Download pdf - Agenda Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization ... · Agenda Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board Meeting January 20, 2010 The Regional Board Room,

Agenda

Hampton Roads

Transportation Planning Organization

Board Meeting

January 20, 2010

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

10:30 a.m. CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (Limit 3 minutes per individual) APPROVAL OF AGENDA

CONSENT AGENDA

1. Minutes of the December 16, 2009 HRTPO Board Meeting

2. FY 2009‐2012 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment: VDOT

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 10:45 a.m. 3. Revised FY 2010‐2015 Six‐Year Improvement Program

10:55 a.m. 4. 2034 Long‐Range Transportation Plan: Vision and Goals 11:00 a.m. 5. CMAQ/RSTP Project Selection Process: Selected Projects and Allocations

11:05 a.m. 6. Proposed Hampton Roads Fast Ferry System

11:20 a.m. 7. Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project Draft Tier I EIS

11:30 a.m. 8. High‐Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Request for Proposals: Consultant Selection

11:40 a.m. 9. Strategy To Address At‐Risk ARRA Funds

11:45 a.m. 10. HRTPO Committees: Status Report

11:55 a.m. 11. For Your Information 12. Old/New Business

12:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Meeting – January 20, 2010

AGENDA ITEM #1: MINUTES SUBJECT:

Minutes of previous HRTPO Board meeting. BACKGROUND: Minutes of the HRTPO Board meeting held on December 16, 2009. Attachment 1 RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve the minutes.

HRTPO Minutes – December 16, 2009 ‐ Page 1

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (TPO)

Meeting Minutes of December 16, 2009

The Hampton Roads TPO Board Meeting was called to order at 10:31 a.m. in the Regional Boardroom, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia, with the following in attendance: TPO Voting Members: Molly Joseph Ward, Vice Chair (HA) Alan P. Krasnoff (CH)* Clifton B. Hayes (CH) Christian D. Rilee (GL)* Bruce C. Goodson (JC) Joe S. Frank (NN)* Paul D. Fraim (NO) Douglas L. Smith (PO) Gordon C. Helsel, Jr. (PQ) Linda T. Johnson (SU)* Louis R. Jones (VB)

Jeanne Zeidler (WM) Jerry Bridges (VPA)* Amy Inman (DRPT)* Sen. John Miller (GA) Sen. Yvonne B. Miller (GA) Del. Glenn Oder (GA) Ray Amoroso (HRT) Dennis Heuer (VDOT)* Eric Stringfield (VDOT) Mark Rickards (WATA) Del. John Cosgrove (GA)*

TPO Nonvoting Members: William E. Harrell (CH) Brenda Garton (GL) James B. Oliver (HA) W. Douglas Caskey (IW) Sanford B. Wanner (JC) Regina V.K. Williams (NO) Neil A. Morgan (NN) Ivan Rucker (FHWA)

Kenneth L. Chandler (PO) J. Randall Wheeler (PQ) Selena Cuffee‐Glenn (SU)* James K. Spore (VB) Jackson C. Tuttle, II (WM) James O. McReynolds (YK) Capt. Kelly Johnson (Navy)* Capt. George Bonner (USCG)

Absent: William D. Sessoms (VB), Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr. (YK), Stan D. Clark (IW), Michael Townes (HRT), Capt. Mark Ogle (USCG) *Late arrival or early departure Others Recorded Attending: Cecil Goodwin, John Gergely, Terri Boothe & Wiley Mitchell (Citizen); Rosa Lawrence (FR); Beverly Walkup & Lisa Perry (IW); Keith Cannady, Elizabeth Kersey & Mary Bunting (HA); Tyrone W. Franklin (SY); Earl Sorey & Dr. Ella P. Ward (CH); Bryan Pennington & Tara Sotherland (NO); Sheri Neil (PO); Robert Barclay (SU); Bob Matthias & Mark Schnaufer (VB); Karen McPherson – Kimley Horn & Assoc.; Ray Taylor, Vince Malendoski & Vince Thomas – FHR; Irene Shuman – VDOT; Kristen Wells – Seventh Point VB; Debbie Messina – The Virginian Pilot; Ellis W. James –

Attachment 1


Sierra Club Observer; Tracy Baynard ‐ McGuire Woods Consulting; Peter Huber – Wilcox & Savage; Germaine Fleet – Biggs & Fleet; Chuck Cayton – RK&K; Mark Geduldig‐Yatrofsky – Portsmouth City Watch Org.; Sheila S. Noll – BOS York County; Amy P. Kelley – CNRMA/NAVFAC US Navy; Joe Howell – Naval Station Norfolk; LT. Meagan Varley & RADM Mark Boensel – CNRMA U.S. Navy; Christopher Voigt (VDOT); Martha Gross – Virginia Tech; Randy Lougee –LWV‐SHR; Jeff Florin – VPA; David White – VMA; Jay Bernas – HRSD; Jan Hendrickson – Parsons Brinckerhoff; Andy Hecker – Moffatt & Nichol; Martha McClees – VB Vision; Aubrey Layne – Commonwealth Transportation Board; Chris Malendoski – The Wright Company; Austin Bogues – Daily Press; Sara Morris – NewsChannel 3; Staff: Dwight Farmer, Jessica Banks, Sam Belfield, John Carlock, Rob Case, Nancy Collins, Carlos Gonzalez, Kathlene Grauberger, Greg Grootendorst, Frances Hughey, Jim Hummer, Rob Jacobs, Brett Kerns, Michael Kimbrel, Glynis Mitchell, Keith Nichols, Joe Paulus, Benito Pérez, Kelli Peterson, Andy Pickard, Camelia Ravanbakht, Stephanie Shealey, Dale Stith, Chris Vaigneur and Eric Walberg.

Public Comment Period

Three people requested to address the TPO members. Vice Chair Ward introduced Ellis James, Cecil Goodwin and Chris Malendoski and asked them to speak from the podium and keep their comments to three minutes.

Ellis James

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. My name is Ellis James and as many of you know, I am a Chair Club Observer at these meetings. I would like to call something to your attention this morning for those of you who might have missed it. Transportation, which is one of the major contributors to our air quality issues and problems that we have in Hampton Roads, is going to take a double hit, in my opinion, in the not too distant future. Planners recommend coal plant approval. As most of you around this table know, our wind, prevailing wind direction is out of the southwest. People in Williamsburg and other areas along the Peninsula down into Southside Hampton Roads are going to be in a situation, if you connect the dots, in a situation where our air quality will be greatly diminished and degraded, in my humble opinion. I wanted to call this to your attention because the connection should be obvious. You are confronted with making decisions that need to be made as quickly and reasonably as possible to help with our traffic problems. Because if we take more traffic backup and all of the problems that you are familiar with and add that to the emissions from a coalfired power plant, we are going to have in Hampton Roads serious problems with respect to our air quality Thank you.

(Mayor Johnson arrived)

Cecil Goodwin

Thank you, Lady Chairperson, distinguished guests. This is my first time appearing before the Board and I am very much impressed with all the activity we have here. I am addressing the Board as a concerned citizen. I am hoping it’s not too late in the things that we are looking at and talking about, which is my main concern about all the talk about a new Midtown Tunnel and putting a toll on all the other tunnels. As a concerned citizen, I wanted to address the Board and ask you to take into consideration what’s the best interest of the citizens out there. A lot of the people that use the

Attachment 1


tunnel are working class people and if you are talking $5.00 a day, that might not sound like much to you, but for somebody that is only making $10.00 an hour it gets significant. My concerns are, the fact that I am a retired facility management engineer from the Army and when I look at the plan and the proposal of what they are proposing inputting in Midtown Tunnel there, I just see a folly coming in the fact you have got a nice interstate on the Portsmouth side to handle the traffic there, but you are turning around and you are dumping more traffic into a residential area on Hampton Boulevard. So if you have a teninch valve or teninch line going into a threeinch pipe, guess what? You can’t push much more through there than what the teninch pipe is. And like I said, coming back and putting a Midtown Tunnel in there, it looks good on paper but is it really going to contribute to the relief for transportation problems you have there. The tunnel traffic, the tunnel that we have, the crossings that we have now, yes, they get backed up but it is for what? Two or three hours in the morning or maybe two or three hours in the afternoon, but for the most part they are able to carry the load you have there and I think the Board would be better served looking at what is going to be the overall better financial plan or not financial plan, but what’s going to be the solution to the fact that you need to tie it into an interstate system. We have got the Gilmerton Bridge, not the Gilmerton Bridge but the bridge over by the shipyard, which is going in and that’s serving the traffic. It is going to eventually tie into the interstate and also it ties into the interstate there. I would suggest the Board better look and say maybe what we need to do is when we are putting in these new tunnel crossings, put them where you have got relief on both sides. Don’t say we are going to put it in there and jam it into a residential area. That’s just creating a folly and that’s creating a bottleneck. So I would look at it and ask the Board to consider what is the best solution in the long run, longrange plans because again when you put tolls on there you are taxing the people and you are making them pay for public contractor plus government inspectors. You are just putting the burden on the people and really not offering many benefits other than give them a tunnel that will stop working. I would like to end with the fact that when you look at tolls, when I look at tolls, it is another form and it is another word for tax and that’s what the medieval kings used to do when they wanted to raise revenue for the coffers. They put a toll on the boat and I ask you not to regress to medieval times and turn around and tax the public on something that we should be more efficient in planning.

(Ms. Inman arrived)

Chris Malendoski

Distinguished Board, TPO staff. It is an honor to be here today. My name is Chris Malendoski. I am a Norfolk citizen, a Hampton Roads citizen, let’s put it that way. I just wanted to congratulate you so far in ratcheting up your efforts. It is showing. We have seen it in the news about fixing the problem of the bridge lifts at 264. I would like to see more of that in the future. I think it can be argued that our issues here in Hampton Roads, the largest Metro area directly on the Atlantic Coast between South Florida and greater New York. It is becoming a federal, FEMA, Homeland Security issue that should warrant federal, FEMA, Homeland Security emergency funding to get our area up to speed transportation wise. I would say, submit and I would hope that it is being considered that you guys, as a group, our defacto government, our City Council, would go as a group to Congress, to the President, to FEMA whoever and make the case known as a group personally. Obviously it also entails beating down the doors in Richmond, which I know you have done, a bunch of you have done individually, but I think it is more effective as a group and then

Attachment 1


finally going to Raleigh and asking how can we work together. We want to open up Hampton Roads to the world. So that’s all I have to say. I would just ask – thank you for turning up the heat. We hope that you will do it more. We are depending on you. Thank you.

Approval of Agenda

Vice Chair Ward added ARRA Projects under new business for Mr. Dennis Heuer to discuss.

Mr. Smith Moved to approve the Agenda; seconded by Mr. Heuer. The Motion Carried.

(Mayor Krasnoff arrived)

Consent Agenda

The Consent Agenda consisted of the following items:

• Minutes of November 18, 2009 Board Meeting

• FY 2009‐2012 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment: HRTPO

• FY 2009‐2012 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment: VDOT

• Transportation Enhancement Program: Project Proposals

• Public Participation: Cooperative Service Agreement for Focus Groups and Citizen Consultation.

Senator John Miller abstained approval of Item Number 5. Mayor Johnson Moved to approve the Consent Agenda; seconded by Mayor Zeidler. The Motion Carried.

FY 20102015 SixYear Improvement Program: Draft Revision Vice Chair Ward introduced Mr. Dwight Farmer to give a presentation on the FY 2010‐2015 Six‐Year Improvement Program. Mr. Farmer stated there have been concerns about interstate funding. The six‐year improvement program for all systems of funding indicates an increase over the six years from the previous version by one percent. For FY 2010, despite the headline news on the press releases from the State that there was a cut in revenue, the six‐year improvement program now has a four percent increase in funding. In FY 2010 for all systems of funding, Hampton Roads is expected to receive a 13 percent cut in funding from $120.2 million down to $104.6 million. What concerns staff is that all other districts are staged to receive an increase in all funding sources for FY 2010. Funding for all systems for Hampton Roads breaks down as follows: FY 2010 ‐ $104.6 million – less than 10 percent; FY 2011 ‐ $72.9 million – 7.2 percent; FY 2012 ‐ $135.3 million – 12.6 percent; FY 2013 ‐ $154.4 million – 15.3 percent; FY 2014 ‐ $178.3 million – 17.9 percent; and FY 2016 ‐ $155.4 million – 16 percent.

Attachment 1


With regards to interstate system funding only for FY 2010, Hampton Roads will receive $17.1 million out of almost $300 million and are staged to receive almost $100 million out of $223 million in FY 2015. Mr. Farmer stated he received a call from Mr. Aubrey Layne of the Commonwealth Transportation Board asking for assistance in helping him to prepare for the December 1st public hearing. Mr. Farmer agreed to write a letter for Mr. Layne to read at the public hearing. Mr. Layne read the letter into record as the CTB member representing the Hampton Roads District. Mr. Farmer stated in over 30 years of doing business in Hampton Roads, he has never seen this district zeroed out completely for new interstate funding allocations. The State Secretary of Transportation indicated he needs to change the policy and put money on the projects that are staged to be built and could be built within this program. VDOT continues to eliminate funding for critical projects in Hampton Roads – I‐64 Widening on the Peninsula and the I‐64/I‐264 Interchange for example. This practice makes it impossible for Hampton Roads to advance any new interstate projects due to the lack of funding required to make the projects ready to go. Mr. Farmer stated his concern in the letter that the TPO or any other MPO has not been asked to participate in crafting the revised six‐year improvement program. The recommendation is for Mr. Farmer and Board volunteers to attend the December 17, 2009 CTB Board meeting to express concerns with the draft VDOT Six‐Year Improvement Program. Mayor Frank stated it is relevant to attend the CTB Board meeting to ask for an explanation of the rationale as to why there is no money for interstate programming and why this region is decidedly underfunded in projections from other regions around the Commonwealth. Senator Y. Miller stated it is also critical for members of the General Assembly to understand as well. Mr. Caskey stated it is not that Hampton Roads is not being funded as much as other regions. Some of the money is going to Northern Virginia. Mr. Farmer mentioned one particular year when Northern Virginia received over 93 percent of the entire interstate allocations. Mayor Frank stated part of the rationale is Northern Virginia has projects under construction. He feels it is important to attend the CTB Board meeting to make it clear that equity is important and the State ought to be treated equitably. Mr. Farmer stated Northern Virginia is staged to receive interstate allocations, some of which are on maintenance rehab and much of that is construction. In the six‐year program, 31 projects in Northern Virginia are staged to receive interstate allocations. Seven projects are staged to receive interstate allocations in Hampton Roads. Mayor Krasnoff inquired why Mr. Farmer needs permission from the TPO Board to take care of something that is imperatively vital. Mr. Farmer stated he did not attend the public hearing because of the timing and receipt of information from a staff analysis to bring it before the Board. His normal policy is to bring his concerns to the TPO Board before addressing with another board. Mr. Farmer stated on June 4th he stood in front of VDOT, Commonwealth Transportation Board members from this district, the Commissioner and the Secretary to express his concerns. He then presented that information to this Board during the July 2009 meeting, did not receive any further guidance as to what do after that and so the six‐year improvement program was approved as presented to the CTB during the summer. Mayor Krasnoff stated a chairman from Northern Virginia was at the public hearing as well as representatives from Fredericksburg, Fairfax and

Attachment 1


Richmond. Mayor Krasnoff stated the TPO Board needs to be more proactive and let concerns be heard. Mr. Layne stated he does not believe Hampton Roads is getting a fair share and the reason is not because Mr. Farmer did not attend the public hearing. Mr. Layne reported he spent the last two weeks since the hearing talking with the Secretary and Reta Busher, the CFO, going through the various projects to confirm that the policy of funding is what is being done. There are projects that the State is obligated on and it was determined to allocate the first monies to get those done. Mr. Layne stated if the Board can find one of the seven projects that is not as far along or does not meet some criteria that is not equitable, there is a chance of possibly moving some monies to Hampton Roads or somewhere else in the state, although he believes that is going to be difficult to attain. Mr. Layne has verified that Hampton Roads’ budget for maintenance has not been cut. There are also some items in the maintenance project that probably should have been in the six‐year plan. For example, there is $35 million for upgrading the computer banks at the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel that, in the past, probably would have been in the six‐year plan. As a region, Hampton Roads gets the lion share of repairs. During the CTB work session later today, Mr. Layne is prepared to go on record and let the State know that he believes the Hampton Roads region is in a crisis in terms of transportation and ask for their help in obtaining funding for projects. Mr. Layne stated Northern Virginia is together as a region on their projects and Hampton Roads needs to do the same. Mr. Layne also stated it is time for our legislators to act. There is a need for more transportation revenue monies in the State of Virginia. He reported he has the Secretary’s assurance Hampton Roads will not have a zero for FY 2011. Mr. Goodson volunteered to attend the December 17th CTB Board meeting. Mayor Zeidler expressed the TPO Chair or Vice Chair should attend the meeting as well to speak with the strength of the Board. Mr. Smith said there needs to be regional outrage that this is happening and there is no circumstance under which Hampton Roads ought to be getting 10 percent of the money in the current year. He argues that number ought to be 23, 24 or 25 percent based on population, intensity of infrastructure, etc. Mr. Farmer reported 25 people attended the public hearing for the entire State of Virginia. To have a public hearing on a revised six‐year program of this gravity and have only one public hearing opportunity in Richmond for the whole state and then to not include any of the 13 MPOs in the state is not the way to do business in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Mayor Fraim and Mayor Frank thanked Mr. Layne for his service and passion. Mayor Fraim stated Hampton Roads needs more evacuation routes and the Commonwealth owes it to this region. There are projects that are imperative to the safety and vitality of this community. Delegate Oder inquired if the Board should ask for a specific dollar amount. Mr. Farmer’s recommendation is to reinstate the monies that were taken off a year ago such as the I‐64 Widening, which is $39.4 million and the I‐64/I‐264 interchange, which is a single digit million dollars. Mr. Goodson stated the issue is the planning money is gone. Nothing gets built unless it is planned for and as long as planning money is being pulled away from projects, they are not going to go forward. Mr. Farmer listed the projects that have had funding dollars removed. York County lost $17 million, Route 17 lost $5 million for PE right‐of‐way primary system and Isle of Wight

Attachment 1


Route 620 reconstruction lost $1.1 million, Surry County Route 626 lost $600,000 for PE right‐of‐way construction, York County Route 641 lost $283,000 for PE right‐of‐way, Southampton County lost $1.5 million on Route 671 for right‐turn lane, Virginia Beach Route 165 intersection improvements lost $522,000, the City of Poquoson Route 172 Phase One lost $48,000, Chesapeake Route 337 and Suffolk Route 337 lost a combined total of about $1 million in PE and right‐of‐ways and the urban fund was taken out, Dominion Boulevard lost $10 million and Suffolk Route 626 reconstruction lost $2.3 million. The total reductions were $56.221 million. Mr. Goodson inquired about I‐64 on the Peninsula. Mr. Heuer explained a contractor was selected and the negotiations were terminated which stopped the work. Mayor Krasnoff inquired what the priority should be for Mr. Farmer to feel free to attend future meetings without the direction of the Board. Vice Chair Ward suggested advising Mr. Farmer any time there is a public meeting or a meeting of the Commonwealth Transportation Board that requires advocacy on the part of the TPO, it is the desire of the Board for him to attend and advocate what the Board has endorsed in the past. Mayor Frank suggested developing a team who can attend meetings to support Mr. Farmer. Vice Chair Ward suggested empowering the Chairman to be appointed to talk to Mr. Farmer and make a decision between the two of them about where to go and when. Mr. Farmer stated for the record that he will advise the Chair and Vice Chair before making any appearances. Del. Oder Moved to reinstate the monies that were taken off a year ago and authorize the Executive Director to take the request to the December 17th meeting; seconded by Mr. Goodson. The Motion Carried. Del. Oder Moved to amend the initial motion to include the Executive Director taking the list of projects that were removed; seconded by Mr. Goodson. The Motion Carried. Mr. Heuer and Ms. Inman abstained. Regional Project Prioritization: Navy Perspective

Vice Chair Ward introduced Rear Admiral Mark Boensel from the U.S. Navy to give a presentation on the Navy’s perspective of Regional Project Prioritization. Admiral Boensel is a Regional Commander and although his headquarters are in Norfolk, his responsibilities are very broad beyond Hampton Roads. He stated the Navy is a service that has a lot of hardware but behind that are people operating it, fixing it and maintaining it. There are active duty, reservists, civilians and contractors all working together to accomplish the Navy’s mission. There are approximately 330,000 active duty, 108,000 reservists who are mobilized serving somewhere around the world, and approximately 195,000 civilian employees. There are 285 commissioned ships with 134 of those, almost 50 percent, currently deployed. There are approximately 25,000 people deployed in the two areas of war with 15,000 on the ground. Admiral Boensel explained each base has a mayor and Captain Johnson is the mayor of Naval Station Norfolk. He is responsible for all aspects of supporting the people, families and forces at his station. He is responsible for everything from public works, fire departments, police, hotels, stores and restaurants. In addition, he is responsible for airports and port facilities.

Attachment 1


Admiral Boensel’s responsibilities run from Hampton Roads to the Canadian border. He has 17 major installations, 33 Navy operational support centers and 119 congressional districts. Within the 14 states under his jurisdiction, there are Senators that are paying attention to what the Navy is doing. In most cases, the Navy is the largest employer in the area so what the Navy does is important in a lot of ways, not the least of which is economics. Within the 285 ships in the fleet, 120 of those are in Admiral Boensel’s region. There are approximately 4,000 airplanes in his inventory. Many people live on the bases and they are not all Navy personnel. There are Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, NATO command and other federal agencies. The Navy population is about 20 percent of the Hampton Roads population which is more than 250,000 people. Admiral Boensel stated his chain of command expects him to keep them out of harm’s way during a storm or other natural disaster. He is very concerned about the transportation situation in Hampton Roads. More than 66,000 vehicles go through the gates of Naval Station Norfolk, which makes transportation a readiness and operational issue for the Navy. During a typical weekday, there are approximately 125,000 Navy personnel traveling to the bases. The Navy would like to make a consolidated and unified effort to improve transportation in Hampton Roads, but what Admiral Boensel cannot do is put one municipality’s interests over another. In order to meet the Navy’s needs, there has to be compatibility with its operations. Safety and quality of life are very important. Privately Owned Vehicles (POV), accidents and incidents are briefed to the Fleet Commander every week. When individuals choose to stay in the Navy, a lot goes into that decision. If they do not feel as if they are being taken care of and they get tired of sitting on I‐564 for a long time, for instance, they are going to start to think about other things to do and possibly other places to go, which is not good for Hampton Roads. There are a lot of servicemen and servicewoman that come to Hampton Roads from out of state and stay here, which is a big benefit to the region. They are skilled, educated, dedicated, dependable, reliable and very good citizens. One of the issues the Navy has commented on and is currently working on is the new I‐564 connector. They have also commented officially on the light rail expansion specifically with the interest to have it come to the Naval Station. Admiral Boensel stated Navy personnel are proud to be citizens of Hampton Roads and are willing to assist the TPO.

HRTPO Project Prioritization and Selection Process Vice Chair Ward introduced Mr. Farmer to give a presentation about the HRTPO Project Prioritization and Selection Process. Mr. Farmer stated the Board expressed concerns about scoring with a number, the content of the factors for scoring, rating, ranking, the weighting, the categories and the lack of economic analysis. The Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) came up with a solution.

