#2010 28 TO: Technical Advisory Committee BY: Deputy ...€¦ · Mr. Belfield gave a brief explanation of the history and purpose of the Congestion Management Process (CMP) and its

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/SECRETARY

February 24, 2010 Memorandum #201028 TO: Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Advisory Committee BY: Camelia Ravanbakht, Deputy Executive Director RE: Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – March 3, 2010 The Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Advisory Committee meeting will be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 3, 2010, in the Regional Building Board Room, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake. MK/kg Voting Members: Kevin Abt, VPA Guzin Akan, NO Lynn Allsbrook, HA Jeffrey J. Bliemel, PQ Robert R. Brown, NO W. Keith Cannady, HA Joseph Carter, PQ J. Mark Carter, YK Dan G. Clayton III, WM Ellen Cook, JC Timothy C. Cross, YK Richard Drumwright, WATA Anne Ducey‐Ortiz, GL Sherry Earley, SU Robert K. Gey, VB Emily Gibson, GL Tony Gibson, VDOT Richard A. Hartman, PO Steven W. Hicks, JC Jane Hill, IW Vincent Jackson, HRT Jacqueline Kassel, NN

Michael S. King, NN Robert E. Lewis, SU Albert M. Maddalena, Jr., YK Steve Martin, WM Scott Mills, SU Reed T. Nester, WM Christopher Perez, GL Phil Pullen, VB Jeffrey K. Raliski, NO Mark Schnaufer, VB Mark Shea, CH Thomas M. Slaughter, NN C. Earl Sorey, Jr., CH Michael Stallings, WINDSOR Peter M. Stephenson, SM Eric Stringfield, VDOT Joseph Swartz, DRPT Debbie Vest, PQ Luke Vinciguerra, JC Gary E. Walton, P.E., CH Mark Yehlen, PO

February 24, 2010 Page 2 Voting Alternates: Earl Anderson, YK Fred Brusso, PO Travis Campbell, VB Amanda Christon, NO Garrey W. Curry, Jr., GL Darrel Feasel, DRPT Jeffrey A. Florin, VPA John E. Fowler, VB Robert P. Goumas, SU Ray Hunt, VDOT Carl Jackson, NN Alison Jones, GL John M. Keifer, NO Youssef Khalil, PO

Eric J. Martin, CH Jonathan L. Montgomery, PQ Carolyn Murphy, WM Terry P. O'Neill, HA Amy Parker, YK Rodney S. Rhodes, WM Tammy Mayer Rosario, JC W. Leon Sisco, WATA Beverly Walkup, IW Jayne B. Whitney, HRT David Wilkinson, NN Mark H. Woodward, CH Edwin Wrightson, IW John Yorks, HA

Nonvoting Members: Randy Brown, ARMY P. Clifford Burnette, Jr., VDOA Tony Cho, FTA

Lt. Tiffany Duffy, USCG Amy Probsdorfer Kelley, NAVY Ivan P. Rucker, FHWA

Agenda

Hampton Roads

Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting

March 3, 2010 Call to Order: 9:30 a.m.

The Regional Board Room, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia

9:30 a.m. CALL TO ORDER

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (Limit 3 minutes per individual)

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

AGENDA

9:40 a.m. 1. Minutes of February 3, 2010

9:45 a.m. 2. FY 2009‐2012 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment: New CMAQ & RSTP Projects and Allocations

9:50 a.m. 3. Regional Safety Study – General Crash Data and Trends Update: Final Report

9:55 a.m. 4. Hampton Roads Congestion Management Process (CMP): Level of Service Results

10:00 a.m. 5. VDOT Financial Estimates: 2034 Constrained Long‐Range Transportation Plan

10:15 a.m. 6. FY 2010 Unified Planning Work Program Amendments

10:30 a.m. 7. FY 2011 Unified Planning Work Program: Draft 1

10:40 a.m. 8. Nansemond Parkway Corridor Study: Draft Report

10:50 a.m. 9. Proposed Air Quality Standards for Ozone

11:05 a.m. 10. Hurricane Lane Reversal Plan

11:20 a.m. 11. 2030 Long‐Range Transportation Plan Amendments

11:35 a.m. 12. For Your Information

11:45 a.m. 13. Old/New Business

12:00 a.m. ADJOURNMENT

Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – March 3, 2010

AGENDA ITEM #1: MINUTES SUBJECT:

Minutes of previous TTAC meeting. BACKGROUND: Minutes of the TTAC meeting held on February 3, 2010. Attachment 1 RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve the minutes.

1

SUMMARY MINUTES HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Meeting of FEBRUARY 3, 2010 Chairman Richard Drumwright called the Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Advisory Committee meeting to order at 9:33 A.M. in the HRPDC Board Room with the following in attendance: MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Cross (YC) Steven Hicks (JCC) Rob Brown (NO) Jayne Whitney (HRT) Eric Stringfield (VDOT) John Veneziano (H) Tom Slaughter (NN) Anne Ducey‐Ortiz (GC) Richard Hartman (POR) Mark Schnaufer (VB) Tony Gibson (VDOT) Guzin Akan (NO) Jeff Raliski (NO) Richard Drumwright (WATA) Phil Pullen (VB) Carl Jackson (NN) Reed Nester (W) Gary Walton (CH) Jeff Bliemel (POQ) Keith Cannady (H) Michael King (NN) Earl Sorey (CH) Jane Hill (IW) Sherry Earley (SU) Mark Yehlen (POR) Robert Gey (VB) Amy Kelley (NAVY) Kevin Abt (VPA) Robert Lewis (SU) Mark Shea (CH) MEMBERS ABSENT: Deborah Vest (POQ) Dan Clayton (W) Steve Martin (W) Emily Gibson (GC) Christopher Perez (GC) Ellen Cook (JCC) Luke Vinciguerra (JCC) Mark Carter (YC) Lynn Allsbrook (H) Albert Maddalena (YC) Clifford Burnette (VDOA) Tony Cho (FTA) Randy Brown (ARMY) Tiffany Duffy (COAST GUARD) Ivan Rucker (FHWA) Michael Stallings (IW) Peter Stephenson (IW) Joseph Carter (POQ) Scott Mills (SU) Joseph Swartz (DRPT) OTHERS: Stephen Rowan (VDOT) Jim Ponticello (VDOT) Terri Boothe (Citizen) Karen McPherson (KH) Ray Hunt (VDOT) Joe Howell (NAVY) John Herzke (CN) Adam Jack (VDOT) Ray Amoruso (HRT) Chuck Cayton (RK&K) Ron Hodges (HRT) Debbie Messina (VP) Tyson Rosser (VHB) Steve Kopczynski (YC)

Attachment 1

2

STAFF: Keith Nichols Mike Kimbrel Rob Case Joe Paulus Dwight Farmer Andy Pickard Jessica Banks Benito Pérez Stephanie Shealey Sam Belfield Carlos Gonzalez Mr. Drumwright opened the public comment period and noted no requests to speak had been submitted. Mr. Drumwright asked if anyone from the public wished to speak and there being none, he declared the public comment period closed. Mr. Drumwright then complimented DRPT on the recent public meetings regarding High Speed Rail, noting that they were well organized and well attended. He thanked everyone from the general public who participated in the three hearings. Mr. Drumwright called for the approval of the agenda and asked if there were any requests for additions or deletions to the agenda. There being none, Mr. Drumwright declared the agenda approved as presented. 1. SUMMARY MINUTES OF JANUARY 6, 2010

Mr. Drumwright noted the minutes of January 6, 2010 and asked for any corrections. There being none, he declared the minutes approved as submitted.

2. 2030 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN AMENDMENT: STATUS REPORT

Mr. Pickard gave a brief review of the HRTPO Board action in December to amend the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, noting the projects to be added, removed, or modified in the amended 2030 LRTP. He added that several projects to be added are contingent upon receiving TIGER grant funds under the ARRA and noted that two such projects, Holland Road in Suffolk, and the Lesner Bridge Replacement in Virginia Beach will be removed from the project list should they not receive a TIGER grant. Mr. Pickard stated the project list related to the 2030 LRTP amendment must be approved by the Interagency Consultation Group (ICG) as a part of the air quality conformity process. He noted that the ICG is scheduled to meet on March 3, 2010, to begin the air quality conformity evaluation of the amended 2030 LRTP. During discussion, Mr. Gey stated that should the Lesner Bridge project not receive a TIGER grant, Virginia Beach will request that the project remain on the project list for the amended 2030 LRTP as a “PE Only” project. Following further discussion, no action was taken.

3. STATE MATCHING FUNDS FOR RSTP TO BE TIED TO REGIONALTRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Mr. Kimbrel stated that the 2009 Acts of the General Assembly authorized the CTB to require MPOs to develop regional transportation and land use performance measures as a basis for selecting projects to be included in the Six Year Improvement Program

Attachment 1

3

(SYIP). He added that the budget bill introduced in the current General Assembly session directs the CTB to only provide matching funds for federal RSTP funds to MPOs that have developed such performance measures. Mr. Kimbrel stated that beginning July 1, 2011, the CTB shall only make allocations of required matching funds for federal RSTP funds made available to MPOs to those MPOs that, in consultation with the Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment, have developed regional transportation and land use performance measures pursuant to the 2009 Acts of Assembly, and have been approved by the CTB. He noted that a task will be included in the FY 2011 UPWP to coordinate the development of such performance measures. Mr. Kimbrel also noted that the pending 2010 budget bill also includes time frames for obligating and expending RSTP funds, similar to those enacted several years ago for CMAQ funds. He stated that the proposed legislation would require that RSTP funds made available to MPOs in urbanized areas greater than 200,000, in FY 2011 and each fiscal year thereafter, shall be federally obligated within 12 months of their allocation by the CTB and expended within 36 months of such obligation. For RSTP funds made available to similar MPOs in FY 2010 and any preceding fiscal year, such funds shall be federally obligated within 12 months of the effective date of this Act and expended within 36 months of such obligation. Mr. Kimbrel concluded by stating that HRTPO staff will be working with VDOT through the FY 2011 UPWP to develop regional transportation and land use performance measures and will be monitoring the impact that the implementation requirements of the pending Acts of Assembly bill may have on the region’s RSTP projects. Following a brief discussion, no action was taken.

