Cap


2008 Minutes - Technical Committee

January 4
Febuary 1
April 4
May 2
August 1
September 5
November 7
December 5


Minutes of the Tri-Cities Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Technical Committee meeting held at 3335 South Crater Road in the Southside Regional Medical Center January 4, 2008 at 10:00 a.m.

Members Present: Barbara Smith, Chesterfield; March Altman, Hopewell; Mark Bassett, Dinwiddie; Ron Svejkovsky, VDOT (alternate); George Schanzenbacher, City of Colonial Heights; Joe Vinsh, CPDC.

Members Absent: Mike Briddell, City of Petersburg; Ron Reekes, Petersburg Area Transit; Pam Thompson, Prince George; Chris Bell, VDR&PT

Others Present: Diana Parker, Sierra Club; Bill Vaughan, Fort Lee; Dick Lockwood, Jeremy Raw, VDOT; Andy Boenau, VHB, Inc.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES – September 7, 2007

Upon a motion by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Bassett and carried, the minutes of the October 5, 2007 meeting were approved.

CITIZEN INFORMATION PERIOD

No comment

REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF THE 2031 TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE

Mr. Vinsh distributed copies of the 2031 maintenance and construction revenue forecasts recently prepared by VDOT. Mr. Vinsh commented on a comparison of selected construction funding categories between the 2026 financial forecast under TEA-21 and the 2031 financial forecast under SAFETEA-LU. Generally, under SAFETEA-LU funding under the CMAQ and Interstate programs is expected to increase significantly; funding under the Primary and RSTP programs is expected to remain about the same; funding under the Secondary and Urban programs is expected to significantly decline.

Mr. Vinsh stated the 2031 financial forecast would be used for the 2031 Transportation Plan to show future project expenditures by the year during which the expenditure is expected to occur.

Mr. Altman commented that the forecasted maintenance funding Hopewell is expecting over the next 30 years would not be sufficient to upgrade substandard facilities during the 30-year time period.

Mr. Vinsh indicated efforts would made by staff to use the financial forecast to show fiscal constraint with the 2031 preliminary project list endorsed by the Policy Committee last Summer.

Mr. Vinsh commented that the intent of this exercise was to show sufficient funds from a specific funding program are expected to be available for prioritized fiscally constrained projects during a specific time period.


STATUS REPORT ON FORT LEE EXPANSION TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

Mr. Svejkovsky stated the Hickory Hill Road project is under design and scoping meetings are being held. Federal authorization has been received for the split intersection project at Temple Avenue and Oaklawn Boulevard. The proposed roundabout project involving Jefferson Park, Bull Hill and Adams Avenue is receiving detailed review for potential funding under the Defense Access Road (DAR) Program.

Mr. Svejkovsky added that recently VDOT – Richmond District has designated a BRAC project construction manager for several transportation improvement projects along the Route 36 Corridor.

Mr. Altman commented on the need to meet with this manager to discuss specific projects planned for the corridor.

Mr. Svejkovsky agreed and stated this would be accomplished.


REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FY 2006 – 2008 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP)

Mr. Vinsh stated a request has been received from the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DR&PT) for an amendment to the current TIP to add a project for the purchase of a replacement bus for the total amount of $124,000. Mr. Vinsh added as this is considered a new project, MPO action would be needed in the form of an amendment.

Upon a motion by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Schanzenbacher and carried, a motion to recommend Policy Committee approval of an amendment to the FY 2006 - 2008 TIP to include the acquisition of a replacement vehicle for the total amount of $124,000 was adopted.

PRESENTATION BY INFORMATION BY VHB, INC. ON RESULTS OF A SPECIAL RUN OF THE RICHMOND TRAFFIC MODEL WITH FORT LEE EXPANSION

Mr. Vinsh introduced Mr. Lockwood and Mr. Boenau of VHB, Inc. as the consultants working on the transportation component of the Crater Growth Management Plan.

Mr. Boenau distributed a handout and presented information on transit and vanpooling opportunities available to address increased traffic congestion anticipated with the expansion at Fort Lee. Mr. Boenau identified current and potential transit markets in the region, summarized the results of a survey of transit providers serving areas with a nearby military base and outlined a cost model for Petersburg Area Transit (PAT) using 2006 PAT operating information. Mr. Boenau summarized two transit options available. One option involved the formation of a PAT-Fort Lee partnership that would consist of the addition of new routes to/on the base. A second option would involve the formation of a RideFinders–Fort Lee partnership involving carpooling/vanpooling services.

Mr. Lockwood distributed a handout and presented draft information on the traffic portion of the transportation element of the Crater Growth Management Plan.

Mr. Lockwood explained the focus of the traffic portion of the study effort was to review the results of the special model run to identify likely transportation impacts just outside of the study area window used for the Fort Lee Expansion Traffic Study completed by Baker in January 2007.

Mr. Lockwood indicated more trips coming into the base are coming from the west side rather than the east side and trips from Hanover and western Henrico do not impact Tri-Cities significantly. Mr. Lockwood reviewed several graphics and summarized changes in regional daily trips as follows:
• Total trips increased by 1.9%
• Trips Traveling with Fort Lee TAZs increased from 2,252 to 17,245
• Approximately one-half of Fort Lee trips are Interzonal
• 18,558 trips to & from Fort Lee are added to the Regional Network (0.4%)
• 87% of the trips to and from Fort Lee are within the Crater MPO Area

Mr. Lockwood also reviewed additional slides identifying facilities with model traffic increases in traffic greater than 3% and profiled those facilities as being identified in the 2026 and/or 2031 long range transportation plan for improvement.

Mr. Lockwood indicated his office is currently writing the draft report ask for comments on the findings.

A brief period of discussion followed the VHB presentation.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:20 A.M.


Minutes of the Tri-Cities Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Technical Committee meeting held at 3335 South Crater Road in the Southside Regional Medical Center February 1, 2008 at 10:00 a.m.

Members Present: Barbara Smith, Chesterfield; Mike Briddell, City of Petersburg March Altman, Hopewell; Pam Thompson, Prince George; Mark Bassett, Dinwiddie; Mark Riblett, VDOT (alternate); George Schanzenbacher, City of Colonial Heights; Joe Vinsh, CPDC.

Members Absent: Chris Bell, VDR&PT; PAT (vacant)

Others Present: Bill Vaughan, Fort Lee; Dama Rice, Petersburg; Ron Svejkovsky, Jim Ponticello, Dan Grinnell, Jenny Salyers, VDOT.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES – January 4, 2008

Upon a motion by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Schanzenbacher and carried, the minutes of the January 4, 2008 meeting were approved.

CITIZEN INFORMATION PERIOD

No comment

REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF THE 2031 TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
Mr. Vinsh indicated work is continuing on the update of the long range plan and 3 elements of this project were reviewed. These elements included the project listing, the financial forecast with year of expenditure information and the update schedule.

Regarding the 2031 highway financial forecast provided by VDOT indicate maintenance costs are expected to increase about 2.5 times between 2008 and 2031. Reference was made to the comparison between funding that had been projected under the 2026 Plan with projected funding for the 2031 Plan. A significant unallocated balance is currently shown for interstate, bridge, safety, enhancement, RSTP and CMAQ.

Mr. Vinsh commented about one-half of the 2031 primary fund forecast are being shown for the years 2008 thru 2013. These funds are not reflected for primary projects in the current Six Year Improvement Program for the same time period. Further, these forecasted funds cannot be used to show financial constrain for future projects during the years beyond 2013. Therefore, the 2031 Primary program forecast has been significantly reduced from the 2026 forecasted level.

Mr. Svejkovsky stated the Programming Division is telling us from an accounting viewpoint some of these forecasted Primary program funds could be going to primary or secondary roads for construction.

Ms. Smith commented that these funds may not actually be all primary funding, it could be statewide preliminary engineering etc.