Attachment 1


On November 18th at the Board’s direction the Transportation Advisory Committee met and thoroughly discussed ratings, ranks and the prioritization process. The TAC recommended the exploration of a prioritization process that will contain three components much like a three‐legged stool. Project utility which will tell how good a transportation project is, project viability which will tell if a project needs additional funding, if there are prior commitments and if there are federal mandates to get the project ready to go, and economic vitality. The TPO Board will have to make a decision on the outputs once members are in agreement on what the inputs are going to be into the mathematical modeling of processes. There were meetings with VDOT in which Mr. Heuer sent Mr. Farmer a letter requesting a revision of the scope for the three phase approach adding economic vitality. VDOT recommended pursuing the addition of the third evaluation criteria, which is economic vitality, and then set a schedule. Mr. Farmer stated the economic work should begin between early to mid‐spring and no later than May or June. Mr. Heuer informed members that VDOT also recommended Kimley‐Horn complete delivery of the draft report. It is eight chapters, approximately 100 pages and it will be called Version 1.2. He stated in the future VDOT will be looking for Version 1.3 but he recommends wrapping up what has already been contracted so there is a deliverable product for the public. Mr. Farmer stated the Board is going to stand down and wrap up Version 1.2 under the current VDOT contract. Staff and VDOT are already engaged internally in going to the three‐legged approach with economic vitality. Staff will then return to the Board to give a briefing on Version 1.3. Afterwards it will be taken from a test bed status to a full‐fledged use of the tool for analysis on prioritization. Mayor Frank inquired where the original funding availability will stem from for project viability and if it is, in fact, additional funding. Mr. Farmer stated it will be included and the additional funding is based on the mathematics of how much is already in the pot versus how much more is needed. Mayor Frank expressed the need to understand whether there is money available to do a project because priority cannot be given to a project that cannot be funded. He questioned where the funding will come from. Mr. Farmer explained rather than a number score, Kimley‐Horn has created an A through E scoring system. It will be based on how much money is already available, how much money can easily be made available and how much more is needed. Del. Oder referenced the chart that was presented at last month’s TPO Board meeting where economic vitality was at five percent with sub‐categories. Members voted on that chart with some revisions and he inquired if what was presented today are those revisions. He also inquired why a comparison was not shown from what was approved last month. Mr. Farmer stated members did take action last month to approve that methodology but based on the content of that discussion and based on a number of conversations that have occurred since then, he felt it his responsibility to return to the Board with staff’s recommendations to separate out the economic analysis and project viability without double counting. The goal is to look at project viability, economic vitality and project utility and determine if the project is good and if it is going to do good things for the region in the future. Based on that assessment, a decision will be made on prioritization within funding pots and not pitting a Midtown Tunnel against a Third Crossing, for instance. Del. Oder

Attachment 1


stated he liked the methodology presented last month because it was subjective with a lot of input to where it would have been almost impossible to fabricate a way that a certain project would come out on top. His concern is that by oversimplifying the process, it will be easier to change the criteria. Mr. Farmer assured Del. Oder the process will not be less complicated. He stated the process will actually be more complex and staff will make every effort not to allow a stacking of the deck. Mr. Farmer affirmed projects will receive an honest, objective evaluation or grade of whether it is ready to go and is of high utility. Capt. Johnson inquired how the military will be impacted or benefit operationally. Mr. Farmer stated the military will be treated the same as any community. If it benefits the military and has great implications on the 66,000 vehicles referenced by Adm. Boensel as an improvement in level of service, they will be included just as if they were a member of the community as a locality. The recommendation is to approve the utilization of the three‐legged approach, move forward with VDOT’s recommendations that are methodical because of the consultant under contract, and keep Mr. Heuer and his staff as partners at least through Version 1.3. Mayor Fraim Moved to approve the recommendation; seconded by Mayor Zeidler. The Motion Carried. (Mayor Frank and Del. Cosgrove departed) 2030 LongRange Transportation Plan Amendment

Vice Chair Ward introduced Mr. Farmer to give a presentation on the 2030 Long‐Range Transportation Plan Amendment. On November 18th, the TPO Board directed the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) to review the 2030 Long‐Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) amendment process. On February 29, 2008, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled the taxes and fees for the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority (HRTA) Projects unconstitutional. The Federal Highway Administration subsequently ruled that the HRTA‐funded projects must come out of the 2030 LRTP if amended unless substitute funding was available. During the December 3, 2009 meeting, the TAC recommended an “expedited” amendment to the 2030 LRTP to include the Lesner Bridge, Route 58, Naval Station Norfolk Transit Extension, I‐564 Intermodal Connector, the Virginia Beach Transit Extension, High‐Speed Rail and Dominion Boulevard. Mr. Farmer explained what he and staff have learned is that the projects that are in TIGER grant applications that are not contained in the 2030 plan would possibly not get due consideration in the near future if they continue to be left out of the officially approved TPO Long‐Range Plan. That is for both ARRA as well as FTA for the transit and light rail projects. The TAC also recommended HRTPO staff accelerate the 2034 Plan. By summer 2011, the final draft 2034 plan will need to have been discussed and approved. The recommendation from TAC is that all of the Hampton Roads water crossings, including HRBT, be a part of the 2034 discussion and analysis.

Attachment 1


Mr. Goodson inquired how to keep the Plan fiscally constrained if the recommended projects are added. Mr. Farmer explained they are in the TIGER grant applications and those funds would be listed as the funding. Mr. Smith asked if the 2034 Long‐Range Transportation Plan is adopted in the summer of 2011, when does it actually become a long‐range plan. Mr. Farmer stated it will possibly go through in January 2012. It will have to go through the air quality conforming analysis, State and Federal review process, which generally takes approximately six months. Vice Chair Ward inquired what the best case scenario payoff is in terms of the grant funds. Mr. Farmer said the best case scenario would be for all of the projects to receive approval for TIGER grant application. Vice Chair Ward asked if that much money is available nationwide. Mr. Farmer stated there is a good chance most of the projects could get funded. Mr. Tuttle stated two of the major six projects (I‐64 Widening on the Peninsula and the Midtown Tunnel) had to come out because they were no longer financially supported due to tolls. He inquired if they were still in the 2030 Plan. Mr. Farmer explained that in the context of developing the financial feasibility component of the 2034 Plan, it will be confirmed that those revenue streams would support those two projects. He stated they would not be in the 2030 Plan but half of the projects could easily come back as toll‐supported projects. The TPO Board would have to decide if the toll rates proposed to make it feasible are acceptable to approve in the 2034 Plan. So essentially all of the projects come out in the 2030 Plan but will be put back on the table for the 2034 Plan. Mr. Rucker inquired if the TPO Board has taken formal action to amend because the definition of amendment is an addition or deletion of a project. He asked if the TPO has taken action to remove those six projects. Mr. Farmer stated the recommended action would be those HRTA projects officially fall out of the 2030 Plan and be put back in the 2034 Plan and the dual recommendation of TAC is that the TPO expedite the 2034 Plan. Mr. Rucker asked if once approved, will a redetermination of fiscal constraint identifying the estimated costs as well as the proposed revenue sources be completed. Mr. Farmer confirmed that it will. Mayor Fraim inquired if the Midtown Tunnel was still in the Plan. Mr. Farmer confirmed that it is because there is a fully funded private sector partnership proposal that fully funds it, so it meets the criteria. He stated it is the only project of the HRTA projects that has documented the financial feasibility. Vice Chair Ward recommended rather than voting to remove projects from the Plan, Board members vote to amend it and add items and let the Federal Highway Administration make the determination on whether things fall out based on the criteria they established. Mr. Farmer stated his understanding is if a project is added it will require a proactive position on the HRTA projects, but he deferred to Mr. Rucker. Mr. Rucker stated it is a redetermination of fiscal constraint and his hope is that the Board will review the six projects and make a determination of what can be funded and what cannot. Mr. Farmer acknowledged staff would not be able to do a financial analysis of all six projects within 30 days, but they will be able to do so through the 2034 process. Mayor Zeidler reminded members earlier in the meeting there was a vote to go before the

Attachment 1


Commonwealth Transportation Board and ask for additional money to be put back in and one of the items asked for was the I‐64 Widening. If that is taken out of the plan, what will happen? Mr. Farmer stated environmental work can be completed without a project being in the Plan. Mr. Heuer stated an environmental record can be done but a record of decision cannot be approved from the Federal Highway Administration if the project is not in the long‐range plan. Mr. Oliver asked for confirmation that Dominion Boulevard would remain on the list, which he received. He also asked if I‐64 Widening would remain on the list. Mr. Farmer stated it might make it into the 2034 Plan as fully financially feasible based on the preliminary work done in 2005, but it is predicated on tolling on interstate roadways which Congress does not allow unless they receive special approval. Del. Oder inquired if feasibility for the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel would be included in the 2030 Plan. Mr. Farmer informed him that traditionally feasibility studies have not been included in the Long‐Range Plan. Del. Oder suggested that the fact that it has not traditionally been done, maybe now is the time to do things untraditionally and send a clear and strong message to the community that the TPO is serious about daily chokepoints. He referenced the transportation referendum where it failed for many reasons but he was told one of the reasons was the fact that the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel was not included in the list of projects. He suggested this is a great opportunity to include the feasibility of the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel along with the list of projects if the Federal Highway Administration would not oppose it. Mr. Farmer said officially the feasibility study had been done through the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). Mayor Fraim asked how a feasibility study can be done if it is not known what the project will look like. It could be two lanes, four lanes or even a bridge. Del. Oder emphasized the fact that there cannot be talk about two lanes or four lanes unless a feasibility study is done. Mr. Goodson expressed his concern about taking out the I‐64 project with the recommended action because if money is set aside to do the EIS study, a record of decision would not be possible. He asked if there is a possible way the I‐64 project can be considered fiscally constrained and leave it in the 2030 Plan. Mr. Farmer stated the environmental process to get to where the CTB would be ready to do a record of decision is probably a year or two away. Mayor Johnson Moved to approve the recommended action to an expedited amendment to the 2030 Plan to include the projects listed including the Midtown Tunnel; seconded by Mayor Fraim. Del. Oder stated he wanted to make an amendment to the motion to include feasibility to the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel. He stated if the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel is not addressed, it will never get off the ground. If the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel is not studied and there is no demonstrated public step toward improving it, the public is never going to believe the TPO. Del. Oder made the motion to include a feasibility study on the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel. Mr. Farmer stated historically a feasibility study is done in the Unified Planning Work Program and when an agreement is reached to move the project forward to the implementation stage design, it goes into the Long‐Range Transportation Plan. Mr. Farmer stated a Pandora’s Box will be opened if Del. Oder’s suggestion is acted upon. A disproportionate amount of implementation dollars can be spent on feasibility studies and will forfeit implementing projects due to the time spent on feasibility studies on too many projects. The Board should finish the prioritization process, get a

Attachment 1


clear definition the project has great utility, it is financially feasible, it has good economic potential and if those answers are all positive, move full speed ahead on an implementation. Vice Chair Ward suggested two motions ‐ one to amend the 2030 Plan and the second to approve an expedited 2034 process that will include all the water crossings. Mr. Smith stated the problem with including the water crossings in the 2034 Plan is that it will be 2012 before it is adopted. Sen. J. Miller expressed his concern about the fact projects are being pushed out further in the future and might not be there. He shares Del. Oder’s concerns about the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel and the widening of I‐64 on the Peninsula, which Mr. Heuer states if it falls off it would be a problem. He feels the TPO is sending the wrong message. Mr. Farmer stated he believes what Mr. Heuer said is when the NEPA document is completed and ready for the CTB to take action on a record of decision, it has to be in at that point. That could be a detriment to the 2034 process in the summer of 2011 if fortunate enough to get the CTB to reinstate monies. Mr. Heuer stated by putting a HRBT project into a constrained long‐range plan when the scope of work has not been defined is very risky. The compromise may be to address that under the UPWP to get some scope of work on it. Mr. Rucker stated that is a requirement of the Federal Department of the UPWP. He inquired who is going to pay for the scope and the schedule for completion. Mr. Heuer inquired when discussing the HRBT, are tubes being built, are approaches being built or is a bridge being built. Mr. Rucker stated in the UPWP it can be included as an information item in the Long‐Range Transportation Plan. Mr. Farmer asked Mr. Rucker if five of the six projects can remain frozen leaving the Midtown Tunnel in and add the previously referenced projects. Mr. Rucker stated by doing so, the plan is not financially constrained and will place the Chairman of the TPO, State DOT and himself as a Federal representative in an uncomfortable position. He gave the example of when a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is submitted to the Federal Highway Administration, which is the document that authorizes the release of federal funds for projects. The Chairman and VDOT sign on the dotted line of the certification statement as a condition of receiving federal funds saying the Long‐Range Transportation Plan is financially constrained. He stated it would be uncomfortable signing on that dotted line as a condition of receiving federal funds saying the Long‐Range Transportation Plan is financially constrained and knowing that it is not. His suggestion is to make a formal action to remove an expedited amendment to pull out projects. Mr. Farmer added a caveat that those projects would be fully addressed in the 2034 Plan by the summer of 2011 by action of this Board. Mr. Goodson inquired about the project on I‐64 that could be funded by tolls. It is not known if the tolls are available but it is a possibility. It is not known if the TIGER grant will be available but it is also a possibility. He asked what is the difference. Mr. Rucker stated the Federal Highway Administration would provide instances of what is considered reasonable or not. Mr. Heuer stated there have been toll studies done in the region. He does not believe any of the projects can be 100 percent funded by tolls. The only one that is 100 percent funded as proposed by tolls is the Midtown Tunnel and the community is saying the proposed tolls are too high. Mr. Heuer does not believe the TPO can say I‐64 can be built solely on tolls. There needs to be other combinations of revenue. He stated there has to be two pots of money to be reasonable and to ensure the project is fiscally constrained. Mr. Farmer stated the FHWA with regards to the TIGER grant application pending sees that as reasonable. Congress has taken action in this example of allowing tolling on

Attachment 1


an interstate roadway to be unreasonable. He believes the FHWA is giving a lot of leeway on the TIGER grant applications because they are pending within 30 to 60 days. Mayor Johnson reiterated the motion which is to approve an expedited amendment of the 2030 Long‐Range Transportation Plan to include the Lesner Bridge, Route 58 in Suffolk, Naval Station Norfolk Transit Extension, I‐564 Intermodal Connector, Virginia Beach Light Rail Transit Extension, High Speed Rail, Dominion Boulevard, Midtown Tunnel, MLK Extension and remove five of the six projects meaning the one that remains is the Midtown Tunnel. The caveat is to consider the other five in the UPWP and in the 2034 Plan. She stressed the Board needs to move forward and not lose the opportunity to acquire funds. A roll call was taken on the recommended action to approve an expedited amendment to the 2030 LRTP and the results were as follows: Yes: Mayor Krasnoff, Mayor Fraim, Mr. Doug Smith, Mayor Johnson, Mr. Louis Jones, Mayor Zeidler, Senator Yvonne Miller, Mr. Michael Townes, Mr. Mark Rickards, Mr. Dennis Heuer, Ms. Amy Inman, and Mr. Jerry Bridges. No: Mr. Christian Rilee, Mayor Molly Ward, Mr. Thomas Wright, Mr. Bruce Goodson, Mayor Helsel, Senator John Miller, and Delegate Oder. It was determined 60 percent of localities voting yes is needed and there were not enough localities voting yes to take action so the motion failed. Mr. Heuer questioned Mr. Farmer and staff about the voting. He believes it states a percentage of locality members intended on voting and the fact that all but two localities have voted may mean the action passed. Vice Chair Ward suggested a 10 minute recess. (10 minute recess) Del. Oder suggested amending the motion to state the TPO Board would like to add projects because the Board intends applying for TIGER grant to pay for the projects, add the revenue stream for the existing plan and forward to the Federal Government. He asked if the Federal Government would reject the entire plan or just reject the projects which are no longer fiscally constrained. Mr. Rucker stated the Federal Highway Administration looks at the plan as a whole not as a group of projects. If the plan is not financially constrained, it just is not. The FHWA’s original determination prior to the ruling by the Virginia Supreme Court was the Plan is financially constrained. When the Virginia Supreme Court made its ruling, the original determination did not disappear, it was kept in place. However, FHWA stated from this point on if the Plan is amended, something has to be done about fiscal constraint and, in this case, what is being seen is a request to amend the Plan. So with the request to amend the Plan, it automatically triggers a redetermination of financial constraint which would cause the TPO to re‐examine HRTA projects. So basically the determination is for the Plan as a whole. Mr. Farmer stated there may be an agreement with the Federal Highway Administration to include in the Long‐Range Plan a project

Attachment 1


or projects with preliminary engineering only (PE Only). The question is whether one or all of the HRTA projects remain as PE Only. If the Federal Highway Administration is okay with PE Only for those HRTA projects that had their tax and fees ruled unconstitutional, maybe there is common ground where these particular projects can be moved. Mr. Goodson stated he would support bringing I‐64 in for planning and development and questioned whether there is money available for that in the Plan. Mr. Rucker stated revenue stream for projects that are PE Only will need to be identified. Mr. Farmer stated with regards to I‐64 Widening on the Peninsula, when going to Richmond to ask for reconsideration, there is a reasonable chance funds will be awarded to get the project funded back up at least at the PE phase. Vice Chair Ward inquired of Del. Oder if the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel can be added as PE Only. Mr. Farmer stated PE funding has not been identified for the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel yet. Mr. Heuer stated with PE Only, a definition of what the project is needs to be completed. Mr. Goodson Moved to amend the motion to add the new projects, maintain the Midtown Tunnel and include I‐64 Widening on the Peninsula, Southeastern Parkway, Route 460 and Third Crossing Phase I in the 2030 LRTP to PE Only projects. Also a motion was made to accelerate the adoption of the 2034 LRTP; Seconded by Mayor Johnson. Mr. Farmer stated in the bylaws the criteria for percent of localities are those present and voting. The percent of population is the percent of population for the whole region whether voting or not to add up to 66 percent. The 60 percent criteria in the bylaws are for those localities present and voting. A roll call was taken on the recommended action and the results were as follows: Yes: Mayor Krasnoff, Mayor Molly Ward, Mr. Thomas Wright, Mr. Bruce Goodson, Mayor Fraim, Mr. Doug Smith, Mayor Helsel, Mayor Johnson, Mr. Louis Jones, Mayor Zeidler, Senator John Miller, Senator Yvonne Miller, Delegate Oder, Mr. Michael Townes, Mr. Mark Rickards, Mr. Dennis Heuer, Ms. Amy Inman, and Mr. Jerry Bridges. No: Mr. Christian Rilee The Motion Carried. (Mr. Rilee departed) Nominating Committee: CTAC Membership Recommendations Vice Chair Ward introduced Mr. Doug Smith to discuss the Nominating Committee for the Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC). Mr. Smith reminded the Board that the criteria for membership would be that the members reside in one of the jurisdictions in Hampton Roads, have an interest in the regional transportation planning process, have an interest in promoting public involvement, community outreach and transportation planning for the region, have time to review the pertinent materials, attend and actively participate. At the last meeting there was conversation initiated by Senator Y. Miller who said the CTAC should remind everyone that it should appropriately reflect the diversity of the region.

Attachment 1


The Committee met, finalized 24 names, and gave Mr. Smith the prerogative as Chair to add a couple of names from the floor at today’s meeting to continue to get the numbers, in terms of diversity, where they need to be. There will be five slots unfilled. A candidate from Poquoson and James City County is still needed. More females are needed on the Committee and individuals ages 18 to 34, but the other criteria in terms of matching the demographics of the region have been reached. Twenty‐four of the names on the list were approved by the Committee. Kirsten Tynch is the name that Mr. Smith added. The Committee gave Mr. Smith the prerogative to work with staff to do the staggered terms, which are one, two and three‐year terms. The Committee will come back to the Board in January with five additional names to bring the mix of male and female more in line with the region and to try to add more young individuals. The initial recommended action is to approve the 25 names on the list. Mayor Krasnoff asked why Chesapeake only had two names on the list. Mr. Smith stated there were limited applications from Chesapeake. Also, there were targets based on proportion of population and two was the target for Chesapeake. Mr. Smith stated if Mayor Krasnoff had someone in mind, particularly a female, please bring that name forward. Mr. Smith Moved to approve the list; seconded by Mr. Heuer. Del. Oder stated that at the December 9th meeting, the Nominating Committee reviewed applications and anticipated requesting the Board’s approval of the final list at the January meeting. He stated since he was viewing the list for the first time, his substitute recommended action is to discuss it at the January meeting. Del. Oder Moved to amend the motion to discuss the CTAC list at the January meeting; seconded by Mr. Smith. The Motion Carried. Mr. Heuer opposed the motion. Old/New Business

Mr. Heuer stated when the TPO Board approved the ARRA projects for the Hampton Roads region, it was dispersed around all the municipalities. At this point, there is $42 million in ARRA money. The Commonwealth cannot fail to obligate that money. He asked that each individual municipality speak up if they cannot meet the federal obligations for the ARRA money so the TPO can allocate the money to other municipalities in order to not lose the money. The absolute deadline of January 9th is a 90 percent submittal so if the project has not started, it will not be ready for the February 2nd final submission date and the March 2nd final obligation date. If the project is in the STIP and not in the TIP, it is going to fail and the TPO cannot fail the Commonwealth to obligate the ARRA money.

(Mr. Bridges departed)

Mr. Rucker inquired if there is a way the TPO and State can work together or even the CTB to streamline the process for moving ARRA‐funded projects forward. As an example, he discussed the fact that the TPO approved a list of ARRA projects in January. The only thing that is required in order to authorize federal projects is the TPO and State approve it and the project be placed in the

Attachment 1


TIP or the STIP. The TIP and STIP are the only authorizing documents that allow an organization to move forward with the funding of a project. Once the TPO approves its ARRA projects, there is a wait of seven to eight months at the State level to be reviewed by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. After that review, the projects are included in the federal authorization document.

(Mayor Johnson and Mr. Heuer departed. Mr. Stringfield replaced Mr. Heuer after his departure.)

Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project Draft Tier I EIS (Capt. Johnson departed) Vice Chair introduced Mr. Farmer to discuss the Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project Draft Tier I EIS. On December 4th, the Federal Railroad Administration and VDRPT published the Richmond/Hampton Roads Rail Project Draft Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Public comments were December 21st to February 12th. There is a public hearing in Norfolk on January 28th at the Half Moone Cruise and Celebration Center from 5:30 to 8:00 p.m. Mr. Farmer stated there are a number of technical issues that have been expressed including but not limited to the Travel Demand forecasting based on some major components of the regions’ Long‐Range Plan that may or may not make it in the foreseeable future. The Draft Tier I EIS assumes that the costs associated with the capital improvements between Richmond and Petersburg will be associated with the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) corridor unless the SEHSR corridor is deferred or cancelled. Mr. Farmer does not think that is the case. He agrees with the City of Norfolk that if it is in the document as the plain and simple assumption, those costs associated with Richmond to Petersburg ought to be a part of the Southeast High Speed Rail corridor. It is the staff’s recommendation to concurrently and fully utilize the TTAC, Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Board to craft comments regarding the Draft Tier I EIS. The focus should be on furthering the region’s competitiveness for Federal and State high‐speed rail and intercity passenger rail funding. That means for both the Southside connection and the Peninsula connection, have the region pursue interim funding to improve on‐time performance and frequency of Amtrak service along the CSX line between Richmond, Williamsburg and Newport News, establish passenger rail service along the Norfolk Southern line between Petersburg, Suffolk and Norfolk and expand Light Rail Transit service to Virginia Beach, Norfolk Naval Station and Norfolk International Airport. Both TPO Board and public comments will be incorporated into future versions of the EIS. The Draft EIS is a living document. The region must express a unified voice so a consultant can be brought on board and be very competitive in getting future Federal and State funds to do both of those corridor improvements. The recommendation is for the TPO Board to develop comments through TTAC and possibly TAC and return with comments on a draft EIS as well as move on the other items outlined.

Attachment 1


Vice Chair Ward stated no action needs to be taken since the resolution was already passed on October 30th. Mr. Farmer stated he needed indication there is a consensus that staff is, in fact, recommending the Board in a direction that can be endorsed. Sen. Y. Miller Moved to approve the recommended actions; seconded by Mr. Smith. The Motion Carried.

HighSpeed Rail Federal Funding: Resolution Mr. Farmer stated this agenda item could be removed since word was received late yesterday from Danny Plaugher with Virginians for High Speed Rail that Congress has approved a $2.5 billion bill of which this region will receive $1.5 billion. The Bill is awaiting the President’s signature. Mr. Plaugher has offered to continue to help the TPO move forward with future funding for high‐speed rail and intercity passenger rail. HRTPO Public Participation Plan: Final Report

Mr. Farmer suggested the Board approve the Public Participation Plan for distribution, approve the Environmental Justice Guidelines and Limited English Proficiency Program for distribution and approve the resolution approving and adopting the Public Participation Plan.

Mr. Goodson Moved to approve the Public Participation Plan for distribution, approve the Environmental Justice Guidelines and Limited English Proficiency Program for distribution and approve the resolution approving and adopting the Public Participation Plan; seconded by Del. Oder.

Mr. Smith amended the recommendation to state items such as this should be for distribution and implementation.

Mr. Smith Moved to amend the above recommendation to include implementation as well as distribution; seconded by Del. Oder. The Motion Carried.

(Ms. Cuffee‐Glenn departed)

FY 2011 Unified Planning Work Program: Setting Priorities

Mr. Farmer discussed the Planning Priorities for FY 2011 and stated this agenda item is in response to the Board’s request to be involved early. Mr. Farmer and Dr. Ravanbakht are restructuring staff to be responsive to the things the Board would like and not doing things the Federal regulatory way. Mr. Farmer stated the February 10th retreat is the time to thoroughly discuss the UPWP.

Mr. Oliver stated he heard a panel that Mr. Dwight Farmer, Senator Y. Miller, Mr. Phil Shucet, Mr. Don Goldberg and Mr. Pierce Homer were a part of in which it was said the Midtown Tunnel was the litmus test for the TPO to get something done. He stated there is $400 or $500 million that the State has not yet put up and there is a huge set of toll issues that may have regional

Attachment 1


implications. He suggested between this meeting and the February 10th retreat serious consideration is given to how the TPO is going to start addressing the Midtown Tunnel so that it can be ready when VDOT and everyone else involved is ready. Mr. Farmer stated he did research after having conversations with various individuals because it was the first time he heard it would take $400 or $500 million to make the Midtown Tunnel project work. He explained individuals who were very close to the whole submission stated that was the first time they heard that dollar amount. The information on these proposals has to be clear so that legislators and elected officials know what they are dealing with.

(Mr. Spore departed)

Sen. Y. Miller expressed the longer it takes to decide on a project, the more expensive the project will be. Mayor Fraim stated there are costs being added onto the Midtown Tunnel project that VDOT, over the course of decades, has paid. The TPO has to burrow down to see where these additional funds that are getting added are generating from. The private partner could be under construction in 16 months. Mayor Fraim stated the Midtown Tunnel project was studied a few years ago and it was concluded it could be built for a $0.65/$0.75 toll and spend off excess money but other things were dropped into the project. Mr. Farmer stated the retreat could be the first attempt to proactively craft a work program that aggressively attacks those things that threaten project viability. Mr. Smith stated the TPO Board members are the most informed in the region with regards to transportation and yet everyone has a different understanding of the numbers.

