AGENDA ITEM #7: OUT OF CYCLE CMAQ AND/OR RSTP …...$437,355.00 $109,339.00 $546,694.00 Future Year(s) 100626 Gloucester County Rte 17 Pedestrian Improvements Recommend approval of

HRTPO Transportation Programming Subcommittee Meeting – November 22, 2013

AGENDA ITEM #7: OUT OF CYCLE CMAQ AND/OR RSTP REQUESTS SUBJECT:

The TPS must make a recommendation regarding each of the out of cycle requests outlined below. BACKGROUND:

The October 2013 TPS agenda included a number of out of cycle CMAQ and/or RSTP funding requests. The Subcommittee requested that HRTPO staff evaluate the requests and provide the results of the evaluation to the TPS to assist in the Subcommittee’s decision on whether or not to recommend approval of each of the requests. Subsequent to the October TPS meeting, two other out of cycle requests were received and evaluated. The individual requests are summarized below:

A. Gloucester County – Request to make one current CMAQ project eligible to receive

RSTP allocations • Project: Route 17 Pedestrian Improvements – North end of Coleman Bridge

to Farmwood Road (UPC 100626) • Length: 0.66 mile • Total Project Cost: $1,174,751 • RSTP Allocation Request: $307,518 (Transfer from another County project)

B. Hampton Roads Transportation Operations (HRTO) Subcommittee – Request for a

new RSTP project • Project: Hampton Toads Transportation Operations Strategic Plan. This Plan

would be used to help “guide the HRTPO in allocating RSTP and CMAQ funds to transportation operations projects for the Hampton Roads cities; in order to uniformly achieve the most efficient use of ‘limited’ funding.”

• Total Project Cost: $400,000 • RSTP Allocation Request: $400,000 in pre-FY2014 RSTP Reserve funds

C. James City County – Request to make one project eligible to receive RSTP allocations

• Project: Longhill Road – Widen to four lanes from Route 199 to Olde Towne Road (UPC 100921)

• Length: 0.66 mile • Total Project Cost: $11,800,000 • RSTP Allocation Request: None at this time

D. Virginia Beach – Request to make two projects eligible to receive RSTP allocations

1. Project: Elbow Road Extended – Phase II (UPC 15828) • The project entails improving Elbow Road from a two-lane roadway

to a four-lane divided highway from Indian River Road to Dam Neck Road.

• Length: Approximately 3 miles

HRTPO Transportation Programming Subcommittee Meeting – November 22, 2013

• Total Project Cost: $70,266,398 • RSTP Allocation Request: None at this time

2. Project: Indian River Road – Phase VII (UPC 15829).

• The project entails improving Indian River Road from a two-lane rural road to a four-lane divided highway from Lynnhaven Parkway to Elbow Road Extended.

• Length: Approximately 2.2 miles • Total Project Cost: $89,070,517 • RSTP Allocation Request: None at this time

E. VDOT – Request for a new CMAQ and/or RSTP project

• Project: Engine and Drive System Replacement on Pocahontas Ferry Boat • Total Project Cost: $6,700,000 • Total CMAQ and/or RSTP Request: $6,700,000 ($3.4M FY15; $3.3M FY16)

A one-page, Out of Cycle Funding Request Evaluation Form for each of the projects listed above is attached. The attachment also includes the detailed information submitted by the project sponsors for each project. Mr. Mike Kimbrel, Principal Transportation Engineer, will brief the TPS on this item. Attachment 7-A – Gloucester County Request Attachment 7-B – HRTO Request Attachment 7-C – James City County Request Attachment 7-D – Virginia Beach Request Attachment 7-E – VDOT Request RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Determine, for each of the projects listed above, whether to recommend to the TTAC that the project be made eligible to receive CMAQ and/or RSTP allocations.

HAMPTONROADSCMAQ/RSTPPROJECTSELECTIONPROCESS

OUTOFCYCLEFUNDINGREQUESTEVALUATIONFORM(AttachrequestletterandCMAQand/orRSTPCandidateProjectApplicationform)

DateofEvaluation:11/13/2013Locality/Agency: GloucesterCountyProjectName: Route17Bicycle/PedestrianAccommodationsUPCNumber: 100626FundingProgram: RSTP1. Istheprojecteligibleperfederalregulations?Yes

Notes:

2. IstheprojectconsistentwiththecurrentLong‐RangeTransportationPlan?YesNotes:

3. Aretherespecialcircumstancesassociatedwiththisproject?YesNotes: Current CMAQ project. UPC 56934, the RSTP project from which fundswouldbetransferred,originallyincludedthepedestrianimprovements,buttheywereremovedfromtheprojectscopeduetocostconcerns.ADArampswereinstalledatallcrossstreetsandintersectionsintheprojectarea.

4. Istheprojectofregionalsignificance?UnsureNotes: Questionablewhether bike/ped accommodations at this locationwould beconsideredregionallysignificant,but theywould improveactivetransportationsafetyandaccessibilityinthissectionofaNationalHighwaySystemroute.

5. Istherefundingavailableforthisrequest?YesNotes: TheCountyproposestransferringfundsfromotherCountyprojects.

6. IsthisrequestconsistentwiththeprioritiesoftheHRTPOandCTB?YesNotes:

HRTPOStaffNotes:

Project has been through the standard Project Selection Process as a CMAQ project.This requestwouldput back the bike/pedaccommodations thatwere removed fromtheRSTPproject(56934).CountywishestotransferfundsfromotherCountyprojects.

Attachment 7-A

Attachment 7-A

Attachment 7-A

VD

OT

- F

red

eri

cksb

urg

Dis

tric

tH

am

pto

n R

oa

ds

Tra

nsp

ort

ati

on

Pla

nn

ing

Org

an

iza

tio

n (

HR

TP

O)

Re

com

me

nd

ed

Tra

nsf

ers

- G

lou

cest

er

Co

un

ty

as

of

No

vem

be

r 2

01

3

Do

no

r

Pro

ject

UP

C

Do

no

r P

roje

ct

Juri

sdic

tio

nD

on

or

Pro

ject

De

scri

pti

on

Tra

nsf

er

Am

ou

nt

(fe

de

ral)

Tra

nsf

er

Am

ou

nt

(ma

tch

)

To

tal T

ran

sfe

r

Am

ou

nt

Fisc

al Y

ea

r (F

Y)

of

Re

com

me

nd

ed

Fun

ds

for

Tra

nsf

er

Re

cip

ien

t P

roje

ct

(UP

C #

)

Re

cip

ien

t P

roje

ct

Juri

sdic

tio

nR

eci

pie

nt

Pro

ject

De

scri

pti

on

VD

OT

- F

red

eri

cksb

urg

Dis

tric

t

Co

mm

en

tsH

RT

PO

Co

mm

en

ts

56

93

4G

lou

cest

er

Co

un

ty

Wid

en

ing

of

U.S

. R

te 1

7 A

t G

lou

cest

Po

int

$2

46

,01

4.0

0$

61

,50

4.0

0$

30

7,5

18

.00

Pre

vio

us

10

06

26

Glo

uce

ste

r C

ou

nty

Rte

17

Pe

de

stri

an

Im

pro

vem

en

ts

Re

com

me

nd

ap

pro

val o

f th

is t

ran

sfe

r a

s th

e

reci

pie

nt

pro

ject

wa

s o

rig

ina

lly in

ten

de

d t

o

be

incl

ud

ed

in t

he

Rte

17

Wid

en

ing

bu

t w

as

rem

ove

d d

ue

to

pu

blic

co

nce

rn r

eg

ard

ing

the

co

nst

ruct

ion

co

sts

10

06

25

Glo

uce

ste

r C

ou

nty

Bik

e/P

ed

Im

pro

vem

en

ts a

lon

g R

te 2

16

-

Gu

ine

a R

oa

d$

43

7,3

55

.00

$1

09

,33

9.0

0$

54

6,6

94

.00

Futu

re Y

ea

r(s)

10

06

26

Glo

uce

ste

r C

ou

nty

Rte

17

Pe

de

stri

an

Im

pro

vem

en

ts

Re

com

me

nd

ap

pro

val o

f th

is t

ran

sfe

r a

s w

e

are

re

qu

est

ing

to

sh

ift

fun

ds

wit

hin

th

e s

am

e

juri

sdic

tio

n f

rom

a lo

we

r p

rio

rity

to

a h

igh

er

pri

ori

ty -

do

es

no

t a

ffe

ct a

ny

oth

er

juri

sdic

tio

ns'

pro

ject

ba

lan

ces.