4. REGIONAL SAFETY STUDY – GENERAL CRASH DATA AND TRENDS UPDATE: DRAFT REPORT Mr. Nichols gave a detailed presentation of the 2010 update of the Hampton Roads Regional Safety Study General Crash Data and Trends. He stated that this updates the General Crash Data and Trends reports released in 2006 and 2007, and includes crash data through 2008, where available. Mr. Nichols then gave a detailed report on crashes and crash rates by various factors for both the localities within Hampton Roads and the region compared to other regions in Virginia and the nation. Following his presentation, Mr. Nichols stated that the draft report is currently under public review and requested that comments be submitted no later than February 17, 2010. No action was taken.

5. HAMPTON ROADS CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS (CMP): DRAFT LEVEL OF SERVICE Mr. Belfield gave a brief explanation of the history and purpose of the Congestion Management Process (CMP) and its relationship to the HRTPO planning process. He noted that the CMP is used as a guide to develop project recommendations for the TIP and the LRTP. Mr. Belfield then discussed the draft results of the freeway and arterial level of service analysis throughout Hampton Roads for the existing conditions during the afternoon peak hour, referring to the tables distributed during the meeting. He requested that the jurisdictions review the roadway data for their jurisdictions and provide comments by February 17, 2010. Mr. Belfield stated that final approval of the level of service analysis will be requested at the March 3, 2010 TTAC meeting and that

Attachment 1

4

completion of a full CMP report, including a congestion summary, and countermeasures, is anticipated in June, 2010. Following a brief discussion, no action was taken.

6. DESIGNATION AND COMPOSITION OF THE HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION OPEATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE Prior to Mr. Case presenting this agenda item, Mr. Drumwright recognized Mr. Steve Kopczynski, York County Fire Chief, who has been an active participant in the ongoing effort to coordinate and improve transportation operations in Hampton Roads. Mr. Case stated that a group of transportation professionals has been meeting for several years, originally as the Hampton Roads Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) subcommittee and later as the HRTO working group, but that this group has not been designated a TTAC subcommittee in accordance with the TTAC Bylaws. Mr. Case then gave a briefing to the TTAC on the steps necessary to establish the Hampton Roads Transportation Operations (HRTO) Working Group as a formal subcommittee of the TTAC. He stated that subcommittees may be designated and members appointed by the Chair of the TTAC as needed, and recommended that the TTAC Chair designate HRTO as a TTAC Subcommittee. Mr. Drumwright then designated the HRTO as a Subcommittee of the TTAC. Mr. Case then stated that a description of each subcommittee be posted on the HRTPO website and recommended the following HRTO Description: “The Hampton Roads Transportation Operations subcommittee (HRTO, formerly ITS Subcommittee) is a subcommittee of TTAC dedicated to improving transportation operations in the region.” Mr. Case next presented the recommended membership criteria for the HRTO Subcommittee, recommending that only persons associated with TTAC voting entities be appointed by the TTAC Chair as members of HRTO. He further recommended that to enable participation by appropriate professionals, HRTO members need not be TTAC voting members, and that the maximum membership be two persons per entity and four persons from VDOT. Finally, Mr. Case noted that Mr. Robert Lewis and Mr. Case have served as co‐chairs for approximately one year and recommended that the TTAC Chair appoint Mr. Lewis as Chair of the HRTO Subcommittee for 2010, and in the future, that HRTO elect its own chair for two year terms. Following Mr. Case’s presentation, Mr. Drumwright asked for a motion to accept the HRTPO staff recommendations on the following items: designation by the TTAC Chair of HRTO as a subcommittee of the TTAC; approval of the description of the HRTO Subcommittee as presented by Mr. Case; approval of the HRTO membership criteria recommended by Mr. Case, and the subsequent member appointments; and the appointment of Mr. Robert Lewis as HRTO Chair for the remainder of 2010. Mr. Hartman so moved, with Mr. Sorey seconding the motion. The motion was approved.

7. FOR YOUR INFORMATION

Mr. Drumwright noted the For Your Information items and asked Mr. Farmer to comment on the upcoming HRTPO Board retreat and the status of the passenger rail planning efforts. Mr. Farmer reported that the theme of the 2010 HRTPO Retreat is “Establishing FY 2011 HRTPO Planning Priorities.” He stated that the retreat will focus on four key issues to help guide the Board in determining its planning priorities for FY

Attachment 1

5

2011, with executive level speakers leading the discussion topics. The four key issues are: Military Transportation Needs; High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Service; Statewide/Regional Transportation Funding; and HRTPO Board and Advisory Committee MPO Training/Orientation. Mr. Farmer noted that the HRTPO Retreat will be held on February 10, 2010, from 11:30 A.M. to 1:45 P.M in the HRPDC Boardroom. Regarding passenger rail, Mr. Farmer stated that he attended and spoke at all three of the recent public hearings on the Draft Tier I EIS and remarked on the outstanding participation and consistent message in support of the alternative endorsed by the HRTPO Board in December. He added that in response to the Board’s action in December, he has entered into a contract with Transportation, Economics & Management Services, Inc., (TEMS) to assist the HRTPO Board and DRPT in strengthening the case for improved rail passenger service in Virginia and to Hampton Roads as DRPT moves toward the Tier II EIS. Mr. Farmer stated that Dr. Alexander Metcalf from TEMS will brief the Board during the Retreat on the opportunities and challenges facing the Hampton Roads region regarding high speed and intercity passenger rail. Following Mr. Farmer’s remarks, no action was taken.

8. OLD/NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Pickard announced that the 2034 Subcommittee meeting will be held in Room D immediately following the conclusion of the TTAC meeting. He also noted that comments from the cities of Norfolk and Newport News regarding High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail have been handed out. No action was taken. Mr. Stephen Rowan, VDOT, gave an update on the status of the locally administered ARRA stimulus projects, stating that all of the 100% documents that were outstanding in January were submitted by the February 2, 2010 deadline. He thanked all of the local partners for working to see that these projects stay on track to meet the March 2, 2010 obligation deadline. No action was taken.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:31 A.M.

Attachment 1


AGENDA ITEM #2: FY 20092012 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AMENDMENT: NEW CMAQ & RSTP PROJECTS AND ALLOCATIONS

SUBJECT: Adding new CMAQ and RSTP projects and allocations to the FY 2009‐2012 TIP. BACKGROUND: On January 20, 2010, the HRTPO Board approved new projects and allocations associated with the most recent Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program and Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) project selection process. The approved projects and allocations are shown in Tables 1 and 2 (attached). HRTPO staff is processing an amendment to the FY 2009‐2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to allow the affected projects to move forward at the earliest opportunity. Mr. Mike Kimbrel, Principal Transportation Engineer, will be available to answer questions regarding this item. Attachment 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the TIP Amendment.

# Juris/Agency Project Name Total CostTotal CMAQ Request

FY‐11 FY‐12 FY‐13 FY‐14 FY‐15 TOTAL

1 Newport News Citywide Signal System Retiming $500,000 $500,000 $250,000 $250,000 $500,000

2 Norfolk Citywide Traffic Signal Cabinet Upgrade $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000

3 Norfolk Citywide Signal System Retiming ‐ Phase 2 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000

4 Regional 3 Total Stations for Regional Fatal Crash Team (State Police) $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000

5 Hampton HRBT Diversion Signal Timings $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 $160,000

6 Portsmouth Citywide Signal Timing ‐ Phase 1 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000

7 Hampton Citywide Traffic Signal System Retiming $392,000 $392,000 $130,000 $262,000 $392,000


9 Hampton Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $225,000 $1,275,000 $1,500,000


11 Virginia Beach Citywide Signal Retiming ‐ Phase 3 $1,276,000 $1,276,000 $676,000 $600,000 $1,276,000

12 HRT TRAFFIX Funding $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $5,000,000


14 HRT Feeder Bus Service for The Tide Light Rail $3,600,000 $3,600,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $3,600,000

15 Norfolk Norfolk ATMS ‐ Phase IV $4,500,000 $4,500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $4,500,000

16 Newport News Jefferson Ave Corridor Improvements $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000

17 Virginia Beach Citywide Bus Shelter Program $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000

18 HRT Retrofit 100 Buses w/ Diesel Particulate Filters $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000

19 Newport News Citywide Wayfinding Sign Project ‐ Phase 3 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000

20 Portsmouth Signal System Upgrade ‐ Phases 2, 3, & 4 $6,600,000 $6,600,000 $702,599 $2,948,701 $2,948,700 $6,600,000

21 Chesapeake HRT Bus Shelters $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000

22 HRT Environmental Management System $750,000 $600,000 $0 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $600,000