For Your Information

No report.

Adjournment

With no further business to come before the Hampton Roads TPO, the meeting adjourned at 1:27 p.m.

Dwight L. Farmer William D. Sessoms

Executive Director/Secretary Chair

Attachment 1


AGENDA ITEM #2: FY 20092012 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AMENDMENTS: VDOT

SUBJECT: A request by VDOT to amend three projects in the FY 2009‐2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to account for changes in cost estimates and to indicate funding obligations on various phases of each project. BACKGROUND: VDOT has submitted a request to amend the FY 2009‐2012 TIP to update the information associated with the following three projects:

• Interstate 264/Lynnhaven Parkway Interchange Improvements in Virginia Beach (UPC# 94544). The estimated project cost has increased from $13,877,911 to $14,150,337. The following changes to Construction phase funding obligations in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2010 have been requested: Reduce Regional ARRA funding by $8,619,015, leaving $2,030,895 in Regional ARRA funds; increase SAFETEA‐LU funding by $2,689,936, for a new SAFETEA‐LU funding total of $5,272,337; add National Highway System (NH) funding in the amount of $4,423,217. The new total in FFY‐10 Construction phase obligations, including state matching funds associated with the SAFETEA‐LU and NH funds, is $14,150,337.

• Princess Anne Road – 4 Lane Widening between Dam Neck Road and Holland Road in Virginia Beach (UPC# 93522). The estimated project cost has increased from $25,608,144 to $35,430,000. The following changes to Construction phase funding obligations have been requested: Move Statewide ARRA funding in the amount of $16,700,000 from FFY‐09 to FFY‐10 and add $8,619,015 in Regional ARRA funds transferred from project UPC# 94544 (see above); remove $7,126,515 in Advance Construction (AC) STP funds from FFY‐09; add $9,908,144 AC‐Other funds in FFY‐10. The new total in FFY‐10 Construction phase obligations is $35,227,159.

• Route 615 – Reconstruct to 4 Lanes between Route 616 and Route 747 in James City County (UPC# 50057). The estimated project cost has increased from $15,391,504 to $16,649,000. The following changes to funding obligations have been requested: Add FFY‐10 Preliminary Engineering phase obligation of $364,004 in Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds; add FY‐09 Right‐of‐Way obligation of $1,047,093 in Regional STP (RSTP) funds; add FFY‐10 Construction phase obligations as follows: $1,900,000 in Other funds, $179,600 in Equity Bonus (EB) funds, $673,947 in RSTP funds, and $3,243,132 in STP funds; Add FFY‐11 Construction phase obligation of $1,264,547 in Minimum Guarantee/Equity Bonus (MG/EB) AC Conversion funds.

The TIP amendments were made available for public review and comment from December 29, 2009 through January 13, 2010. The Transportation Technical Advisory Committee has recommended approval of these TIP amendments. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the TIP Amendments.


AGENDA ITEM #3: REVISED FY 20102015 SIXYEAR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SUBJECT: Implications of the Revised FY 2010‐2015 Six‐Year Improvement Program on transportation funding in Hampton Roads. BACKGROUND: The Revised Final Fiscal Year 2010‐2015 Six‐Year Improvement Program (SYIP), approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) on December 17, 2009, is based on replacing and improving bridges; eliminating formula distribution of federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds by concentrating federal formula STP funds to advance project phases to completion; maximizing the use of available federal funding for ongoing projects; completing projects already underway and those that will begin in Federal Fiscal Year 2010; and covering increased estimates and rising project costs on projects underway. An HRTPO staff analysis of the Revised SYIP is attached.

Total allocations indicate that the Hampton Roads District will receive slightly more funding over the proposed six‐year period than it would over the same period in the current FY 2010‐2015 SYIP, from $792 million to $803 million, a 1.4% increase. Half of the increase was Interstate funding in FY 2015. However, a comparison of the total allocations in FY 2010 reveals that, although the statewide total increased from $1.077 billion to $1.114 billion, a 3% increase, funding allocated to the Hampton Roads District decreased by 20%, from $120 million to $96 million. The Hampton Roads District is the only district in the Commonwealth of Virginia scheduled to receive a cut in total allocations in FY 2010.

Most of the funding allocations to the Hampton Roads District occur in the later years of the six‐year program. Approximately 60% of total funding for all systems is allocated in fiscal years 2013 through 2015. Moreover, roughly 86% of the Interstate system allocations to Hampton Roads are in fiscal years 2013 through 2015.

The Final Revised FY 2010‐2015 SYIP indicates that several projects in the Hampton Roads District will be advanced. For instance, the $175 million Gilmerton Bridge replacement in Chesapeake, the $61 million Middle Ground Boulevard extension in Newport News, the widening of Warwick Boulevard in Newport News, the $88 million reconstruction of Hampton Boulevard and associated rail crossings in Norfolk, and construction of the $170 million I‐564 Intermodal Connector are scheduled to be fully funded in the Revised FY 2010‐2015 SYIP. Mr. Dwight Farmer, Executive Director/Secretary, will brief the Board on the implications of the Revised FY 2010‐2015 SYIP on transportation funding in Hampton Roads. Attachment 3 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Transmit HRTPO Board concerns to the Secretary of Transportation.

TTRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATION FFUNDINGUNDING UUPDATEPDATE::TTRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATION FFUNDINGUNDING UUPDATEPDATE::SYIP 2010SYIP 2010--2015 R2015 REVISIONEVISION

Presented by:Presented by:Dwight L. FarmerDwight L. Farmer

Executive Director/SecretaryExecutive Director/SecretaryHampton Roads Transportation Planning OrganizationHampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization

January 20 2010January 20 2010January 20, 2010January 20, 2010

Attachment 3

OORIGINALRIGINAL VSVS RREVISEDEVISED FFINALINAL: FY 2010: FY 2010--20152015SYIP Comparison of Total Funding Allocations: All Systems

Funding Allocation Summary ($000s)

DistrictOriginal

FY 2010‐20151Revised FinalFY 2010‐20152

Change

Bristol $ 439,378 $ 397,600 ‐9.5%

Culpepper $ 90,208 $ 76,900 ‐14.8%

Fredericksburg $ 160,099 $ 152,815 ‐4.5%

Hampton Roads $ 792,165 $ 803,170 1.4%

Lynchburg $ 113,589 $ 97,969 ‐13.8%

Northern VA $ 1,359,882 $ 1,494,430 9.9%

Ri h d $ 38 19 $ 3 601 2 %Richmond $ 384,195 $ 374,601 ‐2.5%

Salem $ 282,926 $ 246,887 ‐12.7%

Staunton $ 193,436 $ 173,684 ‐10.2%

ARRA 2009 Projects $ 13 340 $ 18 052 35 3%ARRA 2009 Projects $ 13,340 $ 18,052 35.3%

Statewide Projects $ 2,318,524 $ 2,350,125 1.4%

Grand Total $ 6,147,744 $ 6,186,233 0.6%

Total (Less Reserve) $ 5,520,757 $ 5,559,246 0.7%

2

1. Source: Final FY 2010‐2015 SYIP, Approved 6/18/09.2. Source: Revised Final FY 2010‐2015 SYIP, Approved 12/17/09.

Attachment 3

OORIGINALRIGINAL VSVS. R. REVISEDEVISED FFINALINAL: FY 2010: FY 2010FY 2010 Comparison of Total Funding Allocations: All Systems


District Original FY 20101 Revised Final 20102 Change

Bristol $ 63,600 $ 63,754 0.2%

Culpepper $ 17,099 $ 22,150 29.5%

Fredericksburg $ 20,075 $ 30,065 49.8%

Hampton RoadsHampton Roads $ 120 182$ 120 182 $ 96 386 19 8%Hampton RoadsHampton Roads $ 120,182 $ 120,182 $ 96,386 ‐19.8%

Lynchburg $ 21,173 $ 24,574 16.1%

Northern VA $ 332,420 $ 349,330 5.1%

Richmond $ 75,064 $ 82,357 9.7%, ,

Salem $ 42,151 $ 50,088 18.8%

Staunton $ 44,907 $ 45,747 1.9%

ARRA 2009 Projects $ 10,514 $ 15,082 43.4%

Statewide Projects $ 330,570 $ 334,708 1.3%

Grand TotalGrand Total $ 1,077,757 $ 1,077,757 $ 1,114,242 3.4%

Total (Less Reserve) Total (Less Reserve) $ 974,854 $ 974,854 $ 1,011,339 3.7%

3

1. Source: Final FY 2010‐2015 SYIP, Approved 6/18/09.2. Source: Revised Final FY 2010‐2015 SYIP, Approved 12/17/09.

Attachment 3

RREVISEDEVISED FFINALINAL FY 2010FY 2010--2015: A2015: ALLLL SSYSTEMSYSTEMSAnnual Funding Allocations: All Systems

Revised Final FY 2010‐2015 SYIPFunding Allocation Summary ($ millions)

District FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2010‐2015District FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2010‐2015$ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ %

Bristol $ 63.8 5.7% $ 58.0 5.7% $ 54.7 5.1% $ 55.8 5.5% $ 80.6 8.1% $ 84.8 8.7% $ 397.6 6.4%

Culpepper $ 22.2 2.0% $ 13.6 1.3% $ 14.7 1.4% $ 13.3 1.3% $ 7.3 0.7% $ 5.7 0.6% $ 76.9 1.2%

Fredericksburg $ 30.1 2.7% $ 17.9 1.8% $ 19.8 1.8% $ 23.2 2.3% $ 20.1 2.0% $ 41.7 4.3% $ 152.8 2.5%

Hampton Roads $ 96.4 8.7% $ 78.8 7.7% $ 135.3 12.5% $ 156.1 15.5% $ 179.7 18.1% $ 156.9 16.2% $ 803.2 13.0%

Lynchburg $ 24.6 2.2% $ 16.9 1.7% $ 14.4 1.3% $ 13.6 1.4% $ 13.7 1.4% $ 14.7 1.5% $ 98.0 1.6%

Northern VA $ 349.3 31.4% $ 359.4 35.3% $ 343.2 31.8% $ 198.8 19.8% $ 137.5 13.8% $ 106.2 10.9% $ 1,494.4 24.2%

Richmond $ 82.4 7.4% $ 49.8 4.9% $ 53.7 5.0% $ 67.0 6.7% $ 71.3 7.2% $ 50.3 5.2% $ 374.6 6.1%

Salem $ 50.1 4.5% $ 30.0 2.9% $ 33.6 3.1% $ 46.5 4.6% $ 33.7 3.4% $ 53.0 5.5% $ 246.9 4.0%

Staunton $ 45.7 4.1% $ 30.2 3.0% $ 29.9 2.8% $ 32.1 3.2% $ 20.9 2.1% $ 14.8 1.5% $ 173.7 2.8%

ARRA 2009 Projects $ 15.1 1.4% $ 2.0 0.2% $ 1.0 0.1% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ 18.1 0.3%

Statewide Projects $ 334.7 30.0% $ 362.8 35.6% $ 379.9 35.2% $ 399.9 39.7% $ 429.7 43.2% $ 443.2 45.6% $ 2,350.1 38.0%Statewide Projects $ 334.7 30.0% $ 362.8 35.6% $ 379.9 35.2% $ 399.9 39.7% $ 429.7 43.2% $ 443.2 45.6% $ 2,350.1 38.0%

Grand Total $ 1,114.2 100% $ 1,019.5 100% $ 1,080.2 100% $ 1,006.4 100% $ 994.5 100% $ 971.3 100% $ 6,186.2 100%

Source: Revised Final FY 2010‐2015 SYIP, Approved 12/17/09.

4

Attachment 3

RREVISEDEVISED FFINALINAL FY 2010FY 2010--2015: I2015: INTERSTATENTERSTATE

Annual Interstate Funding Allocations: Interstate System onlyRevised Final FY 2010‐2015 SYIP

Funding Allocation Summary ($ millions)

District FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2010‐2015$ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ %

Bristol $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ 19.2 11.4% $ 29.3 13.0% $ 48.5 3.3%

Culpepper $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0%

Fredericksburg $ 7.9 2.7% $ 0.6 0.2% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ 4.0 1.8% $ 12.5 0.9%

Hampton Roads $ 12.4 4.2% $ 2.4 0.9% $ 16.1 5.3% $ 35.1 18.1% $ 57.5 34.3% $ 101.0 44.9% $ 224.4 15.4%

Lynchburg $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0%

Northern VA $ 221.6 75.7% $ 253.8 92.3% $ 252.8 83.5% $ 125.0 64.6% $ 61.7 36.8% $ 50.5 22.4% $ 965.6 66.3%

Richmond $ 24.3 8.3% $ 12.7 4.6% $ 16.7 5.5% $ 20.5 10.6% $ 10.8 6.4% $ 8.3 3.7% $ 93.4 6.4%

Salem $ 7.7 2.6% $ ‐ 0.0% $ 10.4 3.4% $ 5.8 3.0% $ 18.5 11.0% $ 31.0 13.8% $ 73.4 5.0%

Staunton $ 12.4 4.2% $ 5.4 2.0% $ 6.7 2.2% $ 7.2 3.7% $ ‐ 0.0% $ 1.0 0.4% $ 32.7 2.2%

ARRA 2009 Projects $ 4.5 1.5% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ 4.5 0.3%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $Statewide Projects $ 2.2 0.7% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ 2.2 0.1%

Grand Total $ 293.0 100% $ 275.0 100% $ 302.7 100% $ 193.6 100% $ 167.8 100% $ 225.1 100% $ 1,457.1 100%

Source: Revised Final FY 2010‐2015 SYIP, Approved 12/17/09.

5

Attachment 3


AGENDA ITEM #4: 2034 LONGRANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN: VISION AND GOALS SUBJECT: The Vision Statement and Goals will provide a common ground by which to move forward with the development of the 2034 Long‐Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). BACKGROUND: A Vision Statement and set of Goals has been developed as part of continued efforts towards completion of the region's 2034 LRTP. Inputs to the development of the 2034 LRTP Vision and Goals are listed below. The resulting Vision Statement and Goals represents a composite of the following inputs:

• Public survey • Federal SAFETEA‐LU regulations • Locality comprehensive plans • Virginia Port Authority strategic plan • Transit Vision Plan, Phase I • HRTPO Board goals from February 2009 retreat • Review by the 2034 LRTP Subcommittee and Transportation Technical Advisory Committee • Public review and comment period

The Transportation Technical Advisory Committee has recommended approval of the proposed final version of the 2034 LRTP Vision Statement and Goals (attached). Ms. Camelia Ravanbakht, Deputy Executive Director, will be available to respond to any questions regarding the 2034 LRTP Vision Statement and Goals. Attachment 4 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the final 2034 LRTP Vision Statement and Goals. STAFF COMMENTARY:

The Vision Statement and Goals will be a beneficial reference during the development of the 2034 LRTP and is an important step towards completion of the Plan.

11/23/2009 final_2034VISION&GOALS.docx

2034 REGIONAL LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN VISION STATEMENT

All residents, visitors, and businesses in Hampton Roads have safe and efficient travel on a sustainable and balanced, multi-modal transportation system.

2034 REGIONAL LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN GOALS 1

Enhance public involvement in the development of the region’s transportation system.

Include a regional perspective among the transportation prioritization criteria.

Develop a long-range transportation plan that is fiscally constrained.

Support the economic vitality of the region, emphasizing global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency.

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

Increase accessibility and mobility of people and freight.

Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve quality of life, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Obtain compatibility between transportation improvements and planned land use and economic development patterns.

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

Optimize the efficient system management and operation of the regional transportation system.

Increase the optimization and preservation of the existing transportation system.

1 Order of goals is not an order of importance.

Attachment 4


AGENDA ITEM #5: CMAQ/RSTP PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS: SELECTED PROJECTS AND ALLOCATIONS

SUBJECT: Projects selected to receive allocations of CMAQ or RSTP funds for Fiscal Years 2011–2015. BACKGROUND: As the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the Hampton Roads area, the HRTPO is responsible for project selection and allocation of funds under two Federal funding programs – the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program and the Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP). The HRTPO uses a documented process to select projects to receive funds from these two programs. In July 2009, the HRTPO staff made a number of resources available on the HRTPO website, including a Guide to the Hampton Roads CMAQ/RSTP Project Selection Process, which provides information on the two Federal funding programs as well as guidance on how projects are selected for CMAQ and RSTP funding. A public notice was posted to solicit project ideas from the citizens of Hampton Roads. The deadline for applications for proposed CMAQ and RSTP projects from the localities and transit agencies of Hampton Roads and state transportation agencies was September 25, 2009. The total amount of CMAQ and RSTP funds available for allocation from FY 2011 – FY 2015 was $64.3 million CMAQ and $122.2 million RSTP. HRTPO staff received 59 CMAQ project proposals with a total cost of $129.6 million and 29 RSTP project proposals with a total cost of $256.8 million. In accordance with the CMAQ/RSTP Project Selection Process, the HRTPO staff evaluated and ranked each project proposal using criteria previously approved by the TTAC and the HRTPO Board. A TTAC Subcommittee met on December 11, 2009 and used the results of the project evaluations to help select projects to receive CMAQ and RSTP funding. After holding approximately 5 percent of available funds per year in reserve to help cover potential reductions in available CMAQ and RSTP funds, the Subcommittee selected 31 CMAQ projects, to which it allocated a total of $61.3 million and 23 RSTP projects, to which it allocated a total of $116.6 million. The attached tables list the projects selected for funding as well as the amount of funds allocated to each project per fiscal year. The Transportation Technical Advisory Committee has recommended approval of the projects and allocations shown in the attached tables. Ms. Camelia Ravanbakht, Deputy Executive Director, will be available to respond to any questions regarding the CMAQ/RSTP allocations for FY 2011–2015. Attachment 5 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the recommended CMAQ and RSTP projects and allocations.

STAFF COMMENTARY:

Upon approval by the HRTPO Board, the projects listed in the attached tables will be incorporated into the VDOT Six‐Year Improvement Program and the Hampton Roads Transportation Improvement Program.

# Juris/Agency Project Name Total CostTotal CMAQ Request

FY‐11 FY‐12 FY‐13 FY‐14 FY‐15 TOTAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$6,498,525 $13,218,013 $14,817,608 $14,837,578 $14,938,406 $64,310,130

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

$55,846 $386,439 $460,930 $741,879 $1,368,664 $3,013,758RESERVE >>

ALLOCATIONS

ALLOCATIONS >>

SELECTED CMAQ PROJECTS

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

TABLE 1

AVAILABLE FUNDS >>

Prepared by HRTPO Staff 1/5/2010

Attachment 5

# Juris/Agency Project Name Total CostTotal RSTP Request

FY‐11 FY‐12 FY‐13 FY‐14 FY‐15 TOTAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$22,084,127 $24,802,518 $24,955,034 $25,108,488 $25,262,884 $122,213,051

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

$592,159 $1,240,126 $1,247,752 $1,255,425 $1,263,144 $5,598,606

ALLOCATIONS

NEW TRANSIT SERVICE, EXPANSION OF EXISTING SERVICE, FACILITIES

OTHER TRANSIT PROJECTS

PLANNING STUDIES

AVAILABLE FUNDS >>ALLOCATIONS >>

RESERVE >>

SELECTED RSTP PROJECTS

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

TABLE 2

HIGHWAY PROJECTS

Prepared by HRTPO Staff 1/5/2010

Attachment 5


AGENDA ITEM #6: PROPOSED HAMPTON ROADS FAST FERRY SYSTEM

SUBJECT: The proposed project would create a fast ferry system within the Hampton Roads harbor. As a first step in the consideration of waterborne commuting options, it has been recommended that the HRTPO pursue designation of the Hampton Roads harbor as a Marine Highway Corridor. BACKGROUND: MetroMarine Holdings, Inc. has proposed a public‐private partnership project to create a fast ferry system that would serve the commuter and tourism markets in Hampton Roads. The project would include a fleet of five or more high‐speed ferries that would carry 100 passengers each and have crossing times of 15‐20 minutes. Target ridership would be 1,200 to 1,500 commuters per day, plus 700 daily tourists during tourist season. A fact sheet summarizing the proposal is attached (Attachment A). As a first step in the consideration of waterborne commuting options, such as a fast ferry system, MetroMarine Holdings, Inc. has recommended that the HRTPO Board endorse an application to the US Maritime Administration for designation of the Hampton Roads harbor as a Marine Highway Corridor. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 required the US Secretary of Transportation to establish a short sea transportation program to mitigate landside congestion. The US Maritime Administration’s America’s Marine Highway Program is designed to integrate coastal and inland waterways into the nation’s surface transportation system, reduce congestion, improve air quality, and provide other public benefits by supporting increased use of these waterways. Approved corridors receive US Maritime Administration support through promotion of the service, coordination of federal agency involvement, identifying funding sources, identifying any impediments, and encouraging use of the proposed services. The purpose of designation of Marine Highway Corridors is to focus public and private efforts on using the waterways to relieve landside congestion along coastal corridors as extensions of the surface transportation system. In addition, the Marine Highway Corridor designation would allow projects such as a fast ferry system to compete for dedicated ferry‐specific Federal funding dollars. Attached is a resolution endorsing the pursuit of Marine Highway Corridor designation for the Hampton Roads harbor (Attachment B). Mr. Robert E. Heffley, MetroMarine Holdings, Inc., will brief the HRTPO Board on its proposal. Attachments 6‐A and 6‐B RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the resolution.

METROMARINE HOLDINGS, INC December 28, 2009

Hampton, VA 757.850.8492 [email protected] Alexandria, VA 703.329.1670

HAMPTON ROADS FAST FERRY SYSTEM PROJECT SUMMARY

PROPOSED PROJECT: Create a robust, fast ferry system that serves the commuter and tourism markets in the entire Hampton Roads region. Establish a Public-Private Partnership –, Joint venture partners: MetroMarine, Hornblower Marine Services (http://www.hornblowermarine.com), and HRT/HR cities

Establish routes that include Norfolk, Newport News, Hampton, Naval Station Norfolk; possibly Ft. Eustis, Portsmouth, et al

Deploy a fleet of 5 or more high-speed (30 kt) catamarans suitable for HR waters 100 passengers, 15-25 minute crossing times, Green technology

Target ridership: 1200-1500 commuters daily, plus 700 tourists daily, in season Scalable and flexible to meet market demands Start with pilot project on one route with two boats

LESSONS LEARNED: Harbor Link (Hampton-Norfolk,’99 - ’02) was a one-boat ‘seasonal’ operation that attracted tourism ridership but not year-round commuter ridership. Multiple, faster boats will. FINANCING:

Ferry specific federal programs fund vessels, opns, and dockside infrastructure: Ferry Boat Discretionary Program - $67M in 09, pending legislation for 3X increase Short Sea Transportation Program – became law in 10/09, grant amounts TBD America’s Marine Highways Program – access to ARRA ($1.5B), spending TBD Six additional DOT & MARAD programs that provide grants, loan guarantees

Private investment through Public-Private Partnership (P3) options: Private acquisition of boats with possible lease back to public entity Private investment in public bonds to finance infrastructure Other

Revenue/cost estimates Fare box recovery: 38 – 42% Terminals & infrastructure: < $5M Boat costs: < $4.5M, each

JOB CREATION: More than 30 direct jobs and 60 local indirect and support jobs

READINESS FOR IMPLEMENTATION: HR Transit Vision Plan I & HRT 20 Year Transportation Plan include ferry systems Peninsula Rapid Transit Study, due for publication, should confirm feasibility MetroMarine team experience providing turnkey ferry system development and management

TIMELINE 1st Qtr, CY 2010 crucial period for federal ferry funding for late 2010 and beyond Pilot program possible in 2012 Full system possible in 2013

TIME-SENSITIVE ACTIONS REQUIRED 1. Recognition by HRTPO, ASAP – required for both timely federal funding applications and private

capital formation 2. Achieve MARAD Marine Highway Corridor status – gateway to funding, MetroMarine team has

domain knowledge of the program and has taken preliminary steps 3. Form informal public-private team to identify issues and scope development process 4. Begin process for P3 IAW Virginia P3 Act

Attachment 6-A

HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION

RESOLUTION 201001 A RESOLUTION OF THE HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION ENDORSING THE DESIGNATION OF THE HAMPTON ROADS HARBOR AS A MARINE HIGHWAY CORRIDOR. WHEREAS, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 required the US Secretary of Transportation to establish a short sea transportation program to mitigate landside congestion; WHEREAS, the US Maritime Administration’s America’s Marine Highway Program is designed to integrate our coastal and inland waterways into the nation’s surface transportation system, and to reduce congestion, improve air quality and provide other public benefits by supporting increased use of these waterways; WHEREAS, the US Department of Transportation published an interim final rule on October 9, 2008, establishing a framework to provide federal support to expand the use of America's Marine Highway. One of the four primary components of the framework includes the designation of Marine Highway Corridors; WHEREAS, a Marine Highway Corridor consists of one or more navigable inland or intracoastal waterways (including lakes, rivers, bays, and sounds), coastal waters, or portions thereof that can provide an alternative to specific road or rail corridors for freight and/or passenger transportation; WHEREAS, designated Marine Highway Corridors will integrate the Marine Highway into the surface transportation system and encourage the development of multi‐jurisdictional coalitions to focus public and private efforts and investments on using the waterways to relieve landside congestion along coastal corridors as extensions of the surface transportation system; WHEREAS, a proposed Marine Highway Project must be a new, expanded or enhanced water transportation service along one or more designated Marine Highway Corridors that serves as an intermodal extension of the surface transportation system; and

Attachment 6-B

WHEREAS, approved projects will receive US Maritime Administration support through promotion of the service, coordination of federal agency involvement, identifying funding sources, identifying any impediments and encouraging use of the proposed services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization endorses the designation of the Hampton Roads Harbor as a Marine Highway Corridor for the purposes of developing a Cross Harbor Fast Ferry System in order to compete for dedicated ferry‐specific Federal funding dollars. APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board at its meeting on the 20th day of January, 2010.

