fredericksburg area metropolitan planning … · 2017-10-16 · ms. susan gardner, vdot mr. stephen...

Fredericksburg City Matthew Kelly Spotsylvania County Chairman Stafford County Paul Agnello FAMPO Administrator

406 Princess Anne Street (540) 373-2890 Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 FAX: (540) 899-4808 www.fampo.gwregion.org [email protected]

FREDERICKSBURG AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING

June 19, 2017 - 7:15 p.m. The Robert C. Gibbons Conference Room

406 Princess Anne Street, Fredericksburg, Virginia www.fampo.gwregion.org

AGENDA

1. Call FAMPO Meeting to Order – Chairman Matthew Kelly

2. Determination of Quorum – FAMPO Administrator Paul Agnello

3. Approval of FAMPO Agenda (ACTION ITEM)

4. Public Involvement Comments and questions from members of the public are welcome at this time.

5. Public Hearing Comments and questions from members of the public concerning the Draft Fiscal Year 2018 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)

6. Chairman’s Comments

7. Consent Agenda

a.) Approval of Policy Committee Meeting Minutes of May 15, 2017 – Mr. Paul Agnello (ACTION ITEM)

b.) Approval of Resolution No. 17-37, Amending the Fiscal Years 2015-2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to Update UPC 107463: CN Phase for Mine Rd Sidewalk Project in Stafford – Mr. Nick Quint (ACTION ITEM)

8. Action/Discussion Items

a.) Approval of Resolution No. 17-40, Approving the Slate of Officers to Serve in Fiscal Year 2018 – Mr. Paul Agnello (ACTION ITEM)

b.) Approval of Resolution No. 17-36, Adoption of the Fiscal Year 2018 Unified

Planning Work Program (UPWP) –Mr. Paul Agnello (ACTION ITEM)

c.) I-95 SB Rappahannock River Crossing Change – Ms. Michelle Shropshire, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)

i. Approval of Resolution No. 17-38, Amending the Fiscal Years 2015-2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to Update UPC 101595 – Mr. Nick Quint (ACTION ITEM)

http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/policy-committee

406 Princess Anne Street (540) 373-2890 Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 FAX: (540) 899-4808 www.fampo.gwregion.org [email protected]

d.) VDOT Staff Recommendations for Improving the Smart Scale Process– Mr. Paul Agnello

i. Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) Presentation for June 21, 2017

ii. FAMPO Input to the CTB on Smart Scale e.) Transit Capital Project Revenue Advisory Board – Ms. Jennifer DeBruhl,

Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT)

f.) Update on Transportation Funding and Potential Sources for Additional Revenues – Mr. Paul Agnello

i. Regional Transportation Authority White Paper

g.) Proposed Legislative Items – Mr. Paul Agnello h.) Approval of Resolution No. 17-39, Recognizing the Dedicated Service of Matthew

Kelly – Mr. Paul Agnello (ACTION ITEM)

i.) FAMPO Meeting Calendar – Mr. Nick Quint

9. Staff and Agency Reports

10. Board Member Comments

11. Correspondence

12. FAMPO Committees Meeting Minutes

13. Adjourn /Next FAMPO Policy Committee Meeting: August 21, 2017

The Policy Committee, the FAMPO Technical Committee, and the Citizens Transportation Advisory Group meetings are open to the public. Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability or family status. Persons who require special

accommodations under the American with Disabilities Act or persons who require translation services (free of charge) should contact the GWRC/FAMPO at 540-373-2890 or

[email protected] at least four days prior to the meeting. Ifhearingimpaired, telephone 1-800-273-7545 (TDD).

La participaciónpúblicaessolicitada sin distinción de raza, color, origennacional, edad, sexo, religión, discapacidad o suestado familiar. Las personas que requierenalojamiento especial de acuerdo con el

American withDisabilitiesAct, o personas que requierenservicios de traducción (libre de cargo) debencomunicarse con la GWRC / FAMPO al 540-373-2890 o [email protected] al menos dos días

antes de la reunión. Personas con problemasauditivos, llama 800-273-7545 (TDD).

mailto:[email protected]

a ̀

7.) Consent Agenda

a.) Approval of Policy Committee Meeting Minutes of May 15, 2017

b.) Approval of Resolution No. 17-37, Amending the Fiscal Years 2015-2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to Update UPC 107463: CN Phase for Mine Rd Sidewalk Project in Stafford

May 15, 2017 - FAMPO Policy Committee Meeting Minutes

Policy Committee Meeting Minutes May 15, 2017

http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/committees/policy-committee/ Members Present: Mr. Matt Kelly, Chairman, City of Fredericksburg Mr. Doug Fawcett, City of Fredericksburg Mr. Billy Withers, City of Fredericksburg Ms. Ruby Brabo, King George County (Non-Voting Member) Mr. Greg Benton, Spotsylvania County Mr. Tim McLaughlin, Spotsylvania County Mr. David Ross, Spotsylvania County Ms. Meg Bohmke, Stafford County Mr. Paul Milde, Stafford County Ms. Laura Sellers, Stafford County Mr. Chuck Steigerwald, PRTC Ms. Marci Parker, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Mr. Todd Rump, CTAG (Non-Voting Member) Others Present: Mr. Todd Horsley, DRPT Mr. Bob Schneider, PRTC Mr. Chris McCahill, State Smart Transportation Initiative Ms. Susan Gardner, VDOT Mr. Stephen Haynes, VDOT Mr. Peter Hedrick, VDOT Ms. Michelle Shropshire, VDOT Mr. Scott Shenk, Free Lance Star Mr. John Jenkins, King George BOS Mr. Michael Smith, Stafford County Deputy County Administrator Mr. Rupert Farley, CTAG, At-Large Mr. Ryan Furgerson, Michael Baker International Mr. Paul Prideaux, Michael Baker International Staff Members Present: Mr. Paul Agnello, FAMPO Mr. Nick Quint, FAMPO Ms. Marti Donley, FAMPO (Via Satellite Phone Call-In) Mr. Tim Ware, GWRC Ms. Diana Utz, GWRC Ms. Leigh Anderson, GWRC Ms. JoAnna Roberson, GWRC

http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/committees/policy-committee/

May 15, 2017- FAMPO Policy Committee Meeting Minutes 2

CALL FAMPO MEETING TO ORDER Chairman, Mr. Kelly, called the meeting to order at 7:22 p.m. and received acknowledgement that a quorum was present. APPROVAL OF FAMPO AGENDA Upon motion by Mr. Withers and seconded by Ms. Bohmke, with all concurring, the FAMPO Policy Agenda for the May 15th meeting was accepted as presented. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Mr. Farley commended the committee and staff for having an excellent Public Participation Plan. He expressed concern that those efforts might be pulled down somewhat because of FAMPO not correctly pronouncing the names of local landmarks such as Berea, Dahlgren and Falmouth. Mr. Farley also suggested that the Policy Committee meeting of August 21st be changed because of a rare nearby total eclipse of the sun occurring on this date, and he, the committee and the staff should not miss this infrequent opportunity. PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Agnello advised that per federal requirements, a 45-day public comment period has been held for the purpose of obtaining comments on the Public Participation Plan (PPP). Mr. Agnello stated that no adverse comments have been received to date. There were no additional comments presented at the Public Hearing at the May 15th meeting. Mr. Kelly then closed the Public Hearing. CHAIRMAN’s COMMENTS None ACTION ITEMS/DISCUSSION ITEMS

a.) Approval of FAMPO Minutes of April 17, 2017 – Mr. Paul Agnello Upon motion by Ms. Sellers and seconded by Mr. Withers, with Mr. Milde and Ms. Parker abstaining, and all others concurring, the minutes from the April 17th meeting were accepted as presented. b.) Discussion of FY2018 FAMPO Officers – Mr. Paul Agnello Mr. Agnello advised that adoption of FY2018 FAMPO officers will be an agenda item for the June meeting. Mr. Agnello asked the jurisdictions who have not already selected their representative to serve as a FAMPO officer, to please let him know the appointment by close of business on Monday, June 12.


Mr. Agnello stated the FY2018 FAMPO officer rotation will be: Chair – Stafford County; Vice-Chair – Spotsylvania County; and Second Vice-Chair – City of Fredericksburg. c.) Approval of Resolution No. 17-31, Recommending the Adoption of the Public Participation Plan (PPP) – Mr. Nick Quint Mr. Quint advised that the PPP 30-day public comment period has closed. Mr. Quint stated that there were minor comments from VDOT staff and the public, and those comments have been addressed in the revised PPP that is included in tonight’s agenda packet. Upon motion by Ms. Sellers and seconded by Mr. Withers, with all concurring, Resolution No. 17-31 was adopted. d.) Approval of Resolution No. 17-32, Adoption of the Fiscal Years 2018-2021 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) – Mr. Nick Quint Mr. Quint advised that the 30-day public comment period for the FY2018-2021 TIP closes at midnight on Tuesday, May 16th. Mr. Quint stated that to-date, no adverse comments have been received. Mr. Quint stated that a request was made to include an interactive map for the TIP. Mr. Quint stated that staff has implemented this request and showed the committee where the map is located on the FAMPO website. Upon motion by Mr. Milde and seconded by Mr. Withers, with all concurring, Resolution No. 17-32 was adopted. e.) Approval of Resolution No. 17-33, directing that a Public Comment Period and Public Hearing be Held Prior to the Adoption of the FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)– Mr. Paul Agnello Mr. Agnello advised that the UPWP is FAMPO’s work program, and federal law requires that a 30-day public comment period be held prior to adoption of the UPWP. Mr. Agnello stated that Resolution No. 17-33 is directing a public comment period for the FY2018 UPWP to begin on May 18 and conclude on June 16. Upon motion by Mr. Withers and seconded by Ms. Sellers, with all concurring, Resolution No. 17-33 was adopted. f.) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) – Mr. Peter Hedrich, VDOT Mr. Hedrich stated that HSIP is a funding source that is available to VDOT district offices for funding of projects that improve safety and reduce crash sites. Mr. Hedrich stated that localities and MPO's can apply for HSIP funding, and the application period runs from August 1 to November 1. Mr. Hedrich stated that HSIP applications need to meet the following requirements:

• Be relevant to the program purpose for reducing severe crashes or risks to transportation users


• Address hazardous situations through good safety planning and be identified by safety data driving network screening

• Demonstrate compliance with VDOT design guidelines • Upgrade non-standard safety features to existing standards, when the features are

related to targeted crashes identified within the work area of engineering study • HSIP allocations approved by FHWA should be included in the STIP • Projects should be designed and constructed within three years and should require none or

minimal right-of-way acquisition Mr. Hedrich advised that projects submitted for consideration require no local match and result in an approximate $50 million statewide source of revenues. Mr. Hedrich stated the Fredericksburg District Office will receive $5 million. Mr. Hedrich stated that eligible projects include: HSIP Project Life Cycle projects; Highway Safety Improvement Program projects; Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Improvement projects; Highway Rail Grade Crossing safety projects; and Local Agency Safety Program projects. There was discussion from committee members on whether their locality has utilized this funding source in the past, and if so, what types of projects were submitted for approval. Ms. Parker stated VDOT staff would forward a list to FAMPO of projects within the region that have been submitted for HSIP funding within the last five years. g.) Locality Day – Fredericksburg Area – Ms. Michelle Shropshire, VDOT Ms. Shropshire advised that VDOT is hosting its first “Locality Day” seminar. Ms. Shropshire stated that events will be held on two days and the date for the Fredericksburg District western area is May 22nd. Ms. Shropshire stated the seminar will allow VDOT staff to work with locality staff to help them successfully launch and deliver locally-administered projects. Ms. Shropshire stated the seminar topics include the following: re-cap of funding sources that are available; development of project scopes, schedules & budgets; explanation of any environmental permits that would be necessary; right-of-way and utility acquisition process; best practices for construction; and lessons learned from past projects. Ms. Shropshire advised that FAMPO and all localities have been invited to participate in the “Locality Day” seminar and all entities have responded and will have at least one representative in attendance. h.) 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Update – Mr. Paul Agnello Mr. Agnello advised that the CTB approved funding of $350,000 for the 2045 LRTP study and the study results are being used for the 2045 LRTP update process.

i. Final OIPI Study Presentation – Mr. Paul Prideaux, Mr. Ryan Furgerson & Mr. Chris McCahill, Michael Baker International

Mr. Chris McCahill stated that the goal of the study was to improve access to destinations using "big data" findings and analysis. Mr. McCahill stated the study analyzed “big data” to understand the


trip-making process of the citizens in the region. The goal for this study is to provide access to destinations by means of travel other than on major highways and transit investments. Mr. McCahill stated that TDM, parking management, network connectivity, bicycle/pedestrian connectivity, land use planning & transit enhancements were all focal points. Mr. McCahill stated that 11 case studies throughout the region were completed, and the final report will have all of them listed and compared. Mr. McCahill stated that opportunities, benefits, & costs for each case study will be depicted in the final report. Mr. McCahill advised that 5 of the 11 original studies have been advanced for further study for the FAMPO/GWRC LRTP efforts. The 5 focal areas are:

1. Downtown Fredericksburg 2. Central Park (Fredericksburg) 3. Cosner’s Corner (Spotsylvania) 4. Garrisonville (Stafford) 5. Dahlgren (King George)

ii. Approval of Resolution No. 17-34, Endorsing the Recommendations

from the GWRC/FAMPO TDM Study – Mr. Paul Agnello (ACTION ITEM)

Upon motion by Mr. Milde and seconded by Mr. Steigerwald, with Mr. Benton voting no and all others concurring, Resolution No. 17-34, for further study of the 5 cases cited above, was adopted.

iii. I-95 Corridor Study Phase 2 Highway Element Presentation – Mr. Paul Agnello & Mr. Paul Prideaux

Mr. Agnello advised that the Transit/TDM portion of the I-95 Corridor Phase 2 Study was approved several months ago by the Policy Committee. Mr. Agnello stated that this presentation, and subsequent resolution, is for the highway portion of the study. Mr. Agnello stated that the Phase 2 highway work will follow-up on the I-95 Corridor Phase 1 Study completed in 2016, be conducted in coordination with the Transit/TDM portion that recently began and the LRTP Advisory Committee, and inform the 2045 LRTP update and Round 3 of Smart Scale. Mr. Agnello stated that the Phase 2 Highway element will include weekend travel data; strengthen the case for gaining approval of the I-95 Northbound Rappahannock River Crossing project; develop a full master transportation plan for the I-95 corridor within the FAMPO region; and provide travel demand modeling support for the LRTP update process. Mr. Prideaux stated that the Phase 2 study will develop four alternative scenarios that will be tested in both horizon years 2030 and 2045. Mr. Prideaux relayed that one scenario will solely be on the Northbound Rappahannock River Crossing project. The other three new scenarios will be studied and alternatives presented. Mr. Agnello stated that the next steps are to receive approval of the I-95 Corridor Study Phase 2 Highway Element scope, have the study completed in approximately 12 months so it corresponds with the LRTP update, and identify multimodal needs along the I-95 corridor for Round 3 of Smart Scale.