23 Newport News Citywide Bus Shelter Program ‐ Phases 2‐4 $900,000 $632,400 $0 $312,400 $320,000 $632,400

24 VPA Inter‐Terminal Barge Service $10,970,640 $8,190,480 $0 $2,599,011 $1,863,823 $1,863,823 $1,863,823 $8,190,480

25 Gloucester Co Signal Coordination Along Route 17 $2,200,000 $2,200,000 $0 $0 $660,000 $770,000 $770,000 $2,200,000

26 WATA Purchase 12 Replacement Buses $7,803,000 $6,103,000 $2,386,000 $2,204,000 $1,513,000 $6,103,000

27 Chesapeake Liberty St Transfer Station $250,000 $250,000 $0 $250,000 $250,000

28 HRT Purchase 38 Replacement 40' Buses $14,600,000 $14,600,000 $1,686,205 $6,737,876 $6,175,919 $14,600,000

29 WATA Purchase 1 Replacement Trolley (Clean Diesel Medium Bus Trolley) $315,000 $315,000 $315,000 $315,000

30 Suffolk Godwin Blvd Park & Ride Lot $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000

31 WATA New Service ‐ Jamestown Route $823,492 $823,492 $269,080 $274,462 $279,950 $823,492

TOTALS $66,194,132 $61,296,372 $6,442,679 $12,831,574 $14,356,678 $14,095,699 $13,569,742 $61,296,372

As of February 3, 2010 $7,034,004 $13,824,171 $15,566,059 $15,731,191 $15,980,094 $68,135,519

January 20,2010 $6,442,679 $12,831,574 $14,356,678 $14,095,699 $13,569,742 $61,296,372

As of February 3, 2010 $591,325 $992,597 $1,209,381 $1,635,492 $2,410,352 $6,839,147RESERVE >>

ALLOCATIONS

ALLOCATIONS >>

APPROVED CMAQ PROJECTS

CMAQ/RSTP PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS 2009HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION

TABLE 1

AVAILABLE FUNDS >>

Prepared by HRTPO Staff 2/22/2010

Attachment 2

# Juris/Agency Project Name Total CostTotal RSTP Request

FY‐11 FY‐12 FY‐13 FY‐14 FY‐15 TOTAL

1 York Route 17 Widening $13,400,000 $13,400,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,600,000 $13,400,000

2 Poquoson Wythe Creek Rd Widening $16,159,000 $12,000,000 $200,000 $400,000 $1,645,850 $1,458,288 $8,295,862 $12,000,000

3 Norfolk North Military Hwy Widening & Improvement ‐ Lowery Rd to Northampton Blvd $26,367,523 $13,786,351 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,282,369 $3,503,982 $13,786,351

4 Portsmouth Drainage Pond Construction near I‐264 & Frederick Blvd $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000

5 Norfolk North Military Hwy & Robin Hood Rd Widening & Improvement $24,834,247 $7,693,440 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,693,440 $7,693,440

6 Chesapeake Mount Pleasant Rd Widening $15,623,000 $7,323,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,323,000 $7,323,000

7 Chesapeake Portsmouth Blvd Widening $15,218,000 $3,586,000 $2,000,000 $1,586,000 $3,586,000

8 Hampton Wythe Creek Rd Widening $23,400,000 $23,400,000 $300,000 $1,500,000 $0 $3,000,000 $0 $4,800,000

9 Portsmouth Turnpike Rd Widening $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000

10 Virginia Beach Lynnhaven Pkwy Reconstruction ‐ Phase XI $16,000,000 $16,000,000 $151,435 $2,555,519 $177,741 $2,884,695

SUBTOTALS $154,001,770 $100,188,791 $12,700,000 $12,837,435 $14,224,369 $14,311,838 $14,399,844 $68,473,486

11 Newport News Amtrak Station Relocation Project $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000

SUBTOTALS $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000

12 HRT Ferry Fare Collection Equipment $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000

13 HRT Systemwide Bus Stop Sign Program $1,900,000 $1,900,000 $591,968 $1,308,032 $1,900,000

14 HRT Replacement of Southside Admin Facilities ‐ Phase 1a $50,000,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000

15 HRT HRT Facility Upgrades $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $116,925 $3,383,075 $3,500,000

SUBTOTALS $56,900,000 $8,700,000 $2,391,968 $2,924,957 $3,383,075 $0 $0 $8,700,000

16 HRT LRT Extension to Norfolk Naval Station and Virginia Beach Oceanfront (AA/EIS/PE/FD/ROW) $29,000,000 $29,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $29,000,000

17 Newport News Peninsula Rapid Transit Project (AA & Other Studies) (Previous HRT Project UPC# T1821) $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000

18 Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Transit Extension Study (AA/SDEIS/PE/FE) $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $1,099,838 $2,541,225 $2,599,896 $6,240,959

19 Suffolk Citywide Traffic Management System Plan $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000

20 James City Co Route 60/143 Connector Study $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000

21 James City Co Longhill Rd Corridor Study $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000

22 Gloucester Co Business Route 17 Corridor Planning Study $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000

23 James City Co Mooretown Rd Extension Study $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000

SUBTOTALS $41,200,000 $41,200,000 $5,400,000 $6,800,000 $6,099,838 $9,541,225 $9,599,896 $37,440,959

TOTALS $272,101,770 $170,088,791 $21,491,968 $23,562,392 $23,707,282 $23,853,063 $23,999,740 $116,614,445

As of February 11, 2010 $21,544,022 $24,699,804 $25,055,374 $25,416,064 $25,781,946 $122,497,210

January 20, 2010 $21,491,968 $23,562,392 $23,707,282 $23,853,063 $23,999,740 $116,614,445

As of February 11, 2010 $52,054 $1,137,412 $1,348,092 $1,563,001 $1,782,206 $5,882,765

APPROVED RSTP PROJECTS

CMAQ/RSTP PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS 2009HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION

TABLE 2

HIGHWAY PROJECTS

ALLOCATIONS

NEW TRANSIT SERVICE, EXPANSION OF EXISTING SERVICE, FACILITIES

OTHER TRANSIT PROJECTS

PLANNING STUDIES

AVAILABLE FUNDS >>ALLOCATIONS >>

RESERVE >>

Prepared by HRTPO Staff 2/22/2010

Attachment 2


AGENDA ITEM #3: REGIONAL SAFETY STUDY – GENERAL CRASH DATA AND TRENDS UPDATE: FINAL REPORT

SUBJECT:

Final report of the 2010 Update of the General Crash Data and Trends portion of the Regional Safety Study. BACKGROUND: During its February 2010 meeting, Mr. Keith Nichols briefed the TTAC on the draft report of the 2010 Update of the General Crash Data and Trends portion of the Regional Safety Study. The draft report was also made available for public review and comment from February 3, 2010 through February 17, 2010. The HRTPO staff updates the General Crash Data and Trends portion of the Regional Safety Study on a biennial basis. Similar to previous editions, the 2010 Update (enclosed) includes an analysis of crashes, injuries, and fatalities on regional and jurisdictional levels, and comparisons are made with other metropolitan areas as well as statewide and national figures. Comments received by the TTAC and the public have been addressed in the final report. Enclosure 3 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the final report.


AGENDA ITEM #4: HAMPTON ROADS CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS (CMP): LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS

SUBJECT: Results of the freeway and arterial level of service (LOS) analysis throughout Hampton Roads for existing conditions. BACKGROUND: The Congestion Management Process (CMP) is the program in which congestion in the multimodal, regional transportation system is monitored, evaluated, and managed. The intent is to protect the region’s investments in, and improve the effectiveness of, the existing and future transportation networks. The main goals of the CMP are to reduce congestion/travel time delays, encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation, and improve air quality through the promotion and coordination of congestion mitigation strategies. The CMP is a vital element of the HRTPO planning process and is used as a guide to develop project recommendations for the Transportation Improvement Program and the Long‐Range Transportation Plan. Ongoing application of the CMP is a federal requirement for urbanized areas over 200,000 in population and is included in the FY 2010 Unified Planning Work Program under Task 5.1. A critical component in the CMP is the identification of congested locations. During its February 2010 meeting, Mr. Sam Belfield briefed the TTAC on the draft results of the freeway and arterial level of service analysis throughout Hampton Roads for the existing conditions during the afternoon peak hour, using the most recent traffic count data from 2007‐2009. In addition, the draft LOS results were distributed during the meeting and Mr. Belfield requested comments on the draft results by February 17, 2010. Comments received have been addressed in the final results of the freeway and arterial LOS analysis (enclosed). Enclosure 4 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the final results of the freeway and arterial LOS analysis.


AGENDA ITEM #5: VDOT FINANCIAL ESTIMATES: 2034 CONSTRAINED LONGRANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

SUBJECT: Virginia Department of Transportation estimates of available funds through the year 2040. BACKGROUND: The region’s 2034 Long‐Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is currently under development, due for completion by Summer 2011. One of the primary requirements of the LRTP is that it demonstrate fiscal constraint. Mr. John Lawson, Director of VDOT’s Financial Planning Division, will brief the TTAC regarding VDOT’s long‐range estimates of funding. This is significant information towards understanding the challenges ahead for our transportation system and the assumptions to be used in the 2034 LRTP. RECOMMENDED ACTION: HRTPO staff will be working with VDOT staff and the LRTP Subcommittee to process the estimates for use in the 2034 LRTP.


AGENDA ITEM #6: FY 2010 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM AMENDMENTS SUBJECT:

Revisions to tasks in the FY 2010 UPWP to account for additional work under Task 4.1, Transportation Improvement Program, and to add consultant work related to high‐speed and intercity passenger rail under Task 3.2, Development of the 2034 Long‐Range Transportation Plan. BACKGROUND: The FY 2010 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) must be revised to account for additional work under Task 4.1, Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and to add consultant work related to high‐speed and intercity passenger rail under Task 3.2, Development of the 2034 Long‐Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The proposed revisions are detailed below.

A. Task 4.1, TIP The proposed revision is to add $30,000 in PL funds to Task 4.1 to cover work associated with maintenance of the TIP through June 30, 2010. The original budget for Task 4.1 did not anticipate the level of work related to the CMAQ and RSTP Project Selection Process that was recently completed. In addition to HRTPO staff evaluation of 59 CMAQ project proposals and 29 RSTP project proposals, work associated with the project selection process included the development of a new Guide to the Hampton Roads CMAQ/RSTP Project Selection Process and updates to the project application forms. HRTPO staff proposes that the needed funds be transferred from Task 8.1, Transportation Database/Geographic Information System Activities/Travel Time Data Collection and Management. Most of the work associated with Task 8.1 has been absorbed by other UPWP tasks.