William D. Sessoms Chairman

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization

Dwight L. Farmer Executive Director/Secretary


Attachment 6-B


AGENDA ITEM #7: RICHMOND/HAMPTON ROADS PASSENGER RAIL PROJECT DRAFT TIER I EIS

SUBJECT:

The recently published Richmond/Hampton Roads Rail Project Draft Tier I EIS is available for public review and comment. BACKGROUND: The Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project is evaluating options to improve passenger rail service between Richmond and Hampton Roads. The Draft Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) provides an overview and comparison of the potential alternatives, with information on the cost, ridership, environmental impacts, and infrastructure improvements associated with each option. The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) has scheduled a 45‐day public comment period and public hearings to review and discuss the Draft Tier I EIS to gather the public’s feedback on the document, from December 18, 2009 to February 11, 2010. Public comments will be considered in the development of the Final Tier I EIS, and will be summarized in the final document. The Commonwealth Transportation Board is scheduled to make a decision on the preferred alternative on February 17, 2010. DRPT will hold three public hearings in the study area from January 26–28, 2010: January 26, 2010 5:30–8:00 p.m. January 27, 2010 5:30–8:00 p.m. January 28, 2010 5:30–8:00 p.m.

Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles 2300 West Broad Street Richmond, VA 23269

City Center Conference Facilities James and Warwick Rooms 700 Town Center Drive

Newport News, VA 23606

Half Moone Cruise and Celebration Center

One Waterside Drive Norfolk, VA 23510

Attached is a draft statement to be delivered by Mr. Dwight Farmer during the Richmond, Newport News, and Norfolk public hearings. In addition, Mr. Farmer will submit the HRTPO Staff Technical Comments as well as a copy of the HRTPO Resolution approved by the HRTPO Board on October 30, 2009 (attached). Mr. Dwight Farmer, Executive Director/Secretary, will brief the HRTPO Board regarding the attached statement and HRTPO Staff Technical Comments. Attachment 7 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the attached statement and HRTPO Staff Technical Comments. STAFF COMMENTARY:

Members of the HRTPO Board are encouraged to attend and provide formal comments during the public hearings.

DRAFT

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

January 20, 2010 Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation ATTN: Public Information Office 600 E. Main Street, Suite 2102 Richmond, VA 23219 RE: Richmond to Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project –Tier I Draft Environmental

Impact Statement Dear Public Information Office: The Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) – comprised of the cities of Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Poquoson, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, and Williamsburg, and the counties of Gloucester, Isle of Wight, James City, and York; two members of the Virginia Senate and two members of the Virginia House of Delegates; plus representatives from the Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads, Williamsburg Area Transit Authority, the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, and the Virginia Port Authority – has overwhelmingly passed a resolution on October 30, 2009 endorsing two critical components (attached):

• the designation of a “High‐Speed Rail” corridor along the Norfolk Southern/US Route 460 corridor designated ultimately at speeds of more than 110 mph; and

• in conjunction with the high‐speed rail corridor, the enhancement of the intercity passenger rail service along the CSX/Amtrak/I‐64 corridor.

The Hampton Roads region believes that the two above mentioned components are complementary and represent a win‐win to the region, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the nation. The Hampton Roads region wants to be clear that it would like to aggressively implement interim steps to achieve its ultimate goals of having high‐speed rail along the Norfolk Southern/US Route 460 corridor and enhanced intercity passenger rail service along the CSX/Amtrak/I‐64 corridor. These interim steps would include a partnership between Hampton Roads, the Federal Railroad Administration, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Norfolk Southern, CSX, and Amtrak. The establishment of new passenger rail service along the Norfolk Southern/US Route 460 corridor and improved intercity passenger rail service along the CSX/Amtrak/I‐64 corridor

Attachment 7

DRAFT

January 20, 2010 Page 2 is critically important for Hampton Roads, particularly given the large concentration of the military and the Port of Virginia as the 3rd largest port on the United States East Coast. The Hampton Roads region respectfully requests that the Federal Railroad Administration and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation aggressively expedite the update and completion of the Richmond to Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project –Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement process and obtain a Record of Decision. In addition, the Commonwealth should prepare for the Tier II EIS(s) in the Spring 2010. In coordination with the HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee, the HRTPO staff has reviewed the Richmond to Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project –Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement and is submitting technical comments for consideration (attached). The Hampton Roads region and the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization stand ready to work with and assist the Federal Railroad Administration and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation to this end. We also encourage the Commonwealth to aggressively pursue competitive high‐speed and intercity passenger rail American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds for the Richmond to Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project. Furthermore, we should seize the opportunity to partner with CSX and Norfolk Southern on these endeavors. Please do not hesitate to contact us at any time. Sincerely, Dwight L. Farmer Executive Director/Secretary JB/kg Attachments: HRTPO Board Resolution, approved October 30, 2009 Tier I Draft EIS HRTPO Technical Comments Copy: Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board Hampton Roads Caucus

Attachment 7

Attachment 7

Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project: Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement HRTPO STAFF TECHNICAL COMMENTS

PREPARED BY: Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Staff January 7, 2010

Attachment 7

Table of Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 1

Assumptions Regarding the Southeast High‐Speed Rail .................................................................... 1

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 2

Chapter 2 ................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Chapter 3 ................................................................................................................................................................. 4

Chapter 4 .............................................................................................................................................................. 11

Chapter 5 .............................................................................................................................................................. 13

Chapter 6 .............................................................................................................................................................. 14

Chapter 7 .............................................................................................................................................................. 17

Appendix F ........................................................................................................................................................... 18

Appendix G ........................................................................................................................................................... 19

Attachment 7

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization | Tier I Draft EIS | HRTPO Technical Comments | Page 1

Introduction The purpose of this document is to provide written technical comments pertaining to the Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project ‐ Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The document was prepared by Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) staff with additional review and input from the HRTPO’s Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC), which is technical staff from the HRTPO local governments and public agencies. The document is arranged according to DEIS document chapter.

For questions regarding the enclosed comments, please contact Camelia Ravanbakht, Ph.D., Deputy Executive Director of the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO), at [email protected] or via phone at (757) 420‐8300.

Assumptions Regarding the Southeast High Speed Rail There needs to be consistency in assumptions as to whether or not the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) is in place with the Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project. This is particularly relevant to inconsistent assumptions regarding the portion of the SEHSR between Richmond and Petersburg. The cost figures throughout the document include the Richmond to Petersburg portion as a part of the Southside Route. Yet the document also contradicts this with statements such as “All ridership and revenue forecasts completed for this Tier I Draft EIS assume the operation of the SEHSR project” (page ES‐5) and “Although this project has independent utility from the SEHSR project …, it was assumed that the SEHSR project would be in full operation prior to completion of this project.” (page 6‐5). The cost of the Richmond to Petersburg segment of the SEHSR should be removed from calculations for the Richmond/Hampton Roads routes.

Attachment 7


Executive Summary Note: Comments are cited by ChapterPage (Section [Chapter.Section.Subsection.Secondary Subsection]) (i.e. ES5 (Section 1.3))

ES‐5 (Section 1.3) – “All ridership and revenue forecasts completed for this Tier I Draft EIS assume the operation of the SEHSR project.” This statement contradicts an earlier statement in which the Petersburg rail connection costs would be absorbed into the project costs, with the assumption that the SEHSR does not operate. The revenue and ridership forecasts need to align with costs with or without the SEHSR.

ES‐9 (Section 1.3) – Bullet point 7 “Help facilitate hurricane evacuation.” This bullet should be reworded to include all emergency events in Hampton Roads requiring evacuation.

ES‐11 (Table ES‐1) – Given the stated assumption that the SEHSR (which includes the Richmond to Petersburg segment) will be in operation prior to the completion of the Richmond Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project, it appears that the cost of Richmond to Petersburg improvements should not be included in the cost of the Southside/NS alternative. (It could, for example, be included in the No Action Alternative along with other planned improvements.)

ES‐19 (Section 3.1) – Paragraph 4 states higher ridership will result from higher on‐time performance and an increase in future highway travel times. Earlier paragraphs refer to highway travel speeds. A switch was made from travel speed to travel time. By talking about travel time, you capture the public’s attention to something that is tangible to them. Correct the earlier mentions of travel speed.

ES‐21 (Section 3.2) – “Along the Southside/NS route…” discusses traffic impacts of the HSR coming to the Downtown Norfolk station. There is no mention of the impacts HSR will have in the Downtown Station with the Tide light rail connection.

ES‐26 (Table ES‐3) – Not clear of exact population counts along the routes. Is it 51% of 479k for the Southside? Should provide route and regional populations, for impact will be regional.

Attachment 7


Chapter 2 Note: Comments are cited by ChapterPage (Section [Chapter.Section.Subsection.Secondary Subsection]) (i.e. 34 (Section 3.1.4.1))

2‐5 (Section 2.4.2) – “Based on environmental and engineering data from the SEHSR Tier II EIS…”

• This sentence is premature as written. The SEHSR Tier II EIS has not been released for public review (see page 1‐13, stating this document is under review). As such, this sentence, and any future mention of such citation of the SEHSR Tier II EIS needs to clarify the status of the SEHSR documents and data.

2‐7, 2‐17, & 2‐21 (Section 2.4.2, 2.5.3, & 2.5.4) – Map depicts a route through Petersburg. No preferred alternative has been selected through Petersburg, as parts of this Draft EIS has stated. This statement should also be reflected in this map and all maps. Please fix or clarify this issue. This applies to all maps depicting the Richmond to Hampton Roads alternative routes. (Also see comment 4‐6).

Attachment 7



3‐2 (Section 3.1.3) – There is mention of two crossings in the text. This should be reworded to reflect presence of three crossings including the James River Bridge.

3‐4 (Section 3.1.4.1) –

• Bullet 4 states higher ridership will result from higher on‐time performance and an increase in future travel times. Earlier bullet (2) refers to highway travel speeds. A switch was made from travel speed to travel time. Both items are not the same, though related. Higher travel time refers to a decline in travel speed. For the intent of selling public transport, the alternative has to be more attractive to the status quo (the car). The public has a limited knowledge on highway speed and its implication on their travel. By talking about travel time, you capture the public’s attention to something that is tangible to them. Correct the earlier mentions of travel speed.

• Table 3‐1: Include existing or recent ridership numbers in the table to assist the reader with understanding how the forecast differs from ridership today.

• The “Travel Demand Methodology and Results Report (April 2005, revised March 2008)” is referred to numerous times in the report. Suggest including it in the Appendices.

3‐8, Table 3‐4 – Update with existing or recent travel times as a reference point

3‐8 (Section 3.1.4.2) – “...the expected rail market share is lower in the Richmond/Hampton Roads study area”. What is the market share?

3‐9 & 3‐10 (Table 3‐5 and 3‐6) –

• The Highway travel times do not match those in Table 3‐4.

• Replace “Hampton” in the table with “Newport News”?

3‐8 (Section 3.1.4.2) – Discussion of speed restricted zones. An example of what causes a speed restricted zone would be helpful. Can this be mitigated?

3‐8 (Section 3.1.4.2 & Table 3.5/3.6) – Earlier references to Newport News. Reference now used to Hampton. No rail service will be in Hampton. Need to fix reference back to Newport News.

3‐13 (Section 3.2 & 3.2.1.1) – Why was 2025 Long‐Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) the horizon year for this DEIS and not 2030 LRTP? Was it a matter of the analysis occurring before the passage of 2030 LRTP? The Travel Demand Modeling methodology was revised in March 2008. The same can be said about using VDOT’s 2004 Average Daily Traffic Volume data. Was there no recent data available? Further, does using 2025 capture any requirements regarding a horizon year (e.g., if DEIS is completed in 2010, then 2025 is only 15 years away).

Attachment 7


3‐14 (3.2.2) – What is the purpose of this text? There is no mention of freight transportation in the section (3.2.3) that follows.

3‐14 (Section 3.2.3) –

• Discussion of auto trip reductions on I‐64 by 1000 vehicles across Hampton/Newport News line. Statement indicates little to no impact on the roadways. Was this compared with the capacity of the roadway? What about the impact on the tunnels? The impact on the tunnels is a more pronounced regional traffic indicator than the Hampton/Newport News line. What prompted the selection of the Hampton/Newport News line?

• Also, what about the travel impacts on US 58/460? I‐95 in Emporia for points south?

• The title of this section refers to VMT but there are no VMT calculations made. Suggest either changing the title or add VMT information.

• This section is very difficult to follow and should be rewritten to be easier to understand.

• Conversions are made to derive the impact on highway volumes via a series of factors applied to the annual ridership. Suggest writing out these calculations, as seeing them strictly in text format is cumbersome.

• Review the conversions. For example, an average of 1,600 riders instead of the 1,400 in the document is calculated via dividing the annual ridership figures for the Build Alternatives by 365 days. All of the calculations in this section should be reviewed.

• A range of vehicle occupancy factors should be used. A value of 1.75 is fairly high for occupancy and the results of the analysis would vary notably if it were even lowered to 1.5. Suggest that this sensitivity is acknowledged and a range of possible impacts on traffic is incorporated, drawing from the data used to derive the 1.75 occupancy factor.

3‐15 (Section 3.2.3) – The final paragraph (“Furthermore, there is a wellestablished tendency…”) is very speculative. Suggest further citation or removing it.

3‐17 (Section 3.2.4.1) – The final paragraph, Pedestrian Access/Egress, is incorrect. There are sidewalks on both sides of North Henry Street/Rt. 132 north of the CSX Railroad tracks. (Comment provided by City of Williamsburg.)

3‐17/3‐18 (Section 3.2.4.2) –There is light mention of the Tide Light rail connection. No discussion as to other transit options.

(Section 3.2.4) – Provide a rough schematic of the station layout in reference to existing transportation facilities, to provide a visualization of the text description.

3‐20 (Section 3.2.5.1) – Last paragraph ‐ There are 49 parking spaces immediately adjacent to the Williamsburg Amtrak Station (correct name is Williamsburg Transportation Center), but there are also 50 additional spaces in a satellite parking lot that was constructed when the Transportation

Attachment 7


Center was renovated in 2001. This parking lot is approximately 500 feet from the Transportation Center entrance, and also has a sidewalk connection provided. (Comment provided by City of Williamsburg.)

3‐20 (Table 3‐12) – Did not include info on existing Newport News Station. Also, note 1 is very exclusionary. What if someone from the Outer Banks wanted to park in the facilities? Need to omit such a note for parking is not labeled for Hampton Roads residents only.

3‐21 (Section 3.2.5.1) – First paragraph on page ‐ Zoning changes would be needed to allow a parking lot for the Transportation Center on this site, which is located in the MS Museum Support District. 30% of the site is required to be landscaped open space. (Comment provided by City of Williamsburg.)

3‐38 (Section 3.4.2.2) – Remove period before “Under…” in paragraph 2.

3‐39 (Section 3.4.2.2) – There is mention of air quality conformity with use of 2030 LRTP. If using 2030 LRTP, earlier socioeconomic data should reference 2030, not 2025.

3‐52 (Section 3.6.1) — The methodology used in the analysis of energy consumption impacts differs from the methodology used in Section 3.4.4 in assessing the air quality impacts of the various rail scenarios. The assessment of energy consumption assumes that “the number of vehicles diverting to rail would likely be negligible in terms of energy savings” while the assessment of air quality impacts reaches the conclusion that the mode shift would result in air quality improvements.

3‐53 (Section 3.6.4) – There is mention of no measurable energy savings even with seasonal fluctuations in traffic. What about beach traffic that originates in the Northeast? Giving them a viable connection to the Oceanfront (with Light Rail connection) may be a significant draw for tourism and mode shift.

3‐59 (Section 3.7.3.1) – Map needs to refer to Richmond, Williamsburg, and Newport News as Cities instead of Counties. This is for consistency with the rest of the document (Page 3‐61 as an example).

3‐61 (Section 3.7.3.1)

• Reference of City of Sussex needs to be Sussex County. No City of Sussex that is incorporated exists.

• Why is there no analysis of the Richmond to Petersburg leg, though costs along this alignment are included in the Southside alignment? See previous comments regarding consistency of this assumption. Also, no analysis of the land use is done within the City of Petersburg, unlike the Newport News segment which analyzed the City of Richmond.

3‐63 (Section 3.7.3.1) – Map needs to refer to Suffolk, Chesapeake, Portsmouth, and Norfolk as Cities instead of Counties. This is for consistency with the rest of the document (Page 3‐64 as an example).

3‐65 (Section 3.7.3.1) – Harbor Park Stadium is referred to as Harbor Point.

Attachment 7


3‐65 (Section 3.7.3.2) – As project planning goes forward the review of land use plans should be expanded to include a more detailed analysis of future land use maps for the host localities and an examination of potential use conflicts.

3‐67 (Section 3.7.3.2) – Mention in Table 3‐27 the County of Chesapeake. Needs to be City of Chesapeake.

3‐70 (Section 3.8.1.1) – Mention of consistency of using 2025 data. If so, ensure the consistency in data carries through the entire document. Some earlier sections referred to 2025 and then 2030 (Section 3.2).

3‐70 (Section 3.8.1.2) – There is mention of Executive Order 12898, but no mention of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

3‐70 (Section 3.8.2) – This section should reference the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which provides the framework for considering impacts of federal –aid projects and the creation of the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ).

3‐72 (Section 3.8.3.1 & 3.8.3.2) – What is the population/employment estimate methodology across the different sources? Are they consistent?

3‐73 (Section 3.8.3.3) – Reference of City of Sussex needs to be Sussex County. No City of Sussex that is incorporated exists. (Check the entire document for this reference and correct).

3‐101 (Section 3.9.4.3) – This section and several subsequent sections contain references to the Southside/NS Route passing through Town Point Park; is this accurate? Correct as needed.

3‐103 (Table 3‐39) ‐ Waller Mill Park – the tracks are adjacent, but separated by roadway, from the City’s watershed for the Waller Mill Reservoir. The area of the watershed actively used as Waller Mill Park is located approximately one mile from the CSX tracks. Colonial Williamsburg National Historical Park is incorrect – the correct name is Colonial National Historical Park, owned by the National Park Service. (Comment provided by City of Williamsburg.)

3‐104 (Table 3‐40) – Same comments as for Table 3‐39. (Comment provided by City of Williamsburg.)

3‐109 (Table 3‐43) – Hampton should not be included in Southside listing.

3‐115 (Section 3.10.4.3) – This section incorrectly references the existence of prime farmland in Downtown Norfolk.

3‐116 (Section 3.10.4.4) – This section incorrectly references the existence of prime farmland in Downtown Newport News.

3‐117 (Section 3.11.3.1) – In description of the route in Newport News, the phrase, “for a while” is used. Describe better with some landmark to describe when this residential development changes to dominant industrial (i.e. some major cross street?)

Attachment 7


3‐117 (Section 3.11.3.1) – Third paragraph ‐ This should refer to the “Colonial Williamsburg Historic Area” instead of “historic district.” The hotel located north of the tracks near the station (Governor’s Inn) is used as a hotel, not as “off‐site dormitories for the College of William and Mary.” Presently, less than 10 rooms are being occupied by College students, out of a total of 200 rooms. (Comment provided by City of Williamsburg.)

3‐118 (Section 3.11.3.2) – This section incorrectly references Suffolk County. Change to City of Suffolk.

3‐120 (Section 3.12.3) – “Initial coordination efforts with utility providers/companies were not undertaken as part of this Tier I EIS.” Have any utilities been notified specifically about the routes so that the possible scenarios can be incorporated into their long‐range plans? Wastewater utilities in particular are spending millions of dollars on system upgrades now and in the future, including a Regional Wet Weather Management Plan that is due in 2013. Perhaps some projects may need to be scheduled differently or reprioritized based on the timing of these rail improvements.

3‐121 (Section 3.12.3.1) –

• Water, Wastewater and Stormwater should be separate categories of utilities.

• The regional water authorities do not function similar to municipal water systems‐‐‐several municipal water systems comprise the Western Tidewater Regional Water Authority.

• Some above ground pipelines may occur within the study area.

• “These underground systems…”—stormwater conveyance systems include ditches and a variety of other BMPs that are not underground.

3‐122 (Section 3.12.3.2)—Same general comments as above (Section 3.12.3.1). Southside solid waste collection handled primarily by SPSA, with a few localities contracting separately.

3‐130 (Table 3‐46) ‐ The Colonial Williamsburg Historic Area is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and is adjacent to the CSX tracks. This should be listed in this table. The Williamsburg Transportation Center, built is 1935, is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, but is not presently listed. (Comment provided by City of Williamsburg.)

3‐135 (Table 3‐48) ‐ Four of the five locations listed as being in the City of Williamsburg are either in James City County or York County. Only the first listing (“between Penniman Road and CSXT tracks”) may be in the City, but it is unclear because the description is so general. There are two other areas of potential historic significance located in the City are recognized by the City’s 2006 Comprehensive Plan – Capitol Heights Subdivision, platted in 1916, and the surrounding area, both located on Capitol Landing Road just north of the CSXT tracks; and the West Williamsburg, platted in 1928 and bounded roughly by Richmond Road, Bacon Street, Wythe Street and the CSXT tracks. (Comment provided by City of Williamsburg.)

Attachment 7


3‐144 (Section 3.15.3.1)

• City of Williamsburg, not county, is part of the Coastal Plain.

• The Delmarva Peninsula is outside of the study area.

3‐145 (Section 3.15.3.1) —Change “Newport News County” to City of Newport News.

3‐148 (Section 3.15.5) – Check the numbering of the section. Currently refers back to Section 3.14.

3‐148 (Section 3.16) – A discussion of climate change and sea level rise should be added to this section. Both sea level rise and projected increases in precipitation have the potential to create flooding problems along the rail lines.

3‐150 (Section 3.16.3.1) –

• The section should mention the surface water resources used for public water supply that might be impacted by the construction or long‐term water quality impacts due to changes in runoff. The Peninsula/CSX Route could impact the Lee Hall Reservoir, Skiffes Creek Reservoir, Waller Mill Reservoir, Little Creek Reservoir, Diascund Creek Reservoir and the Chickahominy River.

• James City and York counties do participate in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program, and flood maps should be available from FEMA for these areas.

3‐157 (Section 3.16.3.2) –

• The section should mention the surface water resources used for public water supply that might be impacted by the construction or long‐term water quality impacts due to changes in runoff. The Southside/NS Route could impact the Blackwater River, Lake Kilby Reservoir, Lake Cahoon Reservoir, and Lake Meade Reservoir.

• It is correct that there are currently no rivers within Virginia classified as Wild and Scenic by the National Park Service, but Virginia does have state classification for Scenic Rivers.

3‐161 (Section 3.16.3.2) ‐ Surry, Southampton, Isle of Wight, Suffolk and Chesapeake do participate in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program, and flood maps should be available from FEMA for these areas. 3‐165 (Section 3.16.3.2) ‐ Norfolk, Petersburg and Hopewell should be added to Cities within the coastal resource management area and Surry County should be added to counties. 3‐170 (Section 3.16.5.2) – Check the numbering of the section. Currently refers back to Section 3.15.

Attachment 7


3‐171 (Section 3.16.5.2) –

• Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act ‐ York, James City, Charles City and New Kent Counties should be added to the list of localities requiring CBPA approval for the Peninsula route. Norfolk should be added to the list of localities for the Southside Route.

• Local Wetland Board Approval ‐ Norfolk should be added to the Southside Route list of localities requiring approval from LWBs.

3‐179 (Table 3‐56) ‐ “Colonial Williamsburg National Historical Park” is an incorrect name. It should be the “Colonial National Historical Park.” The Colonial Williamsburg Historic Area is a separate entity, and is an Historic Area, not a Park. (Comment provided by City of Williamsburg.) 3‐186 (Table 3‐58) ‐ The Colonial Williamsburg Historic Area is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and is adjacent to the CSX tracks. This should be listed in this table. The Williamsburg Transportation Center, built is 1935, is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, but is not presently listed. These are the same comments that were made for Table 3‐46. (Comment provided by City of Williamsburg.) 3‐201 (Table 3‐63) ‐ Waller Mill Park – the tracks are adjacent, but separated by roadway, from the City’s watershed for the Waller Mill Reservoir. The area of the watershed actively used as Waller Mill Park is located approximately one mile from the CSX tracks. Colonial Williamsburg National Historical Park is incorrect – the correct name is Colonial National Historical Park, owned by the National Park Service. These are the same comments that were made for Table 3‐39. (Comment provided by City of Williamsburg.)

