w d. s j c m j. w v c /s · the regional building • 723 woodlake drive • chesapeake, virginia...

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 August 25, 2010 Memorandum #2010-129 TO: Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Advisory Committee BY: Camelia Ravanbakht, Deputy Executive Director RE: Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – September 1, 2010 The next Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Advisory Committee meeting will be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, September 1, 2010, in the Regional Building Board Room, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake. MK/kg Voting Members: Kevin Abt, VPA Guzin Akan, NO Lynn Allsbrook, HA 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 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 Ellen Roberts, PQ 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 Jayne B. Whitney, HRT Susan Wilson, PO Mark Yehlen, PO

August 25, 2010

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 Robert P. Goumas, SU Heather Ham, VB Ray Hunt, VDOT Carl Jackson, NN John M. Keifer, NO Youssef Khalil, PO

Eric J. Martin, CH 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 Karen Waterman, 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 Wendy Vachet, NAVY Ivan P. Rucker, FHWA

Agenda Hampton Roads

Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting September 1, 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 July 7, 2010 9:45 a.m. 2. Hampton Roads Congestion Management Process (CMP) 2010 Update: Final Report 9:50 a.m. 3. FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment: Update of Public Transportation Section of TIP 4. FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Revision: Request to Reallocate CMAQ Funds - Norfolk 9:55 a.m. 5. Transportation Technical Subcommittee Meeting of July 26, 2010: Summary Report 10:05 a.m. 6. CMAQ/RSTP Reconciliation Work: Status Report 10:15 a.m. 7. Contingency Funding on Regional ARRA Projects: Status Report 10:25 a.m. 8. Indian River Road/Kempsville Road Non-Traditional Intersection Improvements 10:35 a.m. 9. Developing Regional Transportation Priorities 10:50 a.m. 10. For Your Information 11. Old/New Business 11:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT

Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – September 1, 2010

AGENDA ITEM #1: MINUTES SUBJECT: Minutes of previous TTAC meeting. BACKGROUND: Minutes of the TTAC meeting held on July 7, 2010. Attachment 1 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the minutes.

Summary TTAC Minutes – July 7, 2010 - Page 1

Summary Minutes of the Hampton Roads Transportation Technical

Advisory Committee (TTAC) Meeting July 7, 2010,

The Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) Meeting was called to order at 9:35 a.m. in the Regional Boardroom, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia, with the following in attendance: TTAC Voting Members: Mark Shea (CH) Gary Walton (CH) Lynn Allsbrook (HA) Keith Cannady (HA) Jane Hill (IW) Michael Stallings (IW) Allen Murphy (Alternate JC) Michael King (NN) Tom Slaughter (NN) David Wilkinson (Alternate NN) Guzin Akan (NO) John Keifer (Alternate NO) Jeff Raliski (NO) Joseph Carter (PQ)

Susan Wilson (PO) Mark Yehlen (PO) Sherry Earley (SU) Scott Mills (SU) Travis Campbell(Alternate VB) Robert Gey (VB) Phil Pullen (VB) Tim Cross (YK) Joe Swartz (DRPT) Jayne Whitney (HRT) Tony Gibson (VDOT) Kim Pryor-Spence (VDOT) Eric Stringfield (VDOT) Kevin Apt (VPA) Richard Drumwright (WATA) TTAC Voting Members Absent: Earl Sorey (CH) Anne Ducey-Ortiz (GL) Emily Gibson (GL) Christopher Perez (GL) Peter Stephenson (IW) Ellen Cook (JC) Steven Hicks (JC) Luke Vinciguerra (JC) Jackie Kassel (NN)

Robert Brown (NO) Jeff Bliemel (PQ) Debbie Vest (PQ) Robert Lewis (SU) Mark Schnaufer (VB) Daniel Clayton (WM) Steve Martin (WM) Reed Nester (WM) J. Mark Carter (YK Al Maddalena (YK) TTAC Nonvoting Members: Ivan Rucker (FHWA) Wendy Vachet (Navy) TTAC Nonvoting Members Absent: Randy Brown (Army) Tony Cho (FTA)

Lt. Tiffany Duffy (USCG) Clifford Burnette (VDOA)


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

Keith Nichols Joe Paulus Benito Pérez Camelia Ravanbakht Stephanie Shealey Dale Stith Others Recorded Attending: Terri Boothe, Louis Guy, Henry Ryto (Citizens); Carl Jackson (NN); Rob Brown (NO); Heather Ham (VB); Rick Case, Greg Grootendorst, Rob Jacobs, Chris Vaigneur (HRPDC Staff); Ron Hodges (HRT); Frank Azzalina (HRTI); Karen McPherson (Kimley-Horn); John Hendrickson (PB); Chuck Cayton (RK&K); Brandon Borne, Tressell Carter, Joe Curry, David Cutler, Ciera Davidson, Karen Jefferson, Al Riutort (ODU); Bruce Duvall, Lauren Hansen, Ray Hunt, Adam Jack, Jaesup Lee, Stephen Rowan, Robert Scott Jr., Christopher Voigt (VDOT); Debbie Messina (Virginian Pilot); Robby Ferguson, Sara Morris (WTKR); Beth Brown, David Ham (WVEC) Public Comment Period There was no public comment. Approval of Agenda Chairman Drumwright asked for additions or deletions to the TTAC Agenda. Mr. Stringfield stated there was a handout regarding the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) contingency funds at the table and he asked to have the item placed on the agenda after item 2. He also asked to switch agenda items 9 and 10. Ms. Spence Moved to approve the agenda with Mr. Stringfield’s amendments; seconded by Ms. Whitney. The Motion Carried. Summary Minutes Chairman Drumwright indicated the TTAC Summary Minutes of June 2, 2010 were included in the July TTAC Agenda. He asked for any corrections or amendments to the minutes. Hearing none, Mr. Slaughter Moved to approve the minutes as written; seconded by Mr. Allsbrook. The Motion Carried. Carolina Road Corridor Study: Final Report Ms. Ravanbakht indicated HRTPO staff presented the Carolina Road Corridor Study to TTAC at the June meeting. Ms. Earley Moved for recommendation of approval of the Carolina Road Corridor Study: Final Report to the HRTPO Board; seconded by Mr. Mills. The Motion Carried.


Risk of Contingency Funding on Regional ARRA Projects Mr. Adam Jack, Assistant District Administrator of Engineering and Investment, of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) stated funding plans for most transportation projects include a contingency of approximately 10% to provide a margin for expenditures above the bid amount. For most ARRA projects, those contingencies are currently funded with ARRA funds. In the event a project is delivered within the bid amount and the contingency amount is not used, those ARRA funds would need to be returned to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). He noted that on projects where contingencies have been funded with statewide ARRA funds, VDOT will move those ARRA funds to other ARRA-certified projects to assure all of the federal money is obligated in accordance with the principles developed for the FY2011-2016 Six Year Improvement Plan (SYIP). The released statewide ARRA funds will be reprogrammed to replace other state funds on existing ARRA projects. No new ARRA projects will be added. Mr. Jack indicated there are approximately $2-4 million in ARRA funds currently programmed to fund contingencies on ARRA projects in Hampton Roads. He stated VDOT proposes the HRTPO use the recently released FY2010 Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) reserve fund totaling just over $3.5 million, to replace MPO ARRA funds currently programmed to cover contingencies on projects and reprogram those MPO ARRA funds in accordance with the strategy outlined in the HRTPO 2010-06 Resolution approved by the HRTPO Board at its May meeting. Ms. Akan stated the City of Norfolk’s bids were actually higher than expected and asked how the lost funding would be found if there was no ARRA contingency fund. Mr. Jack replied that all ARRA funds were RSTP funds and a project requiring additional monies could be funded by the reserve fund. Mr. Slaughter noted there was a recommendation by the Hampton Roads Transportation Operations Subcommittee to utilize the $3.5 million RSTP reserve fund for hurricane evacuation in agenda item 14. There was a suggestion that the issue of whether to use the RSTP reserve to cover contingencies on ARRA projects or for the Hurricane Evacuation item be referred to the Transportation Technical Subcommittee (TTS) meeting in late July. Ms. Ravanbakht stated TTAC needs to make a determination pertaining to the usage of the reserve fund in order to bring the recommendation to the HRTPO Board at the July 20, 2010 meeting. Ms. Spence suggested amending the HRTPO 2010-06 Resolution to allow the localities to not only transfer ARRA funds from one project to another within a locality, but to also allow ARRA funds to be transferred from one locality project to another. Mr. Pullen noted the Princess Anne Road Project listed in the HRTPO 2010-06 Resolution came in under bid, and therefore, will not need any additional ARRA funding. Mr. Allsbrook Moved to use the FY2010 RSTP reserve fund to replace MPO ARRA funds currently programmed to cover contingencies and reprogram the replaced ARRA funds in accordance with the amended HRTPO 2010-06 Resolution which will include the option to


transfer ARRA funds from one jurisdiction to another; seconded by Ms. Akan. The Motion Carried. FY2010 CMAQ/RSTP Reserve Funds Ms. Ravanbakht stated that with the approval of the SYIP, VDOT released the federal reserve funds totaling $2.2 million in Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) funds and $3.5 million in RSTP funds. TTAC has presently approved the use of the $3.5 million RSTP reserve fund to cover contingencies on regional ARRA projects. HRTPO staff recommends that the Transportation Technical Subcommittee (TTS) be convened to discuss how to utilize the $2.2 million CMAQ reserve fund. Mr. Gey Moved to allow the TTS to discuss options to best utilize the CMAQ reserve fund; seconded by Mr. Walton. Mr. Slaughter asked if the localities should submit projects for the distribution of those funds. Ms. Ravanbakht stated HRTPO staff will send the latest data to the TTAC members to review. She noted that only existing projects would be discussed and no new projects would be added. The Motion Carried. Procedures for Revising the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Mr. Kimbrel remarked that at the last TTAC meeting he explained there would be a change in procedure pertaining to requests made by the localities and transit agencies to revise the TIP, particularly with respect to CMAQ and RSTP transfer requests. There have been several instances in which the amounts of available funds to be transferred, as specified in the locality or transit agency request letter, did not match the funding information maintained by the VDOT Programming Division. Mr. Kimbrel outlined the new procedure which was determined by HRTPO staff in conjunction with VDOT staff. The procedure includes feedback by VDOT, a listing of blackout periods, during which the processing of TIP revisions would be suspended, and a checklist to aid in the process. The goal of the new process is to coordinate more efficiently between the localities, transit agencies, VDOT and DRPT prior to submitting a request to the HRTPO. Mr. Walton directed the Committee’s attention to Page 2, item 4-a-iv, and asked if the HRTPO staff could also send a copy of the HRTPO action letter to the requesting locality or agency. Mr. Kimbrel replied affirmatively and stated he would amend that section of the procedure. Mr. Walton asked if TTAC could use electronic voting during the blackout periods. Mr. Kimbrel replied that according to the Freedom of Information act (FOIA), electronic voting was prohibited. Mr. King Moved to approve the TIP procedure with the one amendment; seconded by Mr. Shea. The Motion Carried.


FY2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Revision: Request to Reallocate CMAQ and RSTP Funds – Newport News Mr. Slaughter stated the City of Newport News is seeking to transfer unobligated CMAQ and RSTP funds from two City projects to the Citywide Signal System Upgrade project (UPC #52350). Mr. Slaughter Moved to transfer $1,028,463 (including state match) from the Rivermont Bike Trail project (UPC #52343) and the Oyster Point Cubarea CCTV & Static Signs project (UPC #73002) to the Citywide Signal System Upgrade project (UPC #52350); seconded by Mr. Cross. The Motion Carried. FY2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Revision: Request for CMAQ Cost Overrun Funds – Portsmouth Mr. Yehlen stated the City of Portsmouth is requesting additional allocation of CMAQ funds to cover a cost overrun on the City’s Signal System Upgrade Phase II project (UPC #16196). Mr. Yehlen Moved to seek additional allocation of CMAQ funds in the amount of $45,603.20 due to cost overrun on the City’s Signal Upgrade Phase II project (UPC #16196); seconded by Mr. Slaughter. The Motion Carried. FY2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Revision: Request to Reallocate CMAQ Funds – WATA Chair Drumwright stated the Williamsburg Area Transit Authority (WATA) is requesting an advancement of CMAQ funding on a previously approved project to purchase a replacement clean diesel trolley (UPC #T9149). Mr. Cross Moved to seek advance allocation of reserve CMAQ funds in the amount of $315,000 (including state match) to purchase a replacement clean diesel trolley to be used in the Historic Yorktown area; seconded by Ms. Whitney. Chair Drumwright added that this project was approved during the 2009 CMAQ/RSTP Project Selection Process; however, CMAQ allocation was to take place in FY2015. The Motion Carried. FY2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Revision: Request to Allocate Statewide ARRA Funds to Norfolk Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project – VDOT Mr. Stringfield stated VDOT is requesting to add a new Norfolk LRT project to the TIP to be funded with Statewide ARRA funds. Mr. Stringfield Moved to request the addition of the ARRA Norfolk Light Rail – Enhance Facilities/Stations project (UPC #T9853) to the TIP utilizing Statewide ARRA funds totaling $10 million; seconded by Ms. Whitney. Mr. Pullen asked if the project was ARRA certified. Ms. Spence replied the project was currently being certified. Mr. Rucker asked if the project met air quality conformity requirements. Mr. Stringfield replied it is in the amended 2030 LRTP and conformity issues are being handled. The Motion Carried.