B. Task 3.2, Development of the 2034 LRTP

The proposed revision is to add a work element under Task 3.2 to account for a consultant contract related to high‐speed and intercity passenger rail. The consultant work is expected to significantly strengthen the case for bringing high‐speed rail and improved intercity passenger rail to Hampton Roads. HRTPO staff proposes that the funds needed to cover the cost of the consultant work be transferred from Task 11.1, TPO Contingency Funding, which was “included in the FY 2010 UPWP to provide a source of contingency funding for unforeseen activities related to MPO reform, public participation, other UPWP tasks, or consultant contracts associated with UPWP tasks.” The scope of work and affected UPWP pages will be handed out during the March TTAC meeting.

Ms. Camelia Ravanbakht, Deputy Executive Director, will brief the TTAC on this item. Handout

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

A. Approve the UPWP Amendment to revise the budgets for Task 4.1, Transportation Improvement Program and Task 8.1, Transportation Database/Geographic Information System Activities/Travel Time Data Collection and Management

B. Approve the UPWP Amendment to add HSR Consultant work as a work element under Task 3.2, Development of the 2034 Long‐Range Transportation Plan.


AGENDA ITEM #7: FY 2011 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM: DRAFT 1 SUBJECT:

Draft 1 of the FY 2011 UPWP will be available for review and comment. BACKGROUND: HRTPO staff, in coordination with Hampton Roads Transit, Williamsburg Area Transit Authority, and VDOT, is in the process of developing the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) for fiscal year (FY) 2011. The UPWP describes the mutual responsibilities of the aforementioned entities in carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning process for Hampton Roads. Draft 1 of the FY 2011 UPWP will be distributed during the March TTAC meeting. The document should be considered a work in progress. HRTPO staff requests that TTAC members review Draft 1 and provide comments by March 17, 2010 so that the comments may be addressed in Draft 2, which will be on the TTAC agenda for April 2010. Mr. Mike Kimbrel, Principal Transportation Engineer, will brief the TTAC on this item. Handout RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review Draft 1 of the FY 2011 UPWP and submit comments to Mike Kimbrel ([email protected]) by COB Wednesday, March 17, 2010.


AGENDA ITEM #8: NANSEMOND PARKWAY CORRIDOR STUDY: DRAFT REPORT SUBJECT:

The Nansemond Parkway Corridor Study draft report is available for review and comment. BACKGROUND: During FY 2008, the City of Suffolk requested an analysis of six corridors located throughout the City. Nansemond Parkway is the fourth of the six Suffolk corridor studies. The purpose of this study is to identify any roadway capacity, access management, or safety improvements that will be necessary along Nansemond Parkway within the next ten years. Ten intersections were studied in detail along Nansemond Parkway. Traffic analysis was performed for four scenarios to determine the improvements necessary to maintain acceptable traffic flow along the corridor. These scenarios included:

• 2009 Existing Conditions • 2009 Optimized Signal Timings • 2019 Planned Improvements • 2019 Planned & Spot Improvements

The enclosed draft includes an evaluation of the access management conditions along the length of the corridor and presents a methodology for controlling the access of future development. It also provides recommendations for non‐capacity improvements that will increase safety and improve operations along the corridor. Ms. Stephanie Shealey, Transportation Engineer, will brief the TTAC on the results of the study. The draft version of the Nansemond Parkway Corridor Study will be made available for public review and comment from March 3, 2010 through March 17, 2010. Staff will request approval of the final report at the April 2009 TTAC meeting. Enclosure 8 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review the draft report and submit comments to Stephanie Shealey ([email protected]) by COB Wednesday, March 17, 2010.


AGENDA ITEM #9: PROPOSED AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR OZONE SUBJECT:

EPA has proposed to lower the NAAQS for ozone from the current 8‐hour standard of 0.075 ppm to between 0.060 and 0.070 ppm. BACKGROUND: A proposed rule by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone was published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2010. In the proposed rule, EPA proposes that the level of the 8‐hour primary standard, which was set at 0.075 parts per million (ppm) in the 2008 final rule, should instead be set at a lower level within the range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm. The Federal Register article on the proposed rule for the NAAQS for ozone may be accessed at www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/fr/20100119.pdf. The proposed rule is currently undergoing public review and comment. Written comments on the proposed rule must be received by EPA by March 22, 2010. Mr. Tom Ballou, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, will brief the TTAC on this item. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide comments to EPA by the March 22, 2010 deadline.


AGENDA ITEM #10: HURRICANE LANE REVERSAL PLAN SUBJECT:

In late 2008 VDOT published its “Hurricane Lane Reversal Plan” which replaced VDOT’s “Hampton Roads Hurricane Traffic Control Plan” (2006). BACKGROUND: In 1995, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) released its first hurricane traffic control plan for Hampton Roads, which called for interstate ramp metering, phased evacuation, and closure of I‐664 Northbound at the Monitor‐Merrimac Memorial Bridge‐Tunnel (MMBT) in the event of a hurricane. In 1996, the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission published a review of VDOT’s plan and called for lane reversal on I‐64 and opening I‐664 Northbound at MMBT. In 2001, VDOT released an update to its traffic control plan, which added I‐64 lane reversal to the ramp metering, phased evacuation, and closure of I‐664 Northbound at MMBT from the previous plan. VDOT’s 2006 update included these same elements. In September of 2008, VDOT released its current traffic control plan which adds stipulations for handling traffic from Hampton Roads to be implemented in the Richmond area, drops the ramp metering and phased evacuation of earlier plans, and retains the closure of I‐664 Northbound at MMBT. In addition, the extensive maps of evacuation routes found in earlier plans has been replaced with a table of “Critical Evacuation Roadways” covering four highways: I‐64, US 17, Route 10, and Route 164. Mr. Stephany Hanshaw, VDOT Regional Traffic Operations Manager, will present highlights of the 2008 “Hurricane Lane Reversal Plan”. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Per discussion.


AGENDA ITEM #11: 2030 LONGRANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN AMENDMENTS SUBJECT: In December 2009, the HRTPO Board approved an expedited amendment of the 2030 LRTP. Some projects were approved to be added to the LRTP in anticipation of being awarded TIGER grant funding. BACKGROUND: At its December 16, 2009 meeting, the HRTPO Board approved a motion to amend the 2030 Long‐Range Transportation Plan (2030 LRTP) as follows:

• Change the following projects to Preliminary Engineering (PE) Only projects: Interstate 64 widening on Peninsula, Southeastern Parkway, Route 460, and Third Crossing (Phase 1)

• Remove Interstate 64 widening on the Southside from the 2030 LRTP

• Add the following projects: o Midtown Tunnel/Martin Luther King Freeway Extension o High‐Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail between Richmond and Hampton Roads o Virginia Beach Transit Extension o Naval Station Norfolk Transit Extension (PE only)*

* Hampton Roads Transit staff requested that the Naval Station Norfolk Transit Extension be listed as a PE Only project after the December HRTPO meeting

• Add the following projects, anticipated to be funded in whole or in part with funds from the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) discretionary grants program included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009:

o Dominion Boulevard in Chesapeake o Holland Road (Route 58) Widening in Suffolk o Interstate 564 Intermodal Connector o Lesner Bridge Replacement in Virginia Beach

On February 17, 2010, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced the list of projects and recipients of the TIGER grant funds. The list of projects (attached) did not include any of the Hampton Roads projects that were submitted for consideration under the TIGER grant program. The Long‐Range Transportation Plan Subcommittee met on February 25, 2010 to incorporate the latest information on the proposed amendments to the 2030 LRTP. The revised list of projects to be included in the 2030 LRTP amendment will be distributed during the March TTAC meeting. Mr. Andy Pickard, Principal Transportation Engineer, will brief the TTAC on this item. Handout Attachment 11


RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

• Approve the revised list of projects to be included in the 2030 LRTP amendment.

• Continue to assist HRTPO staff with the acquisition of project costs and funding sources to demonstrate fiscal constraint and complete the air quality conformity process of the proposed amendments to the 2030 LRTP.

U.S. Department of Transportation Transportation Investment Generating Economic

Recovery (TIGER) Grants

February 17, 2010

The U.S. Department of Transportation is proud to announce $1.5 billion in TIGER Grant funding for over 50 high-priority, innovative transportation projects across the country. The projects, funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), will create thousands of jobs all over the country and help get the economy back on track The TIGER grant program targets major national and regional transportation projects that are in many cases difficult to pursue through other government funding programs. Selected projects must foster job creation, show strong economic benefits, and promote communities that are safer, cleaner and more livable. The projects selected for TIGER grants are diverse. They range in size from under $4 million to over $100 million, and are found in both rural and urban communities from Alaska to Maine and Hawaii to South Carolina. The projects are distributed throughout 41 states and the District of Columbia. Key Sectors for Investment Major investments are being made in a number of key sectors of the economy, including:

Freight Rail: Eleven national freight projects will help get freight off America’s highways and onto rail. This investment will make our roads safer, the air cleaner, reduce traffic congestion and decrease our reliance on foreign oil. Road and Bridge Repair: Thirteen highway infrastructure projects will make critical repairs to roads and bridges that are in dire condition. These projects include bridge repairs in Michigan, Indiana and Oklahoma and road work in Texas, Vermont and California. Community Livability: Twenty-two livability projects are aimed at giving Americans more choices about how they travel and improving access to economic and housing opportunities in their communities. This includes new transit options in Arizona, Louisiana and Nevada.