iv. VDOT Report – Ms. Marci Parker, VDOT

Ms. Parker advised that the Southbound Rappahannock River Crossing project now has a new design concept that resulted after VDOT’s public hearing. Ms. Parker stated that the cost of the project would remain the same; however, instead of building the collector-distributor lanes to the west of the southbound I-95 lanes, the new plan calls for building three new lanes in the median. Ms. Parker stated that the new lanes would serve as new primary lanes. The existing primary lanes would be converted to collector-distributor lanes, allowing for three lanes instead of the two originally proposed. Ms. Parker stated the new plan would also extend the southernmost merge area approximately one mile further than what was originally planned. Ms. Parker stated the $125 million project will add feeder lanes along southbound I-95 between US 17 in Stafford County and Route 3 in Fredericksburg. The project also will include adding lanes to the US 17 southbound I-95 entrance ramp. Ms. Parker stated that the companion project for the northbound side of I-95 has yet to be approved; however, there are now plans to move the northbound collector-distributor lanes into the median. Ms. Parker stated that the original plan raised comments and concern about the ramps and merging/signage issues, so this is why VDOT decided to look for alternatives. Ms. Parker stated that the design concept will make the construction work easier, and even though it's still a concept, VDOT is moving forward with the new plan. Ms. Parker stated that work on the SB Rappahannock River Crossing is slated to being in late 2018 and be completed in 2022.

v. Approval of Resolution No. 17-35, Authorizing Staff to Work with Michael Baker International to Execute the I-95 Phase 2 Highway Study – Mr. Paul Agnello (ACTION ITEM)

Upon motion by Mr. Withers and seconded by Ms. Bohmke, with all concurring, Resolution No. 17-35 was adopted.

a. NTP for Task Order for Technical Support for I-95 Phase 2 Study – Mr. Paul Agnello

Mr. Agnello stated that the Notice-to-Proceed is included in tonight’s agenda packet for outside technical support for the I-95 Phase 2 Corridor Study.

vi. Summary of 2045 LRTP Advisory Committee Meeting of April 20, 2017 – Mr. Paul Agnello

Mr. Agnello advised that minutes from the 2045 LRTP Advisory Committee are included in tonight’s agenda packet.


i.) Regional Motor Fuels Tax Floor – Mr. Chuck Steigerwald, PRTC

Mr. Steigerwald stated the regional motor fuels sales tax was initiated in 1981 at 2% of total retail sales. Effective January, 2010, the tax base was changed to 2.1% of the wholesale price. Mr. Steigerwald stated that revenues received from the gasoline sales tax are deposited into a special fund line item and then distributed to the applicable transportation district commission. Mr. Steigerwald advised that the funds received are applied to the operating deficit, capital and debt service of the mass transit system of said district or applied to and expended for any transportation purpose. Mr. Steigerwald stated that the tax is based on the sale price of gasoline, so it fluctuates with the change in gas prices; lower gas prices result in less revenue. Mr. Steigerwald stated that revenues are deposited into an account for each jurisdiction, based on the amount of fuel sold in that jurisdiction. Mr. Steigerwald relayed that in the summer of 2014, gasoline fuel prices began a trend of a significant decline. In FY2015 alone, the PRTC jurisdictions lost $10.6 million in expected revenue. Mr. Steigerwald stated that HB2313 replaced the 17.5 cents per gallon tax with a 3.5% of the statewide average wholesale price of a gallon of gasoline. The tax is calculated twice annually based on the statewide averages of wholesale fuel prices. It established a floor for the statewide tax, but not the regional fuel tax. Mr. Steigerwald stated that the wholesale prices used for the calculations cannot be below the prices from February 20, 2013, which at that time was $3.17 for regular gasoline and $3.36 for diesel fuel. If a floor had been put in place for the regional fuel tax, Mr. Steigerwald stated that PRTC jurisdictions would have realized an additional $25 million from FY2015-2016. Mr. Steigerwald advised that the past legislative efforts have resulted in the following outcomes:

• 2016 General Assembly SB742 passed Senate – continued in House • 2017 General Assembly SB1456 passed Senate – tabled in House • PRTC, NVTC & HRTAC collaborated on lobbying efforts • Individual jurisdictions lobbied and included tax floor in their legislative agendas • FAMPO letter of support (included in tonight’s agenda packet) • Support received from the Virginia Transit Association • Transit Capital Projects Revenue Advisory Board included consideration of tax floor into

their report to the General Assembly In preparing for the 2018 General Assembly session, Mr. Steigerwald stated that the above-mentioned efforts will still be in place; however, they will also include support from the following:

• Inclusion of tax floor in jurisdictional legislative agendas • Direct communication of tax floor need with delegates and senators • Leverage opportunities such as the gubernatorial election • Engage both the Chamber of Commerce and the business community for support


j.) Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) Discussion – Mr. Paul Agnello Mr. Agnello stated that the Regional Transportation Authority discussion is a process that would involve locality boards, not just the Policy Committee. Mr. Agnello advised that this is an item that is of interest to some entities, including some Policy Committee members, the Chamber of Commerce, PRTC, etc. Mr. Kelly stated that no action for approval or opposition is scheduled for tonight’s meeting; this is just beginning discussion on the idea. Mr. Agnello advised that some potential alternative revenue sources could come from the following options; however, creating a Regional Transportation Authority is the way to generate the largest amount of revenue. Options that could be considered are:

1. Legislatively Updating 1986 District Grant Formula for Smart Scale to be less focused on City/Town population within its district – this could allow for an additional $5m per Smart Scale cycle being distributed to the Fredericksburg District

2. Regional Motor Fuels Tax Floor implemented – this could generate an additional $5.5m per year for the FAMPO jurisdictions

3. Regional Transportation Authority – could generate an additional $35M per year for all of GWRC jurisdictions and that an RTA could be created for two or more adjacent GWRC jurisdictions

Mr. Kelly requested that the local Boards of Supervisors, and City Council, discuss the issue and provide feedback to FAMPO staff within a couple of months at the latest as to whether the respective Boards support or oppose the idea. Mr. Withers stated that he realizes that raising taxes is not a topic that is usually regionally supported; however, he advised that the Chamber of Commerce is in support. Mr. Withers stated that establishing a regional taxing authority would bring more revenue to the region. Mr. Withers stated that the regions across the state will never get all the money needed to supplement their needs, so to remain competitive with Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, we too need to look for alternative revenue sources. Mr. Kelly stated that eight years ago when discussions were held on a Toll Road Authority, a regional transportation authority option was discussed as well. Ms. Bohmke asked what the neighboring Board’s opinions were eight years ago. Mr. Milde stated the issue was addressed at FAMPO meetings and the Toll Road Authority meetings, but was never taken back to the respective Boards of Supervisors for support. Mr. Kelly stated that he realizes that imposing new taxes is not supported by some jurisdictions, and if an RTA is not an option then realistic alternatives and other options need to be brought to the table for discussion. Mr. McLaughlin stated that the region continues to put more money into paving roads, and it does not matter how much money you have, it will never be enough. Mr. McLaughlin stated what needs to be addressed is having federal agencies relocate offices into this region that would allow for reverse job commutes and have a large number of regular commuters going into Washington, DC begin working within this region.


Mr. Kelly advised that discussions have occurred in the past with the General Services Administration and at that time there was no interest for them to relocate their offices outside of the District. Mr. Kelly stated this is also a political issue for the District; they are not willing to relinquish those ties. Mr. Kelly stated this effort is not just a job/commuting issue but also clearly shows that traffic congestion on the I-95 corridor is consistent and affects new businesses coming to the area, as well as tourism (people are not willing to come to the area for tourist opportunities because the commute from DC to Fredericksburg can result in a three-hour trip). Mr. McLaughlin stated that the interstate highways from Florida to Maine are not a regional problem and is one that needs to be addressed and fixed by the Commonwealth. Ms. Sellers stated that an item of this significance should not have been placed as the last agenda item, after a two-hour agenda has already taken place. Ms. Sellers made a motion that a sub-committee be formed, with one member from each jurisdiction, to meet, discuss the issue, have documentation available for review on pros/cons, etc. Mr. Kelly stated that he did not know what more an advisory committee could do that the entire committee could not accomplish. Mr. Withers recommended that instead of an advisory committee being formed, the June meeting agenda could be limited to only include necessary items and the RTA discussion. Ms. Bohmke stated that before she could take the issue back before her Board, she too would need additional information to review. Ms. Sellers stated that she would rescind her motion and provide a substitute motion. The substitute motion requested that for the June Policy Committee meeting, discussion of a Regional Transportation Authority be the main topic. Upon motion by Ms. Sellers and seconded by Mr. McLaughlin, with all in consensus, the substitute motion was endorsed. Ms. Bohmke also asked that staff spell out all acronyms on future agendas. Ms. Bohmke stated that on tonight’s agenda, under 7.h.i., OIPI was not spelled out, and even after doing some quick research on her phone, she was not able to determine what it stands for. Mr. Agnello stated that OIPI is a State acronym for the Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment; however, staff would ensure that acronyms are spelled out on future agendas. Mr. Milde also asked if staff could provide a Consent Agenda as part of the regular agenda items. Mr. Milde stated this agenda could include items placed together that require no specific time of discussion, and multiple items could be voted on at once. Mr. Kelly asked for clarification as to what agenda items this would include. Mr. Milde stated that items such as the approval of the minutes, resolutions directing a public comment period, and resolutions asking for adoption of the TIP, PPP, etc. could be included in the consent agenda. Mr. Milde stated that resolutions asking for adoption of TIP, PPP, etc. have already been discussed at previous FAMPO meetings and are not being submitted to the Policy Committee for the first time.

i. Community Conversation: Our Transportation Crisis (June 1, 2017) – Mr. Paul Agnello

Mr. Agnello advised that the Chamber of Commerce is providing a forum on June 1st from 8:30 to 10:30 a.m. Mr. Agnello stated that the featured speakers would be himself, Mr. Hap Connors and


some local elected officials representing the GWRC region. Mr. Agnello stated that all GWRC jurisdictions are scheduled to be contacted, with a request that a representative from each locality participate in the forum. Ms. Sellers stated that she felt the forum had validity; however, wanted to know why this was being sponsored by the Chamber and not initiated by FAMPO. Ms. Bohmke concurred and stated she felt FAMPO/Policy Committee should be leading this type of forum. Ms. Brabo stated that she was approached to participate in the forum, and it was her understanding that the topic for discussion was Smart Scale. Ms. Brabo stated that she did not know the discussion topics until coming to tonight’s meeting and felt if the Chamber wanted more locality representation that the forum topic should have been more clearly relayed. STAFF AND AGENCY REPORTS Mr. Agnello stated that Marti Donley continues to improve and hopes to be back in the office for the June meeting. MEMBER REPORTS None CORRESPONDENCE In packet and are self-explanatory FAMPO COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Minutes from the Technical Committee and CTAG are included in tonight’s agenda packet. ADJOURN FAMPO MEETING/NEXT MEETING, MAY 15, 2017 The May 2017 meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m., and the next meeting will be held on June 19, 2017 at 7:15 p.m.

FAMPO RESOLUTION 17-37

A RESOLUTION OF THE FREDERICKSBURG AREA METROPOLITAN

PLANNING ORGANIZATION AMENDING THE FISCAL YEARS 2015-2018 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO UPDATE UPC 107463

WHEREAS, the FY2015-2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) was adopted by FAMPO on June 16, 2014; and WHEREAS, the FY2017-2022 Six Year Improvement Program (SYIP), which contains updated FY2015-2018 funding for projects located in the FAMPO Region, was adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) on June 14, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Mine Road Sidewalk project (UPC 107463) was added to the SYIP after it was selected for funding through the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP); and WHEREAS, this TIP amendment will add $527,949 to FY2017 for the construction phase of the project, as shown in the attachment; and WHEREAS,per 23 CFR 450.324, the TIP shall include capital and non-capital surface transportation projects (or phases of projects) within the boundaries of the metropolitan planning area proposed for funding under 23 U.S.C. and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE FREDERICKSBURG AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION THATTHE FY2015-2018 TIP IS HEREBY AMENDED TO UPDATE UPC 107463, AS SHOWN IN THE ATTACHMENT TO THIS RESOLUTION.

Adopted by the FAMPO Policy Committee at its meeting on June 19, 2017.

FREDERICKSBURG AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (FAMPO)

Matt Kelly City of Fredericksburg Chairman

SpotsylvaniaCounty StaffordCounty Paul Agnello

FAMPO Administrator

FAMPO Resolution 17-37

____________________________________________________

Chairman Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Date:___________________

(540) 373-2890

406 Princess Anne St. FAX: (540) 899-4808 Fredericksburg, Virginia22401 www.fampo.gwregion.org

UPC NO 107463 SCOPE Facilities for Pedestrians and Bicycles

SYSTEM Enhancement JURISDICTION Stafford County OVERSIGHT

PROJECT MINE ROAD SIDEWALK ADMIN BY Locally

DESCRIPTION FROM: Cathedral Lane TO: Highpointe Boulevard (0.3210 MI)

PROGRAM NOTE TIP AMD - add $547,949 (TAP) FFY17 CN phase.