State Matching Funds for RSTP to be Tied to Regional Transportation and Land Use Performance Measures Mr. Stringfield explained Chapters 670 and 690 of the 2009 Acts of the General Assembly authorize the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) to require MPOs to develop regional transportation and land use performance measures. The Virginia Budget for the 2010-2012 Biennium directs the CTB to only provide matching funds for federal RSTP funds to MPOs that have developed such performance measures. He referenced a letter from former Virginia Secretary of Transportation Pierce Homer to HRTPO Chairman William Sessoms on the development of these performance measures and goals and the use of such goals by the CTB to evaluate and select projects for inclusion in Virginia’s SYIP. In a related issue, Mr. Stringfield outlined the time frames for obligating and expending RSTP funds which were also included in the Virginia Budget. Specifically, RSTP funds, in FY2011 and after, shall be federally obligated within 12 months of their allocation by the CTB and expended within 36 months of such obligation. Additionally, RSTP funds, in FY2010 and any preceding fiscal year, shall be federally obligated within 12 months of the effective date of the act (July 1, 2010) and expended within 36 months of such obligation. If these requirements are not met by the recipient, the CTB shall rescind the required match for such federal funds. Mr. Stringfield concluded, stating that in order to receive state matching RSTP allocations from the CTB starting July 1, 2011, it is recommended that the HRTPO’s regional performance measures be developed in consultation with the Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment (OIPI), adopted by the HRTPO Board, and submitted no later than April 2011 for CTB review and approval. Mr. Pullen noted the RSTP obligation dates are problematic because there will be RSTP money appropriated under old rules. He also noted that funds for several localities were recently appropriated for consecutive years in order to accumulate money and the new process does not allow for that. He suggested TTAC ask the HRTPO Board to appeal the legislation. Mr. Cannady asked if the performance measures and the new RSTP obligation time frames were linked. Ms. Ravanbakht replied they were linked in the same legislative bill. Ms. Ravanbakht stated the HRTPO currently has performance measures in place for the LRTP, the CMAQ/RSTP Project Selection Process, the CMP, Freight Analysis, and the HRTPO Prioritization Tool. She indicated the HRTPO is comfortable with the performance measures that have been established. Mr. Keifer Moved for recommendation to rescind the RSTP items B-5a and B-5b in the 2010 Budget Bill HB 30, Chapter 874, Item 436 to the HRTPO Board; seconded by Ms. Akan. The Motion Carried.


VDOT Review of CMAQ/RSTP Unobligated Balances Mr. Adam Jack stated VDOT reviewed the CMAQ/RSTP unobligated balances in response to a TTAC request at the April 2010 meeting. The data used for the review included the VDOT Programming and Accounting systems and the VDOT Project Pool system. Mr. Jack noted no alterations, amendments, or clarifications have occurred since April 2010. Mr. Jack noted VDOT has identified more than $70 million in CMAQ and RSTP funds (including match) available for transfer by the HRTPO and explained the summary by category as follows: Category Description Funds Available for HRTPO Transfers A Projects funded only with CMAQ/RSTP funds that appear to be complete $11.0 million B Projects funded only with CMAQ/RSTP funds that appear to be underway $30.3 million C Projects funded with CMAQ/RSTP and other funds that appear to be complete $3.7 million D Projects funded with CMAQ/RSTP and other funds that appear to be underway $28.5 million E CMAQ/RSTP projects managed by DRPT Audit incomplete Total $73.5 million Mr. Jack concluded by offering re-programming suggestions to phase allocations to comply with code and policy and to allocate remaining funds on a regional need basis. Mr. Rucker asked if there was a similar process underway by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT). Mr. Swartz replied transit projects adhere to a different process and there is no way of identifying how much funding has been drawn down. It falls to the individual transit agencies to provide that information to the HRTPO and VDOT. Mr. Pullen stated his appreciation of the work accomplished by VDOT; however, he believed more research is needed in order to have a more detailed report of the actual amount available for transfer, as opposed to a theoretical amount. Ms. Spence replied VDOT completed the task asked of it by TTAC; knowledge of the amount of unobligated CMAQ/RSTP funds. Mr. Jack suggested discussion by the TTS on this matter. Mr. Walton Moved to refer the discussion of unobligated balances of CMAQ/RSTP funds to the TTS for further investigation and development of a strategy to determine the true unobligated balances; seconded by Mr. Allsbrook. Mr. Keifer indicated Mr. Shucet of HRT began the investigation process in order to seek unobligated CMAQ/RSTP funds for utilization for The Tide in Norfolk and HRT will be reiterating that request at the TTS. The Motion Carried.


Project Prioritization and Selection Process: Final Report Ms. Ravanbakht explained that in the summer of 2009, the HRTPO Board requested staff evaluate the outcome of amending the 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan. During these discussions, the need to establish a methodology for project prioritization and selection was identified. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) provided assistance with this effort via its on-call consultant, Kimley-Horn and Associates. The goal of the project was to develop a methodology to assist the HRTPO Board with prioritizing transportation projects according to their technical merits and regional benefits, in light of scarce financial resources. In December 2009, the HRTPO Board requested the project prioritization tool be revised to take into account the economic benefits of projects to the region. The methodology for the economic vitality component was approved by the HRTPO Board at its June 16, 2010 meeting. The initial report has been edited to reflect the three components – project utility, project viability, and economic vitality. The document is being made available for public review and comment from June 30, 2010 through July 14, 2010. Mr. Gey Moved to recommend approval of the Project Prioritization and Selection Process: Final Report to the HRTPO Board; seconded by Mr. King. Mr. Slaughter asked how a Preliminary Engineering (PE)-Only project would compete in the prioritization process in the LRTP. Ms. Ravanbakht replied the topic is currently being discussed with Mr. Rucker of the FHWA. Ms. Ravanbakht indicated for the process to be effective, staff will align the project categories with the funding as the last step in the process because a number of projects are not going to be able to use certain types of funding. Staff will report back to TTAC with more information and detail. The Motion Carried. Hampton Roads 2034 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Status Report Ms. Dale Stith presented an overview of the major tasks completed to-date by HRTPO staff pertaining to the LRTP. She stated there are approximately 200 projects being considered for inclusion in the 2034 LRTP. The candidate projects were obtained via public survey and TTAC members. She reviewed the major tasks required for completion of the 2034 LRTP as follows:

• Oct. 2010 Candidate project evaluation utilizing the prioritization tool • Nov. – Dec. 2010 HRTPO Advisory Committees review evaluation • Jan. 2011 HRTPO Board prioritization • April 2011 Public review of draft constrained LRTP • June 2011 HRTPO Board approval of final LRTP • Dec. 2011 Air quality conformity completed


Ms. Stith indicated there will be public outreach related tasks for the 2034 LRTP from July 2010 to May 2011. Hampton Roads Congestion Management Process (CMP): 2010 Update Mr. Sam Belfield stated the Congestion Management Process (CMP) is a federal requirement for all metropolitan areas with a population of over 200,000. It is one of the core functions of the HRTPO staff. He noted the CMP is a useful tool for the localities and transit agencies and it helps identify the most congested corridors in the region and provides recommendations to address congestion concerns. The report will aid in prioritizing projects within jurisdictions which will be beneficial to the region. Hampton Roads, with its unique topography and abundance of waterways, is faced with many transportation challenges due to its bridges, draw bridges, tunnels, and traffic incidents that occur within the tunnels. Mr. Belfield presented two maps that illustrated congested locations in Hampton Roads for 2009 and projected areas of congestion in 2030. He pointed out that nearly all interstates in the region will be severely congested by 2030 and that many rural areas in Isle of Wight County, Suffolk, and Gloucester County will become much more congested by the year 2030. The 2030 map includes the completion of all projects currently in the 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Mr. Keith Nichols, also presenting, stated that because there are so many congested locations in Hampton Roads, the following factors must also be considered when analyzing congested corridors:

• Existing congestion level • Safety • Freight • Travel time • National significance Mr. Nichols explained the congested roadway segments were combined into 41 congested corridors for analysis purposes. All 41 congested corridors were ranked and the top 16 were analyzed in the CMP report. He outlined both the top six freeway congested corridors and the top ten arterial congested corridors. Mr. Nichols concluded, noting the data from the CMP will be utilized as input for the LRTP Project Prioritization Tool and staff will continue to monitor the regional transportation network and update transportation databases. The public comment period for the draft CMP is July 7- August 4, 2010 with anticipated final approval by both TTAC and the HRTPO Board in September 2010.


VDOT Hurricane Evacuation Traffic Control Plan: HRTO Subcommittee Recommendation Mr. Rob Case explained that in March 2010, Mr. Stephany Hanshaw of VDOT presented the revised VDOT hurricane evacuation traffic control plan to TTAC. Based on the results of that presentation, TTAC requested that the Hampton Roads Transportation Operations (HRTO) Subcommittee review the plan and develop recommendations for improvement. From discussion at the HRTO Subcommittee meetings, the HRTO recommends the following Responsibilities in the VDOT Plan:

• Request VDOT to revise its Plan in order to identify agency responsible for manning inoperable signals. (page 34) • Request VDOT to revise its Plan in order to identify agency responsible for routing evacuees to refuges of last resort. • Request VDOT to revise its Plan in order to identify agency responsible for removal of disabled vehicles and relocation of their occupants on primaries. (page 32) • Request VDOT to revise its Plan in order to identify agency responsible “to facilitate the merge” for US 17 at Route 134 ramp. (page 35) • Request VDOT to revise its Plan to in order to remove interstates from local law enforcement responsibility. (page 32) Mr. Case introduced Mr. Gary Walton of the HRTO Subcommittee to continue with the presentation. After finishing the report, Mr. Walton Moved to endorse the HRTO Subcommittee recommendations above and have VDOT more clearly define these roles and responsibilities; seconded by Mr. Cross. The Motion Carried. The HRTO Subcommittee also recommended the following regarding Additional Capacity: • Allocate $3.5 million in FY2010 RSTP funds to the construction necessary for reversal of US 58/460. • Request that VDOT/VDEM evaluate the costs and benefits of leaving the Monitor Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel (MMMBT) open during evacuations. • Forward the Summary of Recommendations included in the HRTPO staff analysis to VDOT/VDEM for consideration and review. Mr. Walton noted that since TTAC approved the allocation of the $3.5 million in FY2010 RSTP for reserve funds to replace MPO ARRA funds currently programmed to cover contingencies earlier in the meeting, he Moved for the endorsement of the request for the US 58/460 lane reversal without the allocation of RSTP reserve funds, and for the evaluation into the costs and benefits of having the MMMBT remain open during a hurricane evacuation; seconded by Mr. Yehlen. The Motion Carried. Mr. Walton Moved for the evaluation of other funding options for the US 58/460 lane reversal be tasked to the TTS; seconded by Ms. Earley. The Motion Carried.


Draft Hampton Roads Existing Land Use: 2009 Socioeconomic Base Year Update Mr. Benito Pérez stated the 2009 Socioeconomic Base Year Update and is a required update per federal guidelines that will feed into the region’s travel demand model. Within the update, HRTPO staff used a Geographic Information System (GIS) to determine the location of recent residential and employment data with respect to transportation analysis zones (TAZs) in the HRTPO and HRPDC boundaries. This information was collected in anticipation of possible fluctuations of the boundaries per the Census and also interregional travel demand modeling needs as requested by VDOT. He noted the socioeconomic figures are the most requested data of the HRTPO. Mr. Pérez explained localities are requested to review the data and submit comments to him by July 21, 2010. Official Designation of TRAFFIX Oversight Subcommittee Chair Drumwright stated TRAFFIX provides an important function in congestion mitigation and it has been decided to establish a TRAFFIX Oversight Subcommittee. Mr. Jeff Raliski of Norfolk will be the Chair for the next two years. The TRAFFIX Oversight Subcommittee will report any recommendations for approval to TTAC. Mr. Case requested the names of those who will serve on the subcommittee from the localities and transit agencies. Correspondence of Interest Chair Drumwright noted the items in the Correspondence of Interest section of the agenda packet. For Your Information Ms. Ravanbakht directed TTAC to Item 18D regarding the Southeast High-speed Rail Tier II Draft Environmental Impact Statement. She stated HRTPO staff has reviewed the 1,400 page document and has compiled technical comments. Ms. Ravanbakht also directed TTAC to Item 18E pertaining to the 2035 Virginia Surface Transportation Plan which is now available for public comment. Finally, Ms. Ravanbakht highlighted Item 18G regarding the Virginia-North Carolina Interstate High Speed Rail Compact Meeting. She indicated that she, Mr. Farmer, and the HRTPO high-speed rail consultant will be attending the meeting.


Old/New Business There was no old/new business. Adjournment With no further business to come before the Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at 12:18 p.m.


AGENDA ITEM #2: HAMPTON ROADS CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS (CMP) 2010 UPDATE: FINAL REPORT

SUBJECT: The final CMP 2010 Update report is ready for approval. BACKGROUND: During the July 2010 TTAC meeting, Mr. Sam Belfield and Mr. Keith Nichols briefed the Committee on the draft Hampton Roads Congestion Management Process 2010 Update report. The draft report was made available for public review and comment from July 7, 2010 to August 4, 2010. Comments received on the draft report were addressed in the final report. The enclosed report provides a thorough assessment of the roadway system in Hampton Roads, updates the regional level of service (LOS) congestion analysis (using the 2009 existing and the 2030 roadway network), ranks the most congested corridors, and identifies congestion mitigation strategies and recommended improvements for the congested corridors. Enclosure 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the final report.