The TIGER program takes a new, common-sense approach to investing scarce federal resources on transportation projects of national significance. Unlike other federal transportation programs, TIGER funds are open to all types of projects, from roads and bridges to transit and rail. In order to receive funding, each project must show how it will help the United States meet its national goals, most importantly growing and rebuilding the economy.

Attachment 11

Background In 2009 Congress created the new $1.5 billion Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) discretionary grant program in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) to fund transportation projects that “have a significant impact on the Nation, a metropolitan area, or region.” Since then, the TIGER program has been allocated another $600 million for fiscal year 2010, meaning at least one more round of project awards will be made. The TIGER program has generated huge enthusiasm nationwide. The U.S. DOT received nearly 1,400 applications requesting more than $57 billion from every state and hundreds of communities across the U.S. Projects eligible for TIGER funding include highways, bridges, transit, passenger and freight rail, and port infrastructure. Because projects must have a national or regional impact, states, regions and communities have worked together toward transportation solutions that have a significant impact on their transportation networks and in many cases would have been difficult to finance through existing formula programs. For the first time, federal funds are breathing life into a range of creative and cooperative proposals from States, regional planning agencies, local governments and public-private partnerships. Project Evaluation To review the nearly 1,400 TIGER grant applications received, the U.S. DOT created a unique, multimodal review process involving staff from every specialty within the Department. Each project was evaluated for its ability to help the nation achieve five simple but very important goals:

• A state of good repair for our existing transportation facilities; • Enhanced economic competitiveness; • Safer streets and communities; • Environmental sustainability; and • Enhanced community livability.

The TIGER evaluation process also relied on rigorous analytical work, including cost-benefit analysis. Projects that scored well against these criteria were considered for funding. Transparency, Accountability and Performance Review

The U.S. DOT will track the performance of the TIGER projects and their contributions to economic recovery and our long-term goals. These projects represent significant transportation investments that align multi-modal project designs to forward critical national goals.

Attachment 11

SELECTION CRITERIA

Each of the projects selected for TIGER discretionary grant funding provides long-term benefits that will have a significant impact on the Nation, a metropolitan area or a region and contributes to National efforts to create jobs and business activity. TIGER selection criteria include:

1. Long-Term Outcomes a. State of Good Repair: Improving the condition of existing transportation

facilities and systems, with particular emphasis on projects that minimize life-cycle costs.

b. Economic Competitiveness: Contributing to the economic competitiveness of the United States over the medium- to long-term.

c. Livability: Improving the quality of living and working environments and the experience for people in communities across the United States.

d. Sustainability: Improving energy efficiency, reducing dependence on foreign oil, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and benefitting the environment.

e. Safety: Improving the safety of U.S. transportation facilities and systems.

2. Job Creation & Economic Stimulus Quickly creating and preserving jobs and stimulating rapid increases in economic activity, particularly jobs and activity that benefit economically distressed areas.

3. Innovation Using innovative strategies to pursue the long-term outcomes outlined above.

4. Partnership Demonstrating strong collaboration among a broad range of participants and/or integration of transportation with other public service efforts.

Attachment 11

TIGER Discretionary Grant Program

Project Name State(s) TIGER Grant

Amount Crescent Corridor Intermodal Freight Rail Project TN, AL $ 105,000,000

CREATE Program Projects IL $ 100,000,000

National Gateway Freight Rail Corridor OH, PA, WV, MD $ 98,000,000

Moynihan Station, Phase 1 NY $ 83,000,000

Tucson Modern Streetcar AZ $ 63,000,000

Priority Bus Transit in the National Capital Region DC, VA, MD $ 58,838,000

Fitchburg Commuter Rail Extension & Wachusett Station MA $ 55,500,000

Kansas City Transit Corridors & Green Impact Zone Project MO, KS $ 50,000,000

I-244 Multimodal Bridge Replacement OK $ 49,480,000

Doyle Drive Replacement CA $ 46,000,000

New Orleans Streetcar - Union Passenger Terminal/Loyola Loop LA $ 45,000,000

Saint Paul Union Depot Multi-Modal Transit and Transportation Hub MN $ 35,000,000

US-395 North Spokane Corridor - Francis Ave. to Farwell Rd. Southbound WA $ 35,000,000

Sahara Avenue Bus Rapid Transit NV $ 34,400,000

Alameda Corridor East: Colton Crossing CA $ 33,800,000

US-491 Safety Improvements NM $ 31,000,000

Black River Bridge Replacement MI $ 30,000,000

California Green Trade Corridor/Marine Highway Project CA $ 30,000,000

Mercer Corridor Redevelopment WA $ 30,000,000

M1/Woodward Avenue Light Rail Project MI $ 25,000,000

Reconstruction of Pier 29 in Honolulu Harbor HI 24,500,000$

Portland's Innovation Quadrant - SW Moody St. & Streetcar Reconstruction OR $ 23,203,988

Philadelphia Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Network PA, NJ $ 23,000,000

Downtown Dallas Streetcar TX $ 23,000,000

Quonset Wind Energy & Surface Transportation Project RI $ 22,300,000

Attachment 11

TIGER Discretionary Grant Program

Project Name State(s) TIGER Grant

Amount Normal Multimodal Transportation Center IL $ 22,000,000

Park East Corridor Lift Bridges WI $ 21,500,000

Indianapolis Bicycle & Pedestrian Network IN $ 20,500,000

Otay Mesa Port-of-Entry I-805/SR-905 Interchange CA $ 20,200,000

Revere Transit Facility & Streetscape MA $ 20,000,000

Fast Track New Bedford MA $ 20,000,000

Port of Gulfport Rail Improvements MS $ 20,000,000

Texas State Highway 161 TX $ 20,000,000

Milton-Madison Bridge Replacement KY, IN $ 20,000,000

Kent Central Gateway Multimodal Transit Facility OH $ 20,000,000

Appalachian Regional Short Line Rail Project KY, WV, TN $ 17,551,028

Revitalizing Maine's Ports ME $ 14,000,000

Lake County Transportation Connectivity Project MT $ 12,000,000

I-85 Corridor Improvement and Yadkin River Crossing NC $ 10,000,000

I-95 Interchange & Access Project SC $ 10,000,000

U.S. 17 Septima Clark Parkway SC $ 10,000,000

Bella Vista Bypass AR, MO $ 10,000,000

Improvements to US-18 SD $ 10,000,000

US-36 Managed Lanes/Bus Rapid Transit CO $ 10,000,000

Ames Intermodal Facility IA $ 8,463,000

The Southwestern Illinois Intermodal Freight Transportation Hub IL 6,000,000$

Beartooth Highway Reconstruction Project WY $ 6,000,000

Millwork District Multimodal Improvements IA $ 5,600,000

Auke Bay Loading Facility AK $ 3,640,000

US-93/2nd Street Improvements MT $ 3,500,000

Burlington Waterfront North Project VT $ 3,150,000

Attachment 11


AGENDA ITEM #12: FOR YOUR INFORMATION A. FIRST MEETING OF THE CTAC

The first meeting of the HRTPO Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) will be held on March 11, 2010 in the Regional Board Room, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia. The meeting will begin at 5:00 p.m. and is open to the public.

B. HRTO SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES

The minutes from the December 8, 2009 Hampton Roads Transportation Operations (HRTO) Subcommittee can be found on the HRTPO website at http://www.hrtpo.org/MTG_AGNDS/TPO_TTAC_AgnArch.asp.

C. HRTPO FOCUS GROUPS AND CITIZEN CONSULTATION

The Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) and Christopher Newport University (CNU) will conduct six focus groups to better gauge opinions and perspectives from Hampton Roads residents regarding living conditions and transportation issues in the region. Three focus groups will be held on the Southside and three will be held on the Peninsula. Two of the focus groups will be exclusively with military personnel. The results will help HRTPO staff develop subsequent public outreach and citizen input opportunities in FY 2011. This effort is part of a three‐year Cooperative Service Agreement with CNU to gauge public opinion and engage area residents in HRTPO plans and programs. The schedule for focus groups is listed below Southside Focus groups will be held at the Virginia Beach facility of Martin Research, Inc., 4801 Columbus Street, Suite 102, Virginia Beach, VA 23462. For directions, go to www.martinresearch.com/tidewater.html. Monday, March 1; 6:00 p.m. ‐ 8:00 p.m. ‐ Citizens from Franklin, Isle of Wight County, Suffolk,

and Surry County Monday, March 1; 8:00 p.m. ‐ 10:00 p.m. ‐ Citizens from Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth,

and Virginia Beach Tuesday, March 2; 6:00 p.m. ‐ 8:00 p.m. ‐ Active duty military personnel living on the

Southside. Peninsula Focus groups will be held at Lewis McMurran Hall on the campus of Christopher Newport University, 1 University Place, Newport News, VA 23606. For directions, see attachment. Wednesday, March 3; 6:00 p.m. ‐ 8:00 p.m. ‐ Citizens from Gloucester County, James City

County, Mathews County, Williamsburg, and York County Wednesday, March 3; 8:00 p.m. ‐ 10:00 p.m. ‐ Citizens from Hampton, Newport News, and

Poquoson


Thursday, March 4; 6:00 p.m. ‐ 8:00 p.m. ‐ Active duty military personnel living on the Peninsula

For questions, please contact Carlos Gonzalez, Public Involvement and Community Outreach Administrator, at 757‐420‐8300 or [email protected]. Attachment C

D. MPOS INVITED TO ATTEND CTB WORKSHOP

Attached is an email message from Ms. Marsha Fiol of VDOT regarding upcoming Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) Workshops and Meetings. The message states that Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton has asked that a specific invitation be extended to each MPO to attend one of the upcoming CTB Workshops. The dates, times, and locations of the workshops and meetings are included in the attachment. Attachment D