ROUTE/STREET MINE ROAD (0684) TOTAL COST $819,457

FUND SOURCE MATCH FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

PE Federal - TAP/F $26,904 $0 $84,000 $23,616 $0

CN Federal - TAP/F $136,987 $0 $0 $547,949 $0

MPO Note

Enhancement Projects

Fredericksburg MPO

1

MPO TIP Report 6/2/2017 10:55:08 AM

a ̀

8a.) Approval of Resolution No. 17-40, Approving the Slate of Officers to Serve in Fiscal Year 2018


A RESOLUTION OF THE FREDERICKSBURG AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION APPROVING THE SLATE OF OFFICERS

TO SERVE IN FISCAL YEAR 2018 WHEREAS, the MPO Policy Committee is the transportation policy decision-making board, and is responsible for transportation planning and funding allocations in the Fredericksburg Area MPO and partners with the public, planning organizations, government agencies, elected officials and community groups to develop regional transportation plans, and; WHEREAS, the MPO Policy Committee is the transportation policy decision-making board comprised of eleven elected and non-elected voting members. The Fredericksburg District Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) Representative and the Citizens Transportation Advisory Group Chairman serves as ex officio members, and; WHEREAS, the MPO’s By Laws include a provision for the annual rotation among the member localities that determines which locality shall fill each of the officer’s positions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE FREDERICKSBURG AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION HEREBY APPROVES THE FOLLOWING SLATE TO SERVE AS THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE IN FISCAL YEAR 2018:

Paul Milde, Stafford County– Chairman Timothy McLaughlin, Spotsylvania County – First Vice Chairman Matthew Kelly, City of Fredericksburg – Second Vice Chairman


(540) 373-2890 406 Princess Anne St. FAX: (540) 899-4808 Fredericksburg, Virginia22401 www.fampo.gwregion.org


Matthew Kelly

Fredericksburg City Chairman Spotsylvania County

Stafford County Paul Agnello FAMPO Administrator


____________________________________________________


Date:___________________

a ̀

8b.) Approval of Resolution No. 17-36, Adoption of the Fiscal Year 2018 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)


A RESOLUTION OF THE FREDERICKSBURG AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION ADOPTINGTHE FISCAL YEAR 2018 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK

PROGRAM WHEREAS, the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2018 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) is required in June; and WHEREAS, FAMPO staff has worked with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), the FAMPO Technical Committee (FTC), and the Citizens Transportation Advisory Group (CTAG) to develop a work program for fiscal year 2018, as attached; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the Fiscal Year 2018 UPWP has been held; and WHEREAS, the public comment period for the Fiscal Year 2018 UPWP began on May 18, 2017 and ended on June 16, 2017; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE FREDERICKSBURG AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION THAT THE FISCAL YEAR 2018 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM IS HEREBY ADOPTED.




Matt Kelly

Fredericksburg City Chairperson Spotsylvania County



____________________________________________________


Date:___________________

Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 406 Princess Anne Street

Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 540.373.2890 (phone)

540.899.4808 (fax) [email protected]

www.fampo.gwregion.org

UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM (UPWP)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

Draft for Review May 18, 2017

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/

Draft FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) i

GWRC/FAMPO TITLE VI NONDISCRIMINATION STATEMENT

“The George Washington Regional Commission and the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization fully comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. For more information or to obtain a Discrimination Complaint Form, please visit www.gwregion.org or www.fampo.gwregion.org or call (540) 373-2890. Para informaciónen español, llame al (540)-373-2890.”

http://www.gwregion.org/


Draft FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) ii

PREFACE TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2018UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM

FAMPO’s FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) supports ongoing work in the areas of short- and long-range transportation planning, land use planning, congestion management programming, public participation, corridor planning and other special projects.

According to Weldon Cooper, coming out of the recent deep recession, the George Washington (GW) Region grew by 7.7% between the 2010 Census and July 2016, to a total of about 353,000 residents. This is the second-highest growth rate in the Commonwealth, behind Northern Virginia, which grew at a rate of 10.4% during the same period. Within GWRC, the FAMPO Region grew by about 8.3%, to about 299,000 residents during this period.

Change since 2010 Census

Jurisdiction April 1, 2010

Census July 1, 2016

Estimate Numeric Change

Percent Change

Stafford 128,961 141,915 12,954 10.0% City 24,286 27,025 2,739 11.3% Spotsylvania 122,397 129,668 7,271 5.9% Caroline 28,545 29,704 1,159 4.1% King George 23,584 24,724 1,140 4.8% GWRC Total 327,773 353,036 25,263 7.7% FAMPO Total 275,644 298,608 22,964 8.3%

Given its proximity to Northern Virginia and Washington, D.C., the Region will continue to experience pressures for both suburban and “exurban” land uses and their attendant commuting patterns.

With the adoption of the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) in April 2013, the FAMPO Policy Committee again endorsed the policy of linking land use and transportation planning more strongly into the future. That policy is again embraced in this UPWP, as the second round of Regional Land Use Scenario Planning concluded in FY2016, setting the stage for the update to the FAMPO Long Range Transportation Plan in FY2017-FY2018.

Draft FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) iii

Development pressure, population growth, attenuate increases in traffic and lack of adequate transportation funds to address congestion and other associated issues will continue to challenge the Region going forward. This UPWP puts strong emphasis on planning and consensus building to identify solutions that will adequately address the long-term problems caused by the Region’s past rapid growth as well as future projected growth. We look forward to working with our local, state and federal partners, and, most importantly, the community members whom we serve, to achieve the lasting results we all desire.

Draft FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GWRC/FAMPO Title VI Nondiscrimination Statement ................................................................ i

Preface to the Fiscal Year 2018 Unified Planning Work Program ........................................... ii

FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program ....................................................................................... 1

I-A Introduction - Metropolitan Planning in Fredericksburg ......................... 1

I-B The Unified Planning Work Program ............................................................ 1

II-A FAMPO Accomplishments in FY2017 ............................................................ 2

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FY2018 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM .................................... 5

III-A Listing of FY2018 Activities.............................................................................. 5

III-B Air Quality Planning Activities ........................................................................ 9

III-C Transportation Management Area Requirements .................................... 11

III-D Congestion Management Process ............................................................... 11

III-E Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and Smart Travel Programs . 12

III-F Freight Planning ............................................................................................... 13

III-G Environmental Justice/Title VI ...................................................................... 13

III-H Public Participation ......................................................................................... 14

MAJOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIES IN THE FAMPO REGION ......................... 15

IV-A VDOT On-Call and Special Studies .............................................................. 15

IV-B FAMPO On-Call and Special Studies ........................................................... 16

IV-C Other Studies .................................................................................................... 18

FY2018 FAMPO UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM ACTIVITIES BY TASK .................... 23

V-A Long-Range System Level Planning ............................................................ 23

V-B Long Range Project Level Planning ............................................................. 25

Draft FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) v

V-C Congestion Management .............................................................................. 27

V-D Public Participation ......................................................................................... 28

V-E FAMPO Administration ................................................................................... 30

Summary of Financials ..................................................................................................................... 33

Draft FY2018 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) 1

FY2018 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM

I-A Introduction - Metropolitan Planning in Fredericksburg

The Fredericksburg area was first identified as an urbanized area in the U.S. Census when the results were published in 1992. An urbanized area has a legal definition as a place where more than 50,000 people reside, with an average population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile. Under Federal law dating to the 1970s, once an urbanized area has been identified in the decennial census, that area is designated as a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to carry out specified transportation planning activities and is also entitled to receive federal transportation funds.

In its capacity as the Region’s transportation planning organization since 1992, it is the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (FAMPO) responsibility to ensure that a “continuing, comprehensive and cooperative” transportation planning process is conducted in greater Fredericksburg, as also required in federal law. In 1992, and again under federal guidelines, FAMPO was created. A Board composed of elected officials and transportation interests was devised, and the three affected municipalities and the Governor agreed to the new governance structure. FAMPO serves an area that includes the City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County and Stafford County. Under agreement with the FAMPO Board, the George Washington Regional Commission (GWRC) is designated to provide support staff to FAMPO.

I-B The Unified Planning Work Program

1. To fund this federally-required transportation planning process, FAMPO receives two formula sources of federal funds that can only be used for metropolitan transportation planning. These monies are called Planning (PL) and Section 5303 funds. These funds are matched by the Commonwealth of Virginia as well as the City of Fredericksburg,


Spotsylvania County, and Stafford County through GWRC. As in previous years, FAMPO intends to supplement the formula planning funds with other Federal and State formula funds, to provide a more comprehensive and representative transportation planning and project development work program for the rapidly-developing GW Region.

2. Prior to spending funds on transportation planning activities, all MPOs are required to annually adopt what is called a Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). The purpose of the UPWP is to identify: a. The transportation planning work activities to be carried out during the

fiscal year. b. The end products produced as a result of that work. c. The funding sources for each activity. d. The agencies and/or organizations responsible for ensuring that the

work is performed and products delivered. e. FY2018 Transportation Planning Activities

II-A FAMPO Accomplishments in FY2017

General:

The number of GWRC staff devoted to transportation planning is set at six full-time equivalent positions. Broadly speaking, staff have responsibilities in the areas of administration, systems planning, project planning, modeling, public involvement and congestion management. Staff is assisted with on-call transportation planning consultants for a variety of planning support needs, as well as consulting teams hired for specific projects. Within these broad categories, the following planning work was accomplished in the past year.

FY2017 Transportation Planning Accomplishments:

1. The FY2018 UPWP was developed. 2. FAMPO sponsored a number of meetings and public hearings regarding

multimodal (bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and vehicular) transportation planning, air quality conformity and related matters.


3. Continued coordination with officials from member jurisdictions and adjacent rural localities regarding alternative measures – transit facilities and services, vehicular system improvements, bicycle and pedestrian system improvements, and land use and growth policy considerations – to improve regional transportation.

4. Continued to maintain and support regional land use scenario planning efforts. Presented on scenario planning efforts at FHWA workshop in Hampton Roads in November 2016 and at AMPO conference in May 2017.

5. Completed a major study of the I-95 corridor in support of the 2045 Constrained Long-Range Plan and future project development.

6. Submitted five projects for Smart Scale Round 2 consideration in the FY18-23 Six Year Improvement Program (SYIP), two of which were fully funded.

7. Further developed in-house travel demand, land use and traffic modeling capability and completed version 3.1 model update for 2045 LRTP effort.

8. Worked with VDOT to develop new version 5 travel demand model. 9. Coordinated Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) updates, and other travel demand

modeling/planning data with TPB. 10. Worked with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Virginia

Department of Transportation (VDOT) officials regarding the development and dissemination of Air Quality and Conformity Review materials and discussions of pending Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policy decisions.

11. Assisted localities with a variety of transportation planning issues including consideration of comprehensive corridor improvements to facilitate improved accommodation for high-occupancy vehicles and transit services; intersection analyses; expansion of commuter parking facilities; feasibility of regional trail facilities; and improvements to interstate access.

12. Continued active involvement in the 95 Express Lanes project. 13. Working with the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), VDOT, and

FAMPO Committees, allocated Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds for FY2018-2023.

14. Continued to provide transportation planning assistance to local governments in the GW Region.


15. Continued to participate in the Northern Virginia Vanpool Incentive Program in support of GWRideConnect, GWRC’s free ride-sharing service.

16. Amended and maintained the FY2015-2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

17. Developed and approved the FY2018-2021 TIP. 18. Completed a FAMPO Self-Certification Assessment in conjunction with

adopting the FY2018-2021 TIP per 23 CFR 450.334 19. Continued to utilize I-95 Vehicle Probe Project (VPP) INRIX data in FAMPO’s

planning program. 20. Started using Streetlight data in FAMPO’s planning program. 21. Updated the Public Participation Plan (PPP). 22. Started Lafayette Blvd Intersection Study. 23. Started Fredericksburg Bike Share and Bicycle Pedestrian Infrastructure

Study. 24. Continued to develop 2045 LRTP and completed land use, model update,

and freight/aviation elements of LRTP. 25. Started I-95 Phase 2 Multimodal Study as part of 2045 LRTP effort.


HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FY2018 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM

III-A Listing of FY2018 Activities

FAMPO will continue to work to integrate land use and multimodal transportation planning and decision-making through comparative analysis within a project to conduct land use scenario planning throughout the GW Region.

FAMPO will continue to support the Virginia Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (VAMPO) through participation on committees and attendance at quarterly meetings.

GWRC/FAMPO will complete the 2045 Constrained Long-Range Plan as an update to the existing 2040 Plan. A multimodal study of the greater I-95 corridor, including connecting arterials will be completed in support of the Constrained Long-Range Plan and future project development.

A bike share study will be completed within the City of Fredericksburg.

The customized Congestion Management Process (CMP) website, linked via the FAMPO website, will be maintained.

The MPO will continue to enhance its public involvement activities by utilizing the FAMPO website and social media, implementing public notices and press releases, providing graphic visualizations at meetings when needed, insuring the access to the disabled community for all public meetings, and providing alternate language translation to facilitate the participation of non-English speaking populations when requested. All FAMPO committee meetings will continue to be open to the public.

Public comment periods for work products will be maintained, and the FAMPO staff will continue to respond to inquiries from citizens, local governments, businesses and community groups, as well as other interested parties, regarding FAMPO’s draft transportation plans, actions, and activities. Title VI compliance will continue to be a priority for the MPO. The MPO will exercise the outreach


strategies incorporated into the Public Participation Plan (PPP), and an annual evaluation will be conducted to measure the effectiveness of the PPP.

FAMPO will continue to work with member governments and VDOT to promote context-sensitive design in transportation projects, seeking greater compatibility between the multimodal transportation infrastructure and its surrounding environment. In addition, multimodal corridor studies will be undertaken as funding becomes available. These studies will include examination of transit-oriented redevelopment, traffic calming, transit services and facilities and bicycle and pedestrian access. Details on specific program areas are provided at the end of this section. Key planned activities for FY2018 include the following:

1. Further develop and maintain the FY2015-2018 TIP to reflect changes in projects and federal funding obligations through September 2017.

2. Begin maintaining FY2018-2021 TIP in October 2017. 3. Develop a UPWP for FY2019. 4. Continue to enhance the geographic information system (GIS) for a variety

of applications. 5. Work with DEQ, EPA and VDOT regarding the air quality program and air

quality conformity procedures for the Region. 6. Work with local governments and VDOT to potentially expand the MPO

Planning Boundary and MPO membership. 7. Maintain the FAMPO website in a timely manner and continue to provide

up-to-date information through social media. 8. Review contract procurement and task order procedures. 9. Assist local jurisdictions regarding transportation projects and grant

applications. 10. Enhance member education on the transportation process and regional

transportation issues. 11. Continue to integrate the urban and rural transportation planning activities

in the GW Region. 12. Work with VDOT to complete new version 5 travel demand model. 13. Continue to fully integrate land use modeling in the FAMPO travel demand

modeling process, using Community Viz software and working with VDOT.


14. Review FAMPO’s Prioritization Methodologies and amend/adjust as necessary.

15. Develop and maintain a livability database (i.e. transportation studies, projects, public participation, economic development, bike and pedestrian improvements, safety, etc.) that would improve transportation mobility in the region and can be reported to FHWA on an annual basis and to the public on the FAMPO website.

16. Maintain the Congestion Management Process (CMP) website. 17. Maintain and review the FAMPO website, and the transportation element of

GWRC website, and make updates as necessary. 18. Coordinate, as appropriate, with VDOT in the development of updates to

the VTrans Multimodal Transportation Plan (VMTP), including attending meetings/workshops and providing local data, input and recommendations regarding policies and projects of regional significance.

19. Coordinate with VDOT and local governments to promote Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) projects for the GWRC/FAMPO area under the MAP-21 and FAST Act programs.

20. Work with the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), VDOT, and FAMPO committees, to allocate Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds for FY2019-2024.