AGENDA ITEM #3: FY 2009-2012 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) AMENDMENT: UPDATE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SECTION OF TIP

SUBJECT: An update of the public transportation section of the TIP is ready for incorporation into the document. BACKGROUND: The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) has completed an update of the public transportation section of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). HRTPO staff recommends amending the FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to incorporate the DRPT update. The proposed TIP Amendment has been made available for public review and comment. The public review and comment period began on August 4, 2010 and ran through August 18, 2010. No comments were received. Mr. Mike Kimbrel, Principal Transportation Engineer, will brief the TTAC on this item. Attachment 3 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the TIP Amendment.

FY 2009-2012 TIP Public Transportation(Funding Shown in Thousands of Dollars)

HAMPTON ROADS

STIP ID: HRT0001 Title: Leased Rolling Stock Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit GROUP3FTA 5307 FTA 5307 9,300

State State 642 Local Local 1,683

Year Total: Total Funds: 11,625 Description: STIP ID: HRT0004 Title: Support Vehicles Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit GROUP3

FTA 5307 FTA 5307 320 Federal Stimulus Federal Stimulus 2,100

State State 64 Local Local 16

Year Total: Total Funds: 2,500 Description: STIP ID: HRT0006 Title: Shop Equipment Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit GROUP1

FTA 5307 FTA 5307 332 FTA 5309 FTA 5309 1,040

Federal Stimulus Federal Stimulus 2,500 State State 66 Local Local 277

Year Total: Total Funds: 4,215 Description: STIP ID: HRT0007 Title: Security Project Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit

FTA 5307 FTA 5307 939 State State 131 Local Local 103

Year Total: Total Funds: 1,173 Description: STIP ID: HRT0008 Title: Office Furniture and Equipment Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit GROUP1


Year Total: Total Funds: 490 Description: STIP ID: HRT0016 Title: Construction of Facilities - Southside Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit

FTA 5307 FTA 5307 - FTA 5309 FTA 5309 18,700

Federal Stimulus Federal Stimulus 14,000 State State 2,819 Local Local 1,855

Year Total: Total Funds: 37,374 Description: STIP ID: HRT0022 Title: Ferry Capital Improvements Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit


Year Total: Total Funds: 170 Description: STIP ID: HRT0024 Title: Norfolk Light Rail Project Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit

FTA 5309 FTA 5309 34,368 State State 32,724 Local Local 23,445

Year Total: Total Funds: 90,537 Description: STIP ID: HRT0026 Title: Replacement Rolling Stock Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit GROUP3

FTA 5307 FTA 5307 - FTA 5309 FTA 5309 4,085

Flexible STP Flexible STP 11,616 Federal Stimulus Federal Stimulus 2,660

State State 12,738 Local Local 4,670

Year Total: Total Funds: 35,769 Description: STIP ID: HRT0029 Title: Transit Enhancement Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit GROUP4


Year Total: Total Funds: 1,223 Description: STIP ID: HRT0030 Title: CNG Cylinder Replacement Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit GROUP3


Year Total: Total Funds: 382 Description:

1,860 1,860

2,325 Bus Lease Purchase Payments.

107 93

2,325 2,325 2,325 2,325

FY 2009 FY 2010

116 232 372 358 372 349 233 93

FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total FY 2009-2013

HAMPTON ROADS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

1,860 1,860 1,860

320

2,500 - - - - 16 64

2,100

64 2

1,040 2,500

320 12

187 191 182 185 194

2,900 1,315 - - - 16 261

242 FY 09 5307 Security Project

320 12 20 20 20

233 239 228 231

3 3

24 9 24 23 23 24

37 24 23 23

25 Office Furniture and Equipment

400 15 25 25

3 40 1 2 2 2 40 2

206 599 1,050 1,094 675 1,050

14,000 5,203 5,097 8,400

40 - 2 5 5

40 16 40

- SAFETEA-LU #354, #391, #535 Southside Maintenance & Operations (new facility)

20,503 6,371 10,500 -

34,368

5 - 50 20 50 50

10 2 5

- FY09 - Light Rail New Starts Funding

49,830 20,707 - 20,000 3,092 10,353 10,000

12,370 10,354 10,000

527 660 1,839 4,589 5,123 2,660 3,300 3,300 5,016 2,635 1,450

FY09 - Purchase Replacement Bus 40-ft (3)

1,281 10,079 4,125 9,425 5,736 6,404

957 165 1,120 1,147

29 29

292 FY 09 5307 Transit Enhancement

306

37 24 23 23 9 24 23 23

187 191 182 185 234

61

- 382 - -

233

- 15

239 228 231

Attachment 3


HAMPTON ROADS

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total FY 2009-2013

HAMPTON ROADS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONSTIP ID: HRT0031 Title: Bus Rehab/Renov of Admin Building Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit

FTA 5307 FTA 5307 1,280 State State 221 Local Local 100

Year Total: Total Funds: 1,601 Description: STIP ID: HRT0032 Title: ADP Software Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit GROUP1

FTA 5307 FTA 5307 1,464 State State 189 Local Local 175

Year Total: Total Funds: 1,828 Description:

STIP ID: HRT0033 Title: ADP Hardware Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit GROUP1FTA 5307 FTA 5307 922



STIP ID: HRT0041 Title: CIP Program - General Recipient: Hampton Roads TransitFTA 5307 FTA 5307 960



STIP ID: HRT0042 Title: New Transit Centers Recipient: Hampton Roads TransitFTA 5307 FTA 5307 168



STIP ID: HRT0050 Title: Information and Management Systems Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit GROUP1Federal Stimulus Federal Stimulus 600

State State - Local Local -

Year Total: Total Funds: 600 Description: STIP ID: HRT0051 Title: Environmental Mgmt. System Program Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit GROUP3

Federal Stimulus Federal Stimulus 300 State State - Local Local -

Year Total: Total Funds: 300 Description: STIP ID: HRT0052 Title: Transfer Center Upgrades Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit GROUP1

Federal Stimulus Federal Stimulus 1,600 State State - Local Local -

Year Total: Total Funds: 1,600 Description: STIP ID: HRT0053 Title: Bus Wash Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit GROUP1


Year Total: Total Funds: 336 Description: STIP ID: HRT0054 Title: Preventive Maintenance Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit GROUP1

FTA 5307 FTA 5307 48,280 Federal Stimulus Federal Stimulus 437

FTA 5309 FTA 5309 4,912 State State - Local Local 15,124

Year Total: Total Funds: 68,753 Description: STIP ID: HRT0058 Title: Bus Shelters to Support Job-Related Acc Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit

JARC JARC 274 State State - Local Local 80

Year Total: Total Funds: 354 Description: STIP ID: HRT0059 Title: Handi-Ride Technology Upgrade Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit

JARC JARC 188 New Freedom New Freedom 237

State State - Local Local 676


39 41 10 10 39

162 10 10 810 80 80 310

26 24 100 25 26 24 114

388

196 858 202 208

1,013 - 100 100

25

10 66 20 9 10 10 66 20 9 10

260

530 160 72 80 80

244 1,072 - 252

100 662 200 90 100

30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

240 240 240 240

11 10 10

300

84 84

- 300 300 300

11

105 - - - 105

600

-

300

600 - - -

-

1,600

300 - - -

-

336

1,600 - - -

- 1,228 1,228 1,228 1,228 437

-

- 12,070 12,070 12,070 12,070

336 - - -

17,079 437 17,079 17,079 17,079 3,781 3,781 3,781 3,781

80

274

237

-

188

354 - - -

627 474 - - - 439 237

Attachment 3


HAMPTON ROADS


HAMPTON ROADS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONSTIP ID: HRT0060 Title: Administration of JARC Program Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit


Year Total: Total Funds: 277 Description: STIP ID: HRT0061 Title: Administration of New Freedom Program Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit

New Freedom New Freedom 126 State State - Local Local 31

Year Total: Total Funds: 157 Description: STIP ID: HRT0062 Title: Work Transportation Expansion Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit



STIP ID: HRT0063 Title: JARC for Va Beach Recipient: Hampton Roads TransitJARC JARC 198 State State - Local Local 198

Year Total: Total Funds: 396 Description: STIP ID: HRT0064 Title: Enhanced Computer Aided Dispatch for PRecipient: Hampton Roads Transit

JARC JARC 57 New Freedom New Freedom 221

Local Local 70 Year Total: Total Funds: 348

Description: STIP ID: HRT0065 Title: Portable Radios Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit GROUP3



STIP ID: HRT0066 Title: Light Rail Capital Projects Recipient: Hampton Roads TransitFTA 5309 FTA 5309 1,983


Year Total: Total Funds: 2,479 Description: STIP ID: HRT0067 Title: Capital Cost of Contracting Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit


Year Total: Total Funds: 9,128 Description: STIP ID: HRT0068 Title: ADA Operations Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit


Year Total: Total Funds: 9,544 Description: STIP ID: HRT0069 Title: Financial Capacity and Project AdministraRecipient: Hampton Roads Transit

FTA 5307 FTA 5307 1,334 State State - Local Local 328

Year Total: Total Funds: 1,662 Description: STIP ID: HRT0070 Title: Public Involvement and Participation Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit

FTA 5307 FTA 5307 312 State State - Local Local 76

Year Total: Total Funds: 388 Description: STIP ID: HRT0071 Title: Ferry Boat Inspection Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit



136 83

- 173 104 - - 37 21

98 59 - - - 19 12

79 47

58

57

198

-

198

115 - - -

70 221

-

57

396 - - -

10 10

33

100

4 4

-

32 80

348 - - -

57

1,579 - - 570

456 264 1,263

-

330

158 57

- - 40

456 456 456 456

1,826 1,826 1,826 1,826

33 158

477 477 477 477

2,282

1,909 1,909 1,909 1,909

- 2,282 2,282 2,282

82 82 82 82

2,386

326 326 326 356

- 2,386 2,386 2,386

19 19 19 19

438

78 78 78 78

- 408 408 408

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

97

40 40 40 40

- 97 97 97

50 - 50 50 50

Attachment 3


HAMPTON ROADS


HAMPTON ROADS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONSTIP ID: HRT0072 Title: Va Beach Transit Extension Study Recipient: Hampton Roads Transit


Year Total: Total Funds: 1,224 Description: STIP ID: HRT0073 Title: Richmond-Hampton Roads Passenger RaRecipient: Amtrak, NS, CSX

State State 78,860 Local Local -


STIP ID: WAT0001 Title: Operating Assistance Recipient: Williamsburg Area Transport GROUP1FTA 5307 FTA 5307 4,021 FTA 5311 FTA 5311 672

Federal Stimulus Federal Stimulus 857 Other Federal Other Federal 1,362


Revenues Revenues 8,547 Year Total: Total Funds: 26,271

Description:

STIP ID: WAT0014 Title: Transit Enhancements Recipient: Williamsburg Area Transport GROUP4Flexible STP Flexible STP 824


Year Total: Total Funds: 1,030 Description: STIP ID: WAT0015 Title: Replacement Rolling Stock Recipient: Williamsburg Area Transport GROUP3

Flexible STP Flexible STP 2,000 State State 125 Local Local 375

Year Total: Total Funds: 2,500 Description: STIP ID: WAT0016 Title: Automated Fare and Passenger Collect. Recipient: Williamsburg Area Transport GROUP3


Year Total: Total Funds: 150 Description: STIP ID: WAT0017 Title: Bus Shelters Recipient: Williamsburg Area Transport GROUP4


Year Total: Total Funds: 80 Description: STIP ID: WAT0019 Title: Replacement Vehicles Recipient: Williamsburg Area Transport GROUP3

Federal Stimulus Federal Stimulus 195 Flexible STP Flexible STP 160


Year Total: Total Funds: 395 Description: STIP ID: WAT0020 Title: Facility - Phase One Recipient: Williamsburg Area Transit Authority


Year Total: Total Funds: 2,000 Description: STIP ID: WAT0021 Title: Facility - Phase Two Recipient: Williamsburg Area Transit Authority



STIP ID: WAT0022 Title: Support Vehicle Replacement Recipient: Williamsburg Area Transit Authority GROUP3Flexible STP Flexible STP 40



245

979

23,360 39,000 16,500

- - 1,224 - -

144 834 23 125 114

23,360 Richmond-Hampton Roads Passenger Rail project. Approved for State Rail Enhancement Funds. Grantees are National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), and CSX.

