forecasted Results

•2040 Base Year

•Transportation Scenarios

Current System



Community’s

Vision, Goals and

Objectives

Opportunities and

Constraints in

System

Regional Vision

for Growth

Improvement Ideas

and Strategies

Roadways Characteristics

• Nearly 17% of roadway “arterials” are at, or over

capacity with numerous “bottlenecks” in the

system

• Many “substandard” roadways

� Steep grades

� Sharp turns/curves

� Narrow lane widths

� Narrow shoulder widths

Roadway Challenges

• Very difficult (costly) to widen existing or construct

new roads due to limited right-of-way availability

and the area’s topography

• Uncontrolled development patterns and lack of

improvements to transportation infrastructure or

access control over the years have lead to many

capacity/safety problems

• Lack of local consensus has stymied past attempts

to construct roadway/highway improvements

Automobile Traffic Characteristics

• Peak travel times and traffic operations are

highly influenced by WVU schedule

• Travel patterns influenced by parking availability

and locations

Primary Public Transit Service Providers

• Mountain Line Transit Authority

� Focus on the urban core with reach into the County

� Major service expansions are planned but not funded

• WVU

� Focus on shuttle service connecting campuses

� Operates PRT

� Excellent reliability record

� Undergoing maintenance and technology upgrades

� No plans/funding for expansion of system

Transit Characteristics

• Good transit service coverage in key populated

areas

• Frequency of service is deficient in most areas

• Hours of day of service also deficient in most

areas

• Lacks consistent stop locations with quality

amenities and good pedestrian environments

Pedestrian System Characteristics

� Primarily sidewalks and multi-use trails

� Grade/topography a major concern

� Sidewalk coverage/connectivity deficient in most areas

� Narrow sidewalks adjacent to high speed traffic

� Lack of “safe” crosswalks

� Many existing sidewalks are substandard with utility poles and other impediments blocking the pathway

Pedestrian Safety

� 1998 through 2008

� 226 reported pedestrian injuries

� Consistently 20 to 25 pedestrian injuries per year

Spruce & Walnut (9) University/Beechurst/Fayette (5)

High & Willey (8) Beechurst & Campus (5)

S. University & Pleasant (8) Chestnut Ridge/Van Voorhis (5)

University & College (8) High & Walnut (4)

N. Willey & Prospect (7) High & Fayette (4)

Spruce & Pleasant (5) University & Prospect (4)

Leading pedestrian accident locations

West Virginia University Injury Control Research Center

January 1998 – June 2008

Pedestrian Demand

� Local demographics lead to:

� Walking more prevalent in Morgantown than

anywhere else in WV

� Significant demand for walking/running for exercise

� University connections to off-campus residential

areas especially important

Bicycling Characteristics

� On-street travel:

� Narrow lanes and steep grades can make bicycling

difficult on many roadways

� Few streets with paved shoulders

� No on-street bike lanes exist

� Steep side slopes and narrow rights-of-way make

bike lane improvements difficult

� “Bikeable” routes exist (see Morgantown Bicycle

Board’s “Commuter Map”)


� Trails

� Excellent opportunities for cycling (recreational and

commuting) on trails

� Nearly 10-miles of paved trails

� Caperton Trail

� Decker’s Creek Trail

� Many more miles of nature surface trails at City and

County parks


� Parking

� Numerous racks in City and WVU Campus

� Parking rings already added to several downtown

parking meters with possibly more in the future

Freight

� Trucking

� Designated truck routes: I-68, I-79, US 119, US 19,

WV 7, and CR 857

� Two Active Rail Lines

� Monongahela River

Air Travel

� Morgantown Municipal Airport (Hart Field)

� Commercial passenger travel available 7 days

� Private hangers

Funding the Plan

Funding Trends

� Gas consumption is down

� Price, fuel economy, unemployment

� Flat tax per gallon

� Revenue down

� Limited/no earmarks

� Local tax revenues down

� No federal transportation bill

State Forecast

� Transportation revenue expected to stay flat

STATE ROAD FUND REVENUE ESTIMATES*FY STATE FEDERAL** TOTAL

2013 $715,800 $494,000 $1,209,8002014 $750,800 $416,000 $1,166,8002015 $747,000 $411,000 $1,158,0002016 $747,000 $411,000 $1,158,0002017 $751,600 $411,000 $1,162,600

TOTAL = $5,855,2005-YR AVG = $1,171,040

* PRESENTED IN NOMINAL DOLLARS (000'S)** FEDERAL REVENUE ESTIMATES LESS ARRA

Purchasing Power Decreasing

� “Due to declining revenue and inflation, the Agency’s purchasing power will

effectively be cut by 19% from FY 2013 to FY 2017. “

STATE ROAD FUND REVENUE ESTIMATES*OFFICIAL EST STATE FEDERAL** TOTAL

2013 $657,876 $454,024 $1,111,9002014 $661,534 $366,540 $1,028,0742015 $630,993 $347,173 $978,1662016 $604,924 $332,830 $937,7542017 $583,503 $319,079 $902,582