Mr. Vinsh commented that he did not understand how the primary funds are going into the different program categories and reiterated about one-half of the 2031 forecasted Primary funds are shown for 2008 to 2013. After 2013, the Primary forecast declines annually.

Overall, 2031 projected funding for Interstate, CMAQ, and RSTP programs are higher that the 2026 forecast while projected funding for Primary, Urban and the Secondary programs are lower that the 2026 financial forecast.

Mr. Vinsh made reference to the project list handout and reviewed information regarding the year of expenditure SAFETEA-LU requirement. The approach discussed during the January meeting was to deflate the 2031 financial forecast to 2008 dollars for groups of years to match up with project costs either taken from the current Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP) or the 2006 VDOT project cost estimation model. The approach used to show year of expenditure for the current project list has been changed to inflating the project cost using a 3 percent annual inflation rate and the midpoint of future year groupings.

Mr. Vinsh reviewed selected information in the project listing attached to the agenda packet, including column headings and how year of expenditure is shown for financially constrained projects.

Mr. Vinsh commented on the impact of funding reductions for the urban and secondary programs.

Mr. Svejkovsky commented that financially constrained projects are shown in bold and vision projects in italic.

Mr. Vinsh indicated the MPO – Policy Committee endorsed the project priority order last August and the 2031 financial forecast has been used to show funding for the higher priority projects as shown in bold.

Mr. Altman asked if VDOT generated the cost estimates.

Mr. Svejkovsky indicated future project cost use the 3% inflation rate and these are planning level estimates.

A period of further discussion followed regarding options to dealing with project funding shortfalls, including phasing.

Mr. Vinsh made reference to a spreadsheet prepared by VDOT identifying the proposed next Six Year Improvement Program, including years 1 thru 4 as the proposed next Transportation Improvement Program.

Mr. Vinsh mentioned a need to reduce the amount of unallocated 2031 interstate funds. Fort Lee expansion projects potentially eligible for NHS/Interstate and Non-Interstate funding were given top priority along with the Rives Road interchange reconstruction project.

Mr. Vinsh mentioned a need for further input on priorities for potential NHS/Interstate and Non-Interstate projects beyond the ones currently shown as constrained on the 2031 project listing.

After a period of further discussion, it was the consensus that effort should be considered to include portions of the I-85/I-95/Rt. 460 Interchange improvement project on the 2031 constrained project list.

Mr. Schanzenbacher asked for summary information on this study for the next meeting.

Mr. Vinsh stated summary information would be available for the next meeting.

Mr. Altman mentioned that the right-of-way for the eastbound lane addition on the Oaklawn Fort Lee expansion project is actually in the City of Hopewell and not Prince George.

Mr. Vinsh indicated this correction would be made and that the existing 2026 financial information for PAT needed to be extended to 2031.

Mr. Vinsh cited the need for further information on several additional projects, including Lamore Drive relocation, Bollingbrook Bridge replacement, Chesterfield Private/Local projects and a scope of work and cost estimate for the Route 1 project in Dinwiddie.

Mr. Bassett indicated the County recently met with VDOT regarding the scope for the Route 1 project. Mr. Bassett further indicated additional information would be coming soon on both the revised scope and cost estimate.

Mr. Ponticello reviewed a handout identifying a detailed schedule for completion of the 2031 Long Range Plan update and the FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program and the conformity analysis of these documents.

Mr. Ponticello indicated the schedule calls for the MPO – Policy Committee to approve the project lists for the 2031 Plan and the FY09-FY12 TIP on February 14, 2008.

Upon a motion by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Schanzenbacher and carried, a recommendation was made to the MPO - Policy Committee that the project list for the 2031 Plan and FY09 – FY12 TIP be endorsed for conformity analysis with the understanding any additional corrections could be made before the February 21st scheduled conformity kickoff meeting.

STATUS REPORT ON FORT LEE EXPANSION TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
Mr. Vinsh reviewed the January 10, 2008 version of the Fort Lee expansion transportation project list. Mr. Vinsh indicated the scope of work for the Hickory Hill Road project is being modified and a cost increase is likely.
Mr. Vinsh also mentioned that the military has expressed interested in the proposed roundabout project at Jefferson Park, Bull Hill & Adams Avenue as a potential Defense Access Road Program funded project.


REPORT ON TRANSIT FUNDING AND PLANNING NEEDS
Mr. Vinsh indicated that as a follow-up to discussion at the September 2007 MPO – Policy Committee, a grant application has been submitted by the Crater Planning District Commission to the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation for a State Technical Studies project to update the 1993 Transit Development Plan for the Tri-Cities Area to begin after July 1, 2008.

Mr. Vinsh also indicated that a request has been made to the Virginia Department of Rail & Public Transportation to provide the assistance of its “On-Call Consultant Services” to assist at this time with developing cost shares for operating deficits among localities in which PAT currently operates.

REVIEW OF THE FY09 – FY14 CMAQ AND RSTP FINANCIAL FORECAST FOR THE TRI-CITIES AREA
Mr. Vinsh commented on attachments to the agenda packet on the updated 6-year financial forecast for these 2 programs. Mr. Vinsh also commented that the MPO committees need to work on new allocations during the March and April meetings.

Mr. Vinsh mentioned results of the 2007 ratings need to be reviewed during the next meeting to help determine the new allocations under both CMAQ and RSTP.

Mr. Altman asked if any revised cost estimates would be available for the March meeting.

Mr. Svejkovsky indicated the project costs would be reviewed prior to the meeting.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:45 a.m.


Minutes of the Tri-Cities Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Technical Committee meeting held at 1000 Yacht Basin Drive, Colonial Heights on April 4, 2008 at 10:30 a.m.


Members Present: Barbara Smith, Chesterfield; Mike Briddell, City of Petersburg; March Altman, Hopewell; Pam Thompson, Prince George; Mark Bassett, Dinwiddie; Ron Svejkovsky, VDOT (alternate); George Schanzenbacher, City of Colonial Heights; Joe Vinsh, CPDC.

Members Absent: Chris Bell, VDR&PT; PAT (vacant)

Others Present: Dama Rice, Petersburg; Tim Blumenschine Petersburg National Battlefield Park; Chuck Henley, Colonial Heights, Dan Grinnell, Jenny Salyers, Lamont Benjamin, Walter Johnson, Bob Chandler, VDOT.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES – March 7, 2008

Upon a motion by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Briddell and carried, the minutes of the March 7, 2008 meeting were approved.

CITIZEN INFORMATION PERIOD

No comment

STATUS REPORT ON SELECTED FORT LEE EXPANSION TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Mr. Svejkovsky indicated the $5m in Primary funding allocated last year by the CTB for Fort Lee BRAC transportation improvements may be subject to major budgetary reductions currently being experienced by VDOT. New projects just entering the design phase appear to be more subject to reduction than projects under contract for construction. The magnitude of the reduction is near 50% of previously projected revenue.

Ms. Salyers stated the draft Six-Year Plan would be posted on the website and indicate changes proposed. Some FY 08 Primary funds were previously allocated for PE on the Rt. 36 & Rt. 144 corridor projects. However, Primary funds cannot be used in cities and a portion of the Oaklawn eastbound lane project is inside Hopewell.

Mr. Svejkovsky further indicated at this time funding for the Oaklawn – Temple project and the eastbound Oaklawn project is undefined.

Ms. Salyers reviewed the concept for integrating the Oaklawn/Jefferson Park turn lane project and the Rt. 36 Corridor computer signalization project with the Oaklawn/Temple project and the Oaklawn eastbound lane project.

Mr. Svejkovsky mentioned the upcoming Six-Year Program public hearing.

Ms. Salyers indicated further detail on the cost estimate for the Oaklawn eastbound lane project would be available later this month.