403 657 941 1,010 1,010

- - 39,000 16,500

145 144

1,500 2,393 2,319 2,050 850 935

114 1,153 893 1,500 946 1,523 1,183 1,000 1,000

1,362

13 37

250

15 12 10 41 38 40

4,589

224 200 200 200

6,177 5,789 5,212 4,504

5

2,400 - - 100

80 1,920

-

-

120 15

280 250 250

150

360

-

80

150 - - -

- 80 - - -

160 195

- 195 - - 200 20 20

- - 500 1,500 - 47 150 53 150

400 1,200

250 250

2,000

5

2,500

40

- - - -

5

- - - - 50

Attachment 3


HAMPTON ROADS


HAMPTON ROADS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONSTIP ID: WAT0023 Title: Body on Chassis Replacement Recipient: Williamsburg Area Transit Authority GROUP3

Flexible STP Flexible STP 120 State State 15 Local Local 15

Year Total: Total Funds: 150 Description: STIP ID: WAT0024 Title: Lease Bus Related Facility- Regional GarRecipient: Williamsburg Area Transit Authority


Year Total: Total Funds: 216 Description: STIP ID: WAT0025 Title: Lease Bus Related Facility- Multimodal T Recipient: Williamsburg Area Transit Authority


Year Total: Total Funds: 299 Description: STIP ID: WAT0026 Title: Lease Bus Related Facility-Customer SerRecipient: Williamsburg Area Transit Authority


Year Total: Total Funds: 430 Description: STIP ID: WAT0027 Title: Radios Recipient: Williamsburg Area Transit Authority GROUP3



STIP ID: WAT0028 Title: Office Furniture Recipient: Williamsburg Area Transit Authority GROUP1Flexible STP Flexible STP 64



STIP ID: WAT0029 Title: AVL/GPS Phase Two Recipient: Williamsburg Area Transit Authority GROUP3Flexible STP Flexible STP 160



STIP ID: WAT0030 Title: Spare Parts, ACM Recipient: Williamsburg Area Transit Authority GROUP1Flexible STP Flexible STP 176



STIP ID: WAT0031 Title: Computer Hardware and Software Recipient: Williamsburg Area Transit Authority GROUP1Flexible STP Flexible STP 68



STIP ID: WAT0032 Title: Misc Support Equipment Recipient: Williamsburg Area Transit Authority GROUP1FTA 5309 FTA 5309 815


Year Total: Total Funds: 1,019 Description: STIP ID: WAT0033 Title: Bike Racks Recipient: Williamsburg Area Transit Authority GROUP3



STIP ID: AVP0001 Title: Paratransit Vehicles Recipient: ARC of Virginia Peninsula GROUP3FTA 5310 FTA 5310 120



15 15

120

9 15 5 2 2 35

-

42 44 47

- - - 150

6 9

12 32 7 3 3 42 8 12

58 Regional Garage

60 60 60

- 50 53 55

18 4 4 4 5

16

75 HUB, transfer station in the City of Williamsburg

80 84 88 92

- 74 75 75

17 18

7 7

115 Customer Service Facility

56

- 100 105 110

8

-

64

- - - 70

8

20 20

-

160

- - - 80

6 6 6

26

200

128 48

- - - -

3 14

60

68

- 160 - -

41 163

-

815

- 85 - -

2 3

-

19

- 1,019 - -

10 20

-

40 80

- - - 24

- - 50 100 -

Attachment 3


HAMPTON ROADS


HAMPTON ROADS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONSTIP ID: BSS0001 Title: Paratransit Vehicles Recipient: Bon Secours Senior Health GROUP3


Year Total: Total Funds: 50 Description: STIP ID: BWC0001 Title: Accessible Taxicabs and Voucher Progra Recipient: Black & White Cabs of Virginia Beach



STIP ID: CSS0002 Title: Paratransit Vehicles Recipient: Chesapeake Service Systems GROUP3FTA 5310 FTA 5310 125



STIP ID: HNN0001 Title: Paratransit Vehicles Recipient: Hampton-Newport News Community ServicesGROUP3FTA 5310 FTA 5310 120


Year Total: Total Funds: 150 Description: STIP ID: HNN0002 Title: Bus Stop Infrastructure Project Recipient: Hampton-Newport News Community Services Board



STIP ID: HTS0002 Title: Paratransit Vehicles Recipient: Historic Triangle Senior Center GROUP3FTA 5310 FTA 5310 90


Year Total: Total Funds: 112 Description: STIP ID: HTS0003 Title: RIDES Service Expansion Recipient: Historic Triangle Senior Center


Year Total: Total Funds: 54 Description: STIP ID: NRH0001 Title: Workforce Development Transportation PRecipient: Norfolk Redevelopment & Housing Authority



STIP ID: PAA0002 Title: Paratransit Vehicles Recipient: Peninsula Agency on Aging GROUP3FTA 5310 FTA 5310 101


Year Total: Total Funds: 126 Description: STIP ID: PAA0003 Title: Audible Pedestrian Traffic Signals Recipient: Peninsula Agency on Aging


Year Total: Total Funds: 97 Description: STIP ID: PAA0004 Title: Peninsula Aging and Disability Resource Recipient: Peninsula Agency on Aging



STIP ID: POR0001 Title: Paratransit Vehicles Recipient: PORTCO, Inc. GROUP3FTA 5310 FTA 5310 116



10

40

142 44

-

273 149

- - 50 -

7 8 16

-

29 32 64

415 193 - -

30 -

-

120

36 40 80 -

19

-

61

- 150 - -

14 8

-

58 32

80 - - -

27

-

27

72 - 40 -

9 276

-

20 276

- 54 - -

7 10 8

-

29 40 32

29 552 - -

19

-

78

36 50 40 -

4

-

15

- 97 - -

9 10 10

-

36 40 40

19 - - -

- 45 50 50 -

Attachment 3


HAMPTON ROADS


HAMPTON ROADS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONSTIP ID: POR0002 Title: Reverse Commute Work Transportation Recipient: PORTCO, Inc.



STIP ID: SSV0001 Title: Paratransit Vehicles Recipient: Senior Services GROUP3FTA 5310 FTA 5310 281



STIP ID: WTC0001 Title: Paratransit Vehicles Recipient: Western Tidewater CSB GROUP3FTA 5310 FTA 5310 80



Hampton Roads Transit

FTA 5307 FTA 5307 82,034 FTA 5309 FTA 5309 66,669 FTA 5310 FTA 5310 - FTA 5311 FTA 5311 - FTA 5314 FTA 5314 -

JARC JARC 993 Federal Stimulus Federal Stimulus 24,533

TIGGER TIGGER - Other Federal Other Federal -


Revenues Revenues - Equity Bonus Equity Bonus - Flexible STP Flexible STP 11,616

New Freedom New Freedom 584 Totals 290,551

Williamsburg Area Transport

FTA 5307 FTA 5307 4,021 FTA 5309 FTA 5309 815 FTA 5310 FTA 5310 - FTA 5311 FTA 5311 672 FTA 5314 FTA 5314 -

JARC JARC - Federal Stimulus Federal Stimulus 1,282

TIGGER TIGGER - Other Federal Other Federal 1,362


Revenues Revenues 8,547 Equity Bonus Equity Bonus - Flexible STP Flexible STP 7,944

New Freedom New Freedom - Totals 37,769

Amtrak, Norfolk Southern, CSX

FTA 5307 FTA 5307 - State State 78,860 Local Local - Totals 78,860

Other Human Service Transportation Providers

FTA 5310 FTA 5310 1,073 New Freedom New Freedom 542

JARC JARC 670 Local Local 1,120 Totals 3,405

-

65

69 244

69 244

27 - 81 134

107 109

138

136 - 16 27

488 - -

- 10 10

40 40

19,177

- - - - - - - - -

-

19,549 42,512 8,424 11,590 1,572 2,571 4,730 19,733 18,845


50 50 -

-

- - - - - -

24,533 - -

-

- 910 83 - - -

- - -

-

6,793 - - - - -

5,624 17,294 7,504

-

- 14,779 12,003 3,158 14,864 5,589

- - -

-

- 96,688 61,121 46,113 52,127 34,502

300 284 -

16,514

- 3,300 3,300 5,016 - -

- - -

1,010

- 125 114 145 144 144

- - -

-

1,010 - 815 - - -

403 657 941

-

- - - - - -

1,259 23 -

-

- - - - - - - - -

-

2,183 2,393 2,319 2,050 850 935

114 1,295 1,009

-

- 946 1,834 1,284 1,257 1,448

1,362 - -

-

- 6,602 7,557 6,295 7,068 10,247

- - -

1,756

- - 500 866 2,051 4,527 - - -

-

- - - 39,000 16,500 23,360 - - -

-

- - - 39,000 16,500 23,360 - - -

-

- 296 715 109 - - 150 520 -

-

- 288 254 - - - 217 419 437

-

-

- 951 1,908 546

Attachment 3


HAMPTON ROADS


HAMPTON ROADS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Hampton Roads MPO

FTA 5307 FTA 5307 86,055 FTA 5309 FTA 5309 67,484 FTA 5310 FTA 5310 1,073 FTA 5311 FTA 5311 672 FTA 5314 FTA 5314 -

JARC JARC 1,663 Federal Stimulus Federal Stimulus 25,815

TIGGER TIGGER - Other Federal Other Federal 1,362


Revenues Revenues 8,547 Equity Bonus Equity Bonus - Flexible STP Flexible STP 19,560

New Freedom New Freedom 1,126 Totals 410,585

2,571 217 419 437 - -

42,512 9,239 11,590 5,133 20,390 19,786 20,187 20,559

144

- 25,792 23 - - - 1,060 603 -

1,572

144 - - - - -

125 114 145

-

30,397 6,034 19,304 8,622 18,270 8,976

15,725 13,837 43,442

-

- 1,362 - - - -

- - -

2,051

68,109 104,241 70,586 91,954 75,695

850

4,527 588 538 - - -

3,300 3,800 5,882

32,621

935 - - - - -

2,393 2,319 2,050

Attachment 3


AGENDA ITEM #4: FY 2009-2012 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVISION: REQUEST TO REALLOCATE CMAQ FUNDS – NORFOLK

SUBJECT: Request by the City of Norfolk to transfer CMAQ funds from the Incident Management Signage System project (UPC# 84332) to the Advanced Traffic Management System Phase III project (UPC# 79114). BACKGROUND: Attached is a request from the City of Norfolk to transfer Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program funds in the amount of $500,000 from the Incident Management Signage System project (UPC# 84332) to the Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) Phase III project (UPC# 79114). The transferred funds will be used for signal integration work related to the Norfolk Light Rail Transit project. Should the TTAC and HRTPO Board approve the reallocation of CMAQ funds, the FY 2009-2012 TIP will be amended to account for the transfer. In anticipation of TTAC approval of the City’s request, the proposed TIP Amendment has been made available for public review and comment. The public review and comment period began on August 25, 2010 and runs through September 8, 2010. Attachment 4 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the CMAQ reallocation and associated TIP Amendment.

Cityof

Department of Public Works

August 20 2010

Dwight L Farmer

Executive Director

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization723 Woodlake Drive

Chesapeake VA 23320

Re Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement ProgramProject Funding Transfer Request

Dear Mr Farmer

The City of Norfolk hereby requests a TIP amendment to transfer CMAQ funds in the

amount of 500000 from the Incident Management Signage System project UPC84332 to the existing CMAQ Advance Traffic Management System ATMS Phase III

project UPC 79114 To date there have been no expenditures under the Incident

Management Signage System project

This transfer of project funds will allow this project to work in conjunction with the signalintegration of the Norfolk Light Rail into the Citys ATMS system This will allow forcoordination between projects in an efficient manner under the larger encompassingATMS Phase III project

The project capabilities as well as funding mechanisms are already in place under theATMS Phase III project which will allow these transferred federal funds to be obligatedencumbered and spent in a more expeditious manner

Funds available for this transfer have been confirmed with VDOT

It is requested that the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee and theTransportation Planning Organization consider this action during their September 2010

meeting

Thank you for your assistance in this matter If you have any questions concerning thisrequest please contact me at 757 6647303

StterelyC3iizin Akan PhD

City Transportation Engineer

CC Kristin Lentz

John Keifer

Rob Brown

Jeff Raliski

Division ofTransportationRoom 200 City Hall Building Norfolk Virginia 23510

757 6647300Fax 757 6647311Attachment 4


AGENDA ITEM #5: TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2010: SUMMARY REPORT

SUBJECT: The Transportation Technical Subcommittee (TTS) meeting of July 26, 2010, including recommended actions by the TTS. BACKGROUND: During the TTAC meeting of July 7, 2010, the Committee requested the Transportation Technical Subcommittee (TTS) be convened to discuss and provide recommendations on the following topics: 1. Allocation of FY 2010 CMAQ Reserve Funds – The TTS recommended the total remaining FY 2010 CMAQ Reserve of $1,925,000 be allocated to the Norfolk Automated Traffic Management System (ATMS) Phase III project (UPC# 79114) to cover traffic signalization expenses related to the Norfolk Light-Rail Transit (LRT) project. This action reduces the balance of the LRT project.

Should the TTAC and HRTPO Board approve the allocation of CMAQ funds, the FY 2009-2012 TIP will be amended to account for the transfer. In anticipation of TTAC approval of the TTS recommendation, the proposed TIP Amendment has been made available for public review and comment. The public review and comment period began on August 25, 2010 and runs through September 8, 2010. 2. Funding options for the US Route 58 Lane Reversal for Hurricane Evacuation – The TTS recommended this project be added to the RSTP project list. In addition, the TTS recommended that after the $3.5 million of FY 2010 RSTP Reserve has been used to fulfill contingencies on regional ARRA projects and the balance of the FY 2010 reserve is known, FY 2010 RSTP funds be allocated to the Route 58 Lane Reversal project to fully fund the Preliminary Engineering (PE) phase, up to $1 million. 3. Strategy for Addressing Unobligated Funds Identified in the VDOT Review of Unobligated CMAQ and RSTP Balances – The TTS recommended the following strategy to complete a reconciliation of allocations, obligations, and expenditures associated with CMAQ and RSTP projects and to determine the actual amounts of CMAQ and RSTP funds that are available for reallocation: a. VDOT and locality staffs should review the tables from the VDOT review in preparation for Step b below. b. HRTPO and VDOT staffs will coordinate with each locality on a project by project basis to address any outstanding issues, such as expenditures that exceed obligations, obligations that exceed allocations, and missing information related to matching funds. This coordination will also determine whether there is a risk of triggering payback requirements on a project by project basis. c. Extra care will be required in transferring CMAQ or RSTP funds from one project to another until the reconciliation has been completed.


d. No CMAQ or RSTP transfers should be made to new projects based on the VDOT review until the reconciliation has been completed. Exceptions will be considered on a case by case basis. e. Projects that can fully obligate RSTP funds within the new RSTP timeframes should be considered for RSTP fund transfers. In a new business item during the TTS meeting, Ms. Ravanbakht noted that a request from Isle of Wight County to allocate RSTP funds to a revenue-sharing project at the intersection of Route 258/32 (Brewers Neck Road) and Route 10/32 (Benns Church Boulevard) was brought up as a new business item during the July HRTPO Board meeting. The request, which was approved by the Board, was to allocate funds to this project when the actual amount of available RSTP funds to be reallocated has been determined. Attached are the minutes of the July 26, 2010 TTS meeting. Mr. Mike Kimbrel, Principal Transportation Engineer, will brief the TTAC on this item. Attachment 5 RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Approve the CMAQ allocation and associated TIP Amendment. 2. Approve the other recommendations of the Transportation Technical Subcommittee.