21. Work with USDOT and VDOT in developing and implementing various MAP-21/FAST Act Performance-Based Planning Initiatives. Begin to develop CLRP/TIP documents that are compliant with Map-21/FAST Act requirements.

22. Work with the FAMPO Policy Committee, the Commonwealth and other interests to provide applications for discretionary funding for transportation projects under the Smart Scale Round 3 Program and other potential state and federal funding opportunities.

23. Work with the FAMPO Policy Committee, the Commonwealth and other interests to study and investigate potential additional sources of transportation revenue including a regional motor fuels gas tax floor and a regional transportation authority.

24. Coordinate with VDOT on STARS study efforts within FAMPO or GWRC. 25. Coordinate with VDOT on the US 301/Rte 207 Study effort.


26. Help support regional efforts to advance the I-95 NB Rappahannock River Crossing project for Round 3 of Smart Scale in coordination with VDOT.

27. Complete I-95 Phase 2 Multimodal Transportation Study. 28. Complete 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan for the FAMPO and GWRC

regions.


III-B Air Quality Planning Activities

Effective June 15, 2004, the EPA classified the City of Fredericksburg and the Counties of Spotsylvania and Stafford as a moderate ozone nonattainment area under the 1997 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Subsequently, and based on an improvement in ozone monitoring data, the Fredericksburg ozone nonattainment area was re-designated into attainment with the 1997 8-hour ozone standard effective January 23, 2006. At that time, a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, including a maintenance plan was approved that outlined how the region would continue to attain the 8-hour ozone standard over the next ten-year period. Included in the maintenance plan are Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) that need to be used in transportation conformity determinations. Transportation conformity using the new MVEBs was last demonstrated on the Region’s FY2012-2015 TIP and 2040 LRTP, and approved by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), on March 29, 2013.

Prior to 2004, FAMPO’s air quality planning activities had been limited to Stafford County’s inclusion in the Northern VA-DC-MD severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. To comply with the transportation conformity regulations, FAMPO and TPB entered into an agreement to submit descriptions of Stafford County’s transportation projects to the TPB, so that they could be evaluated for conformity review. The 1-hour ozone standard, however, was superseded by the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and 2005 was the last year in which the Stafford County project descriptions were required to be submitted to the TPB. However, coordination with TPB on air quality issues continues today.

To meet the EPA requirement that non-attainment areas be brought back into attainment with air quality standards, a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision must be prepared for each affected region and submitted to the EPA by the Governor. In order to advise the Governor of the most appropriate air quality control measures to implement in this region, the George Washington Air Quality Committee (GWAQC) was formed. At the request of the governing bodies of the FAMPO local jurisdictions, the elected officials serving on FAMPO were also


appointed to the GWAQC. Air quality personnel from DEQ serve as staff to the GWAQC.

In July 2011 FAMPO endorsed an updated 1997 8-hour ozone Maintenance Plan containing revised motor vehicle emissions budgets that were created with EPA’s new mobile model called MOVES. EPA issued a final approval of the updated Maintenance Plan on October 29, 2012.

In August 2004, FAMPO approved Interagency Consultation Procedures to address the consultation requirements in the federal transportation conformity rule. These procedures also outline the membership of the Interagency Consultation Group (ICG), an entity that convenes to approve the models, methods, and assumptions that are used in regional transportation conformity determinations.

The transportation conformity rule requires that all transportation projects identified in FAMPO’s TIP and LRTP be shown to conform prior to final approval and adoption. Only those projects determined to be regionally significant need to be explicitly included in the regional emissions analysis and modeled for conformity. The VDOT Environmental Division, utilizing project information and data approved by FAMPO and the ICG, prepare each conformity analysis for FAMPO’s TIP and LRTP and present the results for FAMPO approval.

FAMPO’s TIP and LRTP have been found to conform on each occasion that conformity was run, and federal conformity findings were subsequently issued by FHWA.

Effective April 6, 2015, EPA finalized a rulemaking for the implementation of the 2008 ozone standard that designated the Fredericksburg region as being in attainment with the standard, and revoked the 1997 ozone standard in its entirety. As a result, the Fredericksburg Region is currently in attainment with all the NAAQS, and therefore transportation conformity requirements no longer apply in the Fredericksburg region.

Work cooperatively with VDOT to develop a project emissions benefits process for potential use with future CMAQ candidate projects.


III-C Transportation Management Area Requirements

Transportation Management Area (TMA) is a term in federal law used to denote an urbanized area with a population of more than 200,000 persons. TMAs have federally-imposed planning requirements, including planning for congestion management, over and above the Federal planning requirements for smaller urbanized areas.

As a result of the 2000 Census of Population, a portion of Northern Stafford County became a part of the Metropolitan Washington Urbanized Area and was consequently included in the Washington, D.C.-MD-VA TMA. This meant that additional planning responsibilities would be required, and either TPB or FAMPO would have to perform them. In September of 2004, the FAMPO Policy Committee agreed to enter into an agreement with the TPB that assures the performance of the planning requirements of a TMA for the affected portion of Stafford County. This agreement principally requires the coordination of planning activities between the TPB and FAMPO and the development of a Congestion Management System covering the affected part of Stafford County. The agreement remains in effect as long as Stafford County is designated a part of the Metropolitan Washington Urbanized Area. To facilitate the implementation of TMA planning requirements for Northern Stafford County, a proportionate share of TPB’s Federal PL funding, based on population, was transferred to FAMPO. Close coordination between FAMPO and TPB will continue to assure the TMA requirements are being satisfied.

After the 2010 Census, the Fredericksburg Urbanized Area did not meet the population threshold to qualify as its own TMA. Therefore, Northern Stafford County remains part of the Washington D.C.-MD-VA TMA, and FAMPO will continue to satisfy and carry out the provisions set forth in the 2004 TPB/FAMPO Agreement.

III-D Congestion Management Process

In December of 2004, the FAMPO Policy Committee adopted the Congestion Management System (CMS) program for the FAMPO Region. This program initially


examined the Northern Stafford County area. The Congestion Management System, referred to as a Congestion Management Process (CMP) in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA-LU), was adopted in November 2010. The 2010 CMP measured the level of service (LOS), vehicle crashes and peak period travel times on various arterials in the Region. These measurements will be used as a baseline for future CMP updates. In 2015, FAMPO updated the 2010 CMP and completed the development and application of a state-of-the-art web-based mapping system that allows FAMPO staff to continuously monitor and update congestion levels. The public can access this mapping system through the FAMPO website. Planned congestion-relieving projects are inventoried, and strategies are recommended for each of the principal arterial corridors in the FAMPO Region. The CMP is an integral part of FAMPO’s short- and long-term planning and project prioritization processes.

III-E Intelligent Transportation Systems and Smart Travel Programs

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) are a key component of the CMP described above. ITS components may include the coordination of high technology, variable message signs, and improvements in information systems, communications and sensors with the conventional surface transportation infrastructure on an area wide basis. Vehicle sensors in pavement for traffic signal activation, intelligent vehicle initiatives (IVI), which include hands-free vehicle navigation, collision avoidance and intelligent cruise control are just a few examples of ITS. Recently VDOT has also extended a 511 information program for interstate conditions throughout the state, including the I-95 corridor through the Fredericksburg Region.

Under what is known as Rule 940, federal regulations require planning for ITS projects to be incorporated into the traditional transportation planning process. VDOT has established an ITS protocol consistent with Rule 940 to implement ITS solutions statewide. ITS will play a growing role in FAMPO's short- and long-term congestion management activities going forward.


III-F Freight Planning

One of the emphasis areas of the federal planning requirements is an improved understanding of freight patterns and future demands on state and regional multimodal networks. VDOT released a statewide study effort of freight in 2010. FAMPO has complemented this statewide effort by developing information about freight origins and destinations and truck traffic volumes in the Fredericksburg Region. Going forward, FAMPO will identify transportation system deficiencies that impact the movement of freight, develop short-term improvements that will improve the movement of freight, and develop a coordination structure to obtain input from and disseminate information to the Region’s major freight stakeholders. A Freight Section will also be included in the 2045 LRTP update.

III-G Environmental Justice/Title VI

Environmental Justice (EJ) ensures that no plans, program, or specific projects disproportionately and adversely impact low income or minority populations and to ensure that the process of planning transportation improvements is structured to include the groups and/or agencies which normally represent their interests and concerns. Title VI outreach will continue to involve members of low-income and minority populations in the transportation planning process by implementing the Title VI Compliance Plan, Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan and the PPP. By utilizing socioeconomic maps, each outreach strategy will be tailored toward the EJ/Title VI/LEP populations identified for each specific planning study. Also, by partnering with the Title VI agencies within the GW Region, FAMPO will be able to disperse information in a timely manner to those affected by the planning study. Various tools will be implemented to narrow the communication gap for LEP populations which include, but are not limited to, “I Speak” cards, smart phone applications for language translations, and planning document fact sheets translated, upon request, into Spanish.

FAMPO will continue its work in complying with the EJ regulations by utilizing data provided by the American Community Survey and the 2010 Census and the


socioeconomic database developed for the LRTP update. The transportation system’s effectiveness in serving the Region’s minority, disabled, elderly and low-income groups is being evaluated by using this data in the development of maps that show concentrations of these populations in the FAMPO Region. The Title VI Compliance Plan was updated in February 2016 and is due for another update in FY2019.

III-H Public Participation

Federal legislation requires MPOs to include provisions in the planning process to ensure the involvement of the public in the development of transportation plans and programs which includes the UPWP. The Public Participation Plan (PPP) requires that members of the public are given a thirty (30) day review and comment period on all draft work programs prior to adoption, as well as for any subsequent amendments to the adopted program, except for the PPP which requires a 45-day review and comment period. Following the review period and prior to adoption, a public hearing is held.

In 2017 FAMPO adopted the PPP, which focused on updating FAMPO’s Title VI Community Resources Directory to ensure that the Region’s Title VI Community was being effectively reached. The purpose of the PPP is to serve as a guide for FAMPO staff in the development of public outreach strategies used in the transportation planning process. Effective transportation planning recognizes the critical link between transportation and other societal goals.


MAJOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIES IN THE FAMPO REGION

Several transportation studies are underway or expected to soon commence in the FAMPO Region. FAMPO staff is actively engaged in the development of many of these studies and will provide any necessary assistance to other organizations and their consultants in those studies for which the staff is not directly responsible.

IV-A VDOT On-Call and Special Studies

Study Area: Entire GWRC Region

Study Background and Objectives: Funding may be made available to provide professional on-call transportation planning services by VDOT for focused special planning or design issues. Such work cannot include engineering activities, although it can lead to the selection of alternatives for detailed engineering work. Specific studies, and availability, are to be determined. FAMPO will provide support to these study efforts. In particular, VDOT will focus efforts next year on the U.S. Route 301 and State Route 207 corridor and in support of VDOT STARS studies efforts.

VDOT conducts many studies statewide every year and has several planned/proposed studies within the FAMPO or GWRC region in FY-18. The following studies are committed or proposed as of June 2017. Proposed studies have been submitted by VDOT Fredericksburg District to VDOT Central Office for funding consideration in FY-18:

STARS – US 17 Business, Stafford County (committed, will be completed in FY-18) - $215,000

STARS – Route 3, City of Fredericksburg (committed, will be completed in FY-18) - $240,000


STARS – US 1, City of Fredericksburg (proposed to start in FY-18)

STARS – Exit 126/US 1, Spotsylvania (proposed to start in FY-18)

US 301/Route 207 Corridor Study, Caroline and King George Counties (Continued from FY-17 with completion expected in FY-18) - $290,000

95 Express Lanes Environmental Assessment (EA) from Exit 160 to Exit 133 (Continued from FY-17 with completion expected in FY-18) – Study budget not available (total project budget is ~$420 million).

I-95 NB Rappahannock River Crossing Interchange Modification Report (IMR) (proposed to start in FY-18)

Additional VDOT studies are possible during FY-18 at the discretion of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Budget: Various

Responsible Entity: VDOT

Estimated Completion: FY-18 for all except for proposed STARS Studies, which would start in FY-18 (if funded) and be completed in FY-19

IV-B FAMPO On-Call and Special Studies

Study Area: Entire GWRC Region

Study Background and Objectives: Funding may be made available to provide professional on-call transit and transportation planning services by FAMPO for focused special planning or design issues. FAMPO will provide general oversight to these study efforts and some design work will be overseen by local government engineering staff utilized to support these efforts and may be called upon to complete smaller analyses which arise during the year.

One major study called the I-95 Corridor Study, Phase 2 is currently planned. This effort will be multimodal and will include major north-south highways, including I-


95, U.S. Route 1, as well as Amtrak, Virginia Railway Express (VRE), commuter bus and transportation demand management (TDM). Additionally, this effort will be coordinated with VDOT’s U.S. Route 301/207 study and help support regional efforts to advance the I-95 NB Rappahannock River Crossing project.

Budget: $480,000

Responsible Entity: FAMPO

Estimated Completion: June 2018

A bicycle study for the City of Fredericksburg started in FY-17 and is examining the feasibility of bike sharing and other potential bicycle/pedestrian improvements. Additional studies are possible, subject to Policy Committee direction.

Budget: $50,000


Estimated Completion: September 2017

A study for potential bicycle/pedestrian improvements to the Virginia Central Railway (VCR) Trail at the intersections of Route 3 and US 1 will be conducted by FAMPO staff and consultants between July and November 2017.

Budget: $30,000


Estimated Completion: November 2017

A traffic study for Lafayette Blvd near Kenmore Avenue and Charles Street began in FY-17 and will develop multimodal alternatives to improve traffic and safety.


Budget: $114,000


Estimated Completion: September 2017

A transit and transportation demand management (TDM) study for the 2045 FAMPO LRTP will be completed and will update the transit element of the LRTP and further develop the top recommendations from the Virginia Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment (OIPI) Transit/TDM Study.

Budget: $50,000


Estimated Completion: December 2017

Additional studies are possible, subject to Policy Committee direction.

Budget: Various


Estimated Completion: Ongoing

IV-C Other Studies

Other studies are undertaken by local governments, VDOT, DRPT, VRE, the Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC), Fredericksburg Regional Transit (FRED), the Stafford Regional Airport and other entities. These include comprehensive plan updates, project studies, transit service analyses,


facilities plans and related items. FAMPO works to coordinate with all partners in the Region on an ongoing basis.

Stafford County FY2018 Transportation Planning

Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities Plan – Stafford County staff will update its 1996 Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities Plan, which is a component of its Comprehensive Plan.