Attachment 7


Chapter 4 Note: Comments are cited by ChapterPage (Section [Chapter.Section.Subsection.Secondary Subsection]) (i.e. 43 (Section 4.2.2))

4‐3 (Section 4.2.2) – “DRPT and the Transportation Divisions of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia have joined together to form a fourstate coalition to plan, develop and implement the SEHSR corridor between Washington, DC and Atlanta, GA.”

• Given the above‐stated intention of DRPT to “implement” HSR south of Richmond, it appears that the cost of Richmond to Petersburg improvements should not be included in the cost of the Southside/NS alternative. Please make adjustments to the numbers and all affected conclusions.

“The SEHSR Tier II EIS (Richmond to Raleigh, NC) is evaluating route alternatives from Richmond through Petersburg to Raleigh, NC.”

• Please indicate the status of the above‐mentioned “SEHSR Tier II EIS (Richmond to Raleigh, NC)”.

4‐5 (Section 4.2.2) – “Funded primarily by car rental taxes, the Rail Enhancement Fund is anticipated to provide $76.9 million for projects in FY10. With over $217 million in Rail Enhancement Funds requested in support of $430.8 million in projects, either the capital improvement program must be extended over a longer period, resources apportioned to the Fund must be increased to keep pace with growing program demand, or the funds must be allocated among the highest priority projects.”

• If $77m is available per year, as indicated above, it appears that the $217m request could be funded over three years. Please address this in the text.

4‐6 (Section 4.3.1.2) – “The project level subsequent analysis for the Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project will select the preferred route alignment through the Petersburg area.”

• The statement above implies that a route through Petersburg has not been established, yet the figure on page 2‐7 shows a route through Petersburg. Please clarify this issue.

4‐7 (Table 4‐2) –

• If—based on the stated assumption “that the SEHSR project would be in full operation prior to completion of this project” (pg. 6‐5)—one excludes the cost of the Richmond to Petersburg improvements from Alternative 1 as recommended in these comments, the cost of introducing passenger rail service to the Southside—and that at higher speed—is $326.5‐$394.1m (Alt. 1) and therefore approximately equal to the cost of modifying rail service on the Peninsula to perform at higher speed ($330.0‐$431.9m, Alt. 2b). Please note this approximate cost equality in Chapter 6, Evaluation of Alternatives.

Attachment 7


4‐15 (Section 4.7) – “There is no assurance that Virginia will be awarded any funds under the PRIIA and ARA programs.”

• Apparently “ARA” should read “ARRA” in 4th full paragraph, next to last sentence.

Attachment 7



5‐4 (Table 5‐2) –

• Under “Route 460 Location Study”, the table currently reads “FEIS underway”, yet according to the VDOT website www.route460ppta.org, “The Final Environmental Impact Study and Record of Decision have been approved by the Federal Highway Administration.”

• Under “Peninsula Rapid Transit Project”, the table currently reads “To be completed by 2015”, yet according to the Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) webpage: http://www.gohrt.com/developmentproject/peninsularapidtransitproject.html, “the FTA funding criteria to build a LRT system cannot be met at this time.” Contact HRT staff to clarify project status.

Attachment 7



6‐1 (Title) –

• The chapter heading currently reads “Comparisons of Alternatives”, yet the chapter is titled “Evaluation of Alternatives” in the table of contents on page ES‐i.

6‐5 (Section 6.3.1.3) – “The Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project is considered to be an extension of the SEHSR corridor under federal legislation that designates U.S. highspeed rail corridors. Although this project has independent utility from the SEHSR project …, it was assumed that the SEHSR project would be in full operation prior to completion of this project.”

• Given the above‐stated assumption that the SEHSR (which includes the Richmond to Petersburg segment) will be in operation prior to the completion of the Richmond Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project, it appears that the cost of Richmond to Petersburg improvements should not be included in the cost of the Southside/NS alternative. In addition, the “Richmond to South Hampton Road HighSpeed Rail Feasibility Study” (DRPT, Apr. 2002) “assumed for the purposes of this study that improvements between Richmond and Petersburg will be completed as part of the Southeast High Speed Rail initiative.” (Findings and Recommendations, pg. 2) Please correct the dollar figures in the EIS and all affected conclusions.

6‐6 (Section 6.3.2) – “Passenger rail will divert 1.3 percent of total ADT in 2025, which is an amount larger than the expected ADT annual growth rate of 0.5 percent.”

• The above comparison—between the project’s diversion, which is not cumulative, to an annual growth rate, which is cumulative—is irrelevant unless one desires to note that the impact of the rail project will be negated by the cumulative effect of three years of annual traffic growth. It is therefore recommended that this sentence be eliminated from the text.

6‐11 (Table 6‐12) –

• Given the assumption stated on page 6‐5 that the SEHSR (which includes the Richmond to Petersburg segment) will be in operation prior to the completion of the Richmond Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project, it appears that the cost of Richmond to Petersburg improvements should not be included in the cost of the Southside/NS alternative. Please modify “Capital costs” in this table, and all affected conclusions, accordingly.

Attachment 7


6‐12 (Section 6.3.5.2) – “Greater potential to impact wetlands, floodplains and wildlife habitats would occur with Alternatives 1 and 2a due to the track and other facility improvements along both the Peninsula/CSXT and Southside/NS routes.”

• Since—as noted in Table 6‐14 on page 6‐13—Alternative 1 has “No impacts” on the Peninsula/CSXT route, the reference to “both” routes in the above sentence appears to be incorrect. Please correct the text and assessment scores in Table 6‐14 as appropriate.

6‐13 & 6‐14 (Tables 6‐14, 6‐15, & 6‐16) –

• It appears that the asterisks under Alternative 2a should be placed on the second row (Southside/NS route) and not on the third row (Overall Rating).

6‐14 (Section 6.3.5.4) –

• Given that the text in this section 1) does not differentiate between positive and negative impacts (simply stating instead e.g. “proximity effects” and “greater potential to impact”), and 2) does not explain why Alternative 2b has a greater positive impact than the other alternatives (Table 6‐17, page 6‐15), please rewrite this section.

• “However, impacts related to Alternative 2b would be less than Alternatives 1 and 2a, given the involvement of both rail routes under Alternatives 1 and 2a and only the Peninsula/CSXT route in Alternative 2b.”

o Since—as noted in Table 6‐17 on page 6‐15—Alternative 1 has “No impacts” on the Peninsula/CSXT route, the reference to “both” routes in the above sentence appears to be incorrect. Please correct the text and assessment scores in Table 6‐17 as appropriate.

• “Alternatives 1 and 2a would potentially have a greater impact to agricultural lands given the

need for additional rightofway in the vicinity of Kilby.”

o Considering the “greater impact” noted above, please indicate what alternatives 1 and 2a are being compared to.

6‐17 through 6‐20 (Table 6‐18) – Table 6‐18 and other locations, listed and unlisted

• Since—as noted in Table 6‐14 on page 6‐13—Alternative 1 has “No impacts” on the Peninsula/CSXT route, the reference to “improvements along both routes” on four rows in the above‐noted table and page appears to be incorrect. (Alternative 1 includes no construction on the Peninsula, simply the addition of one daily round trip train along that route.) Given that this issue appears many times throughout this document, please correct the problem in this and all other locations, including adjustments to “qualitative assessment” scores (++, + , O, ‐, ‐‐) for all types of impacts, as appropriate. (Currently, the EIS scores

Attachment 7


Alternative 1 less highly than Alternative 2b in several assessments based apparently on the incorrect assumption of “improvements along both routes”.)

6‐21 (Section 6.4.1) – “The total number of trains operating between Hampton Roads and Richmond is derived from an capacity analysis conducted as part of the Tier I EIS for the SEHSR project.”

• Replace “an” with “a” in the above sentence.

6‐22 (Section 6.4.1) – “The increased annual cost per passenger over current operating costs to achieve these scheduled time savings per train is $894 per passenger each year for Alternative 1 and $1,894 per passenger each year for Alternatives 2a and 2b.”

• It is improper to divide additional total cost by additional annual riders, since that method results in spreading the cost over only one year’s ridership.

• The correct calculation would to divide additional annual cost by additional annual riders. “Although Alternatives 1 and 2a attract the most ridership, they are not as cost effective as Alternative 2b, which requires the least amount of capital infrastructure investment. Consequently, Alternative 2b is the most cost effective alternative….”

• Given the assumption stated on page 6‐5 that the SEHSR (which includes the Richmond to Petersburg segment) will be in operation prior to the completion of the Richmond Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project, it appears that the cost of Richmond to Petersburg improvements should not be included in the cost of the Southside/NS alternative, making the costs of Alternatives 1 and 2b roughly equal. Please modify the cost effectiveness conclusion on page 6‐22 accordingly.

Attachment 7



7‐1 (Section 7.1.2) – Mailing list as of what date? How was the mailing list developed?

7‐2 (Section 7.1.4) – Has a DRPT representative and contact information been offered in lieu of the project telephone number?

7‐3 (Section 7.2) – The location, date, and time of future scoping and public meetings could be coordinated with local/regional planning organizations. This effort would greatly increase the depth and breadth of outreach efforts.

7‐4 (Section 7.2.1) – During the scoping meetings, were meeting locations considered that were transit/ADA accessible? Suggest that this be addressed in the text describing the meeting locations. Furthermore, there was more emphasis in meetings in Richmond than there were in Hampton Roads.

7‐6 (Section 7.3.1) – The Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) will have a Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC), beginning in April 2010. The CTAC could serve focal point of contact to gather input, from users’ perspectives, for future outreach activities.

7‐6 (Section 7.3.1) – The Technical Working Group should have included 2‐4 public participants, to provide a user standpoint and provide focus from the overly technical outlook such project could have.

Attachment 7


Appendix F F‐6 (Section 4.1.2) – Mention of quarterly newsletters. Chapter 7 mentions newsletters and important project junctures. The Public Participation Plan of this project should be consistent with the EIS write‐up of Public Participation.

F‐9 (Section 4.2.5) – There is discussion of identifying and reaching out to EJ populations. Though the document identifies Environmental Justice (EJ) populations in Section 3.8, it does not elaborate on outreach to these EJ populations.

F‐13 (Section 4.5) – There is mention of maintaining a public comment record. Is there a reason those comments and responses aren’t attached for review?

F‐14 (Section 4.6) – Why is there no documentation in Chapter 7 of the evaluation of the Public Participation Process? Mention of an ad‐hoc team evaluating the process is cited. Furthermore, there is mention of conducting surveys to solicit public input. Was this done? What method used? Sample results?

F‐30 (Sign‐in sheets) – The sign‐in sheets show extensive agency input in the process, but limited public input. Perhaps a sample sign‐in sheet from another scoping meeting, as well as an alternatives meeting is in order. Also, block out contact info for privacy concerns; determine extent of privacy issues.

Attachment 7


Appendix G G‐1 – If there is going to be mention of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) versus Planning District Commissions (PDCs), then use the MPO name. Check the entire document for similar concerns.

G‐3 – Shouldn’t have the CBBT and SEHSR surveys been consistent with the 2004 license survey. The 1994 & 1995 data is dated at this juncture.

G‐4 (Table 1) – Why is County Based Zone population data coming from the VEC? Employment data makes sense, but population?

G‐5 (Table 2) –

• The Hampton Roads socioeconomic data seems off. Does not correlate to HRPDC/HRTPO sources (2008 Economic Data book).

• As to 2007 population data reported, what is the source? How was it calculated? Checking Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service and the HRPDC 2008 Economic Data book, Southside population is too high (~ 9,700) and Peninsula population numbers too low (~ 19,700). Total Hampton Roads population is about 10,000 off from the 2008 HRPDC Data book estimate.

• As to 2007 employment data reported, what is the source? How was it calculated? Checking Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service and the HRPDC 2009 Economic Data book, Southside employment is too high (~ 5,900) and Peninsula employment numbers too low (~ 12,200). Total Hampton Roads population is about 6,300 off from the 2008 HRPDC Data book estimate.

G‐6 – Why doesn’t On‐time performance factor in for air? Should make it less desirable if OTP is factored in. (Could be data difficulty?)

G‐7 / G‐8 – Assumptions regarding transportation network need clarification. Which LRTP for the region was assumed to be in place – the 2030 LRTP or the 2026 LRTP? What other major projects are being assumed? It is not clear. The region’s 2026 LRTP only included the east‐west portion of the Third Crossing between I‐564 and I‐664. The 2030 LRTP included the widening of I‐664 (though the 2030 LRTP is currently being amended per HRTPO Board action of December 16, 2009). If the assumed highway projects and any tolls do impact the resulting usage of the rail alternatives, then this should be explained in the document. If they don’t have an impact, then that should be noted as well. Also the toll level cited for the Third Crossing is dated and location unclear, per comments above. The most recent toll study is a “Toll Feasibility Study” of 2005, available from the HRTPO website. However, all toll levels are speculative as discussions about any crossings of Hampton Roads are ongoing.

G‐8 – How are tolls calculated for the table? Does it assume crossing the CBBT or just an I‐95 route to NYC and Boston? Why is the Third Crossing factored into the process? Any tolling levels assumed for the Third Crossing are speculative; see previous comment.

Attachment 7


G‐9 (Table 4) – Why is the airport analysis to BWI for Washington? Is this the cheapest on average airport destination in Washington, DC or airport furthest away from DC proper. Explain why BWI was used.

Attachment 7


AGENDA ITEM #8: HIGHSPEED RAIL AND INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS: CONSULTANT SELECTION

SUBJECT: Selection of a consultant to advise the HRTPO in positioning Hampton Roads to be more competitive regarding high‐speed and intercity passenger rail and associated funding, and to develop a regional high‐speed and intercity passenger rail development plan component for the 2034 Long‐Range Transportation Plan. BACKGROUND:

During a Special HRTPO Board meeting held on October 30, 2009, a resolution was approved to support regional High‐Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail. During the HRTPO Board Meeting on November 18, 2009, the HRTPO Board authorized the Executive Director to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking consultant services to:

• Advise the HRTPO in how to position the Hampton Roads region, as well as enhance its competitiveness in applying for Federal and State funds; and

• Develop a regional high‐speed and intercity passenger rail service development plan component for the HRTPO 2034 Long‐Range Transportation Plan.

In addition to advertising the RFP online from November 23, 2009 to December 11, 2009 via the HRTPO website and the Railway Age publication website, invitations for proposals were sent to a short‐list of consultants specializing in passenger rail planning. Responses were received from three firms; however, one firm subsequently withdrew their proposal due to a conflict of interest. A consultant selection team consisting of staff from the HRTPO, Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Hampton Roads Transit, and HRTPO‐member localities (Hampton and Virginia Beach only) interviewed the remaining two firms on January 8, 2010. The consultant selection team unanimously selected the firm Transportation Economics and Management Systems, Inc. (TEMS) to fulfill the scope of work detailed in the RFP, and has recommended the HRTPO Board approve the selection of TEMS. Furthermore, the consultant selection team recommends the HRTPO Board authorize the Executive Director to negotiate and execute a contract with TEMS. Attached are the proposed TEMS detailed work plan, deliverables, meetings, and study budget ($320,000) for HRTPO Board review (Attachment A). It is anticipated that the final draft report will be available for HRTPO Board review during the June 2010 meeting. Mr. Dwight Farmer, Executive Director/Secretary, will be available to answer any questions associated with this item. Attachment 8‐A Attachment 8‐B (See Staff Commentary) RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Authorize the Executive Director to negotiate and execute a contract with TEMS. Approve local funding surcharge (See Staff Commentary below).


STAFF COMMENTARY:

HRTPO staff is concerned about the anticipated budget of $320,000 for the consultant services specified above. Currently, the HRTPO budget does not include sufficient funds to cover this expenditure. Therefore, in order to contract with the consultant, it will be necessary for HRTPO member localities to agree to pay a pro‐rata surcharge to cover the $320,000 expenditure. The attached table specifies the necessary pro‐rata surcharge per HRTPO member locality (Attachment B).

ii

SUBMITTED TO

HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATION

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: NO. TPO-RFP-2009-01

LONG-RANGE REGIONAL HIGH-SPEED AND INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL PLAN AND STRATEGIC CAMPAIGN FOR FEDERAL AND STATE COMPETITIVE FUNDS

SUBMITTED BY

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 116 RECORD STREET ▪ FREDERICK, MD 21701

P: 301.846.0700 ▪ F: 301.846.0740

CONTACT: ALEXANDER E. METCALF, PHD / PRESIDENT

DECEMBER 11, 2009

Attachment 8-A

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: NO. TPO-RFP-2009-01 LONG-RANGE REGIONAL HIGH-SPEED AND INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL PLAN

AND STRATEGIC CAMPAIGN FOR FEDERAL AND STATE COMPETITIVE FUNDS

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. 3

222 DDDEEETTTAAAIIILLLEEEDDD WWWOOORRRKKK PPPLLLAAANNN AAAPPPPPPRRROOOAAACCCHHH

The development of the Richmond – Hampton Roads Corridor Passenger Rail Development and Business Plan will involve a six-step process as set out in the accompanying exhibit. Each step denotes the need for the HRTPO review and approval before work can logically proceed to the next step.

Kick-Off Meeting

Task 1: Study Design Task 2: Data Assembly

Task 4: Interactive Analysis

Task 5: Ridership & Revenue Forecasts

Task 6: Operating & Capital Costs

Task 7: Financial & Economic Feasibility Analyses

Task 8: Financing & Funding Arrangements

Task 9: Institutional Framework

Task 10: Allocation of Costs & Revenues

Task 11: Implementation Plan

Task 12: Business Plan Documentation

Step 1: Databank Development

Step 2: Service Scenarios

Step 3: Interactive Analysis

Step 4: System Forecasts & Outputs

Step 5: Institutional & Financing Plan

Step 6: Business Plan

Baseline Trip Tables

Pre sentation & Review Meeting

Operating Strategies & Fare Structures

Presentation & Review Meeting

Specific Infrastructure, Technology & Support

Requirements Identification of

Preferred Alternatives


Public Outreach, Institutional Support

Structures


Critical Path Work Plan

Business Plan Report

FRA Service Development

Plan


Service Scenarios Service Scenarios for CorridorTask 3:

Attachment 8-A




2.1 DETAILED WORK PLAN OVERVIEW OF MAJOR STEPS SSTTEEPP 11:: SSTTUUDDYY DDAATTAABBAANNKK TEMS has been closely following the work to date on the Hampton Road – Richmond Passenger Rail corridors, and has reviewed all previous feasibility DEIS, and statewide and local transit studies concerning the project. It is clear that to make application for funding to the FRA, a business plan needs to be developed that can act as feedstock for the Service Development Plan needed to gain funding from the FRA. To meet this need the TEMS team will assemble a database from existing data and supplemented as necessary from existing sources (e.g., BEA, TPO, etc.) Three distinct databases will be developed – a market database, infrastructure database, and technology database. Of key importance will be the market database, which will be used to assess the public’s potential response to service in the Richmond - Hampton Roads Corridor with and without a connection to the Northeast and Southeast corridors. MMAARRKKEETT DDAATTAABBAASSEE - Using the latest socioeconomic, traffic, and survey data collected, a detailed market analysis will be prepared. This market analysis will identify total traffic movements in the corridor by mode (air, auto, rail and bus) by origin/destination, purpose of travel (business, commuter, social and tourism), and critical behavioral factors like Value of Time, Value of Frequency, Value of Accessibility and Value of Reliability. The market analysis will provide the data needed for comprehensive business planning purposes and will identify in detail the opportunities for a rail system for given city pairs in terms of the market and the scale and character of the requirements for the rail services. Output generated by the COMPASS™ Model will include base year (2010) trip tables for the corridor and its hinterland for rail and all competitive modes. EENNGGIINNEEEERRIINNGG DDAATTAABBAASSEE - Using the existing track database set up during the initial Richmond - Hampton Roads study, a field review will be undertaken to update this database. Proposals will be developed for upgrading the track and infrastructure systems to enable them to operate at 79 mph, 90 mph, 110 mph and 125 mph. This database will be entered into the TRACKMAN™ program, which will provide a milepost-by-milepost analysis of the route. The engineering database will include unit costs for all the different infrastructure components. TTEECCHHNNOOLLOOGGYY DDAATTAABBAASSEE - Using the latest data from manufacturers and operating railroads, a technology database will be compiled for passenger rail systems capable of operating at 79 mph, 110 mph, and 125 mph. This will include all the key parameters relative to the trains’ performance such as acceleration, deceleration, maximum speed, energy costs, and operating costs including maintenance costs. This data will be entered into the LOCOMOTION™ program.

SSTTEEPP 22:: SSEERRVVIICCEE SSCCEENNAARRIIOOSS The TEMS Team will define the most appropriate range of the rail service scenarios to be evaluated for the intercity rail service. Using specific data on the proposed layout of the right-of-way and available rail technology, a series of alternative passenger rail service and train options will be proposed. This portion of the analysis will define the most effective type of rail service alternatives to be offered. From the evaluation of these alternatives, the final service plan will be selected. In developing the initial service plan, the analysis will also recognize and consider existing or potential institutional, fiscal and policy conflicts that might impede the success of the rail service. A key element of this assessment will be coordinating with the freight railroads (CSX and NS) to identify capacity and access issues. It is important to the freight railroads that passenger rail does not absorb required capacity but rather adds capacity at critical locations for both passenger and freight operations. A preliminary capacity analysis will be completed using a capacity modeling approach that is consistent with the way capacity needs were assessed for medium intensity (12-16 trains per day) freight routes. In addition, the

Attachment 8-A




Input Interactive

AnalysisOutput

Service Plan

Infrastructure

Trains

Market Analysis

LOCOMOTION™ Scheduling & Operations

TRACKMAN™ Terminal Facilities

COMPASS™ Ridership &

Fares

Operating Costs

Capital Costs

Revenues

Financial &Economic Feasibility

TEMS Team will work with local communities to ensure local planning issues are fully considered. The service plan, as finally developed, will include contingencies to manage any issues affecting the passenger rail system’s implementation.

STEP 3: INTERACTIVE ANALYSIS The Interactive Analysis will consider the interaction of passenger rail service scenarios and infrastructure proposals using the RightTrack™ Rail Business Planning Systems TRACKMAN™ and LOCOMOTION™ programs. This will allow the initial service and technology options to be defined in relation to the market and how demand responds to the service offerings. As necessary, the Interactive Analysis will show how to modify each option to ensure that it best suits the market in terms of train speed stopping patterns, train frequency, and train timetables. This will ensure that both the most appropriate speeds and infrastructure are developed for each option. The final element of the Interactive Analysis is to maximize revenues. A revenue yield assessment will be completed to optimize the fare systems for the final service plan for each option. For each level of service, the market data and service plan will be used to derive optimum fare and revenue estimates that reflect supply and demand conditions that will exist in the corridor. By providing an analysis of fares in relation to the supply and demand conditions, an optimum set of fares can be derived for the passenger rail service. These fares, when applied to the market, will optimize revenues and provide the key input to the financial model for the basic traffic and the ancillary revenues associated with rail services. The exhibit below illustrates the interactive character of the analysis process.

Attachment 8-A




STEP 4: SYSTEM FORECASTS AND OUTPUTS The results of the market analysis, service plan and fare structures will be used to define the specific infrastructure, train technology and support system requirements. The analysis will identify the following critical inputs/costs –

Terminal support staff

Terminal facilities, parking and access

Maintenance facilities

Interface access systems for auto and transit traffic

Annual operating and maintenance

Infrastructure capital

Train sets

Crew

Terminals

A 2010 unit cost databank will be developed. Using the unit cost database, capital and operating costs will be defined for each rail service option. The financial and economic evaluation process will assess financial feasibility and economic criteria that satisfy USDOT FRA rather than FTA criteria. It is noticeable that the DEIS for the corridor used FTA rather than FRA. FRA criteria are designed to meet public-private partnership needs allowing project franchising and a positive economic return. As such, they include net present value, cost benefit ration, internal rate of return, payback period, debt coverage and financial risk. As the process develops, specific recommendations will be developed for the passenger rail service and the revenue process will be examined to maximize the financial and economic success of the rail service. At the end of this step, the most effective speed alternatives will be identified and work can begin on the implementation process.

STEP 5: INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCING PLAN The institutional assessment will include the development of an organization for passenger rail development in the Hampton Roads area. Specifically the type of structures needed to allow development of potential corridors in the most efficient manner will be proposed. This will include the organization of the overall Task Force, and the implementation agencies needed to develop the corridors on both sides of the James River. As requested in the RFP, a technical memo will be prepared by February 17 on the role, purpose and membership composition of the Regional High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Task Force for HRTPO Board approval. For each passenger rail option, the institutional and financing framework for the proposed passenger rail service will be defined. This will include an assessment of the potential for public-private partnerships, franchises, and other partnership opportunities. The role of funding sources from both the public and private sector will be assessed and a variety of creative financing and funding programs will be considered. Specific consideration will be given to the appropriate institutional structures that meet the needs of stakeholders. As required, specific cost sharing arrangements will be developed between federal, state and local communities and the freight railroads. As appropriate, cost-sharing arrangements will be thoroughly defined and various cost allocation procedures proposed. Draft Institutional Arrangements Agreements will be developed and, with the approval of the HRTPO, submitted to potential partners for their discussion and approval.