Summary TTS Minutes – July 26, 2010 - Page 1

Summary Minutes of the Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Subcommittee (TTS) Meeting

July 26, 2010 The Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Subcommittee (TTS) Meeting was called to order at 9:35 a.m. in the Regional Boardroom, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia, with the following in attendance:

TTS Voting Members: Earl Sorey (CH) Anne Ducey-Ortiz (GL) John Yorks (HA) Jayne Whitney (HRT) Jane Hill (IW) Michael King (NN) Guzin Akan (NO) Joseph Carter (PQ)

Richard Hartman (PR) Robert Lewis (SU) Phil Pullen (VB) Reed Nester (WM) Tim Cross (YK) Eric Stringfield (VDOT) Kevin Abt (VPA) Richard Drumwright (WATA) TTS Voting Members Absent: Tammy Rosario (JC) Joseph Swartz (DRPT) HRTPO Staff Mike Kimbrel Robert Case

Camelia Ravanbakht Sam Belfield Others Recorded Attending: John Keifer (NO), Sherry Earley (SU), Stephen Rowan (VDOT), Sara Morris (WTKR), Robby Ferguson (WTKR)

Public Comment Period There was no public comment. Approval of Agenda Chairman Drumwright asked for additions or deletions to the TTS Agenda. There being none, the agenda was approved.

Attachment 5


Allocation of FY 2010 CMAQ Reserve Funds Chairman Drumwright opened discussion on the item, noting that there was $1,925,000 in FY 2010 CMAQ Reserve funds currently available. Mr. Sorey asked whether the Route 58 lane reversal project to be discussed under agenda item 2 would quality for CMAQ funding. After some discussion, Mr. Lewis, Co-Chair of the Hampton Roads Transportation Operations (HRTO) subcommittee stated that HRTO believed the lane-reversal project would better fit as an RSTP project than a CMAQ project. Ms. Akan then proposed that the FY 2010 CMAQ Reserve funds be allocated to cover some of the shortfall associated with the Norfolk Light-Rail Transit (LRT) project. Ms. Akan pointed out that the LRT project has a current shortfall of approximately $30 million and that the project is the starter line for the regional light rail initiative that is soon to be expanded to Virginia Beach. She further noted that part of the shortfall is to cover some signalization work associated with the LRT project, and that work could be covered in the current Norfolk ATMS CMAQ project, eliminating the need to create a new project. Ms. Akan then moved that the remaining $1.925 million in FY 2010 CMAQ Reserve funds be transferred to the Norfolk ATMS project to cover work related to the LRT project. Mr. Pullen seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. US Route 58 Lane Reversal for Hurricane Evacuation Mr. Lewis began the discussion regarding the importance of this project for the region. Mr. Rowan cautioned about getting the project underway too fast as it may take 2 years for Right of Way acquisition. He recommended keeping the schedule in mind when considering funding for the project. Mr. King wanted to know VDOT’s position on the project. Mr. Lewis said that VDOT initiated the project based on the analysis of new flood maps. Mr. Kimbrel noted that what is being considered is to add this project to the RSTP project list outside of the usual RSTP Project Selection Process and that although this has been done before, care should be taken to maintain the integrity of the Project Selection Process in most cases. Mr. Lewis stated that this project is a rare exception to adding a new RSTP project outside of the normal evaluation process since the opportunity just arose and it is truly a regional project. Mr. Sorey agreed that this project does benefit the entire region and expressed support. Mr. Lewis stated that the estimated price for the project according to VDOT is $7 million, broken down as follows: $5 million for Construction, $1 million for Preliminary Engineering (PE)/Construction Inspection, $1 million Contingency). Mr. Pullen expressed concern about allocating RSTP projects under old rules, which now may jeopardize existing RSTP projects. Mr. Sorey moved that after the $3.5 million of FY 2010 RSTP Reserve has been used to fulfill contingencies on regional ARRA projects and the balance of the FY 2010 reserve is

Attachment 5


known, that RSTP funds by allocated to the Route 58 Lane Reversal project to fully fund the PE phase, up to $1 million. Ms. Whitney seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Strategy for Addressing Unobligated Funds Identified in the VDOT Review of Unobligated CMAQ and RSTP Balances Ms. Ravanbakht opened the discussion, noting that the TTAC, during its April 2010 meeting, requested that VDOT perform a review of the CMAQ and RSTP projects in Hampton Roads to determine the status of unobligated CMAQ and RSTP funds. Ms. Whitney asked whether there was a deadline for expenditure of these funds. Ms. Ravanbakht noted that you could not tell what portion of the funds identified as being available for transfer in the VDOT review is CMAQ and what portion is RSTP. Mr. Stringfield stated that he will check on these two items (portion of CMAQ vs RSTP and deadline for expenditure) and report back to the group in the near future. Ms. Akan emphasized the need to know the balances as soon as possible so projects could move forward. Ms. Ravanbakht stated that the goal is to provide an update to TTAC in September. Noting the caveats included in the letters transmitting the results of the VDOT review, Mr. Kimbrel stated that HRTPO and VDOT staff agreed that the VDOT review did not provide a final answer for how much CMAQ and RSTP funds were available for reallocation, but rather provided a good first step in the reconciliation of allocation, obligation, and expenditure information associated with each CMAQ and RSTP project. Mr. Kimbrel stated that the HRTPO staff recommends that staff from VDOT and the localities carefully review the tables that were distributed with the agenda in preparation for coordination meetings to be held in August 2010. The goal of those meetings will be to determine exactly what needs to be done to reconcile the funding information for each project so that the actual amount of funds that are available to be reallocated can be determined. Ms. Ravanbakht noted a new business item – a request from Isle of Wight County to allocate RSTP funds to a revenue-sharing project at the intersection of Route 258/32 (Brewers Neck Road) and Route 10/32 (Benns Church Boulevard). The request, which was approved by the HRTPO Board during its meeting on July 21, 2010, was to allocate funds to this project when the actual amount of RSTP funds available to be reallocated has been determined. Mr. Sorey moved to approve the strategy recommended by HRTPO staff in the agenda note, with the following modifications:

• Step 4 – Add the sentence, “Exceptions will be considered on a case by case basis.” • Add a new Step 5 as follows – “Projects that can fully obligate RSTP funds within the new RSTP timeframes should be considered for RSTP fund transfers.” Mr. Lewis seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.

Attachment 5


Old/New Business Ms. Ravanbakht noted that during the July 2010 TTAC meeting, the committee recommended requesting that the new RSTP timeframes included in the Virginia Budget be rescinded. She further noted that, due to some technical questions, the Board did not approve the recommendation, but asked that the matter be taken up by the soon-to-be established Virginia Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (VAMPO). Mr. Lewis noted the recently approved strategy to replace ARRA funds covering contingencies on regional ARRA projects with FY 2010 RSTP Reserve funds and asked who would be handling the transfer of the freed-up ARRA funds to other ARRA projects. He stated that Suffolk’s concern was that it had received a bid for one of the City’s ARRA projects that was higher than the original estimate/request and that before cutting back on the scope of the project and resubmitting it for bid, the City would like to see if it can get additional ARRA funds to cover the project as currently scoped. Mr. Stringfield stated that the VDOT Programming Division was handling that process and VDOT would work with each locality on the locality administered projects. Ms. Ravanbakht recommended that the City work very closely with VDOT to determine how much in ARRA funds have been freed-up and are available to be transferred to other ARRA projects. Adjournment With no further business to come before the Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Subcommittee, the meeting adjourned at 11:110 a.m.

Attachment 5


AGENDA ITEM #6: CMAQ/RSTP RECONCILIATION WORK: STATUS REPORT SUBJECT: Reconciliation of allocations, obligations, and expenditures associated with CMAQ and RSTP projects to determine the amounts of CMAQ and RSTP funds that are available for reallocation. BACKGROUND: An initial assessment by HRTPO staff of the VDOT review of unobligated Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program and Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds has found that, contrary to how the information has been portrayed, the VDOT review provides a good first step in the reconciliation of unobligated funds as opposed to information that can immediately be used to transfer CMAQ and RSTP funds. A complete reconciliation of the allocations, obligations, and expenditures associated with CMAQ and RSTP projects will be required in order to determine the funds that are actually available to be reallocated. As mentioned in bullet #3 of Agenda Item 5, the Transportation Technical Subcommittee (TTS) recommended a strategy for addressing available CMAQ and RSTP funds which included coordination of HRTPO and VDOT staffs with each locality on a project by project basis to address any outstanding issues identified in the VDOT review of unobligated CMAQ and RSTP balances, such as expenditures that exceed obligations, obligations that exceed allocations, and missing information related to matching funds. The HRTPO staff analysis found that of the 162 projects included in the VDOT review, 69 projects showed allocations that did not match the allocations shown in the HRTPO CMAQ and RSTP Tracking Tables. VDOT and HRTPO staffs agree that the coordination meetings to be held with each locality and transit agency will be more productive if VDOT and HRTPO staffs reconcile the differences in the allocation information beforehand, which is currently underway. VDOT Programming Division staff has stated it will most likely be October before VDOT is ready to begin holding the coordination meetings with localities. Mr. Mike Kimbrel, Principal Transportation Engineer, will brief the TTAC on this item. RECOMMENDED ACTION: For discussion and informational purposes.


AGENDA ITEM #7: CONTINGENCY FUNDING ON REGIONAL ARRA PROJECTS: STATUS REPORT

SUBJECT: As the deadline for obligation of ARRA funds is quickly approaching, VDOT has been asked to provide a status report on the disposition of ARRA funds freed up by using FY 2010 RSTP Reserve funds to cover contingencies on regional ARRA projects. BACKGROUND: During the July 2010 TTAC meeting, a new agenda item was added to discuss the risk of using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds to cover contingencies associated with regional ARRA projects. The TTAC recommended, and the HRTPO Board approved, a strategy to use FY 2010 Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds to cover contingencies associated with regional ARRA projects and to use the freed up ARRA funds on projects that would allow the funds to be fully obligated. The Board also approved a resolution (attached) that endorsed a three-step strategy for re-obligation of residual ARRA funds. Mr. Steve Rowan, VDOT Hampton Roads District, will brief the TTAC on this item. Attachment 7 RECOMMENDED ACTION: For discussion and informational purposes.

Attachment 7


AGENDA ITEM #8: INDIAN RIVER ROAD/KEMPSVILLE ROAD INTERSECTION: NON-TRADITIONAL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS

SUBJECT: The Indian River Road/Kempsville Road Intersection is the most congested intersection in the City of Virginia Beach. The City has developed a unique approach to solving the congestion problem. BACKGROUND: The Indian River Road/Kempsville Road Intersection is the most congested intersection in the City of Virginia Beach and presents significant challenge with regard to improving traffic conditions at the intersection. The City considered a wide variety of alternatives for improving the intersection and ultimately selected a non-traditional approach. The City received a FY 2009 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program allocation of $1.5 million for improvements at the Indian River Road/Kempsville Road intersection (UPC# 84366). Mr. Robert Gey, P.E., City Traffic Engineer, and Mr. Richard Lowman, P.E., Traffic Engineer, will brief the TTAC on this item. RECOMMENDED ACTION: For discussion and informational purposes.


AGENDA ITEM #9: DEVELOPING REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES SUBJECT: The prioritization of transportation projects has been designated a priority by the HRTPO Board in an effort to build consensus and pursue the scarce resources available for the extensive transportation needs in the region. BACKGROUND: At its July 21, 2010 meeting, the HRTPO Board approved the transportation project prioritization report, which was the culmination of a year-long effort to create a tool for prioritizing projects. During the discussion which followed, the Board expressed the desire to have the prioritization of projects on the agenda for its September 2010 meeting, in preparation for the 2011 Virginia General Assembly session. HRTPO staff has worked with locality and VDOT staffs to collect the data needed to apply the prioritization tool in an efficient manner under this accelerated schedule. The prioritization tool provides a way to glean the effectiveness of proposed transportation projects at a high level. Creating the final priorities will be the prerogative of the HRTPO Board, with the output from the tool being a resource to assist in making these decisions. It is expected that draft prioritization results will be provided to TTAC following an LRTP Subcommittee meeting on August 27; an e-mail will be sent to notify TTAC members of the availability of the materials on the HRTPO website. Mr. Andy Pickard, Principal Transportation Engineer, will review the results of the tool. RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the TTAC can assist the HRTPO Board by: 1) endorsing the prioritization effort, and 2) providing advisement to the Board on priorities


AGENDA ITEM #10: FOR YOUR INFORMATION A. TRANSPORTATION AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS APPROVED Attached are letters from the U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approving the air quality conformity analysis for an amended 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan and the FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program. The 2030 LRTP was amended and subsequently analyzed per Federal air quality conformity requirements in response to HRTPO Board action in December 2009 to amend the Plan. Attachment 10A

B. HIGH-SPEED AND INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL: STATUS REPORT The HRTPO consultant, TEMS (Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc.), has completed its work under the initial contract, which has been referred to as Phase 1. The work under Phase 1 resulted in the Hampton Roads High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail

Preliminary Vision Plan final report, and was presented to the HRTPO Board during its meeting on July 21, 2010. The TEMS presentation can be found on the HRTPO website at http://www.hrtpo.org/MTG_AGNDS/HRTPO/2010/July2010/P8_TPO_TEMS.pdf. During the meeting, several questions and concerns were expressed by the Board. TEMS was asked to meet with the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) to address the Board’s questions and concerns. The TAC meeting will be held on September 1, 2010 beginning at noon. C. TTAC REQUEST TO RESCIND NEW RSTP TIMEFRAMES NOT APPROVED BY BOARD During its July 7, 2010 meeting, the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) expressed strong concern regarding the ability to carry out RSTP-funded projects within the timeframes prescribed in Item 436 of the Virginia Budget for the 2010-2012 biennium and recommended the HRTPO Board request that the new timeframes be rescinded. A draft letter from Mr. Dwight Farmer, Executive Director/Secretary, to Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton, requesting the rescission of the new timeframes was included with the HRTPO Board agenda packet for the July 21, 2010 meeting. During discussion on the item at the Board meeting, members questioned how the Secretary could rescind the timeframes since they were included in state law. The Board decided not to approve the draft letter, but rather referred the issue to the soon-to-be established Virginia Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (VAMPO).