Spotsylvania County FY2018 Transportation Planning

US Route 1 (I-95 to Commonwealth Drive) / Route 208 (US Route 1 to Leavells Road) - Study to be completed by one of the County’s on-call consultants (JMT, ATCS, Wittman.) The Traffic Corridor Study Consultant will enter into a task order agreement with the Spotsylvania County Planning Department. The Consultant will provide all services required to complete the traffic study of the assigned project or projects. The Traffic Corridor Study Consultant will complete the study on the traffic related impacts to US Route 1 (from Interstate 95 to Commonwealth Drive) and Route 208 (from U.S. Route 1 to Leavells Road) which would be needed with the planned Alternative 3 improvements from Smart Scale Round 2 and Future improvements to Exit 126 were completed. The Spotsylvania County Planning Department desires to understand any traffic related issues, both existing and future, to assess any traffic-related impacts the improvements might have on the community. The term of the agreement will terminate when all services required have been completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the Spotsylvania County Planning Department.

Budget: $400,000

Responsible Entity: Spotsylvania

Estimated Completion: FY-18


Route 2 (US Route 17 to US Route 17 Business/Route 2) – Study to be completed by JMT, one of the County’s on-call consultants. The project will evaluate existing and future conditions and determine ways to reduce delay, improve safety and improve traffic flow along Route 2 from the City of Fredericksburg line to US Route 17 in Spotsylvania County. The study will collect and analyze information that is obtained and submit a professional analysis and recommendations for necessary areas of consideration, including impacts and improvements to vehicle, transit, bicycle and pedestrian circulation, safety, traffic control and conflict points between autos, pedestrians and bus activity.

Budget: $400,000

Responsible Entity: Spotsylvania


City of Fredericksburg FY2018 Transportation Planning

The planning staff has divided the City into ten sub-areas, to engage in a closely-focused study of each one. This ongoing process includes a market-based study of land use potential as well as a look at transportation patterns. In the area around James Monroe High School, for example, the staff plans to evaluate the potential for turning several one-way streets back to their original two-way configuration. The one-way streets were initially established to move automobile traffic through a pre-automobile community, but new street networks have moved traffic elsewhere, and new ways of developing communities puts more emphasis on livability and walkability. In this context, reestablishing the two-way pattern may provide a greater degree of neighborhood cohesiveness and safety, and this potential needs to be evaluated. Similarly, the streets to the east of U.S. 1 have evolved into a strangely configured network of acute angles as a series of bridges over the Rappahannock River were built, lost, rebuilt just slightly downstream, and so on. The planning staff is examining the potential to abandon some streets and reroute others in the area between Princess Anne and Wellford Streets, to create a more cohesive pattern that supports good land uses.


Attention will also be directed to downtown Fredericksburg. As in the areas near U.S. Route 1, the one-way street pattern in the urban core will be examined to determine if any modifications can be made to enhance existing and new land uses. Previous studies in this regard have concluded that the one-way pairs in downtown Fredericksburg effectively support economic development because alleys and loading zones are lacking or inadequate to support bulk deliveries. Still, the Planning Office wants to take a new look at the issue. The transportation planning related to the identified sub-areas will be ancillary to the larger market-based land use planning, but should be able to benefit from the ongoing studies and analysis accomplished through FAMPO for the overall transportation network.

PRTC FY2018 Transportation Planning

I-95/395 Express Lanes Transit/TDM Plan – PRTC will continue to work cooperatively with FAMPO, GWRC, and other identified stakeholders under the lead of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) in the development and implementation of the I-95/395 Express Lanes Transit/TDM Plan. The plan identifies strategies for transit and TDM improvements in the I-95/395 corridor in the post-construction Express Lanes environment. PRTC would also participate in any planning activities for I-395 Express Lanes Transportation Management Plan (TMP), as appropriate.

FRED FY2018 Transportation Planning

FRED Transit Development Plan (TDP) Update – DRPT issued new TDP guidance in February 2017. The guidelines require a ten-year planning horizon and fiscal constraint. This project will update FRED’s FY17-22 TDP to add the years FY23-26 and develop the constrained and unconstrained elements of the plan.

Budget: $11,021

Responsible Entity: FRED

Estimated Completion: January 2018


DRPT FY2018 Transportation Planning

DC2RVA – DRPT is leading the effort to complete an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the 123-mile corridor between Washington D.C. and Richmond that will address current rail capacity issues with the goal of improving passenger and freight operations and enabling higher-speed passenger rail service. The study is expected to be completed in FY-18, but an exact timeframe is not known as of June 2017.

Budget: $55,000,000

Responsible Entity: DRPT


Additional DRPT studies are possible during FY-18 at the discretion of the Commonwealth of Virginia.


FY2018 FAMPO UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM ACTIVITIES BY TASK

This section details the transportation planning activities that will be carried out by FAMPO staff and its committees in FY2018, and the funding that will be applied to each.

V-A Long-Range System Level Planning

Description:

FAMPO staff will undertake the following long-range system level planning activities during FY2018:

1. Continue and complete the 2045 LRTP Update. 2. Continue and complete the I-95 Phase 2 Multimodal Study (including

connecting arterials) to support the 2045 LRTP and future project development. This study will include the I-95/US 1 corridor and be coordinated with VDOT’s US 301/Route 207 Corridor Study. The study will also include multimodal travel options, including single-occupant vehicles, local transit, commuter bus, VRE, carpooling, vanpooling, slugging, and other TDM and multimodal characteristics of the I-95 corridor.

3. Continue and complete a bike share feasibility and bicycle/pedestrian improvements study for the City of Fredericksburg. Results will be used in 2045 LRTP update.

4. Collect, organize and report various system performance data (vehicular and non-vehicular measures), as well as transit (FRED and other local and regional transit statistics), as required by Virginia Code and defined by VDOT.

5. As appropriate, work with VDOT and local governments to expand the MPO planning boundary and MPO membership.

6. Monitor transportation activities at area military bases and evaluate multimodal alternatives (including transit opportunities) to mitigate congestion and improve mobility.


7. Work with DRPT and Human Services Agencies to coordinate human services transportation and improve services. FAMPO staff will continue to assist the Rappahannock Area Agency on Aging (RAAA) with vehicle programming and planning for mobility-impaired persons.

8. Examine effects upon Environmental Justice and safety-conscious issues regarding specific proposed projects in the current TIP and LRTP and the transportation system as a whole.

9. Continue to exchange information regarding innovative practices and procedures to improve multimodal transportation planning in the Region.

10. Continue to integrate freight planning into the Regional planning process. In conjunction with VDOT and local review (through FAMPO Technical Committee) of data and information related to Virginia freight initiatives, including identifying the location and classification of freight activity zones and responding to freight surveys prepared by VDOT.

11. Maintain TAZ based land use projections for the Region. 12. Continue to refine land use, travel demand and traffic modeling in FAMPO

and GWRC. 13. In conjunction with VDOT, DRPT, and local governments, conduct travel

demand/land use modeling and traffic modeling as required. 14. Continue to work with VDOT to update the regional travel demand model to

FAMPO 5.0 which will include a mode split model to enhance its multimodal forecasting abilities.

15. Amend FAMPO’s Constrained Long-Range Plan as necessary to reflect current fiscal realities and constraints.

16. In conjunction with VDOT, apply the requirements of MAP-21 and the FAST Act into the planning process.

17. Work with U.S. DOT and VDOT in developing and implementing various MAP-21/FAST Act Performance-Based Planning Initiatives.

18. Continue to enhance FAMPO land use modeling using Community Viz and integrating it with the FAMPO travel demand model (CUBE Voyager).

End Products:

1. Completion of 2045 LRTP for FAMPO and GWRC.* 2. Completion of I-95 Phase 2 Multimodal Study.*


3. Completion of the bike share feasibility and bicycle/pedestrian improvements study.*

4. Improved FAMPO and regional modeling capabilities in FY18.* 5. Meetings and informational exchange discussions regarding procedures to

improve transportation planning in FY18.* 6. Review project prioritization methodology and update as needed in FY18*. 7. Development of multimodal corridor plans, transit plans, interstate access

studies and parking studies, as required.* 8. Further integration of the land use and travel demand modeling capabilities

in FY18.*

* Initiative funded with a mix of RSTP, PL and Section 5303 funds

Participants: FAMPO staff (Lead), FAMPO Committees, VDOT, DRPT, PRTC, National Capital Transportation Planning Board (TPB), FHWA, FTA, FRED, local jurisdictions, VRE and consultants.

Schedule: Ongoing throughout the fiscal year.

Budget & Breakdown by Funding Source:

PL 5303 RSTP VDOT Rural/

Match Grand Total Federal

Funds State

Match Local

Match Federal Funds

State Match

Local Match

New/Existing

$192,000 $24,000 $24,000 $72,000 $9,000 $9,000 $755,000 $52,500 $1,137,500

V-B Long Range Project Level Planning

Description:

FAMPO staff will undertake the following long-range project level planning activities during FY2018:

1. Solicit and document feedback from representative jurisdictions on the critical freight issues on local and Regional transportation systems.


2. Continue to monitor the potential impacts of the existing and planned transportation services and projects on minority and low income residents within the FAMPO Region.

3. Continue to update a regional multimodal database of available and planned transportation facilities and services.

4. Continue to develop understanding of and expertise in the VDOT programming system.

5. Continue to revise the FAMPO TIP format to make it more user-friendly and interactive.

6. Implement the new project application process and project scoring criteria for the selection of CMAQ and RSTP funded projects.

7. Assist VDOT with updating Roadway Functional Classifications by conducting local review (through the FAMPO Technical Committee) of data and information related to technical roadway data as it pertains to federal/state functional highway classification guidelines.

8. Prepare applications for transportation project funding under the Smart Scale Program. Exact timeframe for Smart Scale Round 3 is not known as of June 2017 but is likely to begin in Spring 2018.

End Products:

1. Analyses regarding the effect of the provision of transportation services to low income and minority residents.

2. GIS and other products as may be required in the support of transportation projects in the FAMPO Region.

3. Analysis in response to studies affecting the FAMPO Region. 4. Documentation of activities in support of transportation planning and

informational requests. 5. Map and briefing on available multimodal (vehicular, transit, bicycle, and

pedestrian) transportation facilities and services. 6. Improved TIP format and online interaction. 7. An updated, simplified, project application and scoring process for CMAQ

and RSTP funded projects. 8. Completed Smart Scale applications (depending on Smart Scale Round 3

schedule).


Participants: FAMPO staff (Lead), FAMPO Committees, VDOT, DRPT, PRTC, TPB, FHWA, FTA, local jurisdictions, VRE, consultants.



PL 5303 RSTP VDOT

Rural/Match Grand Total Federal

Funds State Match

Local Match

Federal Funds

State Match

Local Match

$12,000 $1,500 $1,500 $8,000 $1,000 $1,000 110,000 $15,000 $150,000

V-C Congestion Management

Description: The current CMP was adopted in 2015, and INRIX data for the process will be continually updated to include new travel time indices, safety and congestion hotspots. This data will be provided to interested parties via the FAMPO website. Additionally, this task includes research and data development to support transportation planning studies that support improvements designed to mitigate congestion.

End Products: Updated travel time indices, safety and congestion hotspots and safety and congestion mitigation strategies development of recommendations for specific multimodal corridor improvements. Analysis of INRIX data and data development to support transportation planning studies.*

Participants: FAMPO staff (Lead), FAMPO Committees, local jurisdictions, VDOT, DRPT, PRTC, FHWA, FTA, consultants.


*Initiative funded with a mix of PL, Section 5303 and RSTP funds.



PL 5303 RSTP

New/Existing Grand Total Federal

Funds State Match

Local Match

Federal Funds

State Match

Local Match

$8,000 $1,000 $1,000 $8,000 $1,000 $1,000 $149,574 $169,574

V-D Public Participation

Description: MAP-21 and the FAST Act legislation continues to emphasize the role of public participation in the transportation planning process. To support the Public Participation activities in FY2018, FAMPO staff will execute the following activities in Public Participation which also includes activities planned for Title VI Civil Rights:

1. Maintain and update the database of contacts to assure that interested parties have reasonable opportunities to comment.

2. Maintain and expand the website to disseminate the most current information and collect feedback from the public. Review and update the website to enhance public involvement.

3. Continue the use of social media. 4. Continue to publish and distribute brochures and other informational items

around the Region. 5. Continue public and media awareness by distributing press releases

electronically. 6. Continue to send mass email notifications on various planning activities and

upcoming meetings. 7. Develop, distribute, collect and analyze survey material to evaluate

effectiveness. 8. Continue to hold public informational workshops and public hearings in

Americans with Disability Act (ADA) accessible locations to provide information and obtain input on transportation issues.

9. Continue to distribute hard copies of the draft transportation planning documents to libraries, planning offices, etc. for public comment, as well as


the continued distribution of electronic copies via the FAMPO website, electronic mail, and social media.

10. Continue to develop and update as necessary an interactive TIP webpage. 11. Translate major transportation planning document flyers into Spanish, upon

request. 12. Continue the recruitment for members to the Citizens Transportation

Advisory Group (CTAG). 13. Incorporate additional visualization techniques, when needed. 14. Document minority representation at public meetings/hearings. 15. Continue to document demographic information from members of the

public attending public meetings/hearings. 16. Continue to update the Title VI Community Resources Directory. 17. Evaluate and improve the public participation process to eliminate

participation barriers and engage minority and low-income populations in transportation decision making.

End Products:

1. Staff support for CTAG. 2. A measurable public involvement process that maximizes outreach. 3. An improved website with enhanced informational and interactive

capabilities. 4. Increased public awareness measured by responses to

questionnaires/surveys, emails and written or verbal comments. 5. Improved visualization and/or communication techniques. 6. Timely distribution of MPO meeting notices, agendas, and meeting minutes. 7. Continued development of a social media presence. 8. Expanded contact databases which include a strong Title VI presence. 9. Support of all committee meetings by generating agendas, uploading to the

FAMPO website and sending notifications via email, printed advertisements and social media.

10. Compliance with Title VI requirements.* 11. File documentation of public involvement activities. 12. Expanded and up-to-date public participation database.* 13. Completed, analyzed surveys.* 14. Compliance with Title VI requirements.*


*Initiative funded with a mix of RSTP (VDOT UPC # 102626) and PL funds

Participants: FAMPO staff (Lead), FAMPO Committees, VDOT, local jurisdictions, stakeholders, consultants and the public.


PL 5303 RSTP

New/Existing Grand Total Federal

Funds State Match

Local Match

Federal Funds

State Match

Local Match

$56,000 $7,000 $7,000 $32,000 $4,000 $4,000 $105,000 $245,000

V-E FAMPO Administration

Description: During FY2018, FAMPO staff will perform the following tasks to administer and maintain the transportation planning process:

1. Process any amendments to the FY2018 UPWP and develop the FY2019 UPWP.

2. Develop Planning and Section 5303 funding agreements and contracts. Prepare progress, financial and associated supportive reports along with other required documentation.