Attachment 8-A




STEP 6: BUSINESS PLAN The Implementation Plan will be finalized. It will set out the milestones and steps needed to implement the rail service in terms of planning, environmental analysis, engineering, construction and operation. For each task, timelines and responsibilities will be defined. The Business Plan will be finalized and will include –

Market analysis

Operating and service plans

Financial plan

Funding plan

Implementation plan

Business plan

The Business Plan will guide and support the key stakeholders throughout the implementation and financing activities of the Richmond – Hampton Roads rail service. The Business Plan will include pro forma financial statements for use in pursuing public and private funding to support the capital needs and operational elements of the rail service. Equally important, the plan will address the actual “implementation” of the rail service and the monitoring of activities as set forth in the Implementation Plan, thereby ensuring a smooth introduction of the new service, and the ability to apply in a Service Development Plan for Phase 1 funding. The deliverables for the Business Plan will consist of a summary or executive report that can be used for general distribution, a more detailed technical report with appendices, and a PowerPoint™ presentation that can be used by HRTPO staff. Per the requirements of the RFP, 15 bound hard copies and a CD in Word™ format will be submitted for the summary report. It is assumed that the summary report will be approximately 10 to 20 pages in length. For the technical report and appendices, 15 bound copies and a CD in a PDF format will be submitted. A proposed table of contents for the technical report is given on the following page.

Attachment 8-A




DELIVERABLES FOR THE BUSINESS PLAN

--- Executive Summary

Summary of the Business Plan for reference by senior decision-makers

Chapter 1 Richmond – Hampton Roads Corridor Intercity Rail Services

Summary of the overall systems to be developed

Chapter 2 Target Markets and Proposed Service Offerings

Detailed description of target markets, market segments, associated rail service offerings, fare structures, and proposed ancillary services

Chapter 3 Projected Equipment and Capital Investment Needs

Summary of equipment and capital investment needs for both the rail service itself and ancillary services

Chapter 4 Operating Arrangements and Responsibilities

Proposed operating arrangement and responsibilities including cooperative agreements, with freight railroads, private sector participation and public/private partnerships

Chapter 5 Project Market Penetration, Patronage and Annual Revenues

Estimated market penetration by city pair and target market segment, estimated annual patronage and annual revenues for the rail system and associated services

Chapter 6 Estimated Operating Costs Projected annual costs including rail service and ancillary operating, equipment, capital and debt service costs

Chapter 7 Financing Plan and Innovative Financing Options

Proposed financing plan including projected private sector contributions

Chapter 8 Legal, Regulatory and Institutional Requirements

Assessment of critical legal, regulatory and institutional issues, including recommendations for potential action

Chapter 9 Potential for Added Revenue and Cost Reduction

Identification of potential innovative service arrangements, ancillary service offerings and potential operating procedures designed to either enhance revenue or reduce costs

Chapter 10 Implementation Plan and Service Development Plan

Description of the proposed rail service implementation program, by year and region together with the marketing program, institutional arrangements, and legal and financial agreements

Chapter 11 Cost-Benefit Analysis and Risk Assessment

Comprehensive assessment of the costs and benefits of the proposed rail system, and assessment of the risk associated with its implementation

Chapter 12 Pro Forma Financial Statements Comprehensive set of 5, 10, 15 and 20 year pro forma financial projections including annual costs, revenues, operating statements, balance sheets, sources and uses of funds, investment needs and financing requirements

---- Appendices Detailed data tabulations supporting individual chapters

---- Presentation Materials PowerPoint Presentation to be given to executives and senior decision-makers

Attachment 8-A




333 DDDEEETTTAAAIIILLL WWWOOORRRKKK PPPLLLAAANNN TTTAAASSSKKKSSS

In undertaking an analysis of the Richmond – Hampton Roads Corridor, the TEMS Team proposes a six-step thirteen-task process –

Steps Tasks

1 Study Databank 1-2 Study Design, Data Assembly

2 Service Scenarios 3 Service Scenarios

3 Interactive Analysis 4-5 Demand Analysis, Rail Service Analysis

4 System Forecasts and Outputs 6-8 Ridership and Revenue, Operating and Capital Costs, Financial and Economic Analysis

5 Institutional and Financing Plan 9-11 Financing and Funding, Institutional Framework, Cost Allocation

6 Business Plan 12-13

Implementation Plan, Business Plan, Service Development Plan

STEP 1: STUDY DATABANK TASK 1 - STUDY DESIGN The TEMS Team will mobilize directly on the execution of the agreement. A detailed study plan workshop will be held with the HRTPO Project Manager and Steering Committee to identify priorities and finalize the work program. TASK 2 - DATA ASSEMBLY The data assembly will be oriented toward the specifications of three major data systems. They include –

Market database Engineering database Technology database

MARKET DATABASE

The market database will consist of three components – origin/destination data, socioeconomic data, and network data. ORIGIN/DESTINATION DATA As part of previous studies, comprehensive zone systems for the Richmond – Hampton Roads

corridor have been defined for both the Richmond – Hampton Roads corridor(s) themselves, as well as for the Richmond/Northeast corridor. TEMS will review these databases and then develop a zone system appropriate for Investment Grade Analysis of a passenger rail corridor. A multimodal database will be developed for travel by existing modes (auto, bus, rail, and air). The data will be broken down by the behavior purposes of business, commuter, social, and tourism. The data will be largely held at a county or sub county level for rural areas, at an aggregate MPO/TPO TAZ zone level for urban areas. It is anticipated that a 150-zone system will be required.

Attachment 8-A




SOCIOECONOMIC DATA An extensive socioeconomic database will be developed for the study zone system. The data will be

developed from Federal BEA data for three key base and forecast variables; population, employment, and income. These will be reviewed with the HRTPO Project Manager and adjusted to the proposed zone system to provide an effective basis for estimating socioeconomic change in the Richmond – Hampton Roads corridors.

NETWORK DATA Comprehensive modal networks will be developed for each mode of intercity travel (auto, air, rail and

bus). The networks, which will identify access and egress times, and costs, will be built for business and non-business travel. A refined set of networks will be developed for the Richmond – Hampton Roads Corridor to show the strength of modal competition and connections in the corridor. The

networks will include options for the “with” (Northeast and Southeast corridors integrated) and “without” (Stand alone) connectivity.

ENGINEERING DATABASE The engineering database will consider both the CSX and NS lines to Richmond from Hampton Roads. For each line, civil engineering costs associated with the proposed rail services will be estimated. The TRACKMAN™ Track Management System will provide a milepost-by-milepost record of the rail gradients and track geometry of the right-of-way. The data will be compiled from existing sources including railroad timetables, track charts, ordinance survey maps, and land stat photometry. The data will be reviewed and updated as required. This will be achieved by a field review of the right-of-way and track in the corridor by the engineers and operation planner on the TEMS Team. Potential track upgrades and improvements for different passenger rail speeds and operations will be assessed and improvements will be identified and listed. Engineering notes will be developed and entered into the TRACKMAN™ program to provide a clear understanding of basic track conditions, and the upgrades needed to support higher passenger rail speeds. Particular attention will be given to existing and potential new crossings and difficulties with grade separation, environmental hot spots of potential concern, freight uses of the right-of-way, and existing users, utilities, etc. that may need to be relocated. A sample output from TRACKMAN™ is given below.

TRACKMAN™ SAMPLE OUTPUT

Attachment 8-A




TECHNOLOGY DATABASE The technology database for the passenger rail speed options will be developed by reviewing existing TEMS equipment database and soliciting information from manufacturers to update TEMS existing databank. It is anticipated that, the study focus will be on 79-mph - 90-mph and 110-mph - 125-mph diesel and gas turbine technologies.

STEP 2: SERVICE SCENARIOS

TASK 3 - SERVICE SCENARIOS FOR THE CORRIDOR Working closely with the HRTPO Project Manager, an initial set of passenger rail service scenarios will be defined. The key factors considered in defining scenarios include –

Train frequency

Train speed

Track speed

Station stops

Fares

SERVICE CONCEPTS The TEMS Team will explore opportunities to attract riders and create greater value and revenue. In addressing this issue, the TEMS Team will consider two potential levels of service, each targeted to different traveler needs. These include –

79-90 MPH

110-125 MPH

LOCO-HAULED BI-LEVEL COACHES DMU

TALGO T21 JET TRAIN

Attachment 8-A




BASE LEVEL SERVICE CONCEPT – a 79-mph and 90-mph service operating within the context of a “stand alone” or a “Northeast Corridor integrated” service. A basic fare would be established for this service. The base level service provides a platform against which additional speed improvements can be evaluated in both financial and economic terms.

IMPROVED SERVICE CONCEPTS – service improvements that would be associated with upgraded track and 110-mph and/or 125-mph train speeds. Improvements would include reductions in travel times, increased frequencies, improved reliability, improved train stopping patterns and higher quality of service. It would also provide for improved transportation access and connections at stations, such as taxis, limos and transit. Fares will be optimized to maximize revenue potential.

STEP 3: INTERACTIVE ANALYSIS

TASK 4 - INTERACTIVE ANALYSIS The Interactive Analysis is designed to develop the most efficient and effective alternatives for passenger rail service in the Richmond – Hampton Roads Corridor. DEMAND ANALYSIS The introduction of new rail systems, which provide substantially reduced travel times, higher comfort levels, and frequently lower fares has radically changed travel patterns and brought communities closer together. In general, intercity travel is increasing, marked by a substantial increase in travel demand and distances traveled, as well as a significant shift toward rail use as a result of higher gas prices. To effectively predict the change pattern and overall rail travel demand levels for new rail systems, models are needed that can accurately forecast the impact of trip making increases and the role of the rail mode. To meet these needs, TEMS developed the COMPASS™ Model System, which is a fundamentally new approach to transportation analysis. It combines existing regional transportation planning techniques with new market research techniques. COMPASS™ has the advantage of having been tested in North America, Europe and Australia on various projects as they progressed from planning, to engineering, to implementation. It provided the foundation for the Midwest Regional Rail ridership and revenue forecasts, and has been calibrated to reflect conditions in the Midwest and in Minnesota. Contrary to conventional MPO methods of analyzing demand on the basis of existing or historical demographic/travel data, the COMPASS™ Model, while including such data in the analysis, subordinates it to a detailed dynamic behavioral assessment of an individual’s innate travel characteristics. Using an advanced market research technique, Abstract Mode Trade-Off Analysis, these innate travel characteristics are formulated as preference utilities or demand elasticities, yielding a precise measurement of the responsiveness of travel demand to improvements in the overall level of service and the relative competitive position of alternative modes. As a result, instead of a four step process the COMPASS™ model uses the advances in behavior modeling associated with Decision Choice Modeling to estimate rail passenger demand and market share.

As shown in the exhibit below, the COMPASS™ Model includes three key sub-models –

Total Demand Model

Induced Demand Model

Modal Split Model

Attachment 8-A




COMPASS™ RAIL DEMAND MODEL STRUCTURE

Using the COMPASS™ approach to rail forecasting, the TEMS Team will –

Eliminate the potential shortcomings of other model approaches, which often rely upon historical data that reflects rail’s current negative image and tend to underestimate a new and modern rail system.

Overcome the propensity inherent in conventional MPO planning models to fail to identify

accurately the market share for all modes. Typical models are geared to forecasting the dominant mode (auto) and are frequently biased in their calibration procedures to coefficients and parameters that reflect auto travel. Unless a model explicitly represents the response of individuals to the modes other than auto (rail, bus, and air) differently through model coefficients such as the value of time, it is inevitable that the model will not be able to provide effective rail forecasts.1

The basis of the TEMS Team’s approach to forecasting the potential for new intercity passenger rail service will be to treat rail as an enhanced or new mode. The objective will be to focus the analysis on the response to the new mode’s performance by taking behavioral attitudes into account, rather than simply extrapolating demand on the basis of historical or current travel relationships. This will allow for a more accurate and realistic ridership forecast. The output of the forecasting process can be used to ensure that the most appropriate route and technology combinations have been obtained and that potential revenue is maximized and capital costs minimized.

1 A.E. Metcalf, G. Santoboni, “How (In) Accurate are Demand Forecasts in Public Works Projects: The Case of Transportation”, October 2005

Stated Preference

Survey

Origin-Destination

Data

Passenger Rail

Scenarios

Economic Scenarios

Four-Mode Transport Network

Trip

Matrices

Financial Analysis

Revenue Analysis

Forecast Year Trip Matrices

Travel Demand Model Runs

Alternatives Analysis

Assessment

Economic Rent

Analysis

User Benefits Analysis

Total Demand Model

Calibration

Base

Matrix

Base Socio-

Economics

Attachment 8-A




RAIL SERVICE ANALYSIS The determination of appropriate rail service depends on balancing the trade-off between revenues and costs for any given route and associated technology. Higher levels of ridership generate higher revenues, which permit a greater level of infrastructure investment, and thus higher speeds. Lower levels of ridership and lower revenues require that infrastructure investment be minimized and/or the use of more sophisticated vehicles (e.g., tilt technology to compensate for inadequate track geometry). As a result, the TEMS Team proposes an Interactive Analysis as the most efficient means of developing an appropriate passenger rail service and identifying infrastructure needs. The Interactive Analysis utilizes a number of computer systems, permitting a rapid evaluation and re-evaluation of route, technology, and/or ridership factors –

TRACKMAN™ to assess the right-of-way and route improvement options

LOCOMOTION™ Train Performance Calculator to assess the performance of technologies

COMPASS™ Rail Demand Model to assess ridership and traffic levels

The result of the Interactive Analysis is an operating strategy for each route/alternative technology option that optimizes the infrastructure, technology and traffic levels. For the proposed corridor, the first step in the Interactive Analysis is to identify the most appropriate route alignment and train speed. To achieve a desired train speed, the route is examined and specific infrastructure improvements are proposed for each mile of track. For the Duluth-Minneapolis, Midwest Regional Rail unit costs will be used to generate cost estimates for improvements. The actual operating speed of the train along the track is calculated using LOCOMOTION™. Output from LOCOMOTION™ will be examined to identify specific bottlenecks, such as bridges, crossings, tunnels and curves that restrict train speeds unnecessarily and reduce the overall timetable performance of a specific technology. The output of LOCOMOTION™ provides an assessment of train running times for any given set of infrastructure proposals. By reviewing the timetables, the level of infrastructure improvements can be increased or reduced to meet specific timetable and thus specific ridership needs. In this way, the Interactive Analysis will result in the development of an operating strategy for each right-of-way/corridor and technology that best combines infrastructure requirements, operating speeds and frequencies, and potential ridership. A sample output from LOCOMOTION™ is given in the exhibit below.

Attachment 8-A




LOCOMOTION™ SAMPLE OUTPUT

It should be noted that the time saved by removing speed restrictions (curves, capacity delays, etc.) will be different for different train technologies. For example, removing moderate curves is less important than removing bridge speed restrictions for trains with steerable trucks. Where restrictions are found, TRACKMAN™ will be used to identify the cost of upgrading the right-of-way. By using LOCOMOTION™ and TRACKMAN™ together, a priority ranking of improvements can be developed. This consists of a cost per train travel time minutes saved and cost-per-revenue dollar earned. The Interactive Analysis will identify key bottlenecks that prevent a given technology from achieving its maximum capability, listing the priorities for each train type, and estimating the civil engineering costs to overcome these bottlenecks. Equally, the analysis will be used to assess the effect of train speed on ridership levels and the cost of aligning the track to avoid locations with important environmental or cultural characteristics. In each case, the required infrastructure improvements will be quantified in terms of the full range of factors that affect infrastructure costs (grading, track quality, signaling, and grade crossing protection.)

LOCOMOTION - Train Performance Calculator

(c) 1990-1995, Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc.

Project Rockford Chicago O'Hare

Corridor Rockford Airport to Chicago O'Hare

Technology F40M

Investment Metra Stock

Date 25-Aug-97

Time 11:15 AM

Maximum Train Speed 79 mph

Acceleration Distance 3 miles

Deceleration Distance 2 miles

Station Dwell Time 2 min

Recovery Time 0 min

Total Journey Time 3:44 hours

Total Journey Length 81.0 miles

Station Mile Speed Train Schedule Depar Engineering

City Post Restriction Speed Time Arriv Description

0 0Rockford Airport 0 75 0.0 0:00 Dp

1 75 55.5 0:02

2 70 70.0 0:03 Airport junct

3 79 77.9 0:03

4 79 79.0 0:04

5 79 79.0 0:05

6 79 79.0 0:06

7 79 79.0 0:06

8 79 79.0 0:07

9 79 63.0 0:08

9.1 60 60.0 0:08 Davis junct-Start

9.6 60 60.0 0:09 Davis junct-End

10 79 67.3 0:09

11 79 76.7 0:10

12 79 79.0 0:11

Attachment 8-A




STEP 4: SYSTEM FORECASTS AND OUTPUTS Using the output from the Interactive Analysis, ridership and revenue forecasts, and operating and capital costs will be generated for each scenario. TASK 5 – RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE FORECASTS Using the service scenarios developed for the Richmond – Hampton Roads Corridor, total demand and market share forecasts for passenger rail traffic will be prepared for yearly intervals for the study period 2010-2040. To forecast the impact of regional economic growth on total demand, socioeconomic scenarios will be prepared that identify the likely changes in income, population, and employment over the study period. For rail, the strategies that will be developed include train frequency, commercial speed, stopping patterns and passenger interchange. Using these inputs, as appropriate, alternative strategies will also be prepared for other intercity transportation modes, so that the impact of investment in these modes is incorporated into the overall demand analysis. This task will be carried out in conjunction with the HRTPO Steering Committee. The rail ridership forecasts will be assigned to show segment volumes, station volumes, and passenger miles and revenues on an annual basis. The forecasts will also be provided on an origin and destination basis and on a corridor, segment, and city pair basis. For each technology option, the rail revenues will be generated. Revenues will be based on a fare/tariff structure, which can be compared with fares and costs of competing traffic (air, auto, and bus). This will ensure that the optimum revenue stream is generated for the rail service, and will provide a basis for considering higher fares and lower subsidies for the Richmond – Hampton Roads passenger rail service. Revenues will be given in 2010 dollars. TASK 6 - OPERATING AND CAPITAL COSTS For each of the technology options, a set of 2010 operating costs will be developed that are based on the operating timetable. The operating unit costs will include the following –

Track maintenance

Train crew

Rolling stock maintenance

Electrification maintenance

Signals and communications maintenance

Energy costs

Train crew

Control staff

Terminal personnel

On-board services

Administration

Capital costs for the passenger rail service include cost for rolling stock, as well as infrastructure costs. Rolling stock costs for the various technologies will be obtained directly from equipment manufactures. As for infrastructure costs, the TEMS Team has a set of unit costs derived from the ongoing studies across the U.S., which have been updated to 2010 dollars. It is proposed that these will be reviewed and adjusted to reflect specific conditions in the Richmond – Hampton Roads Corridor. The infrastructure cost databank will include unit costs for the following –

Attachment 8-A




Land and right-of-way

Sub-grade, structures, and guideway

Track

Rolling stock

Signals and communications

Electrification

Demolition

Stations

Maintenance and facilities

Highway and railroad crossings

Farm and animal crossings

Pedestrian crossings

Fencing

TASK 7 - FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSES To ensure the support of the USDOT FRA for the results of the Richmond – Hampton Roads corridors, a public-private partnership analysis will be completed inline with the recommendations of two key USDOT FRA reports –

The Commercial Feasibility Study, “High Speed Ground Transportation for America”

The Maglev Deployment Program, FRA 1999

These studies with GAO endorsement set out the evaluation approach that is recommended for attracting USDOT funding support. To meet this need the following financial and economic analysis is proposed.

Comprehensive financial analysis

Comprehensive FRA approved user benefits (consumer surplus) economic analysis

Comprehensive Community Benefit (economic rent) analysis

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - The financial analysis will be based on a detailed cash flow analysis of passenger revenues, operating and maintenance costs, and infrastructure and rolling stock costs. The analysis will include the discounting of costs and revenues to an appropriate base year, the establishment of an infrastructure cost implementation program, and the assessment of both Net Present Values and Internal Rates of Return showing the overall worth of the rail service in financial terms. In addition, a number of ancillary revenue/cost relationships will be defined in the financial analysis, including project profitability (rate of return), operating ratio (cost/revenue relationship), investment standards (investment dollar/passenger mile), and train efficiency (cost/train mile). These will be used to provide a comparative analysis of corridor performance, and to show the FRA the level of franchisableness. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF USER (CONSUMER SURPLUS) - In the demand side economic analysis, transportation user costs and benefits will be assessed in terms of increased user benefits (consumer surplus), increased trip making (regional mobility), reduced journey travel times and congestion (travel time savings), and improved quality of service (maximum service levels). The economic analysis will be based on the flow of economic costs and benefits over time and the impact of the proposed rail service on both users and non-users. This analysis will include resource savings, energy savings, accident savings, and producer surplus. The economic benefits and costs will be discounted to an appropriate base year and evaluated in terms of Net Present Values, Internal Rates of Return, and Cost Benefit Ratios. The

Attachment 8-A




analysis will also include a public sector constrained capital assessment. A positive Cost Benefit ratio is the key to FRA funding. ECONOMIC BENEFITS FOR COMMUNITIES (ECONOMIC RENT) - A critical output is the measure of supplyside community benefits generated by developing the corridor. This shows the communities the benefits they will get from the implementation of the high speed rail corridors. This has been used successfully in the public outreach program to develop community support (e.g., Ohio Hub, MWRRI, and Florida). TEMS has developed the Economic Rent Analysis as a mechanism for estimating the increase in Jobs, Income, Property Values, and the expansion of the Tax Base, as a result of implementing high speed rail projects. This is an additional task that TEMS feels essential to the public outreach process. It is particularly useful to show both the federal and state governments the return they get from increased tax revenues over the life of the project. A recent APTA study completed for the MWRRI using TEMS data showed that the expanded tax base from the project provided a 100 percent return for federal funds, and a 50 percent return for state funds.

STEP 5: INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCING FRAMEWORK TASK 8 - FINANCING AND FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS The TEMS Team will work with the HRTPO Project Manager and Steering Committee to develop financing and funding plans for the rail service. The analysis will consider different ways to generate federal, state, local, and private sector support for the rail service. Specific issues to be considered include –

Federal and state match

Local funding of station

Private sector roles in provision of services and contracting

Freight railroad contracting and funding options

The analysis will consider the full range of innovative financing proposed by the US DOT FRA and evaluate the potential roles of grants, TIFIA loans, Amtrak participation, franchising, GANS and other financial instruments.

TASK 9 - INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK Given a full understanding of the needs of the rail service, infrastructure costs, operating finances, and the potential role of the private sector, an assessment will be made of the potential institutional arrangements that will need to be developed for implementation of the rail service. The full range of potential institutional arrangements will be assessed and recommendations made on the basis of the roles of different parties, potential financial commitments, cost and revenue sharing, and other organizational and efficiency considerations. Key criteria will include –

Potential cash flows

Administrative and operating costs

Legal requirements and related needs (e.g., insurance)

Ease of implementation

Transferability

Pay-off year and financial attributes

Attachment 8-A




TASK 10 - ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES Revenue and cost allocation procedures will be developed that show the financial responsibilities of each party along with the timeline for finalizing contractual arrangements. Critical issues to be assessed include –

Cooperative arrangements

Maximization of private sector opportunities

Financing mechanisms

Strengthening institutional capabilities

STEP 6: BUSINESS PLAN

TASK 11 - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Using the outputs of the previous ten tasks, an implementation plan will be developed that sets goals, timetables, and arrangements for implementing passenger rail service in the Richmond – Hampton Roads Corridor. The timeline for planning, environmental analysis, preliminary engineering, final engineering, and construction will be set out in a realistic program to show the implementation milestones and the opening year for passenger rail operations. Alongside the physical implementation process will be a second set of milestones that identify the funding needs and institutional framework for developing the system. Action plans for lead agencies, local communities and private sector partners will be identified in the implementation process. A key element of the plan will be the interaction of physical facility provision, funding, and institutional development. The implementation plan will seek to define authority and responsibility for ensuring the success of the development process. The implementation plan will recommend an action program that sets out the steps that need to be followed to ensure the successful implementation of passenger rail in the Richmond - Hampton Roads Corridor. TASK 12 - BUSINESS PLAN DOCUMENTATION A Business Plan report will be prepared describing databases, research methods, ridership and revenue forecasts, results of the financial and economic feasibility analyses, proposed institutional framework, financing and funding arrangements, and implementation plan. The report will describe the study results in the context of a corridor implementation program and make recommendations to the HRTPO Steering Committee for maximizing the benefits of a passenger rail service in the Richmond – Hampton Roads Corridor. Public outreach documentation (PowerPoint, brochure, etc.) will be generated to be used in presentation with the local community and policy makers. TASK 13 - SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Prepare a Service Development Plan that makes the case to the FRA for a grant application for Phase 1 money.