Fis

cal Y

ea

rs

are

sti

ll to

be

de

term

ine

d b

ase

d o

n o

utc

om

e

of

HR

TP

O p

rop

ose

d r

ed

istr

ibu

tio

ns

curr

en

tly

up

fo

r co

nsi

de

rati

on

To

tal

$8

54

,21

2.0

0

Cu

rre

nt

Est

ima

te o

n

UP

C 1

00

62

6$

1,1

74

,75

1

Cu

rre

nt

Allo

cati

on

s o

n

UP

C 1

00

62

6$

32

0,5

39

Pro

po

sed

Tra

nsf

er

$8

54

,21

2

Ne

w P

rop

ose

d T

ota

l

Allo

cati

on

s$

1,1

74

,75

1Fu

lly F

un

de

d

RS

TP

FU

ND

S

CM

AQ

FU

ND

S

*P

lan

ne

d A

dve

rtis

em

en

t D

ate

fo

r U

PC

10

06

26

is J

un

e 2

01

3

Attachment 7-A

RSTP | HRTPO Project Selection Application – Intermodal Transportation Projects | 1

REGIONALSURFACETRANSPORTATIONPROGRAM(RSTP)HRTPOPROJECTSELECTIONPROCESS

CANDIDATEPROJECTAPPLICATION:INTERMODALTRANSPORTATIONPROJECTS

Locality/Agency: Gloucester County

Project Name: Rte 17 Pedestrian Improvements

UPC #: 100626 (if available) Date: 11/6/2013

Primary Contact: Anne Ducey‐Ortiz Phone: 804‐693‐1224

E‐Mail: [email protected]

Secondary Contact: Jason Robinson Phone: 540‐372‐3597


Project Location:

(Please provide a detailed description of the location of the project. If possible, please also attach a map to your

application.)

This project is located in the Gloucester Point area of Gloucester in close proximity of the Coleman

Bridge on U.S. Rte 17. The project will start close to the northern termini of the Coleman Bridge and

extend approximately 0.66 miles north to the intersection of Farmwood Route and Rte 17. See attached

map.

Description of Project:

(Please provide a brief description of the scope of the project.)

This project will retrofit pedestrian improvements into the completed Rte 17 Widening and Raised

Median project at Gloucester Point which was constructed/completed under VDOT UPC 56934. (also

see attached information pertaining to UPC 56934)

Project Need:

(Please provide the need for and benefit to be derived from the project, including the impact on air quality.)

The need from this project is to provide pedestrian accomodations for the citizens of Gloucester County,

especially those in the Gloucester Point designated village area to safely access businesses and County

resources without utilizing motorized transportation. Originally, pedestrian improvements were part of

the scope for the Rte 17 Widening project under UPC 56934 but were removed due to cost concerns.

Under UPC 56934, handicap accessible ramps were installed at all cross streets and intersections within

the project limits for that project. (also see attached information pertaining to UPC 56934).

Attachment 7-A


Locality/Agency: Gloucester County RSTP Project Name: Rte 17 Pedestrian Improvements

Is this a new project? Yes No

Is this project consistent with the Long‐Range Transportation Plan? Yes No

Has this project been considered for RSTP funding in the past? Yes No

Estimated Start Date: 3/29/2012 Estimated Completion Date: 6/10/2015

Overall Project Cost: $1174751.00

Total Funding Request: $307518.00

What year are you requesting initial funding: FY2014

Please specify the funding request by fiscal year:

Phase Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total

PE $ $ $ $ $ $ $

RW $13132 $ $ $ $ $ $

CN $294386 $ $ $ $ $ $

Total $307518 $ $ $ $ $ $

Attachment 7-A


Locality/Agency: Gloucester County RSTP Project Name: Rte 17 Pedestrian Improvements

Yes No Will this project establish opportunities for linkages or connections between

transportation modes, existing corridors, or centers?

If "yes", explain:

This project will provide for the installation of sidewalks on Rte 17 in the Gloucester

Point designated village area of Gloucester County allowing for both bike/ped access to several

businesses and county amenities in this area including the Gloucester Point Beach and boat

landing..

Yes No Will this project improve intermodal movements?

If "yes", explain:

This project will provide for the installation of sidewalks on Rte 17 in the Gloucester

Point village area of Gloucester County thereby creating opportunities for safe active

transportation as part of the existing tansportation network. Currently, the area does not have a

connected network of sidewalks and the only safe mode of transportation provided is for motor

vehicles.

Yes No Will this project improve rail access to freight distribution facilities, ports, or major

cities?

If "yes", explain:

Yes No Will this project improve vehicular access to freight distribution facilities, ports, or major

clients?

If "yes", explain:

Yes No Do you have detailed design and cost estimates?

If "yes", explain:

See attached email from VDOT ‐ Fredericksburg District staff.

Yes No Is there community support for the project? If "yes", explain:

Through a grant from VDOT as part of the Urban Development Area requirments in the

State Code, the County developed a sub‐area plan for Gloucester Point and Hayes. There was

substantial community input and support for the plan which indentifies the need for increased

connectivity and alternative transportation options in the Gloucester Point/Hayes area. A copy

of the plan which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on October 18, 2011 can be found

on the County's website:

(http://gloucesterva.info/Planning/CommunityPlanningInitiativesandProjects/tabid/578

/Default.aspx.

Attachment 7-A


Yes No Do you have all necessary local, state, and federal permits and approvals?

If "yes", explain:

This is an approved project in the VDOT Six Year Improvement Program and is currently

partially funded with CMAQ funds. This project is currently in the detailed design phase

and has received all appropriate permits and approvals to date. Copies of such are

available upon request. They are currently housed in the internal VDOT Intergrated

Project Manager database.

Attachment 7-A

Attachment 7-A

Attachment 7-A



DateofEvaluation:11/13/2013Locality/Agency: Regional(HRTOSubcommittee)ProjectName: HamptonRoadsTransportationOperationsStrategicPlanUPCNumber: NAFundingProgram: RSTP1. Istheprojecteligibleperfederalregulations?Yes

Notes:


3. Aretherespecialcircumstancesassociatedwiththisproject?YesNotes: Current regional operations plan is nearly 10 years old; recent FHWAassessment, "Hampton Roads Regional Traffic Signal Review", suggests that regionalbenefitscanbegainedfromallocatingfunds,atleastinpart,usingaregionalplanthatconsidersinteractionbetweenindividualprojects.

4. Istheprojectofregionalsignificance?YesNotes:

5. Istherefundingavailableforthisrequest?YesNotes: The request is for $400,000 and there is currently $436,090 in pre‐2014RSTPreserveavailable.


HRTPOStaffNotes

Thisprojectappearstomeetthealloftheoutofcyclecriteria.

Attachment 7-B

DATE: 10‐11‐13TO: MikeKimbrelBY: DanielRydzewski–HRTOChair;andFrankHickman–HRTOViceChairRE: HamptonRoadsTransportationOperationsStrategicPlanWiththismemo—onbehalfoftheHamptonRoadsTransportationOperations(HRTO)subcommitteeofTTAC—Iamrequesting$400,000(ofthe$420,000inpre‐FY14RSTPreservefunds)foraHamptonRoadsTransportationOperationsStrategicPlan.In1995,VDOTandtheHRTPO,usingtheaidofaconsultant,developedanIntelligentTransportationSystems(ITS)strategicplanforHamptonRoadsentitledCOMPAREHamptonRoads,ITSStrategicDeploymentPlan.TheMPO’sITSCommitteeoversawthedevelopmentofanupdatetothestrategicplanin2000andthedevelopmentofanewstrategicplanin2004.(TheITScommitteewasrenamed“HRTO”in2009.)Thecurrentplanisalmost10yearsold.In2013,attherequestofHRTOandTTAC,FHWAconductedanassessmentofthetrafficsignaloperationsofVDOTandlocalcities.IntheSeptember2013draftreport,FHWAincludedthefollowingasoneofits13observationsandrecommendations:“CMAQprojectfundshavebeendistributed…withoutfollowingaregional[operations]plan….”