3. Provide staff support to all FAMPO committees. Develop and distribute agendas, supporting materials and summaries to FAMPO committees.

4. Prepare and transmit, to VDOT and other appropriate parties, copies of FAMPO Resolutions and associated correspondence produced as part of the transportation planning process.

5. Coordinate activities with adjacent metropolitan planning organizations, planning districts and other transportation planning organizations when necessary.

6. Coordination with TPB, per the TPB/FAMPO 2004 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

7. Formally transmit products and documents as specified in the TPB Agreement.


8. In coordination with VDOT staff, review and update project information regarding capacity changes for all new highways, high-occupancy vehicles (HOV) and transit projects affecting travel modeling and air quality conformity for the Washington, D.C.-VA-MD TMA.

9. Provide population, household and employment forecast data as it is updated to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) Department of Community Planning staff as part of the Cooperative Forecasting Process.

10. Coordinate and transmit other information and data, as needed. 11. Arrange for and attend all FAMPO meetings. 12. Continue support for VAMPO, through committee participation and

attendance at quarterly meetings. 13. Attend transportation conferences and planning/training courses as needed.

This task will have a budget of up to $20,000. 14. Upgrade existing computer equipment, bicycle/pedestrian counter

equipment, communications equipment, and software as required. This task will have a budget of up to $26,500.

15. Comply with state and federal auditing requirements.

End Products:

1. Correspondence and documentation related to all FAMPO committee meetings and activities.

2. Correspondence and documentation regarding any FY2018 UPWP amendments.

3. Production of the FY2019 UPWP. 4. Documentation of public meetings and hearings conducted during FY2018. 5. Contracts and correspondence related to the administration of Planning

(PL), Section 5303, State Planning and Research (SRP) and RSTP funds. 6. Production of materials for FAMPO committee meetings. 7. Development of FAMPO Resolutions, meeting summaries and other

production materials related to FAMPO administrative activities. 8. Develop and publish an annual listing of projects obligated with Federal

funding consistent with MAP-21 and FAST Act requirements. 9. Improved staff training and exposure to State and National best practices.


10. State-of-the-art hardware and software to meet work requirements and client needs.

11. Annual financial audit to meet State and Federal requirements. 12. Improved coordination and communications between FAMPO and the TPB

for North Stafford County per the TPB/FAMPO Agreement, dated November 17, 2004.

13. A coordinated update cycle for the respective Long-Range Transportation Plans and the Transportation Improvement Programs.

Participants: FAMPO staff (Lead), other MPOs/PDCs.



PL 5303 VDOT Rural

Grand Total Federal

Funds State Match

Local Match

Federal Funds

State Match

Local Match

$74,138 $9,267 $9,267 $15,504 $1,938 $1,938 $5,000 $117,053


SUMMARY OF FINANCIALS

Planning (PL) (FY 2018 & Carryover)

Includes 10% State Match/10% Local Match

Section 5303 (FY 2018 & Carryover)

Includes 10% State Match/10% Local Match RSTP/STP/State

VDOT Rural Plus

Match

Total

Federal Funds

State Match

Local Match

Federal Funds

State Match

Local Match

Long Range System Level Planning

$192,000 $24,000 $24,000 $72,000 $9,000 $9,000 $755,000 $52,500

$240,000 $90,000 $755,000 $52,500 $1,137,500

Long Range Project Level Planning

$12,000 $1,500 $1,500 $8,000 $1,000 $1,000 110,000 $15,000

$15,000 $10,000 110,000 $15,000 $150,000

Congestion Management

$8,000 $1,000 $1,000 $8,000 $1,000 $1,000 $149,574

$10,000 $10,000 $149,574

$169,574

Public Participation

$56,000 $7,000 $7,000 $32,000 $4,000 $4,000 $135,000

$70,000 $40,000 $135,000 $245,000

Administrative

$74,138 $9,267 $9,267 $15,504 $1,938 $1,938 $5,000

$92,673 $19,380 $5,000 $117,053

Total

$342,138 $42,767 $42,767 $135,504 $16,938 $16.938

$427,673 $169,380 $1,149,574 $72,500 $1,819,127

a ̀

8c.) I-95 SB Rappahannock River Crossing Change

Existing Conditions

Not To ScaleAlternative Concept

DRAFT RFP CONCEPT

Fall Hill

Ave

Co

wan Blv

d

RiverRappahannock

Rte 6

52

Rte 1

7

RoadTruslow

CenterWelcome

VA

Rte 3

Pla

nk R

d

I-95 SB

I-95 NB

Existing Pier Location

133

Exit

130

Exit

a ̀

8ci.) Approval of Resolution No. 17-38, Amending the Fiscal Years 2015-2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to Update UPC 101595


A RESOLUTION OF THE FREDERICKSBURG AREA METROPOLITAN

PLANNING ORGANIZATION AMENDING THE FISCAL YEARS 2015-2018 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO UPDATE UPC 101595

WHEREAS, the FY2015-2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) was adopted by FAMPO on June 16, 2014; and WHEREAS, the FY2017-2022 Six Year Improvement Program (SYIP), which contains updated FY2015-2018 funding for projects located in the FAMPO Region, was adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) on June 14, 2016; and WHEREAS, the I-95 Southbound Rappahannock River Crossing project (UPC 101595) was added to the SYIP after it was selected for funding in the first round of Smart Scale; and WHEREAS, this TIP amendment will adjust the scope of the project and move construction funding from FY2017 to FY2018, as shown in the attachment; and WHEREAS,per 23 CFR 450.324, the TIP shall include capital and non-capital surface transportation projects (or phases of projects) within the boundaries of the metropolitan planning area proposed for funding under 23 U.S.C. and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE FREDERICKSBURG AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION THATTHE FY2015-2018 TIP IS HEREBY AMENDED TO UPDATE UPC 101595, AS SHOWN IN THE ATTACHMENT TO THIS RESOLUTION.



Matt Kelly City of Fredericksburg Chairman

SpotsylvaniaCounty StaffordCounty Paul Agnello

FAMPO Administrator


____________________________________________________


Date:___________________

(540) 373-2890

406 Princess Anne St. FAX: (540) 899-4808 Fredericksburg, Virginia22401 www.fampo.gwregion.org

UPC NO 101595 SCOPE Reconstruction w/ Added Capacity

SYSTEM Interstate JURISDICTION Fredericksburg OVERSIGHT

PROJECT #HB2.FY17 I-95 RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER CROSSING (SOUTHBOUND) ADMIN BY VDOT

DESCRIPTION FROM: 1.29 Miles South of Rte 3 (Exit 130) TO: 0.31 Miles North of Truslow Road (3.8000 MI)

PROGRAM NOTE TIP AMD - Change Scope of Project: release an addit'l $3,578,000 (NH) FFY17 PE phase; release $4,065,420 (NHPP/E) & $434,580 (NHFP) FFY17 RW phase; move $14,750 (NHPP/E) from FFY17 to FFY18 & add an addit'l $2,469,953, move $3,363,881 (NHPP) from FFY17 to FFY18 & release $1,855,361, add $3,365,420 (NHFP) FFY18, move $448,656 (IM) from FFY17 to FFY18, add $110,342,850 (AC-Other) FFY18, release $30,586,440 (AC-NHFP) & $74,358,422 (AC-NHPP) FFY17, release $692,129 (ACC-NHFP) FFY18 CN phase.

ROUTE/STREET INTERSTATE 95 (0095) TOTAL COST $125,000,000

FUND SOURCE MATCH FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

PE Federal - NHS/NHPP $0 $0 $0 ($6,525,001) $0

RW Federal - NHFP $0 $0 $0 $700,000 $0

CN Federal - NHFP $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,365,420

Federal - NHPP/E $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,484,703

Federal - NHS/NHPP $49,851 $0 $0 $0 $1,957,176

CN TOTAL $49,851 $0 $0 $0 $7,807,299

CN AC

Federal - AC OTHER $0 $0 $0 $0 $110,342,850

MPO Note

Interstate Projects

Fredericksburg MPO

1

MPO TIP Report 6/2/2017 10:55:08 AM

a ̀

8di.) Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) Presentation for June 21, 2017

1

Staff recommendations for improving the process for Round 3

Nick DonohueDeputy Secretary of TransportationJune 21, 2017

22

Purpose

• SMART SCALE is the nation’s first outcome-based prioritization process

• ‘Look Back’ on round 1 and round 2

• First 2 rounds of implementation resulted in the identification of potential changes to improve process– Administrative process– Modifications to measures

33

‘Look Back’ on Rounds 1 & 2

• Weighting frameworks were a big topic of discussion – how are they driving outcomes?

• Is there a bias towards projects of a particular size? Big? Small?

• What types of projects are being funded through SMART SCALE? Where?

44

‘Look Back’ – Weighting Frameworks

Examined what would happen to staff recommended scenario from Round 2 if weighting frameworks were modified• 2 categories – ‘urban’ (A and B combined), ‘rural’ (C and D combined)• 1 category – congestion and safety• 1 category – safety and economic development• 1 category – all measures are weighted equal

Factor Congestion Mitigation

Economic Development Accessibility Safety Environmental

QualityLand Use

Category A 45% 5% 15% 5% 10% 20%

Category B 15% 20% 25% 20% 10% 10% Category C 15% 25% 25% 25% 10% Category D 10% 35% 15% 30% 10%

55


Test 1 – Two Categories• Combines Area Types A/B and C/D• Area Type B increases emphasis on congestion• Area Type A increases emphasis on safety• 5 projects were added to the funding scenario • 5 projects were dropped from the funding

scenario



QualityLand Use

Category A 40% 5% 15% 20% 10% 10%

Category B 40% 5% 15% 20% 10% 10% Category C 15% 25% 20% 30% 10% Category D 15% 25% 20% 30% 10%

* Red indicates a change from the current weighting framework

66


Test 2 – Congestion and Safety• Urban emphasis on congestion placed for all area

types• Safety emphasis for rural areas• 10 projects were added to the funding scenario • 20 projects were dropped from the funding

scenario



QualityLand Use

Category A 40% 10% 10% 30% 10% --- Category B 40% 10% 10% 30% 10% --- Category C 40% 10% 10% 30% 10% Category D 40% 10% 10% 30% 10%


77


Test 3 – Safety and Econ Dev• Emphasis on economic development and safety

placed for all area types• Excludes land use as not available in categories C

and D• 18 projects were added to the funding scenario • 17 projects were dropped from the funding scenario



QualityLand Use

Category A 15% 30% 15% 30% 10% ---Category B 15% 30% 15% 30% 10% ---Category C 15% 30% 15% 30% 10% Category D 15% 30% 15% 30% 10%


88


Test 4 – All Measures are Equal• Weights congestion, economic development,

accessibility, safety, and environmental quality equally• Excludes land use as not available in categories

C and D• 14 projects were added to the funding scenario • 18 projects were dropped from the funding scenario



QualityLand Use

Category A 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% ---Category B 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% ---Category C 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% Category D 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%


99


Summary of Scenarios• 5 projects were added to the funding

scenario for all scenarios• 4 projects were added to the funding

scenario for three scenarios• 12 projects were removed from the

funding scenario for three scenarios• Area Type B was negatively impacted

the most from all scenarios• Area Type C received the biggest

improvement

*See handout for project details

1010

‘Look Back’ – Weighting Frameworks Conclusions

• Major changes to weighting frameworks results in a 7-25% change in projects selected

• Between all four tests: – 43 projects were ‘added’ to the funding scenario – 9 projects

represent 75% of the additions– 53 projects were ‘cut’ from the funding scenario – 12 projects

represent 67% of the cuts

• Measures appear to have greater influence over whether a project is funded than weighting frameworks

1111

“Look Back” – Is there a bias in project size?

• The number of projects by size funded through SMART SCALE is in line with the number of projects by size funded in the FY06-11 Six-Year Improvement Program

<=$5,000,000 >$5,000,000<$20,000,000 >=$20,000,000

FY2006 SYIP 65% 23% 12%

Round 1* 53% 32% 15%

Round 2 63% 23% 14%

* Analysis excludes Transform 66

1212

“Look Back” – Is there a bias in project size?

• The amount of funding going to projects of a certain size funded through SMART SCALE is in line with the amount of funding going to projects of a certain size funded in the FY06-11 Six-Year Improvement Program

<=$5,000,000 >$5,000,000<$20,000,000 >=$20,000,000

FY2006 SYIP 10% 28% 62%

Round 1* 11% 32% 57%

Round 2 17% 24% 59%

* Analysis excludes Transform 66

1313

“Look Back” – Funding By District By Project Type

Funding by Project Type - Round 1 Selected (millions)

District Bike/Pedestrian Bus Transit Highway Rail Transit TDM Grand Total

Bristol $ 0 $ 1.3 $ 69.9 $ 0 $ 0 $ 71.2

Culpeper $ 29.5 $ 0 $ 49.2 $ 0 $ 1.8 $ 80.4

Fredericksburg $ 1.9 $ 0 $ 175.5 $ 0 $ 27.2 $ 204.6

Hampton Roads $ 0 $ 6.4 $ 325.5 $ 0 $ 0.6 $ 332.4

Lynchburg $ 0 $ 0.5 $ 85.3 $ 0 $ 0 $ 85.8

Northern Virginia* $ 7.1 $ 4.5 $ 200.8 $ 10.0 $ 0.5 $ 222.9

Richmond $ 0.5 $ 13.6 $ 185.7 $ 0 $ 0 $ 199.8

Salem $ 6.7 $ 0.4 $ 106.4 $ 0 $ 0 $ 113.4

Staunton $ 1.1 $ 0 $ 104.7 $ 0 $ 0 $ 105.8

Grand Total $ 46.7 $ 26.5 $ 1,302.9 $ 10.0 $ 30.1 $ 1,416.2* Excludes Transform 66

1414

“Look Back” – Funding By District By Project Type

Funding by Project Type - Round 2 Recommendation (millions)