E. REVISED PRELIMINARY CMAQ AND RSTP FUNDS

VDOT has provided CMAQ and RSTP preliminary funding estimates (marks) for fiscal years 2011‐2016. For all except FY‐11 RSTP, the new marks exceed the marks that were used during the recent CMAQ/RSTP Project Selection Process. The amount of RSTP funds that were held in reserve for FY‐11 covered the shortfall between the marks that were used during the CMAQ/RSTP Project Selection Process and the new marks. The attached tables show the amounts of CMAQ and RSTP funding currently available for fiscal years 2010‐2016. Attachment E

F. LETTER FROM METROMARINE ADDRESSING QUESTIONS OF HRTPO BOARD

During the HRTPO Board meeting on January 20, 2010, Mr. Robert Heffley of MetroMarine Holdings made a presentation regarding proposed fast‐ferry service in Hampton Roads harbor. After the presentation, the Board asked several questions regarding the proposal. Attached is a letter from Mr. Alan Gray, President of MetroMarine, addressing those questions. Attachment F

G. HUD SUSTAINABILITY GRANTS PROGRAM

The Department of Housing and Urban Development has announced intention to offer competitive grant funding through its Sustainable Communities Planning Grant Program. The Program, funded at $100 million (and an additional $40 million for a Community Planning Challenge Grants Program), is to support multi‐jurisdictional regional planning efforts that integrate housing, economic development, and transportation decision‐making in a manner that empowers jurisdictions to consider the interdependent challenges of economic growth, social equity, and environmental impact simultaneously. Grants will be capped at a maximum


of $2 million for entities of small metropolitan or rural areas (under 500,000 population) and $5 million for large metropolitan area entities (500,000+ population). Proposals will be solicited by HUD from the week of April 12th, to June 5, 2010, with grants announced by August 2, 2010. See attachment for details. Attachment G

H. PUBLIC COMMENTS Attachment H

Directions to Transportation Focus Groups at Christopher Newport University

To Get to Christopher Newport University

• Take I-64 East to Exit 258-A, J. Clyde Morris Boulevard South (Rt. 17).

• Continue straight and cross Warwick Boulevard.

• The street becomes Avenue of the Arts (formerly Museum Drive).

• Bear to your right on Avenue of the Arts.

• Go around the roundabout onto Shoe Lane.

• Turn right into Parking Lot K.

Once You Have Parked Your Car

Client viewing for the focus groups will be in Room 300C in Lewis McMurran Hall (#18

on the map). Enter though the door on the end of the building closest to the parking lot.

Walk to the middle of the building and take the elevator to the 3nd floor. Room 300C is

right across the hall from the elevator.

Attachment 12C

>>> "Fiol, Marsha C." <[email protected]> 2/9/2010 7:57 AM >>>

Good Morning -

As you are aware, all citizens, boards and elected officials are always welcome to attend any and all of the Commonwealth Transportation Board Workshops and Meetings.

Secretary Connaughton has asked me to extend a specific invitation to each MPO to attend one of the upcoming Commonwealth Transportation Board's Workshops. He would like to have one or two MPOs scheduled to attend each of the CTB Workshops throughout the 2010 calendar.

The CTB Workshop Meeting are occasionally the same date as the CTB Action Meeting and are usually held in the VDOT Auditorium in Richmond. The CTB Workshop meeting dates are:

March 17th at 10AM - One Day Workshop/Action Meeting April 14th at 10AM - One Day Workshop/Action Meeting May 19th at 2PM June 16th at 2PM July 14th at 2PM August - no workshop or action meeting scheduled September 15th at 2PM October 20th at 2PM November 17th at 2PM December 15th at Noon - One Day Workshop/Action Meeting

Please let me know which CTB Workshop works best for your MPO. I will be taking requests on a first-come basis.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Marsha

Marsha Fiol Transportation and Mobility Planning Director, VDOT 1401 East Broad Street, Richmond Virginia 23219 804 786-2985W 804 225-4785F

Attachment 12D

FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014Federal Share State Match Federal

Share State Match Federal Share State Match Federal Share State Match Federal Share State Match Federal Share State Match Federal Share State Match

$0 $0 $17,667,301 $4,416,826 $19,842,014 $4,960,504 $19,964,027 $4,991,007 $20,086,790 $5,021,698 $20,210,307 $5,052,577 $0 $0$41,643 $10,411 $909,930 $227,482 $1,078,474 $269,618 $1,250,401 $312,600 $1,425,765 $356,441 $20,922,476 $5,230,619

FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014Federal Share State Match Federal

Share State Match Federal Share State Match Federal Share State Match Federal Share State Match Federal Share State Match Federal Share State Match

$0 $0 $5,166,227 $1,332,298 $10,574,410 $2,643,603 $11,854,086 $2,963,522 $11,870,062 $2,967,516 $11,950,725 $2,987,681 $0 $0$440,467 $150,858 $794,078 $198,519 $967,505 $241,876 $1,308,394 $327,098 $1,928,281 $482,071 $12,986,065 $3,246,516

NOTES: At its January 21, 2009 meeting, the MPO approved the allocation of $11,701 of FY08 CMAQ, $1,238,965 of FY08 RSMF, and $249,334 of FY09 RSMF to the Airline Boulevard Coordination Signal Upgrade project in Portsmouth, UPC #82858.

At its January 21, 2009 meeting, the MPO approved the de-allocation of $1,500,000 of FY11 CMAQ from UPC #82858 and returned those funds to the FY11CMAQ Reserve.

On January 23, 2009 VDOT advised that the CMAQ and RSTP allocations have been revised for the Final Revised FY09-14 SYIP to be adopted by the CTB on February 19, 2009.

On March 20, 2009 VDOT provided preliminary draft FY 2010-2015 CMAQ and RSTP allocations

FY 2010 through FY 2015 Allocations updated as of 3-20-2009

The following three notes are associated with balancing the CMAQ and RSTP allocations in the FY 2010-2015 SYIP - including responding to the effects of the reduction in CMAQ and RSTP Marks provided by VDOT in March 2009.6-8-09 - MK worked with Craig Ahlin via phone to balance RSTP allocations from FY 2010 - FY 20156-8-09 - MK worked with Craig Ahlin via phone to balance CMAQ allocations from FY 2012 - FY 20156-10-09 - MK worked with Craig Ahlin via phone to balance CMAQ allocations for FY 2010 and FY 2011

On July 15, 2009, the HRTPO appoved the allocation of $200,000 of FY08 CMAQ, $50,000 of FY08 RSMF, and $675,061 of FY09 RSMF to the TRAFFIX program, UPC #T1823.

On July 15, 2009, the HRTPO approved the allocation of $1,600,000 of FY11 CMAQ, $400,000 of FY11 RSMF, $1,200,000 of FY12 CMAQ, and $300,000 of FY12 RSMF to the HRT Norfolk Light Rail Transit project, UPC #T4184, for the third year of operating assistance.

On January 20, 2010 the HRTPO approved the allocation of CMAQ and RSTP funds for FY-2011 through FY-2015.

On February 3, 2010 VDOT provided preliminary draft FY 2011-2016 CMAQ & RSTP allocations.

On February 11, 2010 VDOT provided a revised preliminary draft FY 2011-2016 RSTP allocations.

FY 2011 through FY 2016 Allocations updated as of 2-16-2010.

FY 2015 FY 2016

FY 2015 FY 2016

UNALLOCATED RSTP AND CMAQ FUNDSHAMPTON ROADS, VIRGINIA

Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) Funds

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program

Attachment 12E

Attachment 12F

Attachment 12F

Attachment 12F

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5396-N-01]

Sustainable Communities Planning Grant Program

Advance Notice and Request for Comment

AGENCY: Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities, Office of the Deputy Secretary,

HUD.

ACTION: Advance Notice and Request for Comments.

SUMMARY: This notice announces HUD’s intention to offer funding through a competition

made available as a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) under its Sustainable Communities

Planning Grant Program (Program).

As part of the Administration’s efforts to increase transparency in government operations

and to expand opportunities for stakeholders to engage in decision-making, HUD is seeking

comments on the Program through this Advance Notice. Feedback received through this process

will permit HUD and its partners to better understand how this Program can support cooperative

regional planning efforts that integrate housing, transportation, environmental impact, and

economic development. HUD is seeking input from State and local governments, regional

bodies, community development entities, and a broad range of other stakeholders on how the

Program should be structured in order to have the most meaningful impact on regional planning

for sustainable development.

The goal of the Program is to support multi-jurisdictional regional planning efforts that

integrate housing, economic development, and transportation decision-making in a manner that

empowers jurisdictions to consider the interdependent challenges of economic growth, social

Attachment 12G

2

equity and environmental impact simultaneously. Three funding categories are being

considered:

(1) Funding to support the preparation of Regional Plans for Sustainable Development

that address housing, economic development, transportation, and environmental quality in an

integrated fashion where such plans do not currently exist;

(2) Funding to support the preparation of more detailed execution plans and programs to

implement existing regional sustainable development plans (that address housing, economic

development, transportation, and environmental quality in an integrated fashion); and

(3) Implementation funding to support regions that have regional sustainable

development plans and implementation strategies in place and need support for a catalytic

project or program that demonstrates commitment to and implementation of the broader plan.

This Program is being initiated in close coordination with the U.S. Department of

Transportation (DOT) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

DATES: All comments, to be considered in response to this Advance Notice, must be received

no later than midnight Eastern Standard Time on Friday, March 12, 2010. Comments will not be

accepted after that date.