Inlightof:

1. therecentFHWArecommendationthatthedistributionoffundstosignalsystemswouldbeimprovedwithreferencetoaregionalplan

2. thefactthattheregion’soperationsplanisalmost10yearsold3. “studiesthatfalloutsidespecificprojectdevelopmentdonotqualifyforCMAQfunding”(re

CMAQ“ProjectEligibility:GeneralConditions”)4. thereis$420,000availableinpre‐FY14RSTPreservefunds

OnbehalfoftheHRTOsubcommittee,IamrequestingthattheTPSrecommendtoTTACandtheHRTPOBoardthat$400,000inpre‐FY14RSTPfundsbeallocatedtothedevelopmentofanewHamptonRoadsTransportationOperationsStrategicPlan.Ifsuccessful,itisexpectedthatHRTPOstaff—withtheaidofanadhoccommitteeofHRTOmemberscomprisedofonerepresentativefromVDOTandoneormorerepresentativesfromlocalgovernment—willprocuretheservicesofaconsultanttoperformthedetailedworkofpreparinganoperationsstrategicplanforHamptonRoads.

Attachment 7-B

RSTP | HRTPO Project Selection Application – Planning Studies | 1


CANDIDATEPROJECTAPPLICATION:PLANNINGSTUDIES

Locality/Agency: HRTPO (on behalf of HRTO)

Project Name: Hampton Roads Transportation Operations Strategic Plan

UPC #: n.a. (if available) Date: 10/11/2013

Primary Contact: Rob Case Phone: 420‐8300


Secondary Contact: Sam Belfield, Keith Nichols Phone: 420‐8300

E‐Mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Project Location:


application.)

Hampton Roads (MPO Study Area)



A Regional Transportation Operations Strategic Plan to guide the HRTPO in allocating RSTP and CMAQ

funds to transportation operations projects for the Hampton Roads cities; in order to uniformally

achieve the most efficient use of 'limited' funding.

Project Need:


Although the HRTPO Board has funded cost‐effective operations projects in the past, the allocation has

been made based on the merits of the individual projects, and not necessarily based on the completion

of complementary projects from a regional plan. For example, 1) Newport News' Citywide Signal Timing

project ranked third in cost effectiveness in the 2011 allocation of CMAQ funds ("CMAQ/RSTP Projects

and Allocations‐ 2011, HRTPO, Jan. 2012, p. 24), and 2) Suffolk's Traffic Operations Center ranked first in

RSTP scores for ITS projects ("CMAQ/RSTP Projects and Allocations‐ 2011, HRTPO, Jan. 2012, p. 30). Yet

FHWA's recent "Hampton Roads Regional Traffic Signal Review (draft, Sept. 2013) found that "CMAQ

project funds have been distributed…without a regional plan…." (The region's current operations

strategic plan ("ITS Strategic Plan", April 2004) is almost 10 years old.) Regional benefits can be gained

from allocating funds, at least in part, using a regional plan that considers the interaction between

individual projects, e.g. a signal project in city A and a signal project in city B. Secondly, over the last 10

years technologies and their applications to provide transportation operations solutions have greatly

evolved and need to be incorporated into how we achieve our RSTP and CMAQ goals.

In addition, there is likely merit to create collective (Regional) projects that involve the city‐owned

infrastructure of several cities. For example, 1) local cities currently wish to implement a region‐wide

Attachment 7-B


Opticom coding system to eliminate abuse of signal pre‐emption, but they are having difficulty finding

an operations agency to oversee the project, and 2) local cities currently desire to provide their traffic

video feeds to the public directly or through VDOT's 511 Program, but they are having difficulty finding

an affordable means of doing so. The proposed regional planning process would include the search for

solutions to the inherent problems of implementing collective projects.

It should be noted that ‐ because VDOT is currently preparing its own operations strategic plan ‐ this

plan is intended to complement, not replace VDOT planning.

In summary, a Regional Transportation Operations Strategic Plan to address transportation operational

needs could guide the HRTPO Board in both: the effective funding of complementary projects in

individual cities; and the effective funding of collective projects that address the needs of multiple cities

and the Hampton Roads Region.

Attachment 7-B


Locality/Agency: HRTPO (on behalf of HRTO) RSTP Project Name: Hampton Roads Transportation Operations Strategic Plan







What year are you requesting initial funding: pre fy14



PE $200000 $200000 $ $ $ $ $

RW $ $ $ $ $ $ $

CN $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Total $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Attachment 7-B


Locality/Agency: HRTPO (on behalf of HRTO) RSTP Project Name: Hampton Roads Transportation Operations Strategic Plan

Yes No Is the study necessary to address a major issue or to revise the Regional Transportation

Plan?

Yes No Is the study necessary to address a safety issue?

Yes No Is the study concerned with encouraging multimodal transportation?

Yes No Will the study address the mobility or accessibility needs of the region?

Yes No Is the study well defined in terms of purpose, design concept, and scope?

Yes No Do the goals and objectives of the study show support for economic development?

Yes No Do the goals and objectives of the study demonstrate preservation or protection of the

environment?

Please describe the purpose, scope, and/or any detail related to the proposed study:

(see above)

Attachment 7-B



DateofEvaluation:11/13/2013Locality/Agency: JamesCityCountyProjectName: LonghillRoadWideningUPCNumber: 100921FundingProgram: RSTP1. Istheprojecteligibleperfederalregulations?Yes

Notes:

2. IstheprojectconsistentwiththecurrentLong‐RangeTransportationPlan?NoNotes: ALonghillRoadCorridorStudy(UPC98811)isincludedintheLRTP,butnota constructionproject. A request to add the constructionproject to the LRTPwouldneed to include a funding plan showing how the project would be funded throughconstruction.UPC100921isnotincludedinthecurrentSYIPorTIP.

3. Aretherespecialcircumstancesassociatedwiththisproject?UnsureNotes: NospecialcircumstancesmentionedintheCounty'srequest.

4. Istheprojectofregionalsignificance?NoNotes: ThissectionofroadisFunctionallyClassifiedasaMinorCollector.

5. Istherefundingavailableforthisrequest?UnsureNotes: The total project cost is $11.8M, but the County's submittal states "RSTPfundingisnotbeingrequestedatthistime;howevertheCountyintendstopursueRSTPfundinginthefuture."


HRTPOStaffNotes

ThereareissuesregardingconsistencywiththeLRTP.TheCountywouldneedtoshowhow the project could be fully funded, including any proposed RSTP transfers orallocations.SincetheCountyisnotmakingafundingrequestatthistimeandaregularProjectSelectionProcess(PSP)cycleisplannedtooccurduringcalendaryear2014,itmaybeprudenttotablethisrequestandhaveitsubmittedduringtheregularPSPcycle.IftheregularPSPcyclecannotbecarriedoutforsomereason,theTPScouldreconsiderthisoutofcyclerequest.

Attachment 7-C

James “ Development Management

ci101-A Mounts Ba} Road

P.O. Box 8784CountyWilt iamsbure. VA 23187-8784

P 757-253-6671Jamtown F. 757-253-6822

dcveIopment.mananagementjamescitycounty’.’a.gov

iamescitycountyva.gov

Building Safety and Permits Engineering and Resource Protection Planning Zoning Enforcement757-253-6626 757-253-6670 757-253-6685 757-253-6671

October 28, 2013

Dwight L. Farmer, P.E.Executive DirectorHampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization723 Woodlake DriveChesapeake, VA 23320

RE: RSTP “Out of Cycle” Request

Dear Mr. Farmer:

James City County requests that UPC 100921 Longhill Road Widening be considered as an RSTP project.Attached is an RSTP application for the project. RSTP funding is not being requested at this time; however, theCounty intends to pursue RSTP funding in the future.