District Bike/Pedestrian Bus Transit Highway Rail Transit TDM Grand Total

Bristol $0.0 $0.0 $24.0 $0.0 $0.0 $24.0

Culpeper $0.0 $0.0 $56.1 $0.0 $0.0 $56.1

Fredericksburg $1.5 $0.0 $23.4 $0.0 $0.9 $25.8

Hampton Roads $1.6 $0.3 $228.6 $22.0 $0.0 $252.6

Lynchburg $0.5 $0.0 $36.7 $0.0 $0.0 $37.2

Northern Virginia $10.0 $34.0 $247.9 $70.6 $4.7 $367.3

Richmond $17.6 $1.9 $129.6 $0.0 $2.9 $152.1

Salem $9.5 $5.9 $55.6 $0.0 $0.0 $71.0

Staunton $5.9 $0.0 $32.6 $0.0 $2.2 $40.7

Grand Total $46.7 $42.1 $834.6 $92.6 $10.8 $1,026.8

1515

‘Look Back’ – Round 1

Funding Scenario

Project Type Total Submitted Funded Success Rate Total Funding % of Funding

Bike/Pedestrian 20 14 70% $46,714,042 3.30%

Bus Transit 7 7 100% $26,510,758 1.87%

Highway 249 132 53% $1,302,860,215 91.99%

Rail Transit 3 1 33.33% $10,000,000 0.71%

TDM 8 8 100% $30,147,190 2.13%

Grand Total 287 167 58.2% $1,416,232,205 100.00%

Rou

nd 1

1616


Selected for Funding Not Selected for Funding

Project Type

# of Projects

Average SMART SCALE

Request

Average Project Benefit

Average SMART SCALE SCORE

# of Projects

Average SMART SCALE

Request



Bike/Ped 14 $3,336,717 1.95 19.36 6 $7,509,265 0.35 0.92

Bus Transit 7 $3,787,251 3.07 13.78 0 N/A N/A N/A

Highway 132 $9,870,153 3.04 9.09 116 $47,205,648 2.30 1.15

Rail Transit 1 $10,000,000 21.13 21.13 2 $64,815,550 11.71 N/A

TDM 8 $3,768,399 2.01 19.56 0 N/A N/A 4.44

All Projects 162 $8,742,174 3.01 10.78 124 $45,568,886 2.36 1.14

Rou

nd 1

1717


Consensus Funding Scenario

Project Type Total Scored Selected Success Rate Total Funding % of Funding

Bike/Pedestrian 45 23 51.1% $ 46,704,429 4.55%

Bus Transit 13 10 77.9% $ 42,083,588 4.10%

Highway 336 107 31.8% $ 834,598,922 81.28%

Rail Transit 2 2 100% $ 92,636,120 9.02%

TDM 8 5 62.5% $ 10,789,371 1.05%

Grand Total 404 147 36.4% $ 1,026,812,430 100%

Rou

nd 2

1818


Selected for Funding Not Selected for Funding

Project Type

# of Projects

Average SMART SCALE

Request



# of Projects

Average SMART SCALE

Request



Bike/Ped 23 $2,030,627 4.02 29.78 22 $6,506,183 1.71 3.41

Bus Transit 10 $4,208,359 8.50 28.62 3 $34,530,344 5.08 1.19

Highway 107 $7,799,990 6.94 21.42 229 $31,620,075 3.95 2.10

Rail Transit 2 $46,318,060 48.6 10.94 0 N/A N/A N/A

TDM 5 $2,157,874 6.38 49.10 3 $4,763,365 1.27 5.05

All Projects 147 $6,985,119 7.13 24.02 257 $29,190,717 3.74 2.24

Rou

nd 2

1919

Administrative Policies and Procedures

• Biennial schedule

• Number of applications allowed per applicant

• Project readiness

• Project eligibility

2020

Schedule for Rounds 1 and 2Application Intake

– 2-month application intake period

– Limited time to work with applicants to refine scopes of work to maximize project benefits

– Applicant concern over time completing applications for projects that do not meet a need or which are ineligible

August September October November December January

Application Intake Validation and Screening

Project Evaluation and Scoring

Results

2121

Schedule for Rounds 1 and 2Validation and Screening

– Limited application intake period, resulted in most of the validation and screening occurring post-submission




Results

ValidationIs project eligible for SMART SCALE?Is information in application reasonable and accurate?

ScreeningDoes project meet an identified need in VTrans on a Corridor of Statewide Significance, Regional Network, UDA, and/or safety need?

2222

Schedule for Rounds 1 and 2Project Evaluation and Scoring

– 3-month project evaluation and scoring period– Available time reduced due to validation and screening – Project scoring can be interdependent - eg. Access to Jobs cannot be

calculated until congestion analysis is complete– Scoring is complex and time consuming - consistency is a high priority




Results

2323

Congestion Analysis Steps

1. Evaluate scope of work and available data2. Develop 2025 peak hour volumes and/or ridership3. Break project into components for analysis

a. Intersections and Interchangesb. Roadway segments (improved or served by transit)c. Bike/ped facilities, park and ride lots, and transit/or rail facilities

4. Determine peak period expansion factor (INRIX data)5. Document assumptions and data sources6. Internal QC7. District QC8. Final measures for scoring

100% of projects go through two levels of QC

2424

Primary Analyst

Assign TDM, Bike/Ped, Transit/Rail, and/or Park

and Ride Analyst

Park and Ride Analysis(If Applicable)

Transit/Rail Analysis(If Applicable)

Review Data and Documents

Request Missing Data and Docs

Congestion Analysis

Data and Docs Received

Bike/Ped Analysis(If Applicable)

Internal QC

Address QC comments

District QC

Address QC comments

Final Measures

Congestion Analysis Steps

2525

Congestion Analysis QAQC

Separate analyst conducts complete review of methodology, assumptions and inputs. Any comment discussed with original analyst.

District reviewer conducts review of methodology, assumptions and inputs. Any comment discussed with original analyst.

DRPT reviews analysis and methodology, ridership assumptions and routes served. Any comments discussed with original analyst

Original analyst conducts develops assumptions and inputs, and undertakes congestion analysis.

10% of projects randomly selected for blind scoring

After the completion of VDOT District/DRPT QC, project was sent for Accessibility analysis.

2626

10% Blind Scoring

• 10% of SMART SCALE projects were selected for blind scoring of congestion and safety scoring measures

• Congestion and safety were selected due to the significant number of inputs and complexity of analysis

• Projects are reevaluated independent of initial scoring team member(s)– Accomplished with new analyst and new internal QC– Reevaluated analysis is compared to the official SMART SCALE

analysis• For Round 2, 45 projects were selected for blind scoring

– Projects analysis types and locations were distributed across each district

2727

10% Blind Scoring

• Improvements to safety and congestion QC process were identified during Round 1 and were incorporated for Round 2

• Congestion Analysis– Standard assumptions document was created– Congestion Analysis Tool was developed in-house to track analysis

process– Created Volume Development tool and hierarchy

• Safety Analysis– Safety Analysis Tool was developed to promote more consistency and

accuracy– Improved workflow and automation of analysis– Provided additional layers of QC

2828

10% Blind Scoring

• Congestion– Majority of projects had identical throughput and delay

measure scores– If measure scores differed they were minimal– Normalized scores further minimized these differences– Measure differences did not impact scoring ranks and

would not impact the staff recommended funding scenario– Congestion Analysis Tool and methodology significantly

reduced scoring differences

2929

10% Blind Scoring

• Safety– 75% of projects had minor differences in S1 and S2 scores

due to small differences in how the projects were analyzed– Normalization process used in scoring minimized these

differences in all but two cases– Measure differences would not have impacted the staff

recommended funding scenario– Safety Analysis Tool and methodology significantly

reduced scoring differences

3030

Recommended Changes to Schedule for Round 3

5 month application intake window - 3 more months than previous rounds

5 month project evaluation and scoring window - 2 more months than previous rounds

3131

Number of Applications

Round 1

287

2.2

12

Round 2

404

2.8

33

Total # Submitted

Total # Scored

Average # Application

Max # of Applications

321 436

% Change

36%

41%

27%

175%

3232

Recommended Limits on Number of Applications

Establish 3 tiers based on population

Tier Localities MPOs/PDCs/Transit Agencies

Maximum Number of Applications

1

2

3

3333

Recommended Limits on Number of Applications

Tier No. of Local/Regional Entities

Maximum Number of Applications

1 (3 apps max) 190

2 (5 apps max) 49

3 (10 apps max) 17

Grand Total 256 985

3434

Impact of Recommended on Applicants

Applicants that would be limited based on population 16 applicants impacted

3535

Project Readiness

ISSUE: Need clear guidance on the required level of planning and supporting documentation needed for major projects.

Applicability:• Grade Separations• New Traffic Signals• New Location Facilities• Major Corridor Widening projects• Environmental (NEPA and Permitting)• Public Support

3636

• IJR Required– FHWA Approval Required

Project Readiness Grade Separations

3737

• Grade-Separated Interchange - Dated study

Project Readiness Grade Separations

3838

Project Readiness Major Widenings

• Major Widening ($200M)– Lack of planning study– No alternatives analysis– No evaluation of lower cost alternatives to improve existing capacity

3939

Project Readiness Recommendations

Proposed Changes• Grade Separation on all limited access facilities

– Require IJR with preferred alternative• Grade Separation of at-grade intersection

– Require planning level study and alternatives analysis• New Traffic Signals

– Require Signal Warrant and Justification and evaluation of alternative intersections

4040

Project Readiness Recommendations

Proposed Changes:• New Location

– Assess requirement for evaluation of multiple alternatives (NEPA/permitting)

• Major Widenings– Ensure alternatives to optimize the existing capacity have been

thoroughly evaluated as part of the planning process• Public Support

– Require local resolution of support as a part of application process– Examples

▪ North Main Intersection Improvements at 460 Bypass - Blacksburg - Round 1

▪ University Drive Extension - City of Fairfax - Round 1

4141

Project Eligibility

ISSUE: Need to provide clear guidance on how to handle projects that may include asset replacement, in addition to a capacity expansion or enhancement improvement.• A number of projects submitted in Round 1 and Round 2 were

mostly asset replacement projects• Traffic signal system and bridge replacements being the most

common examples• Applicants would often include a minor component that is eligible

4242

Project Eligibility

• Asset Replacement Projects - Signal Systems

4343

Project Eligibility

• Bridge Replacement with Ped Accommodations

4444

Project Eligibility

Proposed Changes

• SMART SCALE is not intended to fund maintenance and State of Good Repair projects

• Clarify eligibility language in the SMART SCALE policy - If a significant portion of the project costs are related to the repair or replacement of existing traffic control devices, structures or bridges asset replacement the project be excluded from consideration in scoring and rating for SMART SCALE.

4545

Project Eligibility

ISSUE: Need to define clear rules regarding projects that are fully funded or committed• Several project submitted included, in part or whole, proffered

improvements• Some applications leveraged fully funded projects and were asking

for minor enhancements or additions• Risk that applicants could use this approach to game the system

(large benefit with reduced $ request)

4646

Project Eligibility

• Bike/Ped project request leveraging a fully funded widening

4747

Project Eligibility

Proposed Change• Clarify in the policy that SMART SCALE funding is not intended to replace

other committed funding sources such as local/regional funding, proffers, and/or other committed state or federal funding sources

• If an applicant submits an existing fully funded or committed project with independent utility for SMART SCALE funding with intention of requesting additional funds to add additional project features such as landscaping, streetscaping, and/or bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, then the benefits associated with the fully funded or committed project element(s) should be excluded from consideration in scoring and rating the project for SMART SCALE.

4848

Project Eligibility

ISSUE: Some applicants included project elements that were not clearly related to one another.• Project features must be associated such that they are contiguous or

of the same improvement type (e.g., signal improvements, transit stations, etc.)– Concern about potential to circumvent application limits– Concern about adding unrelated features to increase benefit

4949

Project Eligibility

Examples• App ID 1230 Loudoun Park and Ride Lots

– Two park and ride lots are 20 miles apart– Project was funded in Round 2

• App ID 1323 I-95/10 Interchange - Signalize Ramps, Aux.Lanes,PNR Exit 58

– Park and ride lot is 3.6 miles away• App ID 1165/1506/1294 SB Rte. 288 to WB US 360 Off-Ramp, US 360

PNR Lot– Park and ride lot is 2.2 miles away– Application with the park and ride lot was funded

5050

Recommended Modifications to Measures

Changes are intended to address:• Stakeholder concerns• Areas where applicants have ‘beat the system’• Areas where project size/impact is not accurately

captured• Improved methodologies

5151

Measure EnhancementsCongestion

• Benefits to longer projects may have been impacted– Phased improvement projects broken into pieces could score similar results

to the entire project– Shorter projects have a higher probability of receiving funding

EXAMPLE:

• Recommend modifying measure to account for increase in person miles travelled allowed by the project within the capacity of the facility

District Description Throughput Score

Staunton Extend SB Deceleration NB Acceleration lanes by 150' each, I-81 Exit 296 in Staunton

1175

Salem Construct 1.12 mile auxiliary lane on I-81N between Exit 140 to 141

1664

5252

Measure EnhancementsED.1 - Site Development

Current Method• Applicant provides all site data used for scoring• Transportation Project points (applied to all site)

– Consistency with Local Comp Plan/Local Economic Development Strategy – Consistent = 0.5, Referenced = 1.0

– Consistency with Regional Economic Development Strategy – Consistent = 0.5, Referenced = 1.0

• Economic Development Site points (site specific)– Consistency with local comp plan/zoning – Consistent = 0.5,

Referenced = 1.0– Development status – Submitted = 0.5, Approved = 1.0– Site utilities – Programmed = 0.5, In-Place = 1.0

• Up to 5 Points Max - used to weight the square footage of each site

5353

Current Method (cont)• Adjusting Weighted Square Footage

– Two Adjustments▪ Distance from project in miles (except sites less than 1 mile)▪ Type of access provided

• Formula – ( (Points) x (Square Footage) / (Distance) ) x (Access Adjustment)

Project provides a new, direct (physically to the site), primary access to the site that does not exist today 100%

Project improves existing access (or relocates existing access) to the site directly (Site must be physically adjacent to the project) 100%

Project enhances economic development by improving congestion, mobility, access, or operations in the vicinity of the site but the site is not physically adjacent to the project 50%

Development Name Total Points Square Footage Distance Site Access Access Adjustment

Adjusted Square Footage

Development A 5 250,000 2

Project enhances economic development by improving congestion, mobility, access, or operations in the vicinity of the site but the site is not physically adjacent to the project

50% 312,500

Development B 5 250,000 0.2

Project improves existing access (or relocates existing access) to the site directly (Site must be physically adjacent to the project)

100% 1,250,000


5454


• Round 2 results raise concerns about the reasonableness of the results for this measure

• Roundabout project on 2 lane roadway and a cul-de-sac scored highest in the state

• Findings– Zoned properties within allowable buffer contributed to anomalous

results– Gimme points - consistency with plan and utilities

Site - ZoningProject - Local Plans Project - Regional Plan Site - Utilities

5555


Recommendations• Zoned properties must get primary access from project

• Remove 0.5 point for consistency with local and regional plans - project and site must be specifically referenced in local and regional planning documents to get point