Mr. Vinsh indicated the Technical Committee needs to consider whether or not additional RSTP allocations should be made for the BRAC projects. Current direction from the Policy Committee is that previous RSTP allocations for Shop Gate, Hickory Hill and Oaklawn/Temple would be the last ones for BRAC (homeland security type) projects. Future allocations would focus back on projects from the 2007 ratings list beginning with the Rt. 1 & Rt. 226 project in Dinwiddie.

Mr. Vinsh stated other than some FY 08 Primary funds VDOT currently has for PE work on the Prince George portion of the Oaklawn eastbound lane project, there is no other funding source for this project.

Ms. Thompson asked how much PE funding is currently available for the eastbound Oaklawn project.

Mr. Vinsh stated VDOT has 308,000 for PE and about 70% of the project is in Hopewell.

Ms. Salyers stated the current estimate is 2.1m and that is likely to change soon as the discovery portion of the scoping phase is still in progress.

Ms. Smith asked VDOT to determine what portion of the Oaklawn eastbound lane project would quality for CMAQ funding.

Mr. Briddell asked about the status of the Hickory Hill project.

Mr. Vinsh indicated with a recent award from the VMSRF for Fort Lee BRAC transportation improvements, sufficient funds are available to fund the lower cost revised option at 4.6m. This option would only provide an additional left turn lane from Rt. 460 to east bound Hickory Hill.

A period of further discussion followed regarding location of the city – county boundary, potential use of CMAQ funds, the distribution of PE cost for the Oaklawn eastbound project and the need for the project.

Mr. Svejkovsky stated CMAQ funds cannot be used to increase lane capacity.

Mr. Schanzenbacher asked when does a decision need to be made on this issue?

Mr. Vinsh indicated RSTP and CMAQ allocations need to be entered into the VDOT system before April 25.

After a period of further discussion, Ms. Smith made a motion, seconded by Ms. Thompson and carried, to recommend use of RSTP funds to pay for the PE cost for that portion of the Oaklawn eastbound lane project located in Hopewell.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CMAQ AND RSTP PROJECT ALLOCATIONS
Mr. Vinsh made referenced to the agenda attachments on new allocations per the 2007 priority ratings as discussed during the March meeting. Mr. Vinsh commented that RSTP funds for the higher cost option for the Rt. 1 & Rt. 226 project was included because the Dinwiddie Board of Supervisors were still considering which option to select.

Mr. Vinsh stated after the Rt. 1 & Rt. 226 RSTP project, the next RSTP priorities are a bridge replacement project over the Appomattox River Canal in Petersburg and the Rt. 1 & Dupuy Ave. project in Colonial Heights.


REVIEW OF PROPOSED SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL PROJECT AMENDMENT TO THE FY 2006 – 2008 TIP
Mr. Svejkovsky indicated this amendment was for a project in the City of Colonial Heights.

Upon a motion by Mr. Schanzenbacher, seconded by Ms. Smith and carried, a motion was adopted to recommend MPO –Policy Committee endorsement of this TIP amendment.

REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF SEVERAL STREETS IN THE CITY OF PETERSBURG

After a brief period of discussion, this item was deferred until the May meeting at the request of Petersburg.


REVIEW OF DRAFT FY 2009 UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION WORK PROGRAM
Mr. Vinsh reviewed selected portions of the FY 2009 work program. Mr. Vinsh indicated narrative on the Crater Growth Management Plan, air quality, SAFETEA-LU compliance, Rt. 460 PPTA project and transit planning had been updated. Mr. Vinsh further commented the focus after July 1, 2008 would be on the transit development plan update and responding specific comments in the 2031 Transportation Plan update.

Upon a motion by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Briddell and carried, a motion was adopted to recommend MPO – Policy Committee endorsement of the draft FY 2009 transportation work program.

REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) FORMAT

Mr. Vinsh stated VDOT – Central Office has proposed streamlining the TIP format by grouping selected projects.

Mr. Svejkovsky stated some MPOs are processing a large number of TIP amendments on a monthly basis. The stream lining proposal would eliminate the need to large number of amendments.

After a brief period of discussion, it was the consensus this item would be reviewed during the May meeting.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.


Minutes of the Tri-Cities Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Technical Committee meeting held at 1000 Yacht Basin Drive, Colonial Heights on May 2, 2008 at 10:30 a.m.

Minutes of the Tri-Cities Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Technical Committee meeting held at 1000 Yacht Basin Drive, Colonial Heights on May 2, 2008 at 10:30 a.m.

Members Present: Barbara Smith, Chesterfield; Mike Briddell, City of Petersburg; March Altman, Hopewell; Pamela Thompson, Prince George; Mark Bassett, Dinwiddie; Ron Svejkovsky, VDOT (alternate); George Schanzenbacher, City of Colonial Heights; Amy Inman, VDR&PT; Joe Vinsh, CPDC.

Members Absent: PAT (vacant)

Others Present: Dama Rice, Petersburg; Kinyata Evans, Fort Lee BCO; Dan Grinnell, Jim Ponticello, Lamont Benjamin, Walter Johnson, Bob Chandler, Sam Hayes, Jeremy Raw, VDOT.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES – April 4, 2008

Upon a motion by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Briddell and carried, the minutes of the April 4, 2008 meeting were approved.

CITIZEN INFORMATION PERIOD

No comment

STATUS REPORT ON SELECTED FORT LEE EXPANSION TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Mr. Vinsh commented Pam Sutton, representing Fort Lee, and Mayor Mickens, representing the Tri-Cities MPO, made presentations during the April 23rd Richmond District Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP) public hearing. Comments by Ms. Sutton related to facts and figures of Fort Lee expansion while comments by Mayor Mickens focused on the pending loss of primary funds previous allocated for BRAC improvements in the Route 36 and Route 144 corridors.

Mr. Vinsh further commented the final update of the SYIP will be available in June and would indicate how much of this $5 million allocation remains for Fort Lee expansion projects. As a special session of the General Assembly
is also scheduled for June 2008, the MPO – Policy Committee prefers to wait as see how and these 2 events affect final primary allocations for the Rt. 36 & Rt. 144 corridors before deciding to schedule other identified funds for the Rt. 36 & Rt. 144 split intersection project.

Mr. Vinsh stated the Shop Gate project is complete, funding for the lower cost Hickory Hill Rd. project ($4.6m) is in place and funding for the Rt. 36 & Rt. 144 intersection is unclear at this point in time. Funding for the PE cost of the Oaklawn eastbound lane project is proceeding with $157,825 in primary funds for the Prince George portion and $394,565 in RSTP funds for the Hopewell portion.

Mr. Hayes commented VDOT Richmond District is trying to get some these primary funds restored for the Rt. 36 & Rt. 144 corridor priority projects.


REVIEW OF APRIL 10, 2008 CMAQ AND RSTP PROJECT ALLOCATIONS

Mr. Vinsh stated the Policy Committee endorsed allocations for CMAQ and RSTP projects as presented during the March meeting. The only change was the $394,565 allocation in RSTP funds for the Hopewell portion of the Oaklawn eastbound lane project.


REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION FOR SEVERAL STREETS IN PETERSBURG

Mr. Vinsh indicated this item had been deferred from the previous meeting to allow Petersburg to study the proposal prepared by VDOT to classify several streets.

Upon a motion by Mr. Briddell, seconded by Ms. Smith and carried, a motion was approved to recommend acceptance of the VDOT street reclassification proposal as presented in the agenda attachments.


REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) FORMAT

Mr. Vinsh indicated VDOT has initiated a proposal to streamline the TIP format by grouping projects. The advantages of this proposal appear to be a potential reduction in the total number of TIP amendments needed for all MPOs in the Commonwealth and the change would allow more flexibility in the use of available federal funds. The disadvantages of this proposal appear to be a reduction in the current level of information on projects, particularly in the areas of previous allocations and funding sources.

Mr. Svejkovsky indicated the VDOT Programming Division spends much time processing TIP amendments. The streamlined process would avoid the need for some TIP amendments and keep projects moving.