Thank you in advance for your consideration. Should you have any questions or need additional information,please contact Paul Holt or Tammy Rosario at 757-253-6685.

Sincerely,

Allen . Murphy, Jr.Director of Development Management

A.JMIbk

cc: (Via Electronic Mail)Robert Middaugh, County Administrator, James City CountyCamelia Ravanhakht, Ph.D., Deputy Executive Director, HRTP()Michael Kimbrel, Principal Transportation Engineer, HRTPOAngela Rico, ETT, District Program Manager, VDOTPaul Holt, Planning Director, James City County

1P age

Attachment 7-C

HAMPTON ROADS CMAO/RSTP PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS

RSTP CANDIDATE PROJECT APPLICATION

To be considered for RSTP funding, a proposed project must be included in the current Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Data necessary for evaluating the project must besubmitted for each candidate project. Filling out the appropriate sections of this applicationwill insure that the necessary data are submitted. One application should be filled out foreach project being proposed for RSTP funding.

Form A must be filled out for each project. At the end of Form A, you will indicate the RSTPProject Type that best fits your proposed project. Depending upon the RSTP Project Typeselected, you will be directed to fill out one of the following forms: Form B, Form C, Form D,Form E, Form F, or Form G. If you select the “Other” category, please contact HRTPO stafffor input data requirements.

RSTP FORM-A

Locality/Agency: James City County Date: 10/28/2013

Prepared By: Allen MurDhv Phone: (757)253-6671

E-mail: [email protected] Fax: (757)253-6822

UPC#: 100921

Project Name: Longhill Road Widening

Project Location:Longhill Rd from Route 199 to Olde Towne Road (see attachment 1)

Project Description:

This project address an immediate need for capacity improvements an 0.66 mile segmentbetween Route 199 and Olde Towne Road (Rt. 658) by widening the road to four lanes withpedestrian accommodations as recommended by the Corridor Study. This section of thecorridor exceeds 16,000 trips per day and operates at a peak hour Level of Service F. Thisproject is the County’s first priority in its FY 2013-2018 SSYP

(Brief description of project. If applicable, include additional data or maps as attachments.)

Is this a new project? No

Is this project included in the Regional Transportation Plan? Yes - as a Corridor Study

under UPC 98811

Estimated Start Date: 7/1/2014

Estimated Completion Date: 10/15/2021

fiMProN RoAI

TPoPL6$,MNO O%O*MWA)7Otf

Revised July 2009 Page 1 of 10Attachment 7-C

RSTP FORM-A (Continued)

TPO.,tAtJMPOftr,,TfCW PLS,dN,NO O,’MN,ZøTfOfl

Revised July 2009

Need for and Benefit to be Derived from Project: (Probable impact on air quality)The project segment of this two lane facility exceeds 16,000 ADT. James City County proposesto widen the facility to four lanes with a center median with a multi-use trail on the east side.Added capacity would reduce the likelihood of grid lock conditions. Reduced stop-and-go trafficwould have a favorable impact on air quality. Widening this section of Longhill Road is the firstphase of increasing the capacity of the entire corridor. The Hampton Roads 2034 Long RangePlan rates current and future congestion on Longhill Road as ‘severe.’

Project Cost and Funding:

Total Project Cost: $ 11,800,000

Indicate Requested RSTP Funding Per Fiscal Year Below:

Fiscal Year 1: Year:________ Requested RSTP Amount: $

_____________


_____________


_____________


_____________


_____________


RSTP Project Type(Please check ONE below and then use the associated form to complete your application)

LILILILILILILILI

Highway Project

Intermodal Transportation Project

Transit Service (New, Expanded, Facilities)

Transit Vehicle ReplacementlPurchase

Transit ITS

Planning Study

Transportation Demand Management

Intelligent Transportation System

Other

USE FORM-B

USE FORM-C

USE FORM-D, Section 1



USE FORM-E

USE FORM-F

USE FORM-G

Contact HRTPO Staff for Input Data Requirements

Page 2 of 10Attachment 7-C

RSTP FORM-B

HIGHWAY PROJECTS

1. Traffic Count Data:

“Current” ADT (vpd): 20,000 “Current” Year: 2007

“Current Peak Hour Traffic (vph): 1,369 “Current” LOS: F

Forecasted ADT (vpd): 34,249 Forecast Year: 2035

Forecasted Peak Hour Traffic (vph): 2,397 Forecasted LOS: F

2. Length of Project Section (miles): 0.68

3. Functional Classification of Project Section: Minor Collector

4. Peak Hour Average Speed in Project Section:

AM Peak (mph): 25 PM Peak (mph): 25.

5. Total accidents in project section over the last three years: 61

6. Will this project improve safety? Yes

If “yes,” explain:As the first phase of increasing the capacity of Longhill Road, this project would decrease theinstances of grid-lock. Increasing capacity would reduce the frequency of grid-lock and anydelays for emergency vehicles traveling the corridor.

7. Will this project improve system continuity? Yes

If “yes,” explain:As this section of Longhill Road is a source of significant congestion, any reduction in delayfrom the proposed road widening would improve continuity.

8. Will this project help improve air quality? Yes

If “yes,” explain (quantify the impacts on VOC and NOx):Emission rates are higher during frequent stop-and-go traffic compared to free flow conditions.This proposal would help provide conditions closer to free flow and reduce pollution associatedwith grid-lock conditions.

9. Project Readiness:

Do you have a detailed design and cost estimates? No

Is there community support for the project? Yes

10. Sponsor Readiness:

Do you have all necessary local, state, and federal permits and approvals? No_________

11. Is this a Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement project? No

If “yes”, what is the Bridge Condition per the VDOT Sufficiency Index? N/A

•!ipr, RcDs

TPO‘nc,,poa rAnCH P..,1t4M4 AcMMz.anO.c

Revised July 2009 Page 3 of 10Attachment 7-C

r-j

Attachment 7-C



DateofEvaluation:11/13/2013Locality/Agency: VirginiaBeachProjectName: ElbowRoadExtended‐PhaseIIUPCNumber: 15828FundingProgram: RSTP1. Istheprojecteligibleperfederalregulations?Yes

Notes:


3. Aretherespecialcircumstancesassociatedwiththisproject?UnsureNotes: NospecialcircumstancesmentionedintheCity'srequest.

4. Istheprojectofregionalsignificance?UnsureNotes: Functionally classified as a Collector, but improvements would potentiallyprovide relief to sections of Princess AnneRd, IndependenceBlvd, LynnhavenPkwy,andNorthLandingRd.

5. Istherefundingavailableforthisrequest?UnsureNotes: Thetotalprojectcostisapproximately$70.3M,buttheCity'ssubmittalstates"Wearenotrequesting funding for theseprojects,at this time,howeverwe intendtopursueRSTPfundinginthefuture."


HRTPOStaffNotes

Since the City is not making a funding request at this time and a regular ProjectSelectionProcess(PSP)cycleisplannedtooccurduringcalendaryear2014,itmaybeprudenttotablethisrequestandhaveitsubmittedduringtheregularPSPcycle.IftheregularPSPcyclecannotbecarriedoutforsomereason,theTPScouldreconsiderthisoutofcyclerequest.

Attachment 7-D



DateofEvaluation:11/13/2013Locality/Agency: VirginiaBeachProjectName: IndianRiverRoad‐PhaseVIIUPCNumber: 15829FundingProgram: RSTP1. Istheprojecteligibleperfederalregulations?Yes

Notes:


3. Aretherespecialcircumstancesassociatedwiththisproject?UnsureNotes: NospecialcircumstancesmentionedintheCity'srequest.

4. Istheprojectofregionalsignificance?UnsureNotes: FunctionallyclassifiedasaMinorSuburban.ThesectioncurrentlyoperatesatLOSCandisexpectedtodiminishtoLOSDby2033.