TOTAL = $4,958,4765-YR AVG = $991,695

* PRESENTED IN CONSTANT 2011 DOLLARS (000'S)** FEDERAL REVENUE ESTIMATES LESS ARRA

Statewide

Projections

TABLE # 1225-YEAR STATEWIDE REVENUE PROJECTIONS

FY 2013 - FY 2037ESTIMATED ESTIMATED TOTAL

STATE REVENUE FED REVENUE REVENUE2011 DOLLARS 2011 DOLLARS 2011 DOLLARS

($000's) ($000's) ($000's)2013 $657,876 * $454,024 * $1,111,900 *

2014 $661,534 * $366,540 * $1,028,074 *

2015 $630,993 * $347,173 * $978,166 *

2016 $604,924 * $332,830 * $937,754 *

2017 $583,503 * $319,079 * $902,582 *

2018 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695

2019 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695

2020 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695

2021 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695

2022 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695

2023 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695

2024 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695

2025 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695

2026 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695

2027 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695

2028 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695

2029 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695

2030 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695

2031 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695

2032 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695

2033 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695

2034 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695

2035 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695

2036 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695

2037 $627,766 $363,929 $991,695

$24,792,382

FISCALYEAR

NOTE: *VALUES TAKEN FROM WVDOT FY 2013 BUDGET PRESENTATION LESS ARRA FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT

25-YEAR TOTAL REVENUE =

Funding Forecast for

WV MPO LRTPs

TOTAL PROJECTED REVENUE $24,792,382

LESS NON-IMPROVEMENT FUNDS -$12,496,138

LESS EXCLUDED IMPROVEMENTS FUNDS -$9,468,108

LESS EARMARKS (ASSUMED $0 MILL/YR) $0

STATEWIDE IMPROVEMENT FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR MPO PLANNING PURPOSES $2,828,136

IMPROVEMENT FUNDS DISTRIBUTED BY AVERAGE OF VMT, POPULATION, HIGHWAY MILEAGE AND HISTORICAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDING

***

NON-MPO AREAS (58.83%) $1,663,800MPO AREAS (41.17%) $1,164,336

RIC (13.63%) $385,345KYOVA (5.41%) $153,039WWW (3.44%) $97,160GMA (4.14%) $117,179

BELOMAR (2.93%) $82,757BHJ (2.44%) $68,954HEP (8.48%) $239,764

NOTE: *** INDICATES APPROVED METHODOLOGY FROM 10/07 AND RESULTS USING DATA REVISED 1/12/12

IMPROVEMENT FORECAST SUMMARY (FY 2013-2037)2011 DOLLARS (000's)

DESCRIPTION VALUE

MM MPO 25-yr Improvement Funding Forecast

GMA LRTP 25-YR IMPROVEMENT FUNDING FORECAST (IN 201 1 DOLLARS)VALUES AS OF 1/15/11 AND PRESENTED IN THOUSANDS

FY

TOTALSTATE

REVENUE

NONIMPROVEMENTEXPENDITURES

STATEWIDEIMPROVEMENT

FUNDS

ELIMINATEDIMPROVEMENT

FUNDS

ELIMINATEDEARMARKED

FUNDS

STATEWIDEIMPROVEMENT

FUNDS FORMPO LRTP'S

GMA LRTPIMPROVEMENT

FUNDING@ (4.30%)

2013 $1,111,900 $499,846 $612,054 $471,282 $0 $140,773 $6,0542014 $1,028,074 $499,846 $528,229 $406,736 $0 $121,493 $5,2252015 $978,166 $499,846 $478,321 $368,307 $0 $110,014 $4,7312016 $937,754 $499,846 $437,908 $337,189 $0 $100,719 $4,3312017 $902,582 $499,846 $402,736 $310,107 $0 $92,629 $3,9842018 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652019 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652020 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652021 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652022 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652023 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652024 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652025 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652026 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652027 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652028 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652029 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652030 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652031 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652032 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652033 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652034 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652035 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652036 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,8652037 $991,695 $499,846 $491,850 $378,724 $0 $113,125 $4,865

25-YRTOTALS

$24,792,382 $12,496,138 $12,296,244 $9,468,108 $0 $2,828,136 $121,626

- $136M over 28 year span of LRTP

- 2006 LRTP constraint was $233M

(42% reduction)

Alternative Funding Thoughts

� Local taxes

� Impact fees

� Developer contributions

� Tolling

� User fees

� Contracts

� Private-public partnerships

� Tax Increment Financing

� Other grants?

� Other?

Scenario Planning Targets

� Green Wave!

� $300M – Optimistic (lay it all out there)

� Status Quo (State Projection)

� $150M – Realistic (cut the fat)

� Tighten the Belt

� $75M – Pessimistic (now what do you really want?)

Scenario Toolbox

Past/Current/Future Projects

� Most of 2004 MPO priority projects list is complete

� Turn lanes, lane additions, signals, safety

� Mileground – widening project scheduled

� Osage Road/Chaplin Hill – signal work

� Grumbeins Island – preferred concept to lower

University Ave and create plaza over

� Van Voorhis TSM – signal work and drainage/sidewalk

� WV 705 TSM – Beechurst to Mileground

Mileground Estimates

Phase

Approx.

Length Approx. Cost

Phase I

R/W $6.1 M 0.9 $ 11,300,000 per mile

Construction $4.1 M $ 4,600,000 per mile

Phase II

Construction $7.6 M 0.6 $ 12,700,000 per mile

Phase III

R/W $10 M 0.7 $ 14,000,000 per mile

Construction $14 M $ 20,000,000 per mile

� Estimated Cost - $40M +

� Preliminary estimates

Break

Scenarios

Development Exercise

Next Steps

� Refine goals, objectives, and measures

� Technical Analysis of Scenarios

� Further detailing

� Field reviews as needed

� Travel Demand Model analysis

� Modification of and development of additional concepts by consultant team

� Cost estimates

� Next TAG Meeting – Alternatives Review Workshop (September)

Business

June 28, 2012 Transportation Advisory Group Presentation