DELIVERABLES The TEMS Team will provide the following deliverables for the study –

RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE ROLE, purpose and membership of the HRTPO Regional High-Speed and Intercity Rail Task Force (February 17, 2010)

BUSINESS PLAN, draft May 2010, final June 30, 2010

Ridership and Revenue Forecasts – Technical Memo

Corridor Engineering and Environmental Review – Technical Memo

Operating Schedules and Timetables – Technical Memo

Implementation Plan – Technical Memo

Attachment 8-A




Financial/Funding Plan – Technical Memo

SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN for FRA Funding

PROJECT PROGRESS PRESENTATIONS (seven PowerPoint presentations)

SUMMARY REPORT (15 bound copies and CD in PDF format), draft May 2010, final June 30, 2010

TECHNICAL REPORT AND APPENDICES (15 bound copies and CD in PDF format), draft May 2010, final June 30, 2010

HRTPO TECHNICAL MEETINGS, (five total, with one at the end of each major project milestone)

MEETINGS At four to five-week intervals during the course of the study, the TEMS Team will attend meetings and make a PowerPoint™ presentation to the HRTPO Steering Committee. The meetings have been scheduled at key decision-making point to ensure that the HRTPO Project Manager and Steering Committee fully understands and approves the work underway before the TEMS Team proceeds to the next task. The five meetings are as follows –

Study Databank – end of month 2

Service Scenarios – end of month 3

Interactive Analysis – end of month 4

System Forecasts and Outputs – end of month 5

Implementation Plan and draft Business Plan report – end of month 6

Attachment 8-A




555 WWWOOORRRKKK PPPLLLAAANNN AAANNNDDD SSSTTTUUUDDDYYY BBBUUUDDDGGGEEETTT

It is proposed that the project be completed in a six-month time frame. As shown in the accompanying Work Plan, anticipated completion dates are as follows –

Study design by middle of month 1

Database assembly by the end of month 3

Formulation of the service scenarios at the end of month 3

Interactive analysis by the end of month 4

System forecasts and outputs by the middle of month 5

Institutional and financing plan by the end of month 5

Implementation plan and draft business plan report by the end of month 5

Final business plan by the end of month 6

To ensure that project documentation is completed within the HRTPO timeframe, preparation of the draft final report will begin in month 4 and will be submitted to the HRTPO the last week of May. Following a two-week review period by the HRTPO, the final report and other deliverables will be submitted by the end of month 6. The accompanying Study Budget gives a breakdown by firm and by individual of hours and labor costs. Estimated expense for travel and other direct costs are also given. As shown on the Study Budget, our fee inclusive of all project costs is estimated to be $299,978. We would propose an all-inclusive fixed sum price of $313,978 for all work, site visits, materials and expenses.

WORK PLAN FOR HAMPTON ROADS

Task 1 Study Design

Task 2 Data Assembly Market Database Engineering Database Technology Operating Database

Task 3 Define Services Scenarios

Task 4 Interactive Analysis Demand Analysis Rail Service Analysis

Task 5 Passenger Forecasts and RevenuesTask 6 Operating CostsTask 7 Financial and Economic Feasibility Analysis

Financial AnalysisEconomic Analysis of User and Non-User Benefits

Task 8 Financing and Funding ArrangementsTask 9 Institutional FrameworkTask 10 Allocation of Costs and Revenues

Task 11 Implementation PlanTask 12 Business Plan, Report and PresentationTask 13 Service Development Plan

MEETINGS

PRESENTATIONS

MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT

Month 5 Month 6Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4

Step 5. Institutional and Financing Plan

Step 6. Implementation and Business Plan

TasksStep 1. Database Development

Step 2. Service Scenarios

Step 3. Interactive Analysis

Step 4. System Forecasts and Outputs

Attachment 8-A

Proposed Contract Cost: $320,000

JURISDICTION POPULATION*PERCENT OF TOTAL

POPULATIONPRORATA SURCHARGE

Chesapeake 215,906 13.4 42,982$ Gloucester County 35,960 2.2 7,160$ Hampton 144,205 9.0 28,708$ Isle of Wight County 34,041 2.1 6,777$ James City County 61,495 3.8 12,242$ Newport News 181,220 11.3 36,077$ Norfolk 235,915 14.7 46,966$ Poquoson 11,818 0.7 2,353$ Portsmouth 97,851 6.1 19,480$ Suffolk 81,367 5.1 16,198$ Virginia Beach 430,349 26.8 85,673$ Williamsburg 13,273 0.8 2,642$ York County 64,003 4.0 12,742$ TOTAL 1,607,404 100.0 320,000$

PRORATA SURCHARGE TO COVER COST OF HIGHSPEED RAIL AND INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL

CONSULTANT SERVICES

* Source: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, Final 2007 Population Estimates.

Attachment 8-B


AGENDA ITEM #9: STRATEGY TO ADDRESS ATRISK ARRA FUNDS SUBJECT: Some Hampton Roads ARRA projects may be at risk of losing ARRA funds. VDOT has proposed a strategy to ensure that no ARRA funds are lost from Hampton Roads. BACKGROUND:

Since March 2009, over $41 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding has been sub‐allocated to Hampton Roads localities and transit agencies through the HRTPO. Any ARRA funds that are not obligated by March 2, 2010 may be withdrawn and redistributed to States that have had no funds withdrawn. VDOT is concerned that some locality‐administered projects may not meet the March 2, 2010 obligation deadline. As insurance against any ARRA funds being lost from Hampton Roads, VDOT has proposed a substitute project to which at‐risk ARRA funds could be transferred if necessary. The proposed substitute project is:

• Princess Anne Road, widen to four lanes between Dam Neck Road and Holland Road in Virginia Beach (UPC# 93522). VDOT has proposed this project because it is a certified ARRA project, is on schedule to meet the March 2010 obligation deadline, and could absorb up to $5.25 million in additional ARRA funds, if necessary.

The Transportation Technical Advisory Committee has recommended the HRTPO Board approve a resolution (attached) identifying the following action to be taken to ensure that no ARRA funds are lost from Hampton Roads:

• In the event a locality has a project that will not meet the March 2, 2010 deadline and the at‐risk ARRA funds cannot be obligated on another certified ARRA project within the locality, the locality will send a letter to VDOT releasing the at‐risk ARRA funds, which would then be obligated on the substitute project described above.

Mr. Dwight Farmer, Executive Director/Secretary, will be available to answer any questions associated with this item. Attachment 9 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the resolution. STAFF COMMENTARY:

Localities are urged to work diligently with VDOT to ensure that all deadlines associated with ARRA projects are met.

HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION RESOLUTION 201002

A RESOLUTION OF THE HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION ENDORSING A STRATEGY TO ENSURE THAT NO ARRA FUNDS ARE LOST FROM HAMPTON ROADS. WHEREAS, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, signed into law on February 17, 2009, provided $27.5 billion nationwide for highway infrastructure improvements; WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia received an ARRA apportionment of $694 million for highway infrastructure improvements, of which the Hampton Roads Metropolitan Planning Area received $41 million; WHEREAS, since March 2009, the $41 million in ARRA funding has been sub‐allocated to Hampton Roads localities and transit agencies through the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO); WHEREAS, any ARRA funds that are not obligated by March 2, 2010 may be withdrawn and redistributed to States that have had no funds withdrawn; WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is concerned that some locality‐administered projects may not meet the March 2, 2010 obligation deadline; WHEREAS, as insurance against any ARRA funds being lost from Hampton Roads, VDOT has proposed a substitute project to which at‐risk ARRA funds could be transferred; and WHEREAS, the substitute project is Princess Anne Road, widen to four lanes between Dam Neck Road and Holland Road (UPC# 93522), which is a certified ARRA project that is on schedule to meet the March 2010 obligation deadline. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization endorses the strategy of transferring at‐risk ARRA funds to the substitute project in the event a locality has a project that will not meet the March 2, 2010 deadline, the at‐risk ARRA funds cannot be obligated on another certified ARRA project within the locality, and the locality has sent a letter to the Virginia Department of Transportation releasing the at‐risk ARRA funds. APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board at its meeting on the 20th day of January, 2010.

William D. Sessoms Chairman


Dwight L. Farmer Executive Director/Secretary Hampton Roads Transportation

Planning Organization

Attachment 9


AGENDA ITEM #10: HRTPO COMMITTEES: STATUS REPORT SUBJECT: Status report on the work and activities of three HRTPO committees. BACKGROUND:

Mr. Douglas Smith will provide a status report on recent activities of the three HRTPO committees listed below.

A. LEGISLATIVE ADHOC COMMITTEE During the January 4, 2010 meeting, the Legislative Ad‐Hoc Committee recommended the following for HRTPO Board approval: Legislative Mission – The legislative mission of the HRTPO Board and the Legislative Ad‐Hoc Committee includes the following three components:

• Support legislation that has overwhelming support from the HRTPO Board • Educate the General Assembly members regarding the region’s challenges • Optimize strengths of the region

Legislative Criteria – Any legislative initiatives seeking HRTPO Board endorsement should meet the following criteria:

• Have regional impacts • Improve Hampton Roads’/Virginia’s competitiveness • Represent a change in the way Virginia “does business” • Overwhelming consensus of the HRTPO Board

Preparation for the 2011 General Assembly Session – The Legislative Ad‐Hoc Committee anticipates it will prepare the HRTPO Legislative Mission and Agenda for the General Assembly 2011 session during the months of April through July 2010 and will present the final draft to the HRTPO Board for approval at the September 2010 meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the components of the Legislative mission, elements of the Legislative Criteria, and schedule for the preparation of the 2011 General Assembly Session.

B. NOMINATING COMMITTEE During the December 16, 2009 HRTPO Board meeting, the Chair of the Nominating Committee presented a slate of 25 candidates for the Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) for review by the Board and the public. The Board requested that the Nominating Committee provide an additional five candidates that met specific criteria at the January 2010 Board meeting. The Nominating Committee was only able to identify one additional candidate that met the criteria. Attached is the list of CTAC candidates recommended by the Nominating Committee for HRTPO Board approval. Attachment 10‐B


RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve slate of candidates to serve on the Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee.

C. FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Article VII of the HRTPO Board Bylaws states that “each standing committee shall establish bylaws to guide its function and the functions of its subcommittees.” As such, the Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC) met on December 18, 2009 to review the draft FTAC Bylaws and moved to recommend approval of its bylaws for HRTPO Board approval. The final draft of the FTAC Bylaws is attached. Attachment 10‐C RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the FTAC Bylaws.

Applicant Citizen/Agency Representative

Jurisdiction Term (Years)*

Kathy Corley Citizen Chesapeake 1Roberta Edwards Citizen Chesapeake 2Shepelle Watkins‐White Citizen Chesapeake 3Philip Olekszyk Citizen Gloucester 1Albert Stetz Citizen Hampton 2Michael Jones Citizen Isle of Wight 3Ricky Clifton Citizen Newport News 1Sharyn Fox Interest Group Rep Newport News 2Yukari Hughes Citizen Newport News 3Howard Manly Interest Group Rep Newport News 1Randy Lassiter Citizen Norfolk 2Randolph Lougee Interest Group Rep Norfolk 3James Openshaw Citizen Norfolk 1Archie Whitehill Citizen Norfolk 2Kirsten Tynch Citizen Portsmouth 3

HRTPO Nominating CommitteeCTAC Membership Recommendations

Kirsten Tynch Citizen Portsmouth 3Kristen Wells Citizen Portsmouth 1Richard Green Citizen Suffolk 2Richard “Tuck” Bowie Interest Group Rep Virginia Beach 3Jerry Flowers Interest Group Rep Virginia Beach 1William Harrison Interest Group Rep Virginia Beach 2John Malbon Citizen Virginia Beach 3Delceno Miles Citizen Virginia Beach 1Sherod Prescott Interest Group Rep Virginia Beach 2Ray Taylor Interest Group Rep Virginia Beach 3Dewey Hurley Citizen Williamsburg 1Henry Lewis Citizen York 2

* Terms were assigned sequentially, using the list of applicant names, which is sorted alphabetically by last name and jurisdiction.

1/7/2010 Attachment 10-B

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning OrganizationCitizen Transportation Advisory Committee

Jurisdiction 2008 Population*

Percent of Total Pop.

Membership by Jurisdiction

Chesapeake 220,111 13% 3Gloucester 38,656 2% 1Hampton 145,494 9% 1Isle of Wight 35,472 2% 1James City 62,414 4% 0Newport News** 193,212 12% 4Norfolk 234,220 14% 4Portsmouth 100,577 6% 2Poquoson 11,829 1% 0S ff lk 82 302 5% 1

1/7/2010

Suffolk 82,302 5% 1Virginia Beach 433,746 27% 7Williamsburg 12,481 1% 1York County 61,027 4% 1Total Pop. 1,631,541 100% 26

*Data Source: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service**The revised July 1, 2008 population for Newport News approved by the U.S. Census.


Hampton Roads Transportation Planning OrganizationCitizen Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC)

Statistical Summary

Hamtpon Roads CTACWhite White

997,886 1762% 65%

Black Black523,438 8

32% 31%Asian Asian51,114 1

3% 4%Other Other/Unknown45,505 0

3% 0%Total* Total

1,617,943 26

Hamtpon Roads CTAC18-34 18-34

Race

Age (Excludes person 17 and under)

1/7/2010

385,465 232% 8%

35-60 35-60568,066 19

48% 73%60+ 60+

241,245 520% 19%Total Total

1,194,776 26

Hamtpon Roads CTACFemale Female618,855 9

52% 35%Male Male

575,921 1748% 65%Total Total

1,194,776 26

* Data Source: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service - 2008

Gender (Excludes person 17 and under)


Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization | Freight Transportation Advisory Committee Bylaws | 1

BYLAWS FOR THE FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

OF THE HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION

ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION

WHEREAS, Federal regulations require that urbanized areas throughout the United States have a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to conduct a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive transportation planning process. Urbanized areas are defined as areas with a population of 200,000 or greater, known as Transportation Management Areas (TMA). WHEREAS, The Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) is the body created by the Hampton Roads localities and appropriate state and federal agencies to perform the duties of an MPO under the federal regulations; and WHEREAS, the main functions of this Freight Transportation Advisory Committee will be to influence policy; influence the prioritization and funding of projects; and influence the decision makers and public on the role of freight, its economic benefits, and requirements of the distribution network to achieve those benefits through the promotion of and by bringing attention to the needs of freight. NOW, THEREFORE, the members of this Committee do with this agree and so with this associate themselves together for the purpose aforesaid, and in consideration of the mutual promises with this made, do agree as follows:

ARTICLE I Name

1.1 The name of this Committee shall be the Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC) of

the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO).

ARTICLE II Mission Statement

2.1 The mission of the Freight Transportation Advisory Committee of the Hampton Roads

Transportation Planning Organization is to advocate on behalf of the systematic needs for the transport and movement of freight in the region. The FTAC will act as an advocate for freight issues and bring awareness of those issues to the public, key stakeholders, and policy makers.

Attachment 10-C


ARTICLE III Purpose

3.1 The FTAC shall serve the HRTPO Board on an advisory basis. Its purpose is to advocate on

behalf of freight issues to the public and policy makers. The functions and responsibilities of the FTAC shall include, but not be limited to activities in the following major areas: A. Freight/Goods Movement Planning and Identification of Systemic Needs

B. Public Outreach and Education on the importance of freight

C. Encouragement of Freight Policies

D. Review of the freight‐related portions of the HRTPO’s Transportation Improvement

Program and Long‐Range Transportation Plan.

ARTICLE IV Membership, Composition, Appointment, Qualifications and Terms

4.1 The FTAC shall be composed of nine (9) voting members. Appointment of FTAC members is

accomplished through appointment from the HRTPO Board for a term of five (5) years. Each term shall be renewed for a second five (5) year term upon referral from the FTAC to the HRTPO Nominating Committee and approval by the HRTPO Board. The following interest groups should be considered when selecting FTAC members:

• Freight Forwarding • Ports • Shipping Company • Trucking Company • Warehousing • Free Trade Zone • Airport Cargo • Stevedores • Trade Associations • Real Estate • Towing and Tug Operators • Rail Cargo

4.2 All members of the FTAC shall be residents and electors of the Hampton Roads region and shall

have an outstanding reputation for integrity, and commitment to serving the community.

4.3 A member having three or more consecutive un‐excused absences or five or more absences during a twelve‐month period shall be removed from the FTAC. At a minimum, FTAC member attendance will be reviewed annually during the regularly scheduled December meeting.

Attachment 10-C


4.4 FTAC members serve at the pleasure of the HRTPO Board. FTAC member’s terms shall

continue until such time as the HRTPO Board designates a new FTAC representative, or until the FTAC member is removed from the Committee per Article IV, Section 4.3 or for a five (5) year term.

ARTICLE V Officers and Duties

5.1 The FTAC will have two officers and both shall be known as Co‐Chair.

5.2 The Co‐Chairs shall be appointed by the HRTPO Board. Co‐Chairs shall hold office for three (3)

years or until member resignation.

5.3 No officer shall hold the same position more than three consecutive terms. No person shall serve as an officer for more than a total of nine (9) years. An officer may be reelected after one term break after serving his or her initial two consecutive terms.

5.4 The MPO Chair shall appoint two members of the FTAC to serve as Co‐Chairs, one shall be a

private sector freight expert and one shall be a voting member from the HRTPO Board. The Co‐Chairs shall preside at all meetings and shall be responsible, with the FTAC Coordinator for the Agenda, Minutes, and conduct of all meetings. The Co‐Chairs shall approve, with any necessary modifications, the Agenda at least seven (7) days prior to any scheduled meeting. Both Co‐Chairs shall be members of the HRTPO Board. The elected Co‐Chair shall be a non‐voting member as prescribed by the HRTPO Bylaws. Subcommittees of the FTAC may be appointed by either Co‐Chair with the approval of the FTAC.

5.5 Either Co‐Chair shall, during the absence or inability of the other Co‐Chair to serve, have, and

exercise all the duties and powers of both.

5.6 If both Co‐Chairs are absent from a meeting, a temporary Chair will be selected by a majority vote of the members in attendance.

5.7 If, at any time, the FTAC feels that an Officer is not performing the duties of the office in

accordance with Article V Section 5.3, the Officer may be removed from office by a two‐thirds vote of the members present at a regular meeting, provided that an item to that effect has been scheduled in accordance with Article VI Section 6.2 of these Bylaws.

Attachment 10-C


ARTICLE VI Meetings

6.1 The FTAC shall meet at a date, time and place acceptable to a majority of the membership. The

date or time may be changed by a majority vote of the regular members if ten (10) days notice is given to members. Meetings shall be no less than semi‐annual. If circumstances warrant, a Co‐Chair may cancel or postpone a regular or special meeting and, if necessary, set a new date, time and place for the meeting.

6.2 An agenda shall be prepared prior to each meeting and approved by a Co‐Chair. The agenda should be distributed with the minutes of the previous meeting approximately seven (7) days prior to all regular meetings. The agenda and any changes to it will be approved by the FTAC at the start of each meeting.

6.3 The Minutes of the prior meeting shall be approved by a majority of the members present and

upon such approval become the official Minutes.

6.4 A Co‐Chair may call special meetings when it is deemed necessary. Special meetings may be called with a minimum of three (3) days notice, including the meeting agenda and reason for the meeting.

6.5 Whenever reports are to be given, copies will be prepared for each member of the FTAC. When

possible, said copies should be mailed with meeting notices.

6.6 Each member shall have an equal vote. The vote on any matter shall be a voice vote, provided that any member may require a roll call vote upon any resolution or motion. In the case of a roll call vote, Co‐Chair(s) shall vote last.

6.7 A quorum shall consist of two‐thirds of the voting membership, and shall be required for

conduct of all official business. A majority of the quorum shall be necessary to decide an issue before the FTAC.

6.8 All meetings are open to the public. Public participation in the FTAC discussion topics shall be

allowed at the discretion of the Co‐Chair. Members of the public desiring to speak shall address the Co‐Chair by raising their hands and upon recognition shall state their name and organization and shall confine themselves to the agenda item under discussion.

Adopted: _______________________ FTAC Coordinator: _______________________

Attachment 10-C


AGENDA ITEM #11: FOR YOUR INFORMATION A. TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES

The minutes of the January 6, 2010 Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) meeting can be found on the HRTPO website: http://www.hrtpo.org/MTG_AGNDS/TPO_TTAC_AgnArch.asp.

B. NOMINATING COMMITTEE MINUTES The minutes of the December 9, 2009 Nominating Committee meeting can be found on the HRTPO website: http://www.hrtpo.org/MTG_AGNDS/TPO_HRTPO_AgnArch.asp.

C. FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES

The minutes of the December 18, 2009 Freight Transportation Advisory Committee meeting can be found on the HRTPO website: http://www.hrtpo.org/MTG_AGNDS/TPO_FTAC_AgnArch.asp.

D. LEGISLATIVE ADHOC COMMITTEE MINUTES

The minutes of the January 4, 2010 Legislative Ad‐Hoc Committee meeting can be found at the HRTPO website: http://www.hrtpo.org/MTG_AGNDS/TPO_HRTPO_AgnArch.asp.

E. HRTPO TREASURER’S REPORT

Attachment 11‐E

F. ANNUAL LISTING OF OBLIGATED PROJECTS

In accordance with Federal regulations (23 CFR 450.332), no later than 90 calendar days following the end of the Federal fiscal year, the State, public transportation operators, and the MPO shall cooperatively develop a listing of projects for which funds under 23 U.S.C. or 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 were obligated in the preceding Federal fiscal year (FFY). The Annual List of Obligations Report for FFY 2009 has been made available on the HRTPO website at www.hrtpo.org/TPO_ObligList.asp.

G. STATE MATCHING FUNDS TO BE TIED TO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Attached is a letter from Virginia Secretary of Transportation Pierce Homer to HRTPO Chair Mayor William Sessoms on the development of regional transportation and land use performance measures and goals and the use of such goals by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) to evaluate and select projects for inclusion in the six‐year improvement program (SYIP). The letter notes that the introduced budget bill directs the CTB to only provide required matching funds for federal Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds to MPOs that have developed regional transportation and land use performance measures. Attachment 11‐G


H. ARRA TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE REPORTING

Congressman James L. Oberstar, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman, has pledged that the Committee will closely oversee the implementation of transportation and infrastructure provisions of the Recovery Act to ensure the funds provided are invested quickly, efficiently, and in harmony with the job‐creating purposes of this Act. Letters were sent to states, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and public transit agencies that directly receive Federal‐aid highway and public transit funding under the Act requesting specific information. Furthermore, the Committee requests that throughout 2010, MPOs continue to coordinate with their Governor’s office to ensure the Governor provides updated specific transparency and accountability information regarding funds sub‐allocated to the MPO. Attachment 11‐H

I. VPA LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THIRD HARBOR CROSSING Attached is a letter from Mr. Jerry Bridges, Executive Director of the Virginia Port Authority, to HRTPO Chair Mayor William Sessoms, in which Mr. Bridges states that it is time to turn full attention to creating sufficient capacity between the Peninsula and Southside. The letter states that building the Third Harbor Crossing will significantly strengthen the region’s economic vitality by enabling maritime business, tourism, and the military to flourish. Attachment 11‐I

J. DECEMBER 17, 2009 COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEETING On November 18, 2009, VDOT and DRPT presented the Draft Revised Six‐Year Improvement Program (SYIP) for FY 2010‐2015 to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). The Draft Revised SYIP addressed available funding resources and Commonwealth priorities and represented significant changes to proposed construction and maintenance projects. In a letter dated December 1, 2009, Mr. Dwight Farmer, Executive Director, on behalf of the HRTPO Board, submitted formal public comments expressing concerns regarding the Draft VDOT Six Year Improvement Program. At the December 16, 2009 meeting, the HRTPO Board authorized the Executive Director to attend the December 17, 2009 CTB meeting to express concerns with the Draft VDOT Six Year Improvement Program. It was also recommended that the HRTPO Chair request volunteers from the Board to accompany the Executive Director to the CTB meeting, and submit their concerns regarding the draft revised FY 2010‐2015 SYIP. Mr. Dwight Farmer, Executive Director, on behalf of the HRTPO Board, addressed the CTB in person at its December 17, 2009 meeting regarding the Draft Revised FY 2010‐2015 SYIP (Attachment H1). HRTPO Board members Mayor Molly Ward and Mr. Bruce Goodson also attended the meeting and addressed the CTB. Mayor Ward delivered remarks regarding HRTPO Board interest in the Six‐Year Improvement Program. Mr. Goodson delivered remarks regarding the need for reinstating Preliminary Engineering funding for the widening of I‐64 on the Peninsula. In addition, HRTPO Board member Mayor Gordon C. Helsel, Jr., submitted a letter, dated December 16, 2009 to CTB Chairman Pierce Homer, expressing concern over the proposed


funding reductions to the interstate, primary and secondary systems, and its likely impact to the regional economy and Homeland Security and National Defense (Attachment H2). Finally, Rear Admiral Ray Taylor, USN (Ret.), introduced remarks regarding the projection of the military's importance to the Commonwealth of Virginia through allocations in the Six‐Year Improvement Program. Attachments 11‐J1 and 11‐J2

K. PUBLIC COMMENTS Attachments 11‐K

Annual CurrentREVENUES Budget Month YTD

VDOT- PL Sec 112 Federal 2,205,177 400,068 VDOT- PL Sec 112 State 275,647 50,008 VDOT- PL Sec 112 Local 275,647 50,009 HRT Match 30,503 7,038 WAT Match 10,000 6,662 6,662 State Pass-Through 40,502 7,038 Federal Pass-Through 324,020 56,312 VDRPT 5303 Federal 252,614 53,496 VDRPT 5303 State 31,577 6,687 VDRPT 5303 Local 31,577 6,687

Total Revenue 3,477,265 6,662 644,005

EXPENDITURES Personnel 2,004,817 146,300 822,706 Special Contracts 170,411 100 5,241 Office Services 221,766 10,582 80,960 Pass Through Expenditures 405,026 66,624 137,012 Indirect Costs 675,245 53,478 279,896

Total Expenses 3,477,265 277,084 1,325,814

Agency Balance 0 (270,422) (681,809)

HRTPOFiscal Year 2010

December 31, 2009

STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES

Attachment 11-E

Attachment 11-G

Attachment 11-G

Attachment 11-G

Attachment 11-G

Attachment 11-G

Attachment 11-G

Attachment 11-G

Attachment 11-G

Attachment 11-G

Attachment 11-G

Attachment 11-G

Attachment 11-G

December 22, 2009 Dear Metropolitan Planning Organization:

Since enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) (Recovery Act), the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has performed vigorous oversight to ensure that the funds provided are invested quickly, efficiently, and in harmony with the job-creating purposes of the Recovery Act.