D. VDOT DRAFT STATE BICYCLE POLICY PLAN The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has developed the State Bicycle Policy Plan to ensure bicyclists are an integral component of Virginia’s multimodal transportation system and to provide bicycle policy recommendations that will guide the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of bicycle accommodations. The draft plan provides strategies and identifies opportunities for enhancing the implementation of the Commonwealth Transportation Board’s 2004 Policy for Integrating Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations, as well as VDOT’s coordination within the agency and with stakeholders across the Commonwealth.


The VDOT State Bicycle Policy Plan, including a summary of recommendations, is available for public review and comment beginning Monday, August 16, and concluding Friday, September 17, 2010. Comments can be submitted via e-mail to [email protected] until Friday, Sept. 17, 2010. Attached is a summary table of the draft recommendations. A link to the full VDOT Draft State Bicycle Policy Plan can be found at: http://www.virginiadot.org/programs/bicycling_and_walking/bicycle_policy_plan.asp Attachment 10D

E. HRTO SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES The minutes from the June 15, 2010 Hampton Roads Transportation Operations (HRTO) Subcommittee are included in the agenda for the August 3, 2010 HRTO meeting, which can be found on the HRTPO website at: http://www.hrtpo.org/MTG_AGNDS/TTAC_Info/2010/HRTO/August/Final_HRTO_081010 _Agenda_with_Attachments.pdf. F. HUD SUSTAINABILITY GRANTS PROGRAM: APPLICATION The April 2010 TTAC agenda included an item on the Sustainability Planning Grants Program announced by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HRTPO staff reported that staffs of both the HRTPO and HRPDC were working on a project proposal for application to this grant program that would result in a regional development framework. HRTPO and HRPDC staffs briefed the boards of the HRTPO and HRPDC on the grant proposal during the Commission and Board meetings held on July 21, 2010. The HRTPO/HRPDC proposal, which was submitted on August 23, 2010, is enclosed. Enclosure 10F G. PUBLIC COMMENTS Attachment 10G

U.S. Department of Transportation

In Reply Refer To: August 18, 2010

Joint Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration Transportation Conformity Finding for the Hampton Roads 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area

Mr. Gregory A. Whirley Acting Commissioner Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219-2000 Dear Mr. Whirley: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) are responsible for ensuring that transportation plans, programs and projects meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). With passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or proposed under 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act must demonstrate conformity in accordance with Section 176(c) of the CAA as amended. On June 30, 2010, FHWA transmitted a copy of the final report of the Transportation Conformity Analysis for the Amended FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) and FY 2030 Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP) prepared by the Hampton Roads Area Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) for the Hampton Roads 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for their formal review. The Transportation Conformity Analysis was prepared in accordance with the November 24, 1993, Final Rule of Criteria and Procedures for Determining Conformity promulgated by EPA and subsequent rulemakings related to ozone dated August 7 and November 14, 1995, August 15, 1997, July 1, 2004, and January 25, 2008. In addition, the Transportation Conformity Analysis is consistent with a variety of guidance issued by the EPA as well as guidance issued by FHWA and FTA developed to address many conformity-related topics. EPA has completed their formal review and by letter dated August 17, 2010, EPA informed FHWA and FTA that they concur that the Transportation Conformity Analysis demonstrates that the TIP and CLRP prepared for the Hampton Roads 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area satisfy the requirements of the transportation conformity rule. Namely, the analysis demonstrates that regional emissions in each milestone year will be below the budgets established for those years in the area’s approved Maintenance Plan.

Federal Transit Administration Region III 1760 Market Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 215-656-7100 215-656-7260 (fax)

Federal Highway AdministrationVA Division 400 North 8th Street, Room 750Richmond, VA 23240 804-775-3320 804-775-3356 (fax)

Attachment 10A

Based on the foregoing, FHWA and FTA find that the Transportation Conformity Analysis final report of the Amended FY 2009-2012 TIP and FY 2030 CLRP for the Hampton Roads 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area demonstrates conformity as prescribed by EPA’s Transportation Conformity Rule and subsequent amendments and guidance. This letter represents that transportation conformity finding. This conformity finding remains valid for a period of four years assuming that no regionally significant projects are amended to or removed from the TIP or CLRP and assuming that no metropolitan transportation planning deadlines come due before then. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Marisel Lopez-Cruz of FHWA at (804) 775-3338 or Donghee Cho of FTA at (215) 656-7001. Sincerely, _______________________ _________________________ Letitia A. Thompson Irene Rico FTA Regional Administrator FHWA Division Administrator CC: Mr. Jim Ponticello and Chris Voigt, VDOT (via e-mail) Mr. Dwight Farmer (via e-mail) Martin Kotsch, EPA (via e-mail)

Attachment 10A

Attachment 10A

Attachment 10D

1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HRTPO Public Comment ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ RE: Public Comment Regarding the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor (Public Comment Follows HRTPO Staff Response) HRTPO Staff Response Mr. Malendoski, Per your request, a copy of the remarks you delivered during the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor public hearing held in Richmond on July 20, 2010 (below) will be distributed to the HRTPO Board within the agenda packet for the Board’s September 2010 meeting. In addition, your comments will be distributed to the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee in its September agenda packet. Thank you for taking the time to share your comments. Name: Christopher Malendoski Date: July 21, 2010 Subject: Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor Public Comment Input (Via E-mail) Good evening, my name is Christopher Malendoski. I am a commercial real estate broker and a musician and I reside in Norfolk, Virginia. I come here speaking as a private citizen….but I can assure you that my views and sentiments are representative of a large portion of the 1.7 million people who call Hampton roads home. And we’re not just your old run-of-the-mill 1.7 Million, either. But a good number of the United State’s fighter pilots, more than half of the world’s US Navy SEALS, scads of helicopter pilots, fully 115,000 Active Duty Military, from all branches of the service, and one of the highest concentration of engineers, physicists, and scientists in the country, not to mention top NATO brass and US Joint Forces Command. Now, you might surmise, “Wow, what with all that testosterone down there, simmering and ready to boil over, we’d better stay on their good side.” Exactly. But it’s not just a matter of staying on the “good side” of those who are called to defend the free world and fight its conflicts.

Attachment 10G

2

It is rewarding them with a good, safe, and accessible place to call home. You wanna wave the flag and say you support the troops? Then support immediate funding and design of better transportation to and from Hampton Roads, which by the way is the second largest MSA in this two state area, the third largest in the SEHSR corridor, and, the most densely populated directly on the Atlantic, between greater NYC and South Florida. I am not here to argue about whose negligence it was or is, that we were taken off the High Speed Rail map for a time, …or that we have been treated like an afterthought in this process, …or that the number of local hearings over the years for our 1.7 Million vital-to-the-nation population, has been essentially ZERO. Frankly, that is all for me, water under the railroad trestle. What I am here to tell you is that we are here to stay and WILL be included in this discussion from here on out. I can not wait for the day to see high speed rail trains roaring into downtown Richmond and downtown Raleigh, and I can tell you that—eventually—some of those trains will be roaring from downtown Norfolk. In closing, I would add these words: It is never, ever appropriate for any federal or state official, to threaten to or actually withhold funding of such a major population center, just because they think the MPO can’t seem to get its act together. Each project should be funded and advanced in the rank of its merit of potential ridership, and overall contribution to life safety and national defense. Our area scores high on all counts. And, to clear some misinformation: Our MPO has a very difficult job of bringing together a consortium of so many different city governments, to speak as one voice, and they are to be commended. And they have spoken as one voice on this and the resolution they passed is crystal clear: Bring true HIGH SPEED RAIL to the densely-populated Virginia coast! Thank you. Attachment 10G

1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HRTPO Public Comment ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ RE: Public Comment Regarding the Hampton Roads Congestion Management

Process: 2010 Update Draft Report (Public Comment Follows HRTPO Staff Response) HRTPO Staff Response Mr. Deitrich, Thank you for taking the time to flip through the Hampton Roads Congestion Management Process document and providing us with your comments. As you probably know, funding for new roadway construction has been scarce in recent years and is expected to become even more so in the future. Widening I-64 between Route 199 south of Williamsburg and Jefferson Avenue and constructing a limited-access freeway parallel to Route 460 are both included in the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan for engineering work, albeit not for construction. Route 460, however, is a priority for VDOT and they are currently soliciting proposals from the private sector and offering incentives to construct the roadway. If you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to submit them to us.

Name: Charles Dietrich Date: August 3, 2010 Subject: HR Congestion Management 2010 Update Public Comment Input (Via E-mail) Only just today found the subject document, have not had much time to read through it. Wanted to comment on CMP CONGESTED CORRIDOR - ARTERIAL #7 Jefferson Avenue, AND I-64 in that vicinity, and beyond. Came to this area mid-94, active duty then, assigned to Langley AFB, lived in James City County, drive hwy 60 to Ft Eustis Blvd, to I-64, to the Hampton Roads Center pkwy and back every day since. Endured the improvements to I-64 which began not so long after I arrived. 1. It was crazy to NOT continue the I-64 widening to at LEAST Ft Eustis Blvd. And yes, it needs to be widened on to Williamsburg, that stretch straightened and leveled. 2. Widening/improving hwy 460 is a better alternative to widening I-64 from I-295 to Williamsburg. The tunnels already can’t handle the existing traffic, bringing more down a wider I-64 will only compound the problem. If traffic routes to a widened hwy 460, YOU DON’T NEED ANOTHER TUNNEL!

Attachment 10G

2

3. I told VDOT someone would get killed at I-64 west exit 255, and they have. If you’ll look at where people live, there are a city full on the James River side of the rail line, there aren’t so many ways for them to cross over the rail line between J Clyde and Ft Eustis Blvd (3: Bland, Denbigh and Oyster Point). Someone needs to get the clue. Five miles worth of urbanites between exits 250 and 255, they all have to cross the tracks to go anywhere. This needs to be a factor on your Arterial #7, Probable Causes of Congestion. It is certainly the reason for the “weave” from the west 255 exit to Bland Ave. 4. Overall, I suggest a significant contributor to traffic problems on the peninsula are the lack of through roads; a. Warwick on one side of the tracks, capacity deficient and high in signals per mile b. Jefferson in the middle, capacity deficient and high in signals per mile c. Hwy 17 on the other side, capacity deficient and high in signals per mile d. I-64, where everyone goes to try to get moving, capacity deficient from mile 254 west 5. And lastly, if you have NOT tried to drive hwy 60 from Williamsburg to Newport News between 4 and 6 pm on a Friday during the summer, you are ignoring the problem noted in #1 above. Thanks for reading. Charles Deitrich JCC

Attachment 10G

1


Process: 2010 Update Draft Report (Public Comment Follows HRTPO Staff Response) HRTPO Staff Response Mr. Brown, Thank you for submitting your comment in regards to our Hampton Roads Congestion Management Process report. As part of our CMP, we have analyzed congestion at all of the regional tunnels, particularly the HRBT. Based on the data we have available, each lane of the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel can handle at most about 1,600 to 1,700 vehicles per lane per hour, which is about 25% lower than a normal lane of Interstate can handle. This reduced capacity is what results in the notorious backups. There are various causes for this reduction in capacity. Some of them are physical in nature, such as the fact that trucks naturally slow down on the steep upgrade coming out of the tunnel. Others factors are due to human nature. Many people feel uncomfortable driving through tunnels with the closeness of the walls and adjacent traffic, and the lack of sight distance between them and the roadway in front of them. This causes many drivers to either slow down or leave more room between them and the vehicle in front of them. This is especially true of those drivers such as tourists that are not familiar with driving through such a facility. In order to increase the capacity of each lane in the tunnels to the same levels as those on typical Interstate highways, these human factors would need to be mitigated in some way. One possibility is that new and upcoming vehicle technologies (the program is called Intellidrive) would allow vehicles to travel much closer to each other, with each vehicle communicating with one another to assure that speeds are maintained and crashes will not occur. If you have any additional questions or comments please feel free to ask.

Name: Roger Brown Date: August 3, 2010 Subject: HR Congestion Management 2010 Update Public Comment Input (Via E-mail) Everyone complains that the congestion at the HRBT is so terrible, but has anyone really analyzed WHY it is so congested? I have noticed that when I am sitting in traffic at the HRBT traffic slows on the approach to the tunnel. At first I assumed that there must be an

Attachment 10G

2

accident, disabled vehicle, or car pulled over by police in the vicinity. But after getting through the tunnel, everyone sped back up to normal speed. So I presume that the cause of the backup is people slamming on their brakes on approach. Another tube through the tunnel will not solve this problem. Has anyone come up with a solution to this?