Mr. Svejkovsky also indicated it was important for the MPO to forward comments on what project level information that needs to be retained and shown in monthly project report separate from the TIP document.

Mr. Svejkovsky mentioned during the April meeting, CMAQ and RSTP projects should not be grouped. VDOT – Central does not have a problem with this type provision.

Mr. Vinsh indicated many of the amendment requests that currently require MPO action are for minor project cost changes (i.e. $10,000 increase for PE). This level of change is not as significant as changes in project scheduling, previous funding allocations or large increases in total project cost. There is a need for tracking previous allocations.

Mr. Vinsh indicated hard copies of the draft FY09 – FY12 TIP were mailed to Technical Committee members.

Mr. Vinsh commented that if allocation information from the Six-Year Improvement Program could be added to the current format of the TIP, both project allocation and obligation information would be available and allow project tracking.

Mr. Vinsh also commented that the way project information is presented in the Six-Year Improvement Program is more readable than the way project information is presented in the proposed TIP format as distributed to Technical Committee members the previous week.

Mr. Svejkovsky indicated the District would like the MPO to provide comments on TIP information that needs to be retained.

Ms. Smith commented that of the categories for grouping projects she had the most concern with Safety, ITS, Operational and Bridge Rehabilitation, Reconstruction, Replacement.

Ms. Smith asked if these 2 TIP groupings contained projects normally requiring many amendments and little would be gained by keeping these funding categories separate.

Mr. Svejkovsky stated projects in these categories would probably be the ones like guardrail replacement or pavement management and there is good reason to group these type categories.

Ms. Smith indicated Safety, ITS, Operational group contained all of the County secondary projects and she would not want to see secondary projects grouped.

Mr. Hayes commented the object of this streamlined format is to maximize flexibility in accessing available funding because it reduces the amount of time required by VDOT to process amendments. The groupings were limited to 4 categories: trails and sidewalks, bridges, rail crossing and everything else was put into another category. This way of project grouping allows maximum flexibility.

Ms. Smith also commented that TIP amendments allow opportunity to see where projects are in the development process.

Mr. Svejkovsky made reference to the project grouping in appendix of the draft FY09 – FY12 TIP.

Mr. Vinsh suggested taking the existing TIP format and adding allocation information from the current Six-Year Improvement Program.

Mr. Svejkovsky indicated this may be an easy way to handle the monthly report and suggested the CPDC staff send these comments to the Richmond District.

Chairman Altman suggested any local comments on this item be forwarded to the CPDC staff who would then forward comments and suggestions discussed to VDOT Richmond District.


REVIEW OF DRAFT 2031 TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

Mr. Vinsh made reference to the hard copy of the draft document mailed to committee members the previous week and commented on sections of the document updated for the 2031 document, including the project list which contains 109 financially constrained projects and 100 vision projects.

Upon a motion by a motion by Mr. Briddell, seconded by Mr. Schanzenbacher and carried, motion was adopted to authorize the Crater Planning District Commission staff to advertise the draft document for public review.

Mr. Vinsh also noted that a public meeting has been scheduled for June 10, 2008 in the Colonial Heights Public Library for public comment of this draft document.


REVIEW OF DRAFT FY09–FY12 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP)

Mr. Vinsh made reference to the hard copy of the draft document mailed to committee members the previous week and commented regarding TIP requirements under SAFETEA-LU, including provision of a financial plan.

Mr. Vinsh commented the draft document contained a partially completed table comparing revenue forecast by funding category for 2009, 2010, 2011 & 2012 as provided by VDOT with the 2031 financial forecast. Mr. Vinsh indicated VDOT has been requested to provide information on planned obligations for the same funding categories and years from the TIP input sheets already provided by VDOT. Planned obligations should not exceed planned revenues for the same funding categories for the same years in the TIP financial plan.

Ms. Thompson questioned whether or not the draft TIP document should be advertised in its current draft form.

Mr. Vinsh commented this was a good point, but because of the schedule and the 30 day review period, we needed to go ahead with available information. A revised draft document could be prepared and sent to the libraries and placed on the website after additional information is received.

Upon a motion by Ms. Thompson, seconded by Ms. Smith and carried, a motion was adopted to authorize the Crater staff to advertise the draft TIP document for public review.


REVIEW OF DRAFT CONFORMITY ANALYSIS FOR THE 2031 TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND THE FY09-FY12 TIP

Mr. Ponticello made reference to the electronic version of this document sent to committee members earlier, indicated applicable test were passed and commented on several aspects of the analysis.

Upon a motion by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Schanzenbacher and carried, the Crater staff was authorized to advertise the draft document for public comment.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:45 a.m.


Minutes of the Tri-Cities Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Technical Committee meeting held at 1000 Yacht Basin Drive, Colonial Heights on August 1, 2008 at 2:00 p.m.

Members Present: Mark Bassett, Dinwiddie; Mark Riblett, VDOT; George Schanzenbacher, City of Colonial Heights; Amy Inman, VDR&PT; Joe Vinsh, CPDC.

Members Absent: Barbara Smith, Chesterfield; Mike Briddell, City of Petersburg; March Altman, Hopewell; Pamela Thompson, Prince George; PAT (vacant)

Others Present: Albert Cruz, Fort Lee; Tammy Davis, FHWA; Dan Grinnell, Jenny Salyers, Ron Svejkovsky, Lamont Benjamin, Sam Hayes, VDOT; Mark Bittner, CPDC.

Mr. Schanzenbacher agreed to chair the meeting.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES – May 2, 2008

Upon a motion by Ms. Inman, seconded by Mr. Riblett and carried, the minutes of the May 2, 2008 meeting were approved.

CITIZEN INFORMATION PERIOD

No comment

STATUS REPORT ON SELECTED FORT LEE EXPANSION TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

Ms. Salyers indicated the advertisement date for the Hickory Hill Road project is currently scheduled for 12-09-09. Because the original scope for this project was modified, it is likely the project the advertisement date will be move 6 to 8 months later.

Mr. Vinsh asked why the additional time was needed.

Ms. Salyers stated that during the time the original scope was being reconsidered, less work was being accomplished on the project than previously scheduled.

Ms. Salyers also indicated current cost estimates for projects with scheduled funding look good at this point.

Ms. Salyers further stated survey work on the Temple Avenue/Oaklawn project has been completed and the goal is to complete work on the environmental document by end of August 2008. Within the next 30 days, more project scheduling information will be available. This work also includes the widening of Oaklawn.

Mr. Schanzenbacher asked if there was a date for the public hearing.

Ms. Salyers stated tentatively January 2009 would be the public hearing date.

Mr. Vinsh made reference to contingency funds currently in place for both the Hickory Hill and Temple/Oaklawn projects. Mr. Vinsh indicated the intent of having contingency funds available for specific projects included provision for moving these funds to the next priority project on an as needed basis.

Mr. Vinsh asked if the several $10,000 signal modification projects on the Fort Lee improvement list could be accomplished by VDOT maintenance operations or if a separate improvement projects would need to be established and funding sources secured.

Mr. Riblett stated that as Baker has made separate entries for the several signal modification only projects, it is assumed separate projects for these improvements would need to be established and funding sources secured.

Ms. Salyers commented that the City of Hopewell has requested to make the Jefferson Park & Oaklawn project a local project.

Mr. Benjamin stated an agreement between Hopewell and VDOT for this project is under development.

Mr. Cruz commented the Route 36 overpass project will connect 11th Avenue on the south side of the base with the north side of the base where the ordinance campus is being constructed. This project is being funded by Fort Lee and is scheduled to be completed by May 2010. Other roadway and bridge construction is underway within the ordinance campus.

Mr. Cruz commented Fort Lee wants to continue to be a partner with the MPO and offered to brief the committee on the general construction activity at Fort Lee during a future meeting.

Mr. Schzenbacher stated this would be good.


REVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCAL INFORMATION FOR DRAFT FY09 – FY12 TIP

Mr. Vinsh stated that VDOT, as agreed during the June MPO – Policy Committee meeting, has provided ungrouped project information for CMAQ, RSTP, Bridge, Safety and Secondary projects. Also, additional narrative has been provided explaining the intended funding purposes for the various highway funding categories and further explanation on project entries under the “streamlined” or “new TIP format”. Project entries in the “new TIP format” do not show funding sources or previous obligations for all projects.

Mr. Vinsh also stated narrative has been added to describe the intended purpose of the various highway funding categories. Also, narrative has been added explaining why some projects are listed without funding obligation during the 4-year period.

Mr. Riblett explained efforts are continuing within VDOT to provide the MPOs with project information previously available under the “old TIP format” as a separate report. It is anticipated this information will be available when we start operating under the FY09 – FY12 TIP.

Upon a motion by Mr. Vinsh, seconded by Mr. Riblett and carried a motion was approved to recommend MPO – Policy Committee endorsement of the FY09 – FY12 TIP.


RESPONSE TO OPPORTUNITY FOR OTHER BRIDGE AND RSTP PROJECTS TO RECEIVE CONSIDERATION FOR BONUS OBLIGATION AUTHORITY

Mr. Riblett made reference the attachment to the agenda packet regarding this item. Mr. Riblett explained VDOT has requested suggestions for candidate Bridge and RSTP projects to be considered for additional funding bonus obligation authority.

Mr. Riblett stated the CPDC staff had reviewed available information and submitted several potential projects for consideration under the Bridge category, including the St. Andrews, Bollingbrook and Hinton Street projects.

Mr. Riblett indicated if there were no objections, these projects would be considered along with other requests across the State. Mr. Riblett added that the amount of project request far exceeds available funding.


REVIEW OF SELECTED ELEMENTS OF THE I-85/I-95/ROUTE 460 INTERCHANGE STUDY

Mr. Vinsh stated Mr. Hayes from VDOT – Richmond District had agreed to brief current MPO - Technical members on a study completed in 2000 on this major facility.

Mr. Hayes made reference to the “preferred concept” contained in the project report document. The study considered improving existing geometrical deficiencies at the interchange.

One of the most prominent ones is the loop from I-95 north to I-85 south. When the toll booth was in place everyone stopped and now vehicles are coming down the hill at 70 mph and making the turn. A number of vehicles overturn at this location now that the toll booth is no longer in place. An expensive flyover ramp to I-85 southbound was considered in the study.

Other elements considered included improvements to the collector/distributor roads and weaving distances. This interchange was designed in the 1950’s as part of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike.

The addition of acceleration and deceleration at Crater Road, shoulder widths on bridges, the mainline and the ramps were evaluated in terms of minimum criteria.

Also, consideration was given to improving access to the Southside Regional Medical Center.

Sound wall construction and right-of-way impacts were considered in relation to potential improvements.

The cost for the preferred alternative shown in the report was $120,000,000 back in 2000. This estimate was a very rough order of magnitude. Considerable cost increases have occurred over the past 8 years. The improvement cost could be near $250,000,000 today.

Mr. Hayes suggested the MPO pursue having the study updated to consider cost changes and other changes that have occurred since 2000, including the relocation of the hospital, Fort Lee expansion and development in Prince George and southern Petersburg.

Mr. Hayes commented the general concept recommended in the study is still good. Traffic movement from east to west on 460 and from east 460 to northbound I-95 are the movements that still need to be addressed in terms of improvement.

Mr. Hayes commented that, along with updating the study assumptions and project cost, a need exists for the area to phase the project and prioritize improvements by the most important.

Mr. Hayes also suggested the region develop a unified approach in pursing future interstate funding priorities.

Mr. Vinsh asked what approach could be used to prioritize interstate needs. Interest has recently been expressed in the Southpark Boulevard and Rives Road interchanges also locate on the I-95 corridor in Tri-Cities.

Mr. Hayes commented VDOT - Richmond District traffic personnel working with the Temple Avenue project have an understanding of the interstate improvement needs in the Tri-Cities.

Mr. Riblett commented that as the region developed criteria and a process for ranking candidate RSTP and CMAQ projects, a process for ranking candidate interstate/primary projects could also be developed. VDOT would be willing to work with the MPO starting with establishing criteria suitable for this potential ranking process. This would be an important first step to consider.

Mr. Hayes also commented that there is considerable need to use interstate funds in the Tri-Cities to rehabilitate pavement and bridges.

Mr. Vinsh asked the current FHWA emphasis on safety could potentially lead to special funding for safety oriented improvements at existing interchanges.

Mr. Hayes indicated there were no special funds for this purpose now but that could potentially change in the future. Funding available for safety now is very small.

Mr. Schanzenbacher commented that there are always changes in administrations and we should be ready in case a change occurs in our favor.

Mr. Schanzenbacher suggested this item be put on future agendas discussion as to how we can get better prepared as the interstate projects impact everyone.


REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FY 2008 UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION WORK PROGRAM

Mr. Vinsh indicated the CPDC staff is requesting an amendment to the FY08 Unified Transportation Work Program to add $5,000 to Task #2.2 and subtract $5,000 from Task #2.0. The total PL funding amount for FY08 remains the same.

Upon a motion by Mr. Bassett, seconded by Mr. Vinsh and carried, a motion was adopted that the amendment be recommended to the Policy Committee for approval.


REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FY07 – FY09 TIP TO INCLUDE THE EASTBOUND THRU LANE ON ROUTE 36

Mr. Svejkovsky stated this amendment has been prompted by a VDOT funding strategy to make projects potentially eligible for federal funding fully compliant with federal guidelines. This project is potentially eligible for federal funds and the requested TIP amendment will allow federal funds to be used for this project.

Upon a motion by Mr. Vinsh, seconded by Mr. Bassett and carried, a motion to endorse the VDOT recommended amendment was approved.


REVIEW OF SELECTED INFORMATION ON THE STATEWIDE RAIL PLAN UPDATE

Mr. Vinsh stated the draft update of the 2008 Rail Plan was released during July. A series of public meetings are being held across the State and written comments are to be submitted to VDR&PT by August 25, 2008. VDR&PT representatives have been requested by the CPDC staff to comment on specific passenger and freight services mentioned in the document impacting the Tri-Cities Area.

Ms. Inman stated an environmental assessment is in progress for passenger rail service for the mainline in the I-95 corridor between Richmond and Doswell. Also, the potential for another alignment for the Buckingham Branch on the east side in Henrico County is continuing with work being completed on cost estimates for this assessment. Existing ridership information for the main line was used to make a land use analysis, including a new station in Newport News. It is anticipated the environmental assessment will be completed and go to public hearing during February or March of next calendar year.

Work on the higher-speed passenger project between Richmond and Hampton Roads is continuing. Higher speed service to Newport News is looking favorable for an overnight train and is why the land use assessment was made along this corridor.

Also, the Route 29 corridor and I-81 corridors in the western part of the State are also being considered for increased passenger rail service.

Existing passenger rail service in the Tri-Cities is not likely to change into the future.

A Rail Action Plan is now in the process of being developed. Improvement projects are being prioritized and funding identified for this document.

Ms. Inman indicated she did not have information available on the status of the Prince George Intermodal facility and this item could probably be addressed at future meeting.

Ms. Inman also commented on the upcoming transit development plan for PAT funding and how express bus service can be continued. A consultant has been retained for this project.

Ms. Inman offered to look into seeing if additional time could be obtained for comment on the 2008 Statewide Rail Plan Update.

Mr. Vinsh asked if the State had decided on the I-64 corridor as the higher-speed passenger rail corridor for Richmond to Hampton Roads passenger service or will this decision be made after the Richmond to Hampton Road Passenger Rail Study is completed before making this decision?

Ms. Inman stated the decision should be made after the environmental assessment is completed.