The critical information provided in your reports has proved essential to the Committee’s

efforts to monitor implementation of the Recovery Act and understand how States, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and public transit agencies have delivered transportation and infrastructure projects and created urgently needed employment in the tight timeframes set forth in the Act. Members of the Committee know how much effort is required to compile these reports, and we thank you for your efforts.

Throughout 2010, we request that MPOs coordinate with their Governor’s office to ensure

the Governor provides updated specific transparency and accountability information about funds suballocated to your MPO by the 20th day of each month. Data in these reports should include cumulative information regarding what has occurred as of the final day of the previous month.1 MPOs should not directly report to the Committee.

If you have any questions regarding this request, please have your staff visit our website or contact Joseph Wender, Counsel to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, at (202) 225-4472 or [email protected].

1 The first report of 2010 is due January 20, 2010. Data in this report should include cumulative information regarding what has occurred as of December 31, 2009.

Attachment 11-H

Attachment 11-I

Attachment 11-I

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

December 1, 2009 Ms. Diane Mitchell Programming Director Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 E. Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 RE: Draft Revised FY 2010-2015 Six-Year Improvement Program (THY: SYIP) Dear Ms. Mitchell: The following comments regarding the Draft Revised FY 2010-2015 Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP) are provided by the staff of the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) on behalf of the HRTPO Board. A review of the total allocations shown in the Draft Revised SYIP indicates that the Hampton Roads District will receive slightly more funding over the six-year period than it would over the same period in the current SYIP. However, a closer examination reveals some issues of great concern to the HRTPO staff.

• A comparison of the total allocations in FY 2010 for all systems finds that, although the statewide total increased from $1.077 billion to $1.115 billion, funding allocated to Hampton Roads decreased by 13%, from $120 million to $105 million. Furthermore, the Hampton Roads District is the only district that received a cut in total allocations in FY 2010.

• It would appear that Hampton Roads is “made whole” in the Draft Revised SYIP

over the course of the six-year period. However, an analysis confirms that this is largely accomplished as a result of $99.5 million in allocations to the Interstate System in FY 2015. Given that FY 2015 allocations in the SYIP may be revised numerous times before the year 2015, the HRTPO staff has no confidence that the strategy will hold for the long term.

• VDOT proposing to allocate no Interstate funding to Hampton Roads in FY 2011

is unprecedented.

• With particular regard to Interstate funding, the HRTPO is concerned that VDOT continues with the philosophy of funding “underway project phases as well as project phases that start in Federal fiscal year 2010.” VDOT continues to eliminate funding for critical projects in Hampton Roads – I-64 Widening on the

Attachment 11-J1

Ms. Diane Mitchell December 1, 2009 Page 2

Peninsula and the I-64/I-264 Interchange as examples. This practice makes it virtually impossible for Hampton Roads to advance any new Interstate projects due to the lack of funding required to make the projects ready to go.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Revised SYIP, however, we are extremely concerned that VDOT does not afford opportunities for metropolitan planning organizations to participate in the development of the draft programming document during the “working stages”. Sincerely, Dwight L. Farmer Executive Director/Secretary MK/kp copy: Mayor William Sessoms, HRTPO Chair Mayor Molly Ward, HRTPO Vice-Chair Mr. Dennis Heuer, VDOT Hampton Roads District

Attachment 11-J1

CCURRENTURRENT VSVS DDRAFTRAFT RREVISEDEVISED: FY 2010: FY 2010--20152015SYIP Comparison of Total Funding Allocations: All Systems


DistrictCurrent

FY 2010‐20151Draft RevisedFY 2010‐20152

Change

Bristol $ 439,378 $ 398,102 ‐9%

Culpeper $ 90,208 $ 72,100 ‐20%

Fredericksburg $ 160,099 $ 148,818 ‐7%

Hampton Roads $ 792,165 $ 800,948 1%

Lynchburg $ 113,589 $ 96,890 ‐15%

Northern VA $ 1,359,882 $ 1,486,179 9%

Ri h d $ 38 19 $ 3 601 2%Richmond $ 384,195 $ 374,601 ‐2%

Salem $ 282,926 $ 246,150 ‐13%

Staunton $ 193,436 $ 173,683 ‐10%

ARRA 2009 Projects $ 13 340 $ 19 241 44%ARRA 2009 Projects $ 13,340 $ 19,241 44%

Statewide Projects $ 2,318,524 $ 2,360,689 2%

Grand Total $ 6,147,744 $ 6,177,401 0%

Total (Less Reserve) $ 5,520,757 $ 5,550,414 1%

1

1. Source: Final FY 2010‐2015 SYIP, Approved 6/18/09.2. Source: Draft Revised FY 2010‐2015 SYIP.

Attachment 11-J1

CCURRENTURRENT VSVS. D. DRAFTRAFT RREVISEDEVISED: FY 2010: FY 2010FY 2010 Comparison of Total Funding Allocations: All Systems


District Current FY 20101 Draft Revised 20102 Change

Bristol $ 63,600 $ 64,216 1%

Culpeper $ 17,099 $ 17,350 1%

Fredericksburg $ 20,075 $ 26,069 30%

Hampton RoadsHampton Roads $ 120 182$ 120 182 $$ 104 601104 601 13%13%Hampton RoadsHampton Roads $ 120,182 $ 120,182 $ $ 104,601 104,601 ‐‐13%13%

Lynchburg $ 21,173 $ 23,494 11%

Northern VA $ 332,420 $ 349,079 5%

Richmond $ 75,064 $ 82,357 10%, ,

Salem $ 42,151 $ 49,351 17%

Staunton $ 44,907 $ 47,018 5%

ARRA 2009 Projects $ 10,514 $ 11,471 9%

Statewide Projects $ 330,570 $ 339,745 ‐

Grand TotalGrand Total $ 1,077,757 $ 1,077,757 $ 1,114,752 $ 1,114,752 3%3%

Total (Less Reserve) Total (Less Reserve) $ 974,854 $ 974,854 $ 1,011,849 $ 1,011,849 4%4%

2

1. Source: Final FY 2010‐2015 SYIP, Approved 6/18/09.2. Source: Draft Revised FY 2010‐2015 SYIP.

Attachment 11-J1

DDRAFTRAFT RREVISEDEVISED FY 2010FY 2010--2015: A2015: ALLLL SSYSTEMSYSTEMSAnnual Funding Allocations: All Systems

Draft Revised FY 2010‐2015 SYIPFunding Allocation Summary ($ millions)

District FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2010‐2015District FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2010‐2015$ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ %

Bristol $ 64.2 5.8% $ 58.0 5.7% $ 54.7 5.1% $ 55.8 5.5% $ 80.6 8.1% $ 84.8 8.7% $ 398.1 6.4%

Culpeper $ 17.4 1.6% $ 13.6 1.3% $ 14.7 1.4% $ 13.3 1.3% $ 7.3 0.7% $ 5.7 0.6% $ 72.1 1.2%

Fredericksburg $ 26.1 2.3% $ 17.9 1.8% $ 19.8 1.8% $ 23.2 2.3% $ 20.1 2.0% $ 41.7 4.3% $ 148.8 2.4%

Hampton Hampton RoadsRoads $ $ 104.6 104.6 9.4%9.4% $ $ 72.9 72.9 7.2%7.2% $ $ 135.3 135.3 12.6%12.6% $ $ 154.4 154.4 15.3%15.3% $ $ 178.3 178.3 17.9%17.9% $ $ 155.4 155.4 16.0%16.0% $ $ 800.9 800.9 13.0%13.0%

Lynchburg $ 23.5 2.1% $ 16.9 1.7% $ 14.4 1.3% $ 13.6 1.4% $ 13.7 1.4% $ 14.7 1.5% $ 96.9 1.6%

Northern VA $ 349.1 31.3% $ 360.7 35.4% $ 333.9 31.1% $ 198.8 19.8% $ 137.5 13.8% $ 106.2 10.9% $ 1,486.2 24.1%

Richmond $ 82.4 7.4% $ 49.8 4.9% $ 53.7 5.0% $ 67.0 6.7% $ 71.3 7.2% $ 50.3 5.2% $ 374.6 6.1%

Salem $ 49.4 4.4% $ 30.0 2.9% $ 33.6 3.1% $ 46.5 4.6% $ 33.7 3.4% $ 53.0 5.5% $ 246.2 4.0%

Staunton $ 47.0 4.2% $ 29.0 2.8% $ 29.9 2.8% $ 32.1 3.2% $ 20.9 2.1% $ 14.8 1.5% $ 173.7 2.8%

ARRA 2009 Projects $ 11.5 1.0% $ 6.8 0.7% $ 1.0 0.1% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ 0.0% $ 19.2 0.3%

Statewide Projects $ 339.7 30.5% $ 363.6 35.7% $ 380.9 35.5% $ 401.3 39.9% $ 430.7 43.3% $ 444.4 45.8% $ 2,360.7 38.2%Statewide Projects $ 339.7 30.5% $ 363.6 35.7% $ 380.9 35.5% $ 401.3 39.9% $ 430.7 43.3% $ 444.4 45.8% $ 2,360.7 38.2%

Grand TotalGrand Total $ $ 1,114.8 1,114.8 100%100% $ $ 1,019.3 1,019.3 100%100% $ $ 1,071.9 1,071.9 100%100% $ $ 1,006.1 1,006.1 100%100% $ $ 994.3 994.3 100.0%100.0% $ $ 971.0 971.0 100%100% $ $ 6,177.4 6,177.4 100%100%

Source: Draft Revised FY 2010‐2015 SYIP.

3

Attachment 11-J1

DDRAFTRAFT RREVISEDEVISED FY 2010FY 2010--2015: I2015: INTERSTATENTERSTATE

Annual Interstate Funding Allocations: Interstate System onlyDraft Revised FY 2010‐2015 SYIP

Funding Allocation Summary ($ millions)

District FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2010‐2015$ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ %

Bristol $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0% $ 16.2 10% $ 29.3 13% $ 48.5 3%

Culpeper $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0%

Fredericksburg $ 7.9 3% $ 0.6 0% $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0% $ 4.0 2% $ 12.5 1%

Hampton RoadsHampton Roads $ 17.1 $ 17.1 6%6% $ $ ‐‐ 0%0% $ 16.1 $ 16.1 5%5% $ 33.4 $ 33.4 17%17% $ 56.2 $ 56.2 34%34% $ 99.5 $ 99.5 44%44% $ 222.2 $ 222.2 15%15%

Lynchburg $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0%

Northern VA $ 221.6 75% $ 255.2 93% $ 251.5 83% $ 125.0 65% $ 61.7 37% $ 50.5 23% $ 965.6 67%

Richmond $ 24.3 8% $ 12.7 5% $ 16.7 6% $ 20.5 11% $ 10.8 6% $ 8.3 4% $ 93.4 6%

Salem $ 7.7 3% $ ‐ 0% $ 10.4 3% $ 5.8 3% $ 18.5 11% $ 31.0 14% $ 73.4 5%

Staunton $ 12.4 4% $ 5.4 2% $ 6.7 2% $ 7.2 4% $ ‐ 0% $ 1.0 0% $ 32.7 2%

ARRA 2009 Projects $ 0.8 0% $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0% $ 0.8 0%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $Statewide Projects $ 2.2 1% $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0% $ 2.2 0%

Grand TotalGrand Total $ 294.1 $ 294.1 100%100% $ 273.9 $ 273.9 100%100% $ 301.3 $ 301.3 100%100% $ 191.9 $ 191.9 100%100% $ 166.5 $ 166.5 100%100% $ 223.6 $ 223.6 100%100% $ 1,451.2 $ 1,451.2 100%100%

Source: Draft Revised FY 2010‐2015 SYIP.

4

Attachment 11-J1

Attachment 11-J2

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HRTPO Comment ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Name: K. Bros Date: December 21, 2009 Subject: Coliseum Central Study Comments (Via E-mail): I don't know about traffic but it didn't help when you build a conference center on half of the coliseums parking area. If the city doesn't already own it, the city should buy the land where the old Best Products store was and build a 4 or 5 story parking garage to help with any parking problems. HRTPO Response: Mr. Keith Nichols, HRTPO Senior Transportation Engineer, provided the following response: Thank you for your comments on the Coliseum Central Special Events Management Plan study. Your comments will be forwarded to officials with the City of Hampton for their review. The City of Hampton does indeed own the Best Products store site and currently uses it for parking for the largest events at the Coliseum. There have been discussions concerning the construction of parking structures within the planned developments but since these developments are currently up in the air it's difficult to say what will become of those plans. If you have any additional comments please let me know. Thanks.

Attachment 11-K

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HRTPO Comment ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Name: John Gergely Date: December 21, 2009 Subject: Information about HRTPO Meeting Minutes Comment (Via HRTPO Website): Could you please direct me to the on-line minutes of past meetings? HRTPO Response: Mr. Carlos Gonzalez, HRTPO Public Involvement Administrator, provided the following response: The meeting minutes are within the agenda packet (e.g. November's minutes are in December's agenda packet, etc.) within our webpage: www.hrtpo.org To access, once within the site, navigate to: "Get Informed", "Meetings", then go to the "Meeting Archive" within the committee that you're seeking. We are also starting to archive video recording of our meetings at: http://www.youtube.com/user/HamptonRoadsMPO Please contact me for any questions. Thank you.

Attachment 11-K

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HRTPO Comment ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Name: Ray Taylor Date: December 30, 2009 Subject: 2010 Legislative Agenda Comment (Via E-mail): Suggestions for a TPO Legislative Agenda for 2010 Session of the General Assembly A. State Level Transportation Management: 1. Complete the process of developing, and then commission, a statewide Virginia

Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (VAMPO) agency. Reason: Compared to other states, Virginia is behind in developing, maturing and using its existing MPO organizations. The state’s MPOs urgently need access to an effective clearinghouse entity for two way state-regional communications.

2. Develop and include statutory language in the Code of Virginia that recognizes the existence of MPO organizations in the state; provides a Charter for these organizations; and specifies their roles, authority and responsibilities.

Reason: The absence of such language causes substantial problems in multiple realms—legal, financial, planning responsibilities, etc. It is hugely demoralizing at the working level, begets duplication, or results in unclear assignments of responsibility.

3. Generate and pass legislation that ends the state’s current transportation programming process which currently produces two State Transportation Programs to answer a single question concerning funding allocations.

Reason: Federal law requires the state to produce a STIP (State Transportation Improvement Program) and State Code requires state transportation officials to produce a SYIP (State Six Year Improvement Program). Both Programs are designed to do the same thing: Obligate dollars to projects over time. Overwhelmingly, the state uses the SYIP. Federal officials only use the STIP; they do not recognize the SYIP whatsoever. The two documents are never aligned; they do not follow the same calendar, and they are cause for near continuous confusion. The extra cost associated with developing and maintaining two Programs to do the same thing can and should be avoided.

4. Commission a Joint Legislative study group that will conduct a focused and in-depth audit of VDOT’s statewide and regional Planning and Programming processes.

Reason: The two items above (Dual Programs and Statutory language) are just two of the subjects that need to be addressed. The process of producing the fed-required Regional Annual Obligations Reports; the process of state provision of fed-required financial information in a timely and comprehensive way; and improved state-regional working relationships, are examples of other topics for a

Attachment 11-K

performance audit that would prove to be useful. Per federal law, transportation projects in Governor-approved MPO Programmatic documents must be incorporated in the state’s STIP Program unchanged. Coordination on this and related matters needs to be stabilized and improved.

5. Generate legislation for, or pass a sense of the GA Resolution, which establishes 21 percent as the minimum annual fair share level of net transportation funding that needs to go to Hampton Roads.

Reason: Both the VDOT and VDRPT annual programs for Hampton Roads have run on average well below this population-based, 21 percent level for many consecutive years with no end in sight.

B. Transportation Funding: 1. Generate new statewide and/or regional transportation funding revenue sources.

Reason: Existing gas tax and user fee revenue levels are no longer sufficient.

2. Establish statewide and/or regional transportation funding lock box systems. Reason: Necessary to ensure steady long term planning becomes credible and to prevent causing crises which could be avoided

3. Generate new and enduring statewide and/or regional revenue sources to be used solely for public transportation and passenger rail operating and maintenance requirements.

Reason: A substantial and primary advantage is gained when pursuing federal capital investment grants when state and regions can identify Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funding sources are in place.

C. High Speed and Inter City Passenger Rail: 1. Require the Secretary of Transportation to review state’s Statewide Rail Plan,

Commonwealth of Virginia, Final Version (December 2008) and to add the “Southside Corridor to Hampton Roads” high speed rail project to the plan.

Reason: In order to score high in federal investment rankings for stimulus or for normal federal funding, it is essential that state documentation corroborate and describe in strong terms the state priority for and value of this line. Right now, this state documentation does not do this.

2. Require the Secretary of Transportation to review state’s 2008 Statewide Rail

Resource Allocation Plan and to add the “Southside Corridor to Hampton Roads” high speed rail project to the plan.

Reason: Same as above

3. Require the Secretary of Transportation to review state’s Rail Enhancement Fund (REF) Plan and its related six year REF funding allocation plan and, if appropriate, include rail projects that support rail to Hampton Roads in both the Peninsula and Southside corridors.

Attachment 11-K

Reason: It is essential that the region and the state exhibit their own dedication to the project in financial investment terms. Currently, the REF has no funds allocated to Hampton Roads passenger lines for the next six years.

4. Generate and pass a GA Resolution which identifies that the HSR line from

Petersburg to Norfolk ranks first in the state’s strategic prioritization plan for rail funding and that the other HSR line from Petersburg to Raleigh ranks second for such funding.

Reason: In a cost-benefits analysis, service for the regional population of 1.7 million in Hampton Roads would rank higher in providing economic returns and much higher ridership than the line south from Petersburg.

Drafted by Ray Taylor, December 21, 2009

Attachment 11-K

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HRTPO Comment ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Name: Ray Taylor Date: December 21, 2009 Subject: Passenger Rail Systems Comment (Via E-mail): Recommended Agenda Item on Passenger Rail Systems for TTAC Meeting, January 6, 2009 Background: 1. Pursuant to legislation, the Virginia Rail Enhancement Fund (REF) was established

on July 1, 2005 as the first dedicated revenue stream for investment in rail infrastructure in Virginia’s history. The Fund will support improvements for passenger and freight rail transportation throughout Virginia.

2. Applications are accepted for REF funds annually. The current year window for applications for FY-2011 REF funds runs from December 1, 2009 to February 1, 2010.

3. While it varies greatly, roughly two-thirds of the REF projects are freight rail related and one-third are passenger rail related.

4. The list of FY-10 applications can be found on slide #23 of the VDRPT presentation of candidate projects at: http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/projects/files/REF%20FY2010%20Applications%20final%20draft%202-27-09.pdf This listing indicates that there are no passenger rail projects that relate to Hampton Roads whereas there are passenger rail projects that will make small but meaningful advances for passenger rail systems in the metro areas of Bristol, Roanoke, Lynchburg, Richmond, Danville and Manassas. Pending verification, it also appears that Hampton Roads has never had an REF funded passenger rail study or project

5. The application procedures for this year are at: http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/projects/files/REF%20FY2010%20App%20Procedures%20Final%20Nov%202009.doc These are cumbersome procedures. Regional Authorities, localities or railroads are eligible to apply. In support of passenger rail initiatives, VDRPT, itself, has applied, on some occasions and on behalf of a regional request, to conduct “train capacity analyses”; to conduct studies “to define required rail line improvements”; to do model and simulation analyses; and to conduct actual construction projects “to improve capacity and reliability”, all in support of emerging or improvement-related passenger rail projects for Bristol, Roanoke and other regions cited above. Other passenger rail projects have been submitted by railroads in coordination with the regions where studies or construction are desired.

Attachment 11-K

An Opportunity: 1. Recommend Hampton Roads put an oar in the water and coordinate as a region at

the TTAC level and then at the TPO Board level as necessary to submit an application for FY-2011 REF funds.

2. The Peninsula line, at first blush, looks like a logical and ready candidate for such funds. For example, the upgrade of two or three grade crossings “to improve capacity and reliability”; or the construction of a parking garage; or the renovation of the train station; or the sorely-needed addition of a segment of second track; or studies “to define required passenger rail improvements” would be, in my judgment, competitive applications.

3. The Southside, too, has credible options for making quality and competitive applications directly or in coordination with VDRPT. For example, the future HSR line will need: (a) new Rights of Way between Suffolk and Norfolk; (b) train station preliminary designs for Norfolk and Suffolk; and (c) studies of, if not actual upgrades or closures of certain grade crossings along the Southside corridor, all within the geographic boundaries of our TPO’s metropolitan planning area..

4. Whatever the TPO may do about this REF opportunity, it is strongly recommended that it be nothing less than a “regional”, TPO-approved step, even if in the end it becomes a jurisdiction which submits the application. Uncoordinated jurisdictional competition will vastly diminish chances of anyone gaining any REF award.

5. Beyond the individual merits and ultimate results of any one REF application, there is another major reason for Hampton Roads to get into the REF game. Someday, Hampton Roads will have routine or stimulus-based requests for FRA funding for HSR or AMTRAK Upgrades under review at the federal level. The federal green eye shade analysts who must compare applications received from around the country need our assistance. Among many other things, being on the REF funding scoreboard is an important indication of regional initiative, regional and state commitment, and genuine regional interest for passenger rail advances. The federal funding process is fiercely competitive. Every possible positive indication that we can generate will be useful.

6. At this late date, our TPO’s chances of obtaining an FY 2011 REF funded project may be slim, but they are not impossible. In any case and as always, we may not make the grade the first time out on the playing field. If that is the case, we will still learn a lot which will be helpful for next year, and we will have telegraphed our gumption on the matter to VDRPT, the Rail Advisory Board, the CTB, the Secretary of Transportation and to our own general public.

Recommendation: 1. Recommend that the TTAC address this opportunity and advance a recommended

“regional” game plan to the TPO Board.

Submitted by Ray Taylor, December 21, 2009

Attachment 11-K

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HRTPO Comment ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Name: Tyra J. Jackson Date: December 22, 2009 Subject: Coliseum Central Study // Concert Traffic Comments (Via E-mail): Good Morning, My name is Tyra Jackson and I just graduated from Hampton University this past August. For the last 4 years I've experienced the "Concert Traffic" personally. The article I read didn't indicate what type of comments you were requesting so I'll just give a suggestion or two. I do not know how feasible this is but if you all could designate (or construct) a special route only for attendants of events at the Coliseum that might relieve some of the congestion on I-64, Mercury and the surrounding side streets. Or maybe even a completely separate exit off of 64 if that is somehow attainable. I hope my suggestions help a bit! : ) Have a wonderful day, HRTPO Response: Mr. Keith Nichols, HRTPO Senior Transportation Engineer, provided the following response: Thank you for your comments on the Coliseum Central Special Events Management Plan study. Your comments will be forwarded to officials with the City of Hampton for their review. There was indeed a project in some previous regional long range transportation plans that would have expanded the interchange of I-64 and I-664 to the north with a new roadway providing access to the Coliseum area as well as Armistead Avenue (the actual name of the project was the Armistead Avenue Connector). However, due to a variety of reasons including high construction costs this project was ultimately removed and instead the new Convention Center Boulevard was planned and constructed. If you have any additional comments please let me know. Thank you.

Attachment 11-K

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HRTPO Comment ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Name: Mildred Bowler Ballew Date: December 22, 2009 Subject: Coliseum Central Study // Property Purchase Comments: Dear Keith, I read in the DailyPress about you wanting comments about traffic congestion in the Coliseum area during special events. I am a seventy-nine years old widow from Yorktown and have my mother’s home for sale on ## Pine Chapel Rd. The property is across from the back of the convention center. It is 54x388 and backs up to the Langley Credit Union. I was also wondering if by chance this property and the others could be bought and used for parking. I would love to hear from you or maybe the city buying this land for future use. My sisters and I are all in our 70s and 80s and need to get this property sold.

Attachment 11-K


AGENDA ITEM #12: OLD/NEW BUSINESS