5. Istherefundingavailableforthisrequest?UnsureNotes: Thetotalprojectcostisapproximately$89M,buttheCity'ssubmittalstates"Wearenotrequesting funding for theseprojects,at this time,howeverwe intendtopursueRSTPfundinginthefuture."


HRTPOStaffNotes

Since the City is not making a funding request at this time and a regular ProjectSelectionProcess(PSP)cycleisplannedtooccurduringcalendaryear2014,itmaybeprudenttotablethisrequestandhaveitsubmittedduringtheregularPSPcycle.IftheregularPSPcyclecannotbecarriedoutforsomereason,theTPScouldreconsiderthisoutofcyclerequest.

Attachment 7-D

Attachment 7-D

RSTP | HRTPO Project Selection Application – Highway Projects | 1


CANDIDATEPROJECTAPPLICATION:HIGHWAYPROJECTS

Locality/Agency: City of Virginia Beach

Project Name: Elbow Road Extended ‐ Phase II


Primary Contact: Tonia Alger Phone: (757) 385‐4131


Secondary Contact: Ryan Johnson Phone: (757) 385‐4131


Project Location:


application.)

The project entails improving Elbow Road from Indian River Road to Dam Neck Road, a length of

approximately 3 miles. The project area is located in the western part of Virginia Beach within the

Centerville and Princess Anne Districts. A map is provided to show the location of the project.



The proposed project is for improving Elbow Road from a two‐lane roadway to a four‐lane divided

highway within a 125 foot right‐of‐way. The project will include a sidewalk, multi‐use path, landscaping,

and aesthetic features. The project will also include replacement of the existing sub‐standard Elbow

Road Bridge.

Project Need:


This project will provide an alternative route for traffic in the area currently using Princess Anne Road,

Independence Boulevard, Lynnhaven Parkway, and North Landing Road. Traffic volumes are

approximately 11,500 vehicles per day and are anticipated to reach 20,000 vehicles per day by the year

2034. Without this project, traffic will overcrowd nearby roads such as Lynnhaven Parkway and Princess

Anne Road. This project will also help serve the Amphitheater and surrounding Princess Anne Commons

venues. The current level of service for this roadway is an F. This project will provide widening of the

roadway and increase capacity for this roadway segment. The increase in capacity will improve the level

of service and reduce congestion and emissions along this corridor.

Attachment 7-D


Locality/Agency: City of Virginia Beach RSTP Project Name: Elbow Road Extended ‐ Phase II






Total Funding Request: $N/A

What year are you requesting initial funding: N/A



PE $ $ $ $ $ $ $

RW $ $ $ $ $ $ $

CN $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Total $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Attachment 7-D


Locality/Agency: City of Virginia Beach RSTP Project Name: Elbow Road Extended ‐ Phase II

11513 "Current" ADT (vpd)

2013 "Current" Year

684 "Current" Peak Hour Traffic (vph)

F "Current" LOS

18847 Forecasted ADT (vpd)

2033 Forecast Year

1200 Forecasted Peak Hour Traffic (vph)

F Forecasted LOS

3 Length of Project Section (miles)

Collector Functional Classification of Project Section

45 AM Peak Hour Average Speed in Project Section (mph)

44 PM Peak Hour Average Speed in Project Section (mph)

96 Total accidents in project section over the last three years

Yes No Will this project improve safety?

If "yes", explain:

Over the last three years there has been a total 96 accidents within the project section.

The existing roadway is a two‐lane undivided highway with no shoulders and ditches in close

proximity to the roadway. As a result, run‐off road crashes are common along the roadway. The

widening of the roadway will help to reduce the number of run‐off road crashes. The addition of

a median and geometric improvements to straighten the roadway alignment will reduce the risk

of sideswipe and head‐on crashes.

Yes No Will this project improve system continuity?

If "yes", explain:

The improvements made as a result of this project will provide a viable alternate route

to several nearby roads, thus improving system continuity, connectivity, and traffic flow. This

project will allow Elbow Road to take on traffic from surrounding roadways such as Princess

Anne Road, Independence Boulevard, Lynnhaven Parkway, and North Landing Road.

Yes No Will this project help improve air quality?

If "yes", explain:

Currently, the project roadway operates at a level of service F. This level of service

contributes to congestion along Elbow Road as well as the surrounding roadways. An increase in

Attachment 7-D


the capacity of Elbow Road will improve traffic flow along the corridor. This will help to

eliminate congestion along surrounding roadways, in addition to Elbow Road, resulting in a

reduction in emissions and improved air quality.


Yes No Is there community support for the project?


Yes No Is this a Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement Project?

If "yes", what is the Bridge Condition per the VDOT Sufficiency Index?

64.1

Attachment 7-D

Elbo

w R

oad

Exte

nded

- Ph

ase

IIPr

ojec

t Loc

atio

n M

ap

Prop

osed

Pro

ject

Legend

North

Attachment 7-D

rjohnson

Polygonal Line

rjohnson

Polygonal Line

rjohnson

Rectangle

rjohnson

Line



CANDIDATEPROJECTAPPLICATION:HIGHWAYPROJECTS

Locality/Agency: City of Virginia Beach

Project Name: Indian River Road ‐ Phase VII


Primary Contact: Tonia Alger Phone: (757) 385‐4131


Secondary Contact: Ryan Johnson Phone: (757) 385‐4131


Project Location:


application.)

This project entails improving Indian River Road from Lynnhaven Parkway to Elbow Road Extended, a

distance of approximately 2.2 miles. The project area is located in the western part of Virginia Beach

within the Centerville District. A map is provided to show the location of the project.



This project will provide for the construction of a four‐lane divided arterial highway from Lynnhaven

Parkway to Elbow Road Extended. The project will also include a multi‐use path on both sides of the

road and variable width landscape buffers used to enhance aesthetics.

Project Need:


The existing Indian River Road is a two‐lane rural road. It is currently experiencing traffic volumes of

12,477 vehicles per day and has a projected volume of 22,000 vehicles per day by the year 2034.

Without this project, an important corridor will remain saturated. The roadway has a current level of

serivce of C. However, this is expected to diminish and by the year 2033 the roadway will be at level of

service D. Improvements in capacity along Indian River Road will be needed in order to achieve an

acceptable level of service and minimize the potential burden a failing road may have on the

surrounding corridors. Improved level of service along the corridor will also result in a reduction of

emissions due to improved traffic flow.

Attachment 7-D


Locality/Agency: City of Virginia Beach RSTP Project Name: Indian River Road ‐ Phase VII






Total Funding Request: $N/A

What year are you requesting initial funding: N/A



PE $ $ $ $ $ $ $

RW $ $ $ $ $ $ $

CN $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Total $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Attachment 7-D


Locality/Agency: City of Virginia Beach RSTP Project Name: Indian River Road ‐ Phase VII

12477 "Current" ADT (vpd)

2013 "Current" Year

876 "Current" Peak Hour Traffic (vph)

C "Current" LOS

20420 Forecasted ADT (vpd)

2033 Forecast Year

1300 Forecasted Peak Hour Traffic (vph)

D Forecasted LOS

2.2 Length of Project Section (miles)

Minor Suburban Functional Classification of Project Section

50 AM Peak Hour Average Speed in Project Section (mph)

51 PM Peak Hour Average Speed in Project Section (mph)

46 Total accidents in project section over the last three years

Yes No Will this project improve safety?

If "yes", explain:

Over the last three years there has been a total 46 accidents within the project section.

The existing roadway is a two‐lane undivided highway. The most common types of accidents

along the roadway are run off road and rear‐end collisions . The widening of the roadway will

help to reduce the number of run off road crashes and rear‐end collisions resulting from lack of

turn lanes. The addition of a median will reduce the risk of sideswipe and head‐on crashes.

Yes No Will this project improve system continuity?