ADDRESSES: Electronic responses are preferred and should be addressed to:

[email protected] or may be submitted through the www.hud.gov/sustainability

website. Written comments may also be submitted and post-marked by the deadline and

addressed to Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities, Department of Housing and

Urban Development, 451 7th Street, S.W. Room 10180, Washington, DC 20410. HUD is

expanding the opportunity for comment by establishing a Wiki to encourage public dialogue at

the following link: www.hud.gov/OSHCwiki.

Attachment 12G

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.hud.gov/sustainability

http://www.hud.gov/OSHCwiki

3

.

OUTREACH SESSIONS: HUD and its partner agencies will conduct a series of listening

sessions and webcasts to ensure the broadest possible dissemination of information about the

Program and to receive feedback from interested parties. Further information will be available at

www.hud.gov/sustainability shortly after the publication of this Advance Notice, and through

such interactive forums that will be described on www.hud.gov/sustainability.

AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING AND TIMELINES: This notice invites comments on the

proposed award of funding for the Sustainable Communities Planning Grant Program. This

notice is not a solicitation of proposals for the Program.

The Program was authorized by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111-

117) (the Appropriations Act, approved December 16, 2009). For the Program, $100,000,000

will be made available, through the NOFA that will follow this Advance Notice, to support the

integration of housing, transportation and land use planning.

The following maximum funding levels are proposed:

Small metropolitan or rural areas. The grant amount awarded under the Program to an

eligible entity that represents a small metropolitan or rural area with a population of not more

than 499,999 may not exceed $2,000,000.

Large metropolitan areas. The grant amount awarded under the Program to an eligible

entity that represents a large metropolitan area with a population of 500,000 or more may not

exceed $5,000,000.

HUD will expect that at least 20 percent of the overall costs of the projects awarded

under this grant will include leveraged funding from other public, philanthropic and private

sources including in-kind contributions.

Attachment 12G


4

Pursuant to the Appropriations Act, not less than $25,000,000 shall be awarded in the

Small Metropolitan Area category.

HUD will award funding by soliciting proposals through a final NOFA for the Program

that will be developed after consideration of comments obtained through this Advance Notice

and in outreach sessions. The final NOFA will be broadly announced through appropriate and

familiar means and will provide further details on the finalized requirements and application

process, pursuant to and in compliance with all applicable statutes and regulations, including, but

not limited to, the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

HUD will set aside approximately $2,000,000 for technical assistance services to assist

the awardees in implementing their proposals. A separate NOFA will be released describing the

process for obtaining these technical assistance funds. The Appropriations Act also appropriates

$40,000,000 for a Community Planning Challenge (CPC) Grants Program. HUD will publish a

separate NOFA for the CPC program.

It is HUD’s intent to meet the following schedule in developing the NOFA for the

Program:

February 16-March 1, 2010—Regional Listening Sessions (locations and dates to be

posted at www.hud.gov/sustainability)

Week of March 1, 2010—Webcast Briefings

March 12, 2010—Comments on Draft Description due C.O.B. to HUD

Week of April 12, 2010—NOFA published

Approx. June 5, 2010—Applications due to HUD

Approx. August 2, 2010—Announcement of Awardees

Attachment 12G


5

I. Background

A top priority of the Administration is to build economically competitive, healthy,

opportunity-rich communities. In the Appropriations Act, Congress provided a total of

$150,000,000 to HUD for a Sustainable Communities Initiative to improve regional planning

efforts that integrate housing and transportation decisions, and increase State, regional and local

capacity to incorporate livability, sustainability, and social equity principles into land use and

zoning. Of that total, $100,000,000 is available for regional integrated planning initiatives,

which is the subject of this Advance Notice.

The Sustainable Communities Initiative was conceived to advance development patterns

that achieve improved economic prosperity, environmental sustainability, and social equity in

metropolitan regions and rural communities. Recognizing the fundamental role that public

investment plays in achieving these outcomes, the Administration charged three agencies whose

programs impact the physical form of communities—HUD, DOT, and EPA—to lead the way in

reshaping the role of the Federal government in helping communities obtain the capacity to

embrace a more sustainable future. As a result, HUD, DOT, and EPA have formed the

Partnership for Sustainable Communities (the Partnership). HUD will take the lead in funding,

evaluating and otherwise supporting integrative regional planning for sustainable development.

DOT will focus on (a) building the capacity of transportation agencies to integrate their planning

and investments into broader plans and action to promote sustainable development; and (b)

investing in transportation infrastructure that directly supports sustainable development and

livability principles, as discussed below. EPA will enhance its role as a provider of technical

assistance and developer of environmental sustainability metrics and practices. The three

Attachment 12G

6

agencies have made a commitment to coordinate activities, integrate funding requirements and

adopt a common set of performance metrics for use by grantees. The Partnership is a

commitment by these three Federal agencies to work together to coordinate policies and

programs in support of six Livability Principles:

1. Provide more transportation choices. Develop safe, reliable and economical transportation

choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our nation's dependence on foreign

oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote public health.

2. Promote equitable, affordable housing. Expand location- and energy-efficient housing

choices for people of all ages, incomes, races and ethnicities to increase mobility, and lower the

combined cost of housing and transportation.

3. Enhance economic competitiveness. Improve economic competitiveness through reliable

and timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services, and other basic

needs by workers as well as expanded business access to markets.

4. Support existing communities. Target Federal funding toward existing communities -

through such strategies as transit-oriented, mixed-use development and land recycling - to

increase community revitalization, improve the efficiency of public works investments, and

safeguard rural landscapes.

5. Coordinate policies and leverage investment. Align Federal policies and funding to remove

barriers to collaboration, leverage funding, and increase the accountability and effectiveness of

all levels of government to plan for future growth, including making smart energy choices such

as locally generated renewable energy.

Attachment 12G

7

6. Value communities and neighborhoods. Enhance the unique characteristics of all

communities by investing in healthy, safe, and walkable neighborhoods—rural, urban, or

suburban.

The Partnership for Sustainable Communities has observed that regions that have already

adopted a more integrated approach to regional planning tend to exhibit a variety of desirable

qualities including: more diversified and resilient economies; improved employer attraction and

retention; more opportunities to lead healthier and more affordable lifestyles; lower per capita

public infrastructure costs; lower vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita and, thus, reduced air

pollution; and lower rates of concentrated poverty. These regions have built a shared vision for

the future that allows greater and more broad-based support of community development and

investment decisions. However, these effects are not guaranteed, and communities face a

number of competing objectives in these areas. In addition, the best ways to measure progress

are rightly debated as policy goals and methodologies evolve.

While the benefits of integrated regional planning are numerous, the incentives,

institutions, and funding for such efforts are not widely available. Decisions made by local

jurisdictions about the locations of housing, shopping, and employment are often disjointed both

within and across jurisdictions and are, therefore, unable to incorporate either the impact on

accessibility to different types of destinations or the broader impact on mobility and livability in

a region. This fragmented approach results in a host of unintended consequences including:

spatial mismatch between affordable housing and opportunities for employment and education;

long and expensive commutes; permanent loss of agricultural land; reduced water quality in

streams, lakes, and other water bodies; higher emissions of greenhouse gasses and other

damaging pollutants.

Attachment 12G

8

Despite the presence of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Councils of Governments,

and other regional planning entities, there is too often a misalignment of transportation, housing,

and infrastructure systems due in part to the lack of coordination when plans by different

agencies are prepared separately. While separate resources may be available for housing,

economic development, water infrastructure, and transportation planning, few funding sources

help communities address challenges and opportunities in an integrated fashion.

II. Sustainable Communities Planning Grant Program

The Sustainable Communities Planning Grant Program (the Program) is intended to help

build the capacity of communities to address the complex challenges of growth and revitalization

in the 21st century in a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary way. Funding from this Program will

support the development and implementation of Sustainable Regional Development Plans. A

priority will be placed on supporting regions that demonstrate a commitment to take well-

developed plans and move them into implementation. The Appropriations Act directs the

Secretary of HUD to establish a regional planning grant program that provides grants to assist

regional entities and consortia of local governments with integrated housing, transportation,

economic development, water infrastructure, and environmental planning. HUD’s Office of

Sustainable Housing and Communities is working in partnership with DOT and EPA to define

all aspects of this Program. HUD will serve as the lead agency for all grants and will consult

with its agency partners throughout the Program.

The final product of a Sustainable Communities Planning Grant will be a Regional Plan

for Sustainable Development and/or implementation strategy that meet the requirements of

existing HUD, DOT, and EPA programs, such as Consolidated Plans, Long Range

Attachment 12G

9

Transportation Plans and Stormwater Master Plans. Building on these requirements, a Regional

Plan for Sustainable Development would be a plan that:

(A) Identifies housing, transportation, economic development, land use,

environmental, energy, green space and water infrastructure priorities and goals in a region;

(B) Establishes locally-appropriate performance goals and measures the future

outcomes of baseline and alternative growth and reinvestment scenarios against those goals, and

includes standardized metrics developed by the Partnership;

(C) Provides strategies for meeting those priorities and goals;

(D) Prioritizes projects that facilitate the implementation of the regional plan; and

identifies responsible implementing entities (public or private) and funding sources; and

(E) Engages residents and stakeholders substantively in the development of the shared

vision and its implementation plan early and throughout the process.

III. Solicitation of Comments on Proposed Program Structure

As noted above, HUD and its partners are soliciting comments through this Advance

Notice on how the Program should be structured, what funding categories and activities are most

appropriate to support, which entities should be eligible grantees, and how best to evaluate

regional needs, so that the Program has the most meaningful impact on regional planning for

sustainable development. The discussion below outlines in general terms the key questions HUD

is considering in preparing the final NOFA for the Program and identifies some specific issues

for comment. HUD encourages meaningful input on the Program more generally as well. HUD

has provided the avenues for input in the ADDRESSES section of this notice and highlights that

it has established a Wiki site to allow additional comment and dialogue regarding addressing

these issues.