Mr. Vinsh indicated the Tri-Cities has followed the Richmond to Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Study for years.

Ms. Inman stated it was important to find alternatives to reliance on highways. The State is placing guidelines for land use densities associated with rail improvement projects. Passenger rail stations are viewed similar to a regional service. For land use considerations in places that have been looked at, including Ashland, Henrico and Newport News, VDR&PT is recommending these locations be feasible for biking, walking and feeder transit service.

Ms. Inman added that this is the direction that has been given to VDR&PT and is reflected in the 2008 State Rail Plan update.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:45 p.m.


Minutes of the Tri-Cities Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Technical Committee meeting held at 1000 Yacht Basin Drive, Colonial Heights on September 5, 2008 at 10:00 a.m.

Members Present: Barbara Smith, Chesterfield; Mike Briddell, City of Petersburg; March Altman, Hopewell; Pamela Thompson, Prince George; Ron Svejkovsky, (alternate) VDOT; George Schanzenbacher, City of Colonial Heights; Amy Inman, VDR&PT; Joe Vinsh, CPDC.

Members Absent: Mark Bassett, Dinwiddie; Amy Inman, VDR&PT; PAT (vacant)

Others Present: Dama Rice, Petersburg; Sharon Williams, Prince George; Fredrick Wiggins, Progress Index; Albert Cruz, Andrew Duggan, Jason Gray Fort Lee; Dan Grinnell, Jenny Salyers, Ron Svejkovsky, Walter Johnson VDOT;

Chairman Altman called the meeting to order.


APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES – August 1, 2008

Upon a motion by Mr. Schanzenbacher, seconded by Mr. Svejkovsky and carried, the minutes of the August 1, 2008 meeting were approved.

CITIZEN INFORMATION PERIOD

No comment

STATUS REPORT ON SELECTED FORT LEE EXPANSION TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

Ms. Salyers reported for the Hickory Hill Road project the public hearing date will be in January 2009, right-of-way is scheduled for October 2009 and November 9, 2010 is now the schedule advertisement date for construction. A change in the project scope has caused some change in scheduling. The project scope now includes the addition of an additional dedicated left turn lane from Route 460 (County Drive) onto Route 109 (Hickory Hill Road).


Ms. Salyers added the Hickory Hill Road project is fully funded and the current VDOT cost estimate for the project is $4.9m.

Mr. Cruz asked how far up Hickory Hill will the transition lane extend.

Ms. Salyers indicated the transition lane would extend approximately 1,000 feet on Hickory Hill Road to Jamestown Road.

Ms. Salyers also reported the cost estimate for the Route 36 & Route 144 split intersection project is $4.6m. The public hearing date for this project will be in January 2009. The current advertisement date is February 2009 but will likely change. The construction advertisement date is December 2010. The addition of an eastbound travel lane on Oaklawn has a Prince George portion for $867,000 and a Hopewell portion for $2.2m. These 2 projects are also fully funded. The target is to get these 3 projects to public hearing next January.

Mr. Altman commented the City of Hopewell is working with VDOT on the CMAQ signalization project at Jefferson Park.

Mr. Vinsh mentioned about $600,000 in contingency funds have been budgeted for both the Hickory Hill and the Rt. 36/Rt. 144 projects.

Ms. Salyers also mentioned no funds are currently available for the next project on the priority list – Temple Avenue and Puddledock Road intersection improvement.


REPORT ON POLICY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF I-95/I-85/Rt. 460 INTERCHANGE STUDY

Mr. Vinsh stated a summary of the report made by Mr. Hayes of VDOT during the August 1st Technical Committee meeting of a study completed in the year 2000 on the deficiencies of the existing I-95/I-85/Rt. 460 interchange was provided to the MPO – Policy Committee during its August 14th meeting by the CPDC staff.

Mr. Vinsh indicated the consensus of Policy Committee membership was for the Technical Committee to continue discussions on the interchange study with focus on how to update the cost estimates for the various phases.

Mr. Vinsh further indicated the consensus included the Technical Committee to give consideration to assessing candidate interstate improvement needs within the Tri-Cities and to prioritize candidate projects similar to the approach used to prioritizing candidate CMAQ and RSTP projects. The MPO could then forward a recommended candidate interstate project to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for consideration.

Mr. Vinsh mentioned that, in addition to the I-95/I-85/Rt. 460 project, the I-95 & Rives Road interchange and the I-95 & Southpark Boulevard interchange have been mentioned as potential interstate improvement project needs in the Tri-Cities.

Mr. Vinsh indicated he could prepare a list of different criteria that could be used, with supporting data furnished by VDOT, to assess relative need for several candidate interstate projects.


REPORT ON THE DRAFT 2008 STATEWIDE RAIL PLAN

Mr. Vinsh made reviewed summary information prepared by the CPDC staff on the draft 2008 Statewide Rail Plan and attached to the agenda packet on freight and passenger rail initiatives of potential impact to the Tri-Cities Area.

Mr. Vinsh indicated two major freight rail projects of potential impact in the Tri-Cities are identified in the draft rail plan. First, the CSX National Gateway Corridor extends generally in a north/south direction near the I-95 corridor in the Tri-Cities. CSX and the Commonwealth will likely consider rail improvements, including potential construction of intermodal facilities, within this corridor. The second potential freight rail project of potential impact in the Tri-Cities is development of the heartland corridor. The corridor generally is within the Route 460 corridor in the Tri-Cities.

Mr. Vinsh added that a comment letter to the VDR&PT was prepared following the August MPO – Policy Committee meeting. The letter expresses concern that a landside access improvement on Lamore Drive for the proposed Prince George Intermodal Facility was recently completed in the absence of any agreement between the State and Norfolk Southern for construction of the Prince George Intermodal Facility.

Ms. Thompson stated that when Norfolk Southern came to the County with the rezoning proposal there were certain conditions attached including a provision to assist with the road improvements. The last communication between Prince George and Norfolk Southern was in March 2008. The Prince George Intermodal Facility is still on the books but Norfolk Southern cannot provide a date for construction of the facility.


REVIEW OF CHAPTER 527 IMPLEMENTATION AND LAND TRACK SYSTEM

Mr. Svejkovsky provided an overview of a General Assembly legislated statewide requirement that VDOT implement a process for requiring developers to prepare traffic impact assessments (TIAs)for larger developments using a specified methodology.

Mr. Svejkovsky commented the requirement includes posting the traffic impact assessment on a VDOT website along with correspondence between VDOT and the local jurisdiction where the proposed development is planned to occur.

Mr. Svejkovsky mentioned the Branner Station development as a TIA example and distributed a handout showing the Land Track System on the webpage and type of information available now.

Mr. Svejkovsky indicated the traffic impact assessments can be used to help determine transportation improvement needs beyond the immediate development area. VDOT District Offices will also be using information generated by the traffic impact assessments to help with development of travel forecasting in MPO areas. Local governments can also use these assessments to negotiate with the developer for proffers and as background information for preparing the transportation element of future comprehensive plan updates. The VDOT role is advisory.

Mr. Vinsh asked what action does VDOT take on the TIAs?

Mr. Svejkovsky stated VDOT reviews the document and indicates whether or not it agrees with the assumptions and the way the assessment was made. VDOT does not approve or disapprove the TIA. The goal of the TIA is to answer almost any present-day or future-day question related to transportation improvement needs associated with the proposed development. One of the most important local inputs into the development of the TIAs is in the preparation of land use plans that indicate where development is expected to occur.


REVIEW OF PROPOSED TRI-CITIES AREA REVISED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Mr. Vinsh stated VDOT – Central Office has prepared an update to the existing MOU for transportation planning with the MPO using language consistent with SAFETEA-LU requirements. A copy of the draft MOU was attached to the agenda package.

Ms. Smith asked if the agreement was consistent with the Richmond MOU.

Mr. Svejkovsky indicated the MOU was basically the same.