If "yes", explain:

The propsed improvements will provide a viable alternate route to several nearby roads,

thus improving system continuity, connectivity, and traffic flow. This project will allow Indian

River Road to take on traffic from surrounding roadways and contribute to a better connected

transportation system in the area.

Yes No Will this project help improve air quality?

If "yes", explain:

An increase in the capacity of Indian River Road will improve traffic flow along the

corridor. This will help to eliminate congestion along surrounding roadways, in addition to

Indian River Road, resulting in a reduction in emissions and improved air quality.

Attachment 7-D





Yes No Is this a Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement Project?

If "yes", what is the Bridge Condition per the VDOT Sufficiency Index?

Attachment 7-D

Indi

an R

iver

Roa

d - P

hase

VII

Proj

ect L

ocat

ion

Map

Legend

Prop

osed

Pro

ject

North

Attachment 7-D

rjohnson

Polygonal Line

rjohnson

Rectangle

rjohnson

Line

Indian River Road - Phase VIIProject Location Map

Attachment 7-D



DateofEvaluation:11/13/2013Locality/Agency: VDOTProjectName: Engine&DriveSystemReplacementofFerryBoatPocahontasUPCNumber: NAFundingProgram: CMAQRSTP1. Istheprojecteligibleperfederalregulations?Yes

Notes:


3. Aretherespecialcircumstancesassociatedwiththisproject?YesNotes: Existingenginesanddrivesystemsarenotsupportedbymanfactureranditis becoming increasingly difficult to find parts. They require more frequentmaintenanceandarebecomingmoreexpensivetomaintain.

4. Istheprojectofregionalsignificance?YesNotes: The Jamestown‐ScotlandFerry systemprovides an important linkbetweenSurryCountyand JamesCityCounty/Williamsburg. If the ferry system is completelydown,alternaterivercrossingsinvolvea65miledetour.

5. Istherefundingavailableforthisrequest?NoNotes: The totalproject cost is$6.7M,and theVDOTapplicationrequests that fullamount($3.4MinFY15and$3.3MinFY16).

6. IsthisrequestconsistentwiththeprioritiesoftheHRTPOandCTB?NoNotes: Maintenanceofstateferryboatsshouldbecoveredbythestate.

HRTPOStaffNotes

TheonlysignificantfundingpotentiallyavailablepriortoFY20isapproximately$2.5Minpre‐2014CMAQand$436K inpre‐2014RSTP. ThecurrentHRTPOstaffallocationstrategycallsforusingthe$2.5Minpre‐2014CMAQtohelpreplacefundingonprojectsthathadfundingremovedwhentheCMAQmarkswerereducedearlierthisyear.

Attachment 7-E

Attachment 7-E

Jamestown‐Scotland Ferry Background Information

This document is to provide background information for the Jamestown‐Scotland Ferry Boat operation located in the Hampton Roads District. This information is to be used for consideration of the District’s request to fund the expense of replacing 2 existing engines and 2 existing propulsion units with new ones.

The Jamestown‐Scotland Ferry provides vehicle and pedestrian ferry services across the James River connecting two portions of Virginia State Route 31. The ferry provides the only direct access across the river for rural Surry County residents seeking medical, shopping, employment and entertainment venues in James City County/Williamsburg. In addition it provides access for James City County/Williamsburg residents to historical sites and the Surry Nuclear Power plant. This ferry service provides an economical, efficient and critical link between southern Virginia/North Carolina and employment centers, the historical sites and theme parks on the Virginia Peninsula (Williamsburg, Yorktown, and Busch Gardens). Alternative river crossings (the James River Bridge and Benjamin Harrison Bridge) involve 65 mile detours on two lane primary roads. Williamsburg Area Transit buses use the ferry to link service between Surry County and James City County/Williamsburg. It has an ADT of 2,710 vehicles with peaks of up to 4560 vehicles per day on summer weekends.

Traffic demand grew annually from 1999 through 2007. It has neared and/or exceeded one million vehicles per year since 2004 with an annual count of 951, 212 for 2012

The Jamestown‐Scotland Ferry fleet presently consists of 4 Ferry boats. Name Year Built Capacity

The Virginia 1936 25 Vehicles

The Surry 1979 50 Vehicles

The Williamsburg 1983 50 Vehicles

The Pocahontas 1995 70 Vehicles

The Pocahontas was placed in service in 1995 and was outfitted with 2 EMD 645, Series 1 engines. These engines were rebuilt used engines and were originally manufactured in 1974 & 1976. Presently these motors are not supported by the manufacturer and are becoming increasingly difficult to find parts for when needed. On occasion a nationwide search for parts will prove to be unsuccessful and then the part will have to be manufactured. At times this can produce a lead time of 120 days. Some parts are no longer manufactured at all. These engines presently meet none of the EPA standards for emissions and are not as fuel efficient as modern engines are. The present EPA Tier 3 standard for emissions will apply to any new engines purchased for the Pocahontas and in January 2015 a new Tier 4 standard will be mandated and will increase the cost by approx. 25% per engine. This increase is reflected on the table below.

The existing Voith thrust propulsion drive systems in the Pocahontas are not compatible with these newly designed engines and will require an upgraded replacement as well. The new engines increase in horsepower is greater than can be used with the old original Voith systems. Our Voith model 24 is no longer being produced and parts can have lead times measured in months. This would shut our largest vessel in the fleet down until a part could be procured or manufactured.

‐

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Attachment 7-E

The new engines and drive systems have lead times of 8 & 10 months respectively. A commitment from VDOT would be required to place an order for the manufacturing of this equipment. In addition a visit to the shipyard would need to be scheduled for removal of the existing systems, necessary modifications to the ferry boat and the installation of the new drive systems.

In 2010 a report was issued by the Transportation Research Board and sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration. It was entitled Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. As stated in this report the NCDOT Ferry System is the second largest state owned and operated Ferry system in the country. It has seven routes and 21 ferry boats. The age of the entire fleet ranges from 5‐25 years. At the time of the report they had 2 boats in production. The implication of this report is that our neighboring DOT considers 25‐30 years as the life expectancy of a vehicle ferry boat. If accepted, this premise points out the both of the engines in the Pocahontas have exceeded the life expectancy and the Voith propulsion system is approaching the end of its life expectancy. They should be replaced. This would likely extend the life of the ferry Pocahontas for another 20 years.

In 2012 the UPC 100947 was funded and the PE for the design and then the construction of a new 70 vehicle ferry boat much like the Pocahontas was begun. This commitment from the upper management in VDOT signifies the long range needs that the Jamestown‐Scotland ferry system will be providing for. That same reasoning is present for the drive system upgrades for the Pocahontas.

Below is a table showing the breakdown of the proposed cost to include the shipyard expenses and a desired timeline.

Pocahontas Engine & Drive System Replacement FY 14 FY 15 FY 16

Project 07/1/13 01/01/14-05/15/14

06/01/14-11/15/14 12/1/14 3/1/15 6/1/15 1/1/16

Project Total

Voith Drive System

Feasibility review

Naval Architect Design

Coast Guard Review Period

$780,000 $1,040,000 $780,000 $2,600,000

Shipyard Install of Voith Drive

Feasibility review



$500,000 $500,000

EMD 710 Diesel Engine

Feasibility review



*$1,580,000 *$420,000 *$2,000,000

Shipyard Diesel Install

Feasibility review



$1,600,000 $1,600,000

Total $780,000 $1,580,000 $1,040,000 $3,300,000 $6,700,000 *This estimate reflects federal Tier IV emission standards to be implemented on 06/2014.

The FHWA MAP21 guidelines allow for CMAQ and STP to be used for these purposes as stated. The Eastern Region/Hampton Roads District is requesting that HR District PIM office forward the funding needs to the appropriate agency entities for consideration of this need and then placement into the STIP for immediate or future funding.