Attachment 12G

10

A. Proposed Funding Categories and Eligible Activities

HUD and its partner agencies recognize that regions are at different stages of readiness

and capacity to engage in efforts to plan for a sustainable future. Some regions have formed

multi-jurisdictional and multi-sector coalitions that are ready to embark on an effort to envision a

future to help direct growth or stimulate investment sustainably. Other regions have already

adopted a sustainable vision, but lack the resources to put in place the specific strategies that

ensure follow-through and implementation of that vision. A few regions are on the cutting edge

and have demonstrated the capacity to plan for the long-term, build broad-based coalitions in

support of sustainable communities and use an array of tools to incent investment in

development, land preservation, and infrastructure that implements their sustainable vision.

Given this broad spectrum, the Partnership is considering supporting activities to meet

the needs of each of these three categories of regions. In this comment period, HUD specifically

seeks feedback on the extent to which these categories are of benefit to potential applicants, the

types of activities that should be allowed in each category, and the extent to which the Program

should support project-level implementation investments. HUD is also soliciting feedback on

appropriate common performance metrics for each funding category.

Category 1: Regional Plans for Sustainable Development. Funds would support stakeholder-

driven visioning and scenario planning exercises that will address and harmonize plans for the

location, scale and type of housing, education and job centers; identify appropriate transportation

and water infrastructure; and proactively consider risks from disasters and climate change.

Applicants would be expected to identify a set of locally-appropriate performance metrics that

are consistent with the Partnership’s Livability Principles, as well as the Partnership’s own

metrics, and then measure the outcomes of proposed growth/reinvestment scenarios against those

Attachment 12G

11

metrics. Funding in this category would support data analysis, urban design and outreach efforts

to achieve broad consensus among groups, citizens, and decision-makers for a single

vision/scenario and to have that plan adopted by all appropriate regional governmental bodies.

HUD seeks comments on the following questions:

- What specific types of eligible activities would support this effort and which parties

should be part of the regional planning process?

- What elements should be part of the plan, such as a region-wide vision and statement of

goals, long term development and infrastructure investment map, implementation strategy and/or

funding plan?

- How can citizens best participate, such as through a requirement for participation in a

minimum number of public meetings to ensure broad regional consensus?

- Should Regional Plans for Sustainable Development be expected to harmonize and be

consistent with HUD, DOT, and EPA-required plans and, if so, how? Should Regional Plans for

Sustainable Development show a linkage to local formula-based programs supported by HUD,

DOT, and EPA; and, if so, to what extent should such linkage be required?

Category 2: Detailed Execution Plans and Programs. Funds in this category would support

the preparation and adoption of detailed plans and programs to implement an adopted integrated

regional sustainable vision. Because implementation needs will vary significantly from region to

region depending on the goals of a sustainable plan and the gaps that exist, the funds from this

category would likely support a wide range of implementation activities but still be measured

against the common and consistent metrics and outcome goals highlighted in the previous

section. For example, inter-jurisdictional affordable and fair housing strategies, regional

transportation investment programs, corridor transit-oriented development plans, sector or area

Attachment 12G

12

plans, land banking and acquisition strategies, revenue sharing strategies, economic development

strategies, plans to improve access to community amenities, and other specific activities that help

ensure that the goals of the regional vision are implemented. Regional coalitions would be

eligible to apply for this category on the basis of demonstrating the adoption of a regional vision

that is substantially consistent with the Livability Principles, program goals and metrics

identified in the published NOFA.


- What specific types of activities should be eligible for funding in this category?

- What criteria should be used to evaluate whether a previously adopted regional vision is

consistent with the Livability Principles discussed above?

- Should the amount of local and contributed resources to support, expand, and enhance

the development of implementation strategies be rewarded in application scoring or are there

other means to leverage other funds and resources?

Category 3: Implementation Incentives. Recognizing that those regions that have already

fully embraced sustainable regional planning provide important models to the nation, the

Partnership is considering ways in which the Program can reward and incent further action by

cutting edge regions.

First, HUD is evaluating the extent to which applicants that have an adopted Regional

Sustainable Development Plan and appropriate implementation programs in place could be pre-

certified as having met HUD, DOT, and EPA’s criteria for sustainability and livability factors in

other discretionary federal funding programs.

Second, HUD is considering providing a limited number of grants to complete a

financing package for projects that would accelerate the implementation of a Regional

Attachment 12G

13

Sustainable Development Plan. As envisioned, this category would support pre-development

costs, capital costs for a regionally significant development or infrastructure investment, or land

acquisition investments. We are considering how to make best use of new federal dollars in the

context of existing programs and their requirements—and also in the context of innovative

practices in the field. Applicants would need to demonstrate that they have in place an adopted

regional vision that is substantially consistent with the Livability Principles, metrics identified in

the published NOFA to measure performance, and have commitments from affected participating

partners to initiate implementation efforts, but have funding gaps that could be closed within the

grant limits for this program.


- Would “pre-certification” be an added value and, if so, what programs should this

approach apply to? What criteria should be considered for meeting the “pre-certification” status?

- Is the direct support of implementation activities appropriate within this Program given

the limited amount of resources and the expected modest size of grants?

- What criteria should be used to judge that an applicant successfully demonstrates that it

has an adopted regional vision and that the project for funding under this category is truly

catalytic?

- Specifically, what criteria should be considered for a project to be catalytic?

- What types of activities might be included, the timeframe by what time the project

should be completed, and how much leveraging should be considered appropriate for

demonstrating that the proposed investment will serve as a the region’s commitment to a

sustainable future?

Attachment 12G

14

B. Entities Eligible for Funding

In the Program, HUD is considering as an eligible entity a multi-jurisdictional and multi-

sector partnership consisting of a consortium of units of general local government and all

government, civic, philanthropic and business entities with a responsibility for implementing a

Regional Plan for Sustainable Development.

HUD seeks input on the following questions:

- Should certain entities be required partners in multi-jurisdictional regions such as a

metropolitan planning organization as defined in 23 CFR 450.104, or a rural planning

organization or network of rural planning organizations in a rural area?

- What definitions should HUD use to define a rural multi-jurisdictional region eligible

for funding?

- What units of government should be allowed to serve as a lead agency for funding

purposes?

- What should demonstrate commitment on the part of each member organization, and

whether there should be a minimum number of member organizations?

C. Selection Criteria

In evaluating an application for a grant, HUD, in partnership with DOT and EPA, will

evaluate whether the application furthers the creation of livable communities by advancing

regional planning that integrates housing, transportation, and environmental decisions and the

extent to which the applicant represents a strong collaboration effort for the region in question.

HUD seeks input on how to judge the capacity of the regional entity to carry out the

proposed Program, including the extent of technical and organizational capacity to conduct the

project in the proposed time frame, past experience in implementing a planning process, and/or

Attachment 12G

15

an implementation project as proposed, and extent to which the consortium has developed

partnerships throughout an entire metropolitan or rural area, including, as appropriate,

partnerships with the entities described above. Specifically, should a needs assessment be

required as an application submission requirement, and, if so, what data elements should be

mandatory in judging need and the scope of the needs assessment to ensure that it addresses the

comprehensive needs of the region?

While HUD specifically seeks comment on the foregoing questions, HUD welcomes

additional information that will help inform the Sustainable Communities Planning Grant

Program.

Date: February 4, 2010

/s/

Ron Sims

Deputy Secretary

[FR-5396-N-01]

Attachment 12G

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HRTPO Comment ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Name: Donna Skipworth Date: February 12, 2010 Subject: HRTPO Speaker in Newport News High School Comment (Via HRTPO Website): I am a High School Technology Teacher and would like to contact someone that may come in and talk with the students about transportation jobs in Hampton Roads. HRTPO Response: We received your message via our website. We'd be glad to talk with students. Please call me at your convenience to learn the request and schedule a time to come to the school. Thank you, Carlos Gonzalez Public Involvement Administrator

Attachment 12H

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HRTPO Comment ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Name: Laurie Paquin Date: February 23, 2010 Subject: Water Taxi Comment (Via Email): My name is Laurie Paquin, work in downtown Norfolk, live in Hampton. Several years ago, there was boat transportation from Downtown Hampton to Downtown Norfolk (Nauticus), for a daily or monthly fee. I found this transportation perfect for me as I have commuted to and from work through the HRBT for over 25 years. Why can't Norfolk and Hampton come up with funding this project or an initiative to provide a high speed water taxi or transportation for people like me who commute back and forth? The transportation provided previously was through a private owner; if you are not the person to contact and pursue this project, please direct me to the appropriate person. Thank you very much. HRTPO Response: Thank you for your message. Our agency coordinates the planning of transportation activities like the ferry/water taxi you mention in your e‐mail. A company called MetroMarine Holdings is proposing to re‐institute such a system and made a presentation to our technical staff and board of directors last month. You can access the presentation on our website: http://www.hrtpo.org/MTG_AGNDS/TPO_HRTPO_RctMtg.asp (#6 ‐ Proposed Hampton Roads Fast Ferry System). For questions, Mr. Robert Heffley would be your best bet. Mr. Heffley is the primary point of contact for MetroMarine Holdings. Attached is a PDF he previously sent to the HRTPO. Robert E. Heffley MetroMarine Holdings Phone: (757) 850‐8492 E‐mail: [email protected] For questions about the HRTPO , please do not hesitate to send an e‐mail or call. Thank you, Carlos Gonzalez Public Involvement Administrator

Attachment 12H


AGENDA ITEM #13: OLD/NEW BUSINESS

Documents

#2010 28 TO: Technical Advisory Committee BY: Deputy ...€¦ · Mr. Belfield gave a brief explanation of the history and purpose of the Congestion Management Process (CMP) and its