Attachment 10G

1


Process: 2010 Update Draft Report (Public Comment Follows HRTPO Staff Response) HRTPO Staff Response Mr. McDaniel, Thank you for your comment regarding our Congestion Management Process report. I believe what you are referring to is a Facebook viewer poll that WAVY-10 did yesterday asking viewers what they thought the worst traffic bottlenecks were in the region. According to their poll responses, the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel apparently ranked 10th on their list, with I-264 in Virginia Beach being the highest ranked. In our Congestion Management Process report, the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel ranked #1 as the most congested freeway segment in our region as you expected.

Name: David McDaniel Date: August 4, 2010 Subject: HR Congestion Management 2010 Update Public Comment Input (Via E-mail) Are you kidding me?? HRBT ranked 10th?? How insulting that the absolute WORST traffic nightmare in Virginia is ranked 10th locally! I've said for years only an EXPANSION will solve the HRBT traffic problem. You need 4 lanes MINIMUM each way, but you'll continue to ignore common sense. You'll continue to propose worthless 3rd and 4th crossings and waste our tax money! You'll NEVER do the right thing - EXPAND the TUNNEL! Dave McDaniel Yorktown

Attachment 10G

1


Process: 2010 Update Draft Report (Public Comment Follows HRTPO Staff Response) HRTPO Staff Response Mr. Bohlken, Thank you for taking the time to send us your comments regarding the bottleneck on I-64 just west of Jefferson Avenue. As you may have noticed this area on I-64 ranked fourth highest on our regional list in the Congestion Management Process report, behind the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel, Downtown Tunnel, and I-264 in Virginia Beach (in the area where all the ramps from I-64 merge together and drops to 4 lanes in each direction). We've studied this location and agree that the bottleneck area where westbound I-64 drops from 4 to 2 lanes (and as you mentioned, where the Jefferson Avenue on ramp also merges) is obviously both a roadway capacity and a safety problem, and VDOT also recognizes that this area will be a major chokepoint during an evacuation. Plans have been in place through the years to continue widening I-64 up the Peninsula to Route 199 just southeast of Williamsburg but have been put off due to a lack of funding. Currently this project is in the 2030 Hampton Roads Long-Range Transportation Plan although no funding has been identified for construction. If you have any additional questions or comments please feel free to forward them to us.

Name: Gary Bohlken Date: August 4, 2010 Subject: HR Congestion Management 2010 Update Public Comment Input (Via E-mail) As a former police officer who now commutes from Williamsburg to Hampton every day I feel I must comment on the lack of concern for the choke point at Jefferson Ave and I-64 westbound. I have lived on the Peninsula since before the interstate was even built. I have driven this section of roadway since 1995 and am fully aware of the “improvements” attempted a number of years ago. Those improvements are what actually created the problem! I can see by your title that you are an engineer. The P.E. who signed off and approved the engineering drawings for this current condition should lose his license. Not just his job, but his license. If I knew the proper steps I would file the complaint myself. I can only hope that he has been eliminated from engineering any Virginia highways. More specifically, to design a road in such a way that 5 lanes merge into 2 lanes in ¼ mile distance is not only ludicrous but dangerous as well. To have 4 lanes of I-64 merge into 2 would be bad enough but to bring the Jefferson Avenue entrance into play only exacerbates

Attachment 10G

2

the problem. For years while driving this section of highway I have just shaken my head at the lack of common sense at this location. Since no one sees fit to permanently fix this situation I suggest that the HOV lane merge into the 3rd lane before you ever get to Jefferson Avenue. This should be done by “jersey” walls which people could not drive around. The 3rd travel lane should than be merged into a two lane configuration prior to the Jefferson Avenue traffic merging into the flow. Again, this should be done by the slow migration of “jersey” walls. If this were done over a 2 – 3 mile expanse the flow would improve. I have heard the excuse that it is tourists not familiar with the roadways. I don’t buy that. If they see a concrete wall they are going to merge no matter where they are coming from. It is more likely the same local drivers who every day try to push the limit and merge at the last possible moment. If you say you haven’t seen it than I say you haven’t driven through that stretch of roadway. As long as that roadway is allowed to stay open that is exactly what people will do. I have even seen tractor trailer drivers force cars to either swerve to avoid a collision or see cars stop completely by the intimidation of these trucks. I myself have been involved I countless near misses. For 6 weeks last summer I was required by my job to drive from Williamsburg to the Virginia Beach Town Center area. Yes, it is a long drive but bar none, the worst traffic situation I saw in that entire trip was the merge at Jefferson Avenue and I-64 westbound coming home from work every day and especially Fridays. How long is the HRT Planning Organization willing to ignore this traffic hazard? Does the organization truly believe that in the event of an evacuation order that the biggest problem is not going to be this 1 mile stretch of highway? I have always voted against any issue to raise taxes to improve roads throughout the Hampton Roads area because most of the listed projects are in the Norfolk/Virginia Beach area. I will continue to do so. James City County/Williamsburg is recognized as being one of the fastest growing communities in the state and to ignore the increased traffic flow through the Peninsula is almost arrogant. Whether the organization sees fit to fix this or pass it on to those who are, is entirely at the discretion of the organization but I say to ignore this issue is to invalidate the whole purpose of this organization. Sincerely, Gary L. Bohlken

Attachment 10G

1


Process: 2010 Update Draft Report (Public Comment Follows HRTPO Staff Response) HRTPO Staff Response Mr. Pycior, Thank you for providing us with your comment regarding Shore Drive. Although Shore Drive is clearly a congested corridor, it did not make our list of Top Ten congested roadways throughout the region that we analyzed in detail. We will continue to monitor regional congested roadways in our future updates to the Congestion Management Process, including the Shore Drive corridor.

Name: John Pycior Date: August 4, 2010 Subject: HR Congestion Management 2010 Update Public Comment Input (Via E-mail) The worst traffic spot in Hampton Roads, in my opinion, is Shore Drive due to the recent reduction in the speed limit. It was bad enough before due to the pedestrians who consistently break the law by jaywalking and ignoring the walk/don't walk signals.

Attachment 10G

1


Process: 2010 Update Draft Report (Public Comment Follows HRTPO Staff Response) HRTPO Staff Response Karin, Thank you for taking the time to provide us with your comments regarding traffic signal synchronization. The City of Virginia Beach is currently in the process of retiming and synchronizing traffic signals in various corridors as part of their Traffic Management System and Center that they have been constructing over the last few years. I've included a copy of their most recent newsletter that mentions a little about the system and the intersections that have recently had their signals retimed. If you want to contact Virginia Beach officials regarding any specific intersections you think should be retimed or better synchronized, you can send them a comment through their Roads and Traffic website. The name of their website is a little long, but it's http://www.vbgov.com/vgn.aspx?vgnextchannel=db9ffd67f3ad9010VgnVCM100000870b640aRCRD&vgnextparchannel=6e5ffd67f3ad9010VgnVCM100000870b640aRCRD. If you have any additional comments regarding transportation in Hampton Roads, please feel free to submit them to us.

Name: Karin Date: August 4, 2010 Subject: HR Congestion Management 2010 Update Public Comment Input (Via E-mail) Can someone explain to me why the traffic lights in the Hampton Roads region are not synchronized? Don't waste our money on surveys and studies. Synchronizing makes sense. For instance, look at Independence Blvd in VA Beach. Cars get stuck in the intersections because either the traffic light they are at changes too quickly, or the traffic light ahead is red or changes late. The same thing goes for Indian River Road in Virginia Beach. If you want to do a study, look at what traffic lights have a lot of traffic at them and which ones do not. If there are many cars, the either it doesn't change quick enough or the one before it changes too often. Here is an example. Independence and Jeanne Street. The traffic light there changes 2-3 times more often than the one at Virginia Beach Blvd. I know this same issue occurs on some of the major streets in Hampton and Newport News as well. Thank you.

Attachment 10G

1


Process: 2010 Update Draft Report (Public Comment Follows HRTPO Staff Response) HRTPO Staff Response Mr. Throupe, Thank you for taking the time to provide us with your comments regarding travel speeds in Hampton Roads. You may or may not know this but there are laws in place in Virginia regarding minimum speeds and speed limits, although it's vague in that it only mentions that "No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic." Regarding your comment about trucks, all trucks are currently restricted from the left-most lane of interstates with three or more lanes in each direction when the speed limit is 65 mph or higher. Trucks may also not travel in the left lane of interstates with two lanes in each direction when their speed is below the posted speed limit. If you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to submit them to us.

Name: Ken Throupe Date: August 4, 2010 Subject: HR Congestion Management 2010 Update Public Comment Input (Via E-mail) I've read the report and commend your efforts. Traffic flow in Hamptom Roads is a problem. In my travels I have observed the main cause of congestion to be drivers unwillingness to use the excellerator and yield to faster moving traffic. Rt 64 is a good example. The speed limit ranges from 60-65MPH. Cars and trucks travel 45-75MPH in all lanes. Congestion results because numerous pockets of traffic are stuck behind the slowest moving vehicles. I suggest implementing a few new traffic rules that a time study may prove keep traffic flowing. First, ban all trucks and haulers from the left lanes. Second, change "Speed Limit" to "Required Speed" and enforce it allowing a 5MPH leeway to those exceeding it.This plan also works for secondary roads with one additional rule. Require the use of hazard lights and pull over/yeild when not able to maintain the required speed.

Attachment 10G

1


Process: 2010 Update Draft Report (Public Comment Follows HRTPO Staff Response) HRTPO Staff Response Mr. Pons, Thank you for taking the time to send us your comments regarding I-64. Plans have been in place through the years to continue widening I-64 up the Peninsula to the Route 199 interchange just southeast of Williamsburg but have been delayed due to a lack of funding. This project is currently in the 2030 Hampton Roads Long-Range Transportation Plan but at this point no funding has been identified for construction.

Name: Philip E. Pons Date: August 4, 2010 Subject: HR Congestion Management 2010 Update Public Comment Input (Via E-mail) Please do something about I64 East & West bound particularly between Jefferson Ave and Williamsburg. Also, do something about the speeding trucks on that same stretch!

Attachment 10G

1


Process: 2010 Update Draft Report (Public Comment Follows HRTPO Staff Response) HRTPO Staff Response Mr. Brown, Just to give you a little information on the differences between the HRBT and the MMMBT, the HRBT currently handles about 92,000 vehicles each weekday while the MMMBT is much lower, around 60,000 vehicles each weekday. The differences between the two facilities during the afternoon rush hour is much smaller, with the MMMBT only handling about 12% fewer vehicles during rush hour. Volumes at the MMMBT are also growing much faster (about 5% per year historically) than they are at the HRBT (about 1% per year). It's possible that the MMMBT will one day carry more vehicles during rush hour than the HRBT since the facility has slightly wider lanes, higher vertical clearances, the tunnel itself is shorter, etc.

Name: Roger Brown Date: August 3, 2010 Subject: HR Congestion Management 2010 Update Public Comment Input (Via E-mail) Thank you very much for your response! When I first moved to this area in 1993, the (admittedly lighter) traffic flowed through the MMBT at highway speed. Is the MMBT tunnel wider than the HRBT? Or is the greater number of cars at the HRBT to blame? I do understand that the trucks will naturally slow coming out of the tunnel, but not to the 20 mph speeds that are common there. As well, that should only be the right lane anyway. And I think part of the main problem with traffic in this area is the tendency for cars to follow one another too closely. If there were more space between cars, one frightened motorist applying the brakes on approach to the tunnel would have little effect. But with current conditions, when one person slams on the brakes it creates a chain reaction that seems to last the whole rush hour. Part of the cause of the tendency to follow too close is that many people don't want to let other cars merge, when the very act of not letting cars merge is what causes many backups in the first place! Keep up the great work! You are in a tough spot with transportation in this region. Take care, Roger Brown

Attachment 10G

1


Process: 2010 Update Draft Report (Public Comment Follows HRTPO Staff Response) HRTPO Staff Response Mr. Jenkins, Thanks for the comment and the update. Changes have been made to the CMP report per your recommendation.

Name: Tom Jenkins Date: August 4, 2010 Subject: HR Congestion Management 2010 Update Public Comment Input (Via E-mail) I was reviewing the draft Hampton Roads Congestion Management Process when I noticed the description of The Former Jordan Bridge on Page 7. The second paragraph reads: "Plans are in place for a private developer to build a replacement bridge at this site, although financing issues have delayed the project." You may not be aware, but we have been working on the demolition of the Jordan Bridge since April 12 and we have recently completed our geotechnical investigations for the new bridge. We plan on beginning to drive test piles for the new bridge in about a month and the bridge will be open to traffic by the end of 2011. Our efforts are highlighted on the City of Chesapeake's website at: http://www.chesapeake.va.us/services/depart/pub-wrks/bridges-jordan-faqs.shtml Based upon the above, we suggest that the sentence be changed to more accurately reflect the project status and our current work on-site: "Plans are in place for a private developer to build a replacement bridge at this site and the bridge is scheduled to be complete by the end of 2011." We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft document and provide our comments to the TPO. Thanks, Tom

Attachment 10G

1


Process: 2010 Update Draft Report (Public Comment Follows HRTPO Staff Response) HRTPO Staff Response Mr. Eley, Thank you for providing us with your comments regarding I-64 widening and speed limits. Plans have been in place through the years to widen I-64 on the Peninsula from where it currently narrows near Jefferson Avenue to the Route 199 interchange just southeast of Williamsburg. These plans, however, have been delayed due to a lack of funding. This project is currently in the 2030 Hampton Roads Long-Range Transportation Plan but at this point no funding has been identified for construction. Regarding your comment about speed limits, VDOT has a process in place for determining speed limits for each individual roadway. If you would like more information, VDOT maintains a website that discusses this process at http://www.virginiadot.org/info/faq-speedlimits.asp. If you have any additional questions or comments about transportation in Hampton Roads, please feel free to submit them to us.