Mr. Vinsh stated that there is some concern regarding language relating to provision for using the new format for projects listed in the Transportation Improvement Program versus the old format. He asked if the proposed language could be modified to reflect the supplemental TIP project reports ungrouping CMAQ, RSTP, Secondary and Safety projects?

Mr. Svejkovsky indicated he could check on this item and provide an update during the next meeting.


DISCUSSION OF ARRANGEMENTS FOR FORT LEE CONSTRUCTION TOUR

Mr. Cruz stated his office is able to offer Technical Committee members a bus tour of Fort Lee construction activities beginning at 10:00 a.m. on October 3rd. After a brief period of discussion, it was agreed committee members would meet at the Visitor Center parking lot just inside the Lee Gate.


ELECTION OF OFFICERS
After a brief period of discussion, it was the consensus that Mr. Altman would serve as Chair and Mr. Schanzenbacher would serve as Vice-Chair.


There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:15 a.m.


Minutes of the Tri-Cities Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Technical Committee meeting held at 1000 Yacht Basin Drive, Colonial Heights on November 7, 2008 at 10:15 a.m.

Members Present: Steve Simonson, (alternate)Chesterfield; Mark Bassett, Dinwiddie; March Altman, Hopewell; Sharon Williams, Prince George; Mark Riblett, VDOT; George Schanzenbacher, City of Colonial Heights; Amy Inman, VDR&PT; Joe Vinsh, CPDC.

Members Absent: Mike Briddell, Petersburg; Amy Inman, VDR&PT; PAT (vacant)

Others Present: Dama Rice, Vandy Jones, Petersburg; Chuck Henley, Colonial Heights; Jason Gray, Fort Lee; Ron Svejkovsky, Walter Johnson, Lamont Benjamin, VDOT; Stuart Geltman, David Sampson, DMJM Harris.

Chairman Altman called the meeting to order.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES – September 5, 2008

Upon a motion by Mr. Riblett, seconded by Mr. Schanzenbacher and carried, the minutes of the September 5, 2008 meeting were approved.

CITIZEN INFORMATION PERIOD

No comment


REPORT ON PETERSBURG AREA TRANSIT (PAT) COST SHARE STUDY

Mr. Sampson provided background information indicating the study identifies current annual cost for PAT services on the 4 routes operated outside Petersburg corporate limits (Dinwiddie, Ettrick, Southpark and Fort Lee/Prince George). The purpose of this study is to show what the equitable distribution of local cost would be for the existing fixed-route service currently being provided solely by the City of Petersburg.

Mr. Geltman presented an analysis of the 4 routes. The data sources used for analysis included the National Transit Database, PAT financial data, operating hours and route miles, public schedules and a boarding survey of bus riders by jurisdiction and by fare paid.

The assessment of route miles by jurisdiction indicated a distribution of Petersburg 82.73%, Chesterfield 5.35%, Colonial Heights 3.11%, Dinwiddie 2.30%, Fort Lee 0.86%, Hopewell 0.64% and Prince George 4.99%.

The assessment of ridership by jurisdiction indicated a distribution of Petersburg 63.57%, Chesterfield 11.93%, Colonial Heights 13.60%, Dinwiddie 2.17%, Fort Lee 2.35%, Hopewell 3.46% and Prince George 2.93%.

After consideration of several methods of distributing local cost by jurisdiction, including passengers per mile, passengers per hour, cost per passenger and route miles, route miles was selected because this can readily determined by GIS and is more easily understood.

The total cost of the 4 studied routes for the year 2007 was $900,517. After taking out State and federal subsidies received and passenger fares collected on the 4 studied routes and local deficit of $117,057.72 remains. Using route miles as a basis for distributing net cost by jurisdiction, the cost distribution would be Petersburg $38,620.60, Colonial Heights $11,988.60, Dinwiddie $18,513.21, Fort Lee $4,957.02, Hopewell $1,707.42 and Prince George $41,270.86.

Mr. Geltman and Mr. Sampson further commented that 3 issues also need to be addressed. First, PAT needs to have more certainty for planning future operations. Second, other jurisdictions should have a role in planning transit services if they decide to contribute to the operation. Third, consideration should be given to increasing fares and to implement a U-Pass Program with Virginia State University. The U-Pass Program would permit students to use PAT buses with a student ID on an unlimited basis. VSU would use a portion of the student activity fee to pay a lump sum amount to PAT. Generally, as more people use a transit system the efficiency of that system will increase.

Mr. Simonson commented that a boarding in this study does not mean that rider is from that jurisdiction.

Mr. Geltman agreed the survey only recorded boardings by jurisdiction over a 1 week period for each of the 4 routes. Passengers were not asked to indicate their place of residence.

Mr. Johnson commented that a park & ride lot may benefit ridership and revenue.

Mr. Schzenbacher asked if a fare increase for cause a decline in ridership.

Mr. Sampson indicated the industry rule is for each 10% increase in fare there will be a corresponding 3% reduction in ridership for a 1 to 2 year period when ridership returns to previous levels.

Mr. Henley asked if knowing trip purpose was important for this study.

Mr. Sampson responded this study only looked at how the net local deficit would be shared if all jurisdictions contributed on an equitable basis for service outside of Petersburg corporate limits.

After a brief period of further discussion, it was the consensus that local comments on the draft report would be forwarded to the CPDC staff within a one week period and the Technical Committee would consider a making a recommendation during its December meeting.


STATUS REPORT ON TRANSIT DEVELOPEMNT PROGRAM (TDP) UPDATE

Mr. Vinsh stated the project scope and cost estimate prepared in January 2008 for the TDP update did not take into consideration all TDP requirements made effective July 2008 by the Commonwealth. The Crater Planning District Commission has received VDR&PT approval for a Section 5304 grant in the amount of $70,000 for this project. However, the original scope of services for this project and the cost estimate did not consider the State TDP requirements and may not be sufficient. Also, the original project
scope assumed use of a VDR&PT on-call consultant.

Mr. Vinsh further commented that last TDP update for Tri-Cities was completed in 1993 and the next federal certification review would be in 2009.

Mr. Vinsh commented that the revised TDP scope of services attached to the agenda packet includes the State requirements and is more rigorous than the earlier version. Therefore, there is more work to be completed and use of VDR&PT on-call consultant services is not available for this project. The CPDC would need to advertise a request for qualifications, form a selection committee, evaluate the responders and begin negotiations for a selection.

Mr. Altman asked how would use of an on-call consultant normally be accessed?

Mr. Vinsh indicated a written request would be made to VDR&PT for a transit related project or to VDOT for a highway related project.

Mr. Altman asked how is the project funded?

Mr. Vinsh indicted the 5304 grant is 80% FTA, 10% VDR&PT and 10% Crater Planning District Commission.

Mr. Altman asked if we did not have the grant and wanted to go for use of the on-call consultant who would pay for the on-call service?

Mr. Vinsh indicated, as with the PAT Cost Share Study, on-call consultant services have been paid by VDR&PT.

Mr. Altman indicated it appeared likely if we go through a consultant procurement process it would likely take several months and then it would be likely the available $70,000 would not be sufficient to fund the project.

Mr. Altman further indicated it may be to our advantage not to use the approved grant and request VDR&PT to include this project in their future on-call consultant contract.

Mr. Schzenbacher asked if we are locked into the State TDP requirements and could the award be modified based on the new requirements?

Mr. Henley suggested VDR&PT be asked if the approved grant could be assigned to VDR&PT to complete the project.

Mr. Vinsh indicated he would contact VDR&PT to explore options available and have further information available for consideration during the December meeting.

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED APPROACH FOR MPO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRIORIZING FUTURE INTERSTATE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

Mr. Vinsh made reference previous discussions and to an attachment in the agenda package outlining a suggested process for the MPO in evaluating candidate interstate projects similar to the RSTP process.

Mr. Henley indicated it was better for the MPO to develop a priority list than not have one.