Attachment 7-E

1

Mike Kimbrel

From: Lewis, Vanna P., P.E. <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 9:11 AMTo: Graham, W D 'Danny' (VDOT)Cc: Ripley, G (VDOT)Subject: fed CMAQ funds eligibility on Ferry Boat Engines & Drive Systems

Danny: Yes, you are correct; the “MAP 21” legislation changed/ clarified this, and your case (as discussed on the telephone yesterday) is indeed eligible for CMAQ funds. Specifically: you have asked to use CMAQ funds to replace the diesel engines (which were actually rebuilt locomotive diesel engines when the Pocahontas was new in 1995±) with more efficient engines which meet current emissions standards. Also, due to the differences in range of horsepower used with the diesel engines vs. the new engines, it turns out that the new engines available cannot be geared down enough to work with the drive system that we have on the Pocahontas, so replacing the engine also necessitates replacing the drive system; basically, we can’t get a replacement engine which meets new emission standards and works with the existing drive system. (I’ve also noted that because the new drive system is a thrust system, it will actually provide benefits that the existing [propeller mechanism] drive system cannot offer ‐‐‐ specifically, the availability of “lateral thrust” at the docks.) Therefore, the replacement of the drive system is also eligible for CMAQ funds, since it is part of replacing the engine. Just to clarify, this would be a new project, in addition to three federally funded Ferry Boat improvement jobs at the Jamestown‐Scotland ferry which are already in the works, in various stages of design/ contract prep. Of course this job is also eligible for the routine “STP” type federal funds and Ferry Boat Program funds; I should note that stating that this work is eligible for these types of funds does not necessarily mean that there are funds available, only that if there are funds available, the work would be eligible. Any other questions, let me know. ………..vpl Wds 25th Sept.2013 Vanna Patterson Lewis, P.E. Area Engineer, Richmond & Fredericksburg Districts Virginia Division, FHWA 804-775-3337

From: Graham, W D 'Danny' (VDOT) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 2:54 PM To: Lewis, Vanna (FHWA) Cc: Ripley, G (VDOT) Subject: RE: Request for Funding of Ferry Boat Engines & Drive Systems Please review the criteria listed at the two sites at the links below. Diesel retrofits are listed as an eligible activity. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/cmaq.cfm http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/

Danny Graham Projects Administrator Eastern Region Operations (757) 925-1572 office (757) 619 4943 cell

Attachment 7-E

2

From: Graham, W D 'Danny' (VDOT) Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:57 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Ripley, G (VDOT) Subject: RE: Request for Funding of Ferry Boat Engines & Drive Systems I believe we found criteria that listed diesel engine replacement as an eligible expenditure for CMAQ funding. I will research again and contact you tomorrow. My PIM office suggested I contact Jose on this one and I always copy Iris. I almost copied you as well.


From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:15 PM To: Rodriguez, Iris N.; Graham, W D 'Danny' (VDOT) Cc: Granado, Jose Subject: RE: Request for Funding of Ferry Boat Engines & Drive Systems Iris: I think Danny is asking you to make a call on whether this might also be eligible for CMAQ funds, & I believe he has you as a co‐lateral duty contact for that (even though this is a ferry boat). Let me know if you need assistance or want me to address. Danny: Is this a new project or linked with the generator one? I believe the work has to be specifically linked to efforts to lower emissions (eg, part of a program to get people to take mass transportation) to be eligible, not just new more efficient engines. …………..vpl Thursday 12th Sept.2013 Vanna Patterson Lewis, P.E. Area Engineer, Richmond & Fredericksburg Districts Virginia Division, FHWA 804-775-3337

From: Rodriguez, Iris (FHWA) Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:37 PM To: Lewis, Vanna (FHWA) Cc: Granado, Jose (FHWA) Subject: FW: Request for Funding of Ferry Boat Engines & Drive Systems Good afternoon Vanna, FYI. I understand that you handle Ferry projects. Is that correct? Thank you,

Iris Rodriguez Operations/LPA Engineer Federal Highway Administration 400 North 8th Street, Suite 750

Attachment 7-E

3

Richmond, VA 23219 Office: (804)775-3340 [email protected]

From: Graham, W D 'Danny' (VDOT) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 8:51 AM To: Granado, Jose (FHWA); Rodriguez, Iris (FHWA) Cc: Cordrey, Laura 'Laurie' S. (VDOT); Ripley, G (VDOT) Subject: FW: Request for Funding of Ferry Boat Engines & Drive Systems Please review the attachment which contains some background on the Jamestown‐Scotland Ferry operation in the Hampton Roads District. It also contains a narrative for the purchase of new engines and drive systems for the ferry boat Pocahontas. In reviewing the criteria for federal CMAQ funding it appears that this procurement and installation project qualifies. I am requesting that you render an opinion on whether this project effort is eligible for federal funding. If so, please also inform me as to what type of funding we could seek. Thank you for your assistance and please call me with any questions.


Attachment 7-E

REGIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (RSTP) HRTPO PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS

CANDIDATE PROJECT APPLICATION: INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

Locality/Agency: VDOT-Eastern Region

Project Name: Engine & Drive System Replacement of the Ferry Boat Pocahontas

UPC #: TBD (if available) Date: 10/17/2013

Primary Contact: Danny Graham Phone: 757-925-1572 E-Mail: w,[email protected]

Secondary Contact: Steve Rowan Phone: 757-925-2459 E-Mail: [email protected]

Project Location: (Please provide a detailed description of the location of the project. If possible, please also attach a map to your application.) Surry County is a rural county in southeast Virginia with a population of 7,100 as of the 2010 Census. Important industries are agriculture and lumber. Surry's attractions not only span three centuries of history but also include Surry Nuclear Power Station and Information Center.

James City County is a growing community on the Virginia Hampton Roads Peninsula with a population of 67,000 as of the 2010 Census. It is often associated with historic Jamestown and the City of Williamsburg, both of which are in the county. The county has a highly developed tourist industry and benefits from a highly educated workforce, being in close proximity to William and Mary College, NASA, and Jefferson Laboratory.

The Jamestown-Scotland Ferry carries passengers and vehicles and, as a station in the Williamsburg Area Transit system, it serves a key role in providing an economical and efficient commuter option to residents in the region. It provides the only direct access across the river for rural Surry County residents seeking medical, shopping, employment and entertainment venues in James City County/Williamsburg. In addition, it provides access for James City County/Williamsburg residents to historical sites and the Surry Nuclear Power plant. At any time when the Ferry boat system is not operational commuters have 2 river crossing options. Each of these are a 75 mile detour.

Description of Project: (Please provide a brief description of the scope of the project.) The Pocahontas was placed in service in 1995 and was outfitted with 2 EMD 645, Series 1 engines. These engines were rebuilt used engines and were originally manufactured in 1974 & 1976. Presently these motors are not supported by the manufacturer and are becoming increasingly difficult to find parts for when needed. The present EPA Tier 3 standard for emissions will apply to any new engines purchased for the Pocahontas and in January 2015 a new Tier 4 standard will be mandated and will increase the cost by approx. 25% per engine.

Attachment 7-E

The existing Voith thrust propulsion drive systems in the Pocahontas are not compatible with these newly designed engines and will require an upgraded replacement as well. The new engines increase in horsepower is greater than can be used with the old original Voith systems. Our Voith model 24 is no longer being produced and parts can have lead times measured in months. This would shut our largest vessel in the fleet down until a part could be procured or manufactured.

The new engines and drive systems have lead times of 8 & 10 months, respectively. A commitment from VDOT would be required to place an order for the manufacturing of this equipment. In addition a visit to the shipyard would need to be scheduled for removal of the existing systems, necessary modifications to the ferry boat and the installation of the new drive systems.

In 2010 a report was issued by the Transportation Research Board and sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration. It was entitled Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. As stated in this report the NCDOT Ferry System is the second largest state owned and operated Ferry system in the country. It has seven routes and 21 ferry boats. The age of the entire fleet ranges from 5-25 years. At the time of the report they had 2 boats in production. The implication of this report is that our neighboring DOT considers 25-30 years as the life expectancy of a vehicle ferry boat. If accepted, this premise points out that both of the engines in the Pocahontas have exceeded their life expectancy and the Voith propulsion system is approaching the end of its life expectancy. They should be replaced. This would likely extend the life of the ferry Pocahontas for another 20 years.