Name: Chris Eley Date: August 5, 2010 Subject: HR Congestion Management 2010 Update Public Comment Input (Via E-mail) If I-64 west bound beyond exit 255 could be expanded to 3 lanes to I-295 that would help alleviate traffic. Speed limits also have a significant impact on traffic flow particularly along I-64, 264, 664. Each morning I travel I-64 East bound from Lee Hall to the Shipyard's downtown exit at 35th street. I encounter a significant amount of traffic as well as two speed changes going from 65mph to 60mph to 55mph. When drivers travel at 70mph or greater there is less congestion. It is unfortunate that in 2010 we are relegated to a speed limit of 55mph on a significant amount of our VA interstates. A speed limit set by the Nixon administration. Tunnel traffic is congested because drivers do not maintain the speed limit when entering and while driving through the tunnel. I find that you can sit in a 5 mile backup and come out the HRBT and there was no accident just drivers driving under the speed limit.

Attachment 10G

1


Process: 2010 Update Draft Report (Public Comment Follows HRTPO Staff Response) HRTPO Staff Response Mr. Quail, Thank you for taking the time to read the Congestion Management Process report and providing your comments to us. All of the comments we receive (including yours) are provided to both our Transportation Technical Advisory Committee, which is primarily comprised of transportation planners and engineers from all of the Hampton Roads cities and counties as well as VDOT, and the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization, which is primarily comprised of regional mayors, city council persons, and state legislators. If you have any questions or concerns in the future about transportation in Hampton Roads, please feel free to submit them to us.

Name: Jim Quail Date: August 5, 2010 Subject: HR Congestion Management 2010 Update Public Comment Input (Via E-mail) I just scanned over the report on line and must say what a thorough and concise report. I have lived in the tidewater area my entire life and have seen most of the road facilities built starting with the Coleman Bridge in 1952. We have a problem which goes back to the legislature. If the rural areas of this state had the same quality of transportation as the urban areas, there would be no "rural voting block" on highway funding. The urban areas have funded the highways in the rural areas for years. If we could spend the fuel tax dollars in a fairly distributed method then we would all have the same number of potholes. I feel there are many small initiatives we could implement which would help solve some of the problems at the HRBT. 1. At the HRBT we used to have tunnel employees inside waiving motorist on to keep the speed up. 2. there used to be lighted signs saying keep the speed up.

Attachment 10G

2

3. We could have police patrols in the tunnels to enforce the minimum speed limits. I travel through the HRBT weekly and have never seen any type of police car drive through, there is no enforcement of any laws. They are only there to work accidents. 4. The "Tunnel-phobics" are a major part of the problem, many times we go through the tunnel in heavy traffic and see the car behind us at least a quarter mile back, sometimes out of sight. These people need to be made aware of the importance of keeping up the speed by info signs and enforcement. 5. The reckless driver and the tailgaters are causing accidents. 6. Last week we went through the HRBT at 9:00pm, they are installing lights and had one lane blocked, it took over an hour to travel from Mallory St to the tunnel, the entrance ramp just before the tunnel was open and there was a steady stream of cars coming from behind us and going through downtown Hampton and back on the interstate combined with the merge left it created a large back up. A little planning by VDOT by shutting down the ramp would help smooth the flow. We drive the CBBT weekly also and it is a pleasure to transverse, well maintained, laws are enforced regularly and much less reckless driving but they do not enforce the tunnel phobics violations either. The Rt 460 connector or new interstate is a great idea, much of the traffic between Richmond and Southside uses I-64, it would help reduce traffic. I-64 is at a point of no return, any construction between Newport News and Richmond would create gridlock. Any fuel taxes collected should be spent on highways, the general assembly has stolen this money for the past 30 years for other projects, what a bunch of fools. Now they act like it is our fault we are reaching gridlock. We sit in traffic burning our fuel, the potholes are causing damage to the vehicle's suspension, which we have to pay for, last month I hit a pothole and it split the side of my tire. We cannot go to doctors, shopping or entertainment on the southside because we do not know if it will take one, two or three hours to get there. Mass transportation is a joke, what do you do when you get to the end? I cannot walk 2 miles, The Tide and the HRT are a start but there has to be a way to connect to your destination. HRT's routes on the peninsula are a mess. I tried to ride one from Jefferson and Harpersville to Patrick Henry Mall, a straight line distance of 4 miles, it took hours and a transfer. HRT needs to use routes like Manhattan: cross town, uptown downtown routes that intersect, the Peninsula is perfect for it. Driving in tidewater is comparable to entering combat, If you do not drive 15 to 20 miles per hour over the limit the cars are on your bumper, cutting you off, pulling out in front of you, giving you the bird, etc, no wonder road rage is gripping people. We expect a little help from our governments and what do we get, nothing. Attachment 10G

3

The southside is a dead end cul-de-sac with no possibility of evacuation for a category 5 hurricane, hurricane gates, ha! All they will do is keep people on the parking lot that is I-64, four laned or not, no gas stations, no rest rooms, no medical emergency access, now there's a disaster waiting to happen. What genius in VDOT thought of that and spent millions. The southside cannot even move the daily rush hour traffic much less a hurricane evacuation. Thank God we have a new governor who is trying to do something for us, the last idiot didn't have a clue. We need to set priorities, number 1, build an expressway through Norfolk to Petersburg to relieve some of the congestion on I-64 in the HRBT and to Richmond. Number 2, build another tunnel across Hampton Roads. Then the smaller projects can be dealt with. Number 3, improve mass transit to serve more of the population, buses are modern day trolleys but who knows how they run? or when. Thanks for asking for input and thanks for your efforts, I know you have little control over the issues I brought up but you can pass my concerns on to higher ups, the people making poor decisions and wasting my tax dollars need to be held accountable. Jim Quail

Attachment 10G

1


Process: 2010 Update Draft Report (Public Comment Follows HRTPO Staff Response) HRTPO Staff Response Mr. Brandon, Thank you for taking the time to read the Congestion Management Process report and providing us with your insightful comments. In regards to your first specific comment, we agree that the eastbound tube should have a higher capacity than the westbound tube for the reasons you described. However, the fact that the eastbound tube carries fewer vehicles during the afternoon peak period (and in fact even fewer than the westbound direction does) is what led us to conclude that the higher number of commuters using the facility during the morning rush hour is what primarily contributed to the additional number of vehicles that could pass though the tube during congested conditions. Regarding your second specific comment, we were a little surprised by the step-by-step increase in backups at the HRBT throughout the week as well. However, comparing this to the average traffic volumes by day of week at the HRBT in 2009 (88,500-Monday, 90,300-Tuesday, 91,500-Wednesday, 93,300-Thursday, and 96,200-Friday), it would make sense that the backups should increase from day to day as well. Your general comment has also been noted and will be provided to VDOT since they handle operations at the tunnels. All of the public comments for this report are provided to transportation engineers and planners from around the region, including officials from VDOT. If you have any additional questions or concerns regarding transportation in Hampton Roads in the future, please feel free to submit them to us.

Name: Joseph Brandon Date: August 5, 2010 Subject: HR Congestion Management 2010 Update Public Comment Input (Via E-mail) Thank you for the opportunity to have input into this report. My comments are a result of having lived in the Hampton Roads area since 1969, and commuting from my home in Hampton to my office in Norfolk through the Hampton Roads

Attachment 10G

2

Bridge-Tunnel (HRBT) five days a week from June 1974 through October 1988, and nine out of ten days from November 1988 through May 2007. SOME SPECIFIC COMMENTS: 1. The last paragraph on page 12 states as follows:

It should be noted that although the eastbound Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel is congested during both the morning and afternoon peak travel periods, the eastbound tunnel carries a higher vehicular volume during the morning peak period. The eastbound tunnel maxes out at about 870 vehicles per 15-minute period between 6:00 am and 7:30 am, which is 10% higher than the traffic flow carried during the afternoon peak travel period. This is likely due to a higher concentration of commuter traffic during the morning, and these commuters are more familiar and more comfortable driving through the tunnel than non-commuters. COMMENT: The conclusion seems to ignore the likelihood that the newer, wider, brighter EB tube facilitates a higher throughput. I’m not suggesting that your conclusion is wrong; maybe only incomplete. 2. Figure 10 on page 15 shows a noticeable, steady rise in HRBT WB backups from Monday to Friday. The lower Monday backup is somewhat explainable by the large number of government, and possibly other, employees choosing to take Monday as their regular day off in nine day work period. Friday should have about the same decrease in traffic backup due to the same phenomenon of employees choosing to take Friday as their regular day off, except that a large number of out of town workers and locals tend to leave town for the weekend through the HRBT on Friday. COMMENT: The steady rise from Tuesday through Thursday, amounting to about 25%, is not a change that I ever recall noticing, and while it does not seem to affect the extremes that would be used for planning purposes, this makes me question all of the data presented. The rise tends to say that even commuters need to become acquainted with driving the HRBT on a weekly basis, and while it's possible, I have to believe that I would have noticed it.

GENERAL COMMENT: I could question at least a few areas of traffic counts and backups at the HRBT, but it appears that you have captured the extreme conditions fairly well, and a long as you keep those conditions in mind in planning for future changes, my concerns will be satisfied. SUGGESTION: I have a suggestion that amounts to mostly operational changes for the purpose of lowering driver tensions at the HRBT, and possibly many other places. This suggestion involves changing the way that traffic control is performed when one lane is closed, either for maintenance or for breakdowns/incidents. While numerous states use a “merge point” scheme to converge two lanes of traffic into one temporarily, Virginia does

Attachment 10G

3

not seem to use this method at all. The resulting conditions tend to create two sets of driving rules on the road, with those intending to follow the rules moving into the "open" lane and others driving in the "closed" lane, typically passing many people in the "open" lane. This creates high levels of unnecessary tension, and I've seen fist fights, wrecks, and a lot of hollering and name-calling as a result. This problem is most evident at the HRBT in the WB lanes, as there are numerous signal lights available for use (misuse) by traffic controllers. It should have been evident many years ago that displaying a red light for a lane closure a mile before the constriction does not incentivize good driver behavior without appropriate policing. Since May 2007, I have not commuted regularly across the HRBT and I even find myself reducing visits to the Southside because of the HRBT. I have also turned down consulting work that would have required some commuting. I have reduced regular involvement in organizations that require travel through the HRBT, and I've almost completely given up any involvement in the Southside that requires travel WB on the HRBT after about 2100 hours so as to avoid the inevitable crunch of two lanes to converge to one for maintenance work. On a recent trip to Hampton from Norfolk after the beginning of maintenance work one evening, I decided to follow the traffic signals precisely, and to count the number of vehicles that passed me in the "closed" lane. I was initially stopped at the first WB traffic signal (at the inspection station), in the right lane with a green light, and the left lane had a red light. If a defined merge point had been defined, both lanes should have moved approximately equally, but by the time I got to the required merge point, over 200 vehicles had passed me in the left lane. I stopped counting at 200 because it was just too depressing to realize that the people intending to drive legally were being so unfairly burdened. Is it any wonder that nerves are frayed, and that people do some strange things? How does society get away with incentivizing such unfair, and ostensibly unlawful, behavior? There are many discussions on the internet about this type of situation, and the ensuing behaviors, and while the situation that I described is likely not what the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) intended, it is what happens, and has been happening since the late 1970s when the tolls were removed from the HRBT. Please! Please! Please! Let's address this issue immediately as a major "tension reliever," as the backups at the HRBT are a long way from being relieved. I volunteer to share my experiences, to research and analyze solutions, and to help develop traffic control procedures to make use of current infrastructure in a more efficient manner. At worst, I can see the need for some additional signage to help acquaint drivers with changes, but the most significant changes would likely be to operational procedures. Sincerely, Joseph H. Brandon Hampton, VA Attachment 10G

1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HRTPO Public Comment ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ RE: Public Comment Regarding the Midtown Tunnel (Public Comment Follows HRTPO Staff Response) HRTPO Staff Response Ms. Sotherland, Good afternoon. Thank you for your phone inquiry pertaining to the Midtown Tunnel. As a review, you inquired the following:

• Does the Midtown Tunnel carry 40,000 vehicles a day? • Is the Midtown Tunnel the most heavily traveled road east of the Mississippi? Nation?

Per the Draft 2009 Congestion Management Process (to be approved in September 2010), the average traffic on a given weekday on the Midtown Tunnel is 41,115 vehicles (Page 66). The value you provided in your inquiry is within range by rounding. As to your second question, the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization cannot verify whether the Midtown Tunnel is the most heavily traveled road east of the Mississippi or the nation. We can verify that the Midtown Tunnel is the most heavily traveled two lane facility in the State of Virginia (Page 7). If you have any further inquiries on the Midtown Tunnel or other transportation facility, please do not hesitate to contact our Congestion Management Process Team for further assistance. Have a pleasant day.

Name: Tara Sotherland Date: August 6, 2010 Subject: Midtown Tunnel Inquiry Public Comment Input (Via Phone) Does the Midtown Tunnel carry 40,000 vehicles per day? Is the Midtown Tunnel the most heavily traveled road east of the Mississippi River? Is the Midtown Tunnel the most heavily traveled road in the Nation?

Attachment 10G


AGENDA ITEM #11: OLD/NEW BUSINESS

w d. s j c m j. w v c /s · the regional building • 723 woodlake drive • chesapeake, virginia...

Documents