Mr. Schanzenbacher indicated the suggested process appears to be what would be needed to prioritize candidate interstate projects.

Mr. Riblett commented the project evaluation factors proposed are the same as what is being asked internally at VDOT. If the region can develop a way of using the suggested criteria to establish priorities, this would be useful information for the CTB.

Mr. Riblett further commented that because of revenue shortfalls this year the Six Year Program is not being updated during the December/January time frame. The focus now is on cutting back existing projects rather than trying to fund new projects. Therefore, new projects need to be put on hold. At this time, it is more important for the MPO to prioritize existing projects, especially interstate and primary projects, rather than new projects. More time is available to work with new projects.

Mr. Vinsh asked how much of a reduction is anticipated?

Mr. Riblett indicated a decrease of about 30% is the target. This reduction will be made during the December – January timeframe. The important thing is for the MPO to provide input on which projects should not be cut.

After a brief period of further discussion it was the consensus no further consideration would be made on prioritizing candidate projects at this time.


CONSIDERATION OF UPDATED MEMORAMDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE MPO FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SAFETEA-LU

Mr. Vinsh indicated the MPO submitted three comments for changes to the State in the draft MOU. The comment related to a provision for State elected officials serving on the MPO was clarified to include language that this provision would be at the discretion of the MPO Policy Board. The comments requesting changes that VDOT provide the MPO monthly reports on TIP changes in CMAQ, RSTP, Secondary and Safety funded projects under Article 7 was not agreed. The comment requesting the Petersburg City Manager be identified as the signatory on behalf of Petersburg Area Transit was not agreed.

Mr. Riblett indicated VDOT wants to provide the reports but is reluctant to put this intent into the MOU.

Mr. Riblett made a motion, seconded by Mr. Schzenbacher and carried, a recommendation was made to the Policy Committee to approve the proposed MOU.


REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FY09 – FY12 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO ADD THE PE PHASE FOR UPC 90374

After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Schzenbacher, seconded by Mr. Riblett and carried, that the MPO – Policy Committee approve an amendment to the current TIP to include PE for UPC 90374 during FY09.

Mr. Henley indicated some additional allocation is needed for a CMAQ project (UPC 52434) on the Boulevard in Colonial Heights.

Mr. Riblett indicated sufficient funding was available for UPC 52434 to proceed. Additional funds needed could be added the next time CMAQ project allocations are made.


DISCUSSION OF PRIORITIES FOR PROGRAMMING INTERSTATE, PRIMARY, URBAN AND SECONDARY PROJECTS IN THE CURRENT SIX-YEAR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Mr. Vinsh indicated VDOT has requested the MPO provide input on priority projects currently identified in the six year program.

Mr. Riblett emphasized this input was especially needed for interstate and primary projects as reductions in the current program were going to be made in December or January by the CTB.

After a period of further discussion, it was the consensus the Technical Committee members would provide a recommendation to the Policy Committee on interstate and primary project priorities for the region.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:45 a.m.


Minutes of the Tri-Cities Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Technical Committee meeting held at 1000 Yacht Basin Drive, Colonial Heights on December 5, 2008 at 10:15 a.m.

Members Present: Amy Inman, VDR&PT; Barbara Smith, Chesterfield; Mark Bassett, Dinwiddie; March Altman, Hopewell; Sharon Williams, Prince George; Mark Riblett, VDOT; George Schanzenbacher, City of Colonial Heights; Amy Inman, VDR&PT; Joyce Goode, PAT; Joe Vinsh, CPDC.

Members Absent: Mike Briddell, Petersburg;

Others Present: Tammy Davis, FHWA; Doris McLeod, VDEQ; Jason Gray, Fort Lee; Ron Svejkovsky, Lamont Benjamin, Jim Ponticello, VDOT;

Chairman Altman called the meeting to order.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES – November 7, 2008

Upon a motion by Mr. Svejkovsky, seconded by Mr. Schanzenbacher and carried, the minutes of the November 7, 2008 meeting were approved.

CITIZEN INFORMATION PERIOD

No comment


CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON PETERSBURG AREA TRANSIT (PAT) COST SHARE STUDY
Mr. Vinsh indicated the project consultant presented the interim report and responded to several questions during the November meeting. The consultant has recommended using route miles as the basis for determining what the cost shares would be for the 4 routes located outside Petersburg corporate limits if service agreements were in place. Table 3 provides the mileage information by locality and Table 13 shows the net route deficit after State and Federal assistance and fares collected are subtracted from route expenses.

Ms. Smith indicated a need for information on how many of the Ettrick riders are residents of Chesterfield County.

Mr. Vinsh commented he had located a Transit Development Plan (TDP) prepared for PAT by VDR&PT dated April 2006 and the boarding survey provided in this project may provide the information. This document is mainly an efficiency study of the PAT route structure.

After a brief period of further discussion, it agreed the 2006 boarding survey would be reviewed and the Technical Committee would consider adoption of the 2006 TDP at a future meeting.

Mr. Schanzenbacher asked what was needed for a Technical Committee recommendation on the Cost Share Study and how urgent was the need.

Mr. Altman indicated the Technical Committee needs to reach a consensus that the approach used by the consultant is acceptable but the elected officials and managers in the region need to deal with the question of whether or not to recommend financial support for the net deficit of the routes outside Petersburg corporate limits.

Ms. Inman indicated the 2006 TDP did not include a financial forecast for PAT and does not satisfy all recently adopted State TDP requirements.

Mr. Schanzenbacher indicated it would make sense to see if the 2006 TDP contains the information needed on place of residence before moving ahead with the recommendations.

Upon a motion by Mr. Schanzenbacher, seconded by Ms. Smith and carried, a motion was approved to table making recommendations on the study until it could be determined if the 2006 TDP contained sufficient ridership information by place of residence.


STATUS REPORT ON SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM UPDATE
Mr. Vinsh indicated a need for a new TDP update that included financial projections by source for the years comparable to the level of detail VDOT provides for the CLRP. In addition, the new TDP will need to comply with State requirements and address considerations for new or modified transit routes, including a recent request from Fort Lee for direct service to Southpark Mall.

Mr. Vinsh further indicated he would send comments to VDR&PT on the State TDP requirements and meet with VDR&PT staff to review the content of recent transit studies and revised the draft TDP scope of work prior to the January Technical Committee meeting.

Mr. Vinsh commented that the 3 recent studies to be reviewed with VDR&PT include the 2006 TDP, the VHB transit element of the Crater Growth Management Plan and the AECOM Cost Share Study currently under review.

Ms. Inman indicated the intent of the TDP update is to show PAT goals and objectives, the service implementation plan and how the route structure is evaluated. The TDP is a comprehensive plan that allows the State to better program funds. The 2006 study did include a route evaluation to Southpark Mall from Fort Lee. However, this document did not include any operating or capital plans or a vision on how implementation may occur.


REVIEW OF INFORMATION ON AIR QUALITY DEVELOPMENT IN THE RICHMOND OZONE NONATTAINMENT/MAINTENANCE AREA
Ms. McLeod from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) provided a detailed presentation on the status of compliance with applicable ozone air quality standards. Readings at selected monitoring stations this past summer indicated sufficient levels of ozone were recorded to indicate non-compliance with the standards. Therefore, there is a need to implement correction measures called for the in the existing maintenance plan to bring the Richmond Ozone Nonattainment/Maintenance Area back into compliance. The measures proposed to be implemented to bring the area back into compliance include selected controls on portable gas can spouts, metal cleaning operations and mobile painting operations.

A representative from VDEQ will make a similar presentation to the MPO – Policy Committee in January on this item. The Metropolitan Richmond Air Quality Committee (MRAQC) will not be assembled to address this item unless significant concerns are raised by local governments. Provision for deployment of these restrictions which will reduce future emissions are already identified in the State Implementation Plan.

After a period of further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:40 a.m.

CPDC