In 2012 the UPC 100947 was funded and the PE for the design and then the construction of a new 70 vehicle ferry boat much like the Pocahontas was begun. This commitment from the upper management in VDOT signifies the long range needs that the Jamestown-Scotland ferry system will be providing for. That same reasoning is present for the engines & drive system upgrades for the Pocahontas.

Project Need: (Please provide the need for and benefit to be derived from the project, including the impact on air quality.) The existing 2 engines are not supported by the manufacturer and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find parts. On occasion a nationwide search for parts will prove to be unsuccessful and a part will have to be manufactured. At times this can produce a lead time of 120 days. These engines presently meet none of the EPA standards for emissions and are not as fuel efficient as modern engines are. They also require more frequent preventative maintenanceand are becoming more expensive to maintain.

The existing Voith model 24 thrust propulsion drive systems in the Pocahontas are no longer manufactured and it has become very difficult to find parts for them as well. The existing drive units will not be compatible with the newly appropriately designed engines, and the new engines increase in horsepower is greater than can be used with the old original Voith systems. Therefore, the drive units require replacement as well.

Attachment 7-E

Locality/Agency: VDOT-Eastern Region RSTP Project Name: Engine & Drive System Replacement of the Ferry Boat Pocahontas


Is this project consistent with the Long-Range Transportation Plan? Yes No





What year are you requesting initial funding: FFY 15


Phase Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total PE $ $ $ $ $ $ $

RW $ $ $ $ $ $ $ CN $3400000 $3300000 $ $ $ $ $

Total $3400000 $3300000 $ $ $ $ $

Attachment 7-E

Locality/Agency: VDOT-Eastern Region RSTP Project Name: Engine & Drive System Replacement of the Ferry Boat Pocahontas

Yes No Will this project establish opportunities for linkages or connections between

transportation modes, existing corridors, or centers? If "yes", explain: This is will enhance an Existing Linkage between transportation modes.

Yes No Will this project improve intermodal movements?

If "yes", explain: With replacement of engines/drive this ferry will be much more reliable in providing

service.

Yes No Will this project improve rail access to freight distribution facilities, ports, or major cities? If "yes", explain:

Yes No Will this project improve vehicular access to freight distribution facilities, ports, or major

clients? If "yes", explain:


If "yes", explain: Preliminary Estimates


If "yes", explain: Community needs reliable ferry service.


If "yes", explain:

Attachment 7-E

CMAQ | HRTPO Project Selection Application – Other Projects | 1

CONGESTIONMITIGATIONANDAIRQUALITY(CMAQ)HRTPOPROJECTSELECTIONPROCESS

CANDIDATEPROJECTAPPLICATION:OTHERPROJECTS

Locality/Agency: VDOT‐Eastern Region

Project Name: Engine & Drive System Replacement of the Ferry Boat Pocahontas

UPC #: TBD (if available) Date: 10/16/2013

Primary Contact: Danny Graham Phone: 757‐925‐1572


Secondary Contact: Steve Rowan Phone: 757‐925‐2459


Project Location:


application.)

Surry County is a rural county in southeast Virginia with a population of 7,100 as of the 2010 Census.

Important industries are agriculture and lumber. Surry's attractions not only span three centuries of

history but also include Surry Nuclear Power Station and Information Center.

James City County is a growing community on the Virginia Hampton Roads Peninsula with a population

of 67,000 as of the 2010 Census. It is often associated with historic Jamestown and the City of

Williamsburg, both of which are in the county. The county has a highly developed tourist industry and

benefits from a highly educated workforce, being in close proximity to William and Mary College, NASA,

and Jefferson Laboratory.

The Jamestown‐Scotland Ferry carries passengers and vehicles and, as a station in the Williamsburg Area

Transit system, it serves a key role in providing an economical and efficient commuter option to

residents in the region. It provides the only direct access across the river for rural Surry County residents

seeking medical, shopping, employment and entertainment venues in James City County/Williamsburg.

In addition, it provides access for James City County/Williamsburg residents to historical sites and the

Surry Nuclear Power plant. At any time when the Ferry boat system is not operational commuters have

2 river crossing options. Each of these are a 75 mile detour.



The Pocahontas was placed in service in 1995 and was outfitted with 2 EMD 645, Series 1 engines. These

engines were rebuilt used engines and were originally manufactured in 1974 & 1976. Presently these

motors are not supported by the manufacturer and are becoming increasingly difficult to find parts for

when needed. The present EPA Tier 3 standard for emissions will apply to any new engines purchased

for the Pocahontas and in January 2015 a new Tier 4 standard will be mandated and will increase the

cost by approx. 25% per engine.

Attachment 7-E


The existing Voith thrust propulsion drive systems in the Pocahontas are not compatible with these

newly designed engines and will require an upgraded replacement as well. The new engines increase in

horsepower is greater than can be used with the old original Voith systems. Our Voith model 24 is no

longer being produced and parts can have lead times measured in months. This would shut our largest

vessel in the fleet down until a part could be procured or manufactured.

The new engines and drive systems have lead times of 8 & 10 months, respectively. A commitment

from VDOT would be required to place an order for the manufacturing of this equipment. In addition a

visit to the shipyard would need to be scheduled for removal of the existing systems, necessary

modifications to the ferry boat and the installation of the new drive systems.

In 2010 a report was issued by the Transportation Research Board and sponsored by the Federal Transit

Administration. It was entitled Guidelines for Ferry Transportation Services. As stated in this report the

NCDOT Ferry System is the second largest state owned and operated Ferry system in the country. It has

seven routes and 21 ferry boats. The age of the entire fleet ranges from 5‐25 years. At the time of the

report they had 2 boats in production. The implication of this report is that our neighboring DOT

considers 25‐30 years as the life expectancy of a vehicle ferry boat. If accepted, this premise points out

that both of the engines in the Pocahontas have exceeded their life expectancy and the Voith propulsion

system is approaching the end of its life expectancy. They should be replaced. This would likely extend

the life of the ferry Pocahontas for another 20 years.

In 2012 the UPC 100947 was funded and the PE for the design and then the construction of a new 70

vehicle ferry boat much like the Pocahontas was begun. This commitment from the upper management

in VDOT signifies the long range needs that the Jamestown‐Scotland ferry system will be providing for.

That same reasoning is present for the engines & drive system upgrades for the Pocahontas.

Project Need:


The existing 2 engines are not supported by the manufacturer and it is becoming increasingly difficult to

find parts. On occasion a nationwide search for parts will prove to be unsuccessful and a part will have

to be manufactured. At times this can produce a lead time of 120 days. These engines presently meet

none of the EPA standards for emissions and are not as fuel efficient as modern engines are. They also

require more frequent preventative maintenanceand are becoming more expensive to maintain.

The existing Voith model 24 thrust propulsion drive systems in the Pocahontas are no longer

manufactured and it has become very difficult to find parts for them as well. The existing drive units will

not be compatible with the newly appropriately designed engines, and the new engines increase in

horsepower is greater than can be used with the old original Voith systems. Therefore, the drive units

require replacement as well.

Attachment 7-E


Locality/Agency: VDOT‐Eastern Region CMAQ Project Name: Engine & Drive System Replacement of the Ferry Boat Pocahontas



Has this project been considered for CMAQ funding in the past? Yes No


Overall Project Cost: $6,700,000


What year are you requesting initial funding: FFY 15



PE $ $ $ $ $ $ $

RW $ $ $ $ $ $ $

CN $3400000 $3700000 $ $ $ $ $

Total $3400000 $3700000 $ $ $ $ $

Please contact the HRTPO to determine the additional information necessary to analyze this project.

Thank you.

Attachment 7-E

Attachment 7-E

Documents

AGENDA ITEM #7: OUT OF CYCLE CMAQ AND/OR RSTP …...$437,355.00 $109,339.00 $546,694.00 Future Year(s) 100626 Gloucester County Rte 17 Pedestrian Improvements Recommend approval of