• Eliminate site utilities points

• Reduce max buffer to 3 miles

5656


Recommendations (cont)• Distinguish the level of readiness for site plans

• Consider the establishment of maximum square footage– Based on current level of development - cannot exceed x% of total

current square footage in jurisdiction(s)

5757

Measure EnhancementsED.2 - Intermodal Access

Current Method• Points are awarded based on a project’s proximity to freight

generators, truck routes, and freight destinations• Total points are scaled by the maximum freight tonnage within the

project area• While the size of a project may affect its likelihood of falling within

the buffer distance of freight facilities, its score does not directly scale by the size of the improvement

5858


Current Method

• Intermodal access points are multiplied by the tonnage of freight along the facility being improved

District Project Description Total Points Maximum Freight Tonnage

Intermodal Access Measure

StauntonExtend SB Deceleration NB

Acceleration lanes by 150' each, I-81 Exit 296 in Staunton

4 290000 1,160,000

Salem Construct 1.12 mile auxiliary lane on I-81N between Exit 140 to 141 3 145000 435,000

5959


Proposed MethodDistrict Project Description Total Points Maximum Freight

TonnageIntermodal Access

Measure



4 290000 1,160,000

Salem Construct 1.12 mile auxiliary lane on I-81N between Exit 140 to 141 3 145000 162,400

District Project Description Total Points Maximum Freight Tonnage

Improvement Length(miles)

Intermodal Access Measure



4 290000 0.06 69,600

Salem Construct 1.12 mile auxiliary lane on I-81N between Exit 140 to 141 3 145000 1.12 487,000

Recommendation• Scale points by freight tonnage-miles by multiplying the freight

tonnage by the length of the improvement

6060

Safety Measures

• Many fatalities and severe injuries are the result of factors unrelated to roadway design

• Vehicle age and age of occupants plays a major role in determining whether a crash results in a fatality or severe injury– Statistics from 2013 NHTSA Report

▪ 71% more likely to die if car is 18+ years old▪ 50% more likely to die if car is 15-17 years old

– 2012 AAA Traffic Safety Report▪ Deaths per 100 million VMT decrease from age 16 until age 60 then it

increases sharply (survivability)

• Current methodology weights fatalities 18x greater than severe injuries

6161

Safety Measures Recommended Changes

• Roadway improvements often cannot address crashes resulting from driving under the influence

• Have had a project recommended for funding due to single crash over 5-year period that involved alcohol

• Remove crashes that are the result of driving under the influence from consideration in scoring

6262

Safety Measures Recommended Changes

• Difference between fatality and severe injury often related to age of vehicle and age of occupant

• Many states used a ‘blended’ value for fatalities and severe injuries

• Recommend the use of a ‘blended’ weighting for SMART SCALE similar to other states in Round 3 scoring

6363

Safety MeasuresUse of Reduced and Blended Rates

Agency Fatal Injury (K) Incapacitating injury (A) Moderate Injury (B) Minor Injury (C) PDO

Missouri 6.5 3 3 3 1

Oregon DOT 100 100 10 10 1

Massachusetts 10 5 5 5 1

Ohio 37.56 37.56 6.55 4.44 1

Wyoming 110 110 8.5 8.5 1

Kansas 15 15 15 15 1

Illinois 10 9 5 2 1

Hampton Roads, VA 12 3 3 3 1

Iowa $1,000,000 $150,000 $10,000 $2,500 $2,500

Minnesota $540,000 $270,000 $58,000 $29,000 $4,200

Virginia Smartscale 540 30 10 5 1

6464

Access to JobsRecommended Changes

• Eliminate the 45 and 60 minute cap for auto and transit job access respectively

6565

Land Use

• Focused on projects that support transportation efficient development patterns in urban areas

• Current methodology has limitations– Subjectivity– Degree to which an area meets certain criteria

• Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment has developed new methodology to measure key characteristics – non-work accessibility

6666

Land UseNon-work Accessibility

• Examines accessibility to key non-work destinations such as grocery, healthcare, education, etc

• Targets for destinations established using Virginia observations

• Uses GIS software used for Access to Jobs measures• Eliminate subjectivity and captures degree to which

development patterns meet certain criteria

6767


6868


6969

Land Use – Non-Work AccessibilityNorthern Virginia

7070

Land Use – Non-Work AccessibilityRoanoke

7171

Land UseRecommended Measures

• 70% of score based on– 2025 population and employment

X non-work accessibility

• 30% of score based on– Change in population and employment (Current day to 2025)

X non-work accessibility

a ̀

8dii.) FAMPO Input to the CTB on Smart Scale

Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 406 Princess Anne Street

Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 (540) 373-2890

Fax (540) 899-4808 www.fampo.gwregion.org

Matt Kelly FAMPO Chairman

Paul Agnello FAMPO Administrator

April 17, 2017

Honorable Aubrey Layne Secretary of Transportation Commonwealth of Virginia 1111 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219

RE: Recommendations from FAMPO Smart Scale Task Force Regarding Smart Scale Prioritization Process

Dear Secretary Layne:

We appreciate the work that the Commonwealth is doing to improve transportation in the Fredericksburg region and are writing to provide FAMPO recommendations to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) on some potential ways to improve the Smart Scale program for Round 3. We have divided our recommendations into two categories:

1. Recommendations on process improvements2. Recommendations on prioritization methodology improvements

We hope that the CTB finds the attached input helpful. If you have any questions regarding these recommendations, feel free to contact myself or Paul Agnello.

Sincerely,

Matt Kelly Chair

Attachment

Cc: FAMPO Policy Committee CTB Members State Legislative Delegation Congressional Delegation from George Washington Regional Commission Area


FAMPO Smart Scale Task Force Input for the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB)

Recommendations regarding Process:

1. Focus more Statewide High Priority Program funding on major regional projects. Restrict project applications to those identified as meeting a VTrans Needs Assessment need for a Corridor of Statewide Significance (CoSS).

2. Restrict bicycle/pedestrian projects from consideration in the Statewide High Priority Program. These projects can be considered for funding in the District Grant Program.

3. Refine the Smart Scale prioritization methodology to better assess the benefits of large regional projects versus small projects.

4. Final version of Smart Scale Policy and Technical Guides and supporting information should be available to potential applicants at least one month before the Pre-Application period begins. For the Round 2 schedule, this would have been by June 1st.

5. Improve pre-application candidate project coordination between State and applicants so that applicants can obtain reliable feedback from the State on project eligibility. Consider providing complimentary pre-screening of candidate projects submitted by an early deadline to encourage earlier project submissions and reduce the risk of candidate projects being screened out.

6. Coordinate the VTransNeeds Assessment process with MPOs/PDCs in the year between Smart Scale cycles to promote consistency between State VTransand MPO/PDC Long Range Transportation Plans.

7. Since number of project applications is likely to increase significantly from Round 2 to Round 3 (e.g., from 436 to 1,000), consider simplifying the screening process for District Grant candidate projects to be consistent with approach used for Round 1 of Smart Scale, which only looked at consistency with Regional Networks, UDAs, and Safety. Only use more complicated Round 2 VTransNeeds Assessment approach for Statewide High Priority projects.

8. Since number of project applications is likely to increase significantly from Round 2 to Round 3 (e.g., from 436 to 1,000), and Round 2 screening took significantly longer to completed than the scheduled one month, consider increasing scheduled time for Smart Scale project-eligibility screening.

9. Since the number of project applications is likely to increase significantly from Round 2 to Round 3 (e.g., from 436 to 1,000), consider developing either an expanded screening process or two-phase prioritization process where initial screening or first phase prioritization would employ a simpler approach to identify the top X%(e.g., 50%, of submitted eligible projects). Then only this top X% of projects would go through the robust prioritization scoring methodology for Smart Scale. This approach would create a more sustainable work effort for the State staff, allow more resources to be devoted to the top X% of projects, and help improve quality control.

10. Regarding the District Grant Program, keep any remaining funds available at the end of a given Smart Scale round for a given district available for that respective district in the next round of Smart Scale.

Recommendations regarding Prioritization Methodology:

These recommendations are organized by each of the six Smart Scale factors,starting with Congestion.

Regarding Congestion Factor:

1. Include all travel days: Sunday through Saturday in Congestion analysis. Current analysis only considers average weekday.

2. Include existing base year traffic in congestion analysis, in addition to future needs assessment year traffic. Existing base year traffic would improve consistency on major roadways throughout the state and improve the ability of the congestion analysis to include travel for all travel days: Sunday through Saturday. Consider weighting traffic score at 50% for existing traffic and 50% for future needs assessment traffic congestion reduction.

3. For future needs assessment year analysis, consider using the Virginia Statewide Model in conjunction with regional models to reduce inconsistency in modeling results between different regions, e.g., Northern Virginia vs. Fredericksburg vs. Richmond/Tri-Cities.

4. If not already doing so, consider only including SYIP committed improvements in Needs Assessment analysis year, as opposed to all Constrained Long Range Plan projects or all Long Range Transportation Plan projects.

Regarding SafetyFactor:

1. Instead of choosing a maximum number of locations to show by District (e.g., 100), develop a threshold criteria for documenting a safety issue. If data is inadequate for smaller roadways, consider only doing this for major roadways.

2. For smaller roadways where statewide accident data may be inadequate, consider developing an improved approach for VDOT or applicant safety studies to be documented in the Smart Scale process.

3. For larger projects competing for Statewide High Priority funding on Corridors of Statewide Significance, include accidents in all areas of reoccurring traffic congestion for any travel day (Sunday through Saturday).

Regarding AccessibilityFactor:

1. Either develop a decay curve for the Fredericksburg Region or group the Fredericksburg Region with NOVA for the decay curve analysis, instead of grouping Fredericksburg with the rest of the state. Review Access to Jobshighway and transit travel time thresholds for reasonableness for the NOVA and Fredericksburg regions.

2. Consider including bicycle trips for first mile/last mile travel in transit accessibility calculations. Currently pedestrian travel is included, but not bicycle travel.

Regarding Environment Factor:

1. Congestion reduction impacts of large highway projects for truck freight should be able to qualify for more than 10% of the Air Quality scoring. Currently they may only receive one point out of ten.

2. Peak traffic for all travel days (weekday and weekend) should be included in the Air Quality scoring.

Regarding Economic Development Factor:

1. Increase the area of influence for Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects above the current 3- and 5-mile thresholds. For Tier 3 projects, increase threshold from 5 miles to 10 miles. For Tier 2 projects, increase threshold from 3 miles to 5 miles.

2. Include park and ride lot improvements in Tier 2 project type, instead of Tier 1 project type.

3. Increase weighting of Intermodal Access and Efficiency and Travel Time Reliability measures for all projects. Currently each receives 20% of the economic development score.

4. Consider using different measure weighting for Statewide High Priority vs. District Grant projects. For Statewide High Priority projects, relative weighting of Intermodal Access and Efficiency and Travel Time Reliability measures should be more than 40%.

Regarding Land Use Factor:

1. Increase buffer size to more than one mile for large regional projects. Using a one-mile buffer for all projects regardless of size gives small projects an advantage over larger projects.

2. Develop tiers for buffer size based on project type and make consistent with tiers being used for project support for economic development.

a ̀

8e.) Transit Capital Project Revenue Advisory Board

HB 1359 – Transit Capital Project Revenue Advisory Board

Status Update

June 19, 2017

Jennifer DeBruhlChief of Public Transportation

Revenue Advisory Board – Key Questions

How much funding is needed? Estimate state transit capital needs

What are potential funding sources? Examine potential revenue sources

Which projects should be funded? Develop approach for project prioritization

How should funds be allocated to capital projects? Develop approach for capital program structure

Transportation Trust Fund – 1986 Session 14.7% dedicated to transit; of this amount, 25%

allocated to Transit Capital ~ $37 M annually

Recordation Taxes $0.01/$100 ~ $15 M annually

Retail Sales and Use Tax – 0.3% increase in HB2313 0.075% dedicated to transit; of this amount, 25%

allocated to Transit Capital ~ $20 M annually

Sales Tax on Fuel 5.1% tax; 3.11% of revenue dedicated to transit capital

~ $28 M annually

CPR Bonds – 20% minimum; $110 M annually Actual allocations have exceeded 40%

Federal Transit Administration ~ $41 M annually

Existing Transit Capital Revenue Sources

6/16/2017 3

6/16/2017 4

• Bond funds represent 44% of FY18 transit capital funding

Long List of Revenue Options Considered

6/16/2017 6

• Airport use excise tax• Alcohol tax • Amusement taxes • Building permit tax • Dedicated value added taxes • Energy & utilities taxes • Fertilizer/pesticide taxes (agricultural chemicals) • Hotel excise tax • Disposal tax surcharge • Improvement district tax • Insurance premium taxes • Litter control tax • Marine facilities tax • Marine fuels tax • Restaurant/prepared food tax • Tax on marine vessels • Tax on personal watercraft (personal property) • Vehicle titling tax • Licensing and recreational fee • Local aquifer protection fee • Tobacco tax • Voluntary "check off" designating a portion of state income • taxes to go towards identified item • Access rights fee • Bicycle registration fee • Construction fee • Connection fee• Commercial and industrial property tax• Property tax• Fuel Tax• Hospitality tax• Mortgage transaction fee • Real estate transfer tax • Recordation Taxes • Rental car taxes • Sales and use tax• Toll increase/implementation• Special regional transportation taxing districts• Payroll Tax• Road branding / providing advertising space on public facilities

• Local water/wastewater utility user fee • Fees for trucks servicing the port • Inspection/monitoring/testing fee • Off and/or on-street parking space fee • Project investment fee • Septic system impact fee • Solid waste disposal fee (tipping fees, septage/sludge fees) • Special permitting fees • State public water supply withdrawal fee • Transportation/Infrastructure fee for non-profits/governmental

organizations whose property is not subject to property taxes • Utility rights application fee • Vehicle registration fee for public colleges/universities • Vehicle use fees based on mileage (payable w/ state inspection) • Well permit/pumping fee • Container truck surcharge • Development of public-private partnerships • Leasing of air space and right-of-way • Lottery and/or casino revenue / dedicated lottery • Tourist tolls on roadways as part of toll system • Traffic violation revenues - percentage• Cap and Trade• Driver license fee• HOT Lanes• Franchise fee • Taxes on Certain Transportation and Transmission Companies• Petroleum Business Tax• Tire Tax• Occupational license tax• Dedicate portion of commercial and/or residential real estate taxes or

impose a separate special tax district• Increase sales tax base to include more services - dedicate extra revenue

transportation • Impact fees / proffers for new development• Car registration fees • Car tax (personal property)• Head tax (based on # of employees) • Impact fees / proffers / contributions for new development • Income tax for localities with the proceeds dedicated to transit• Joint Development• Naming rights

Recommendations for Transit Capital Revenue

7

• Consider a package that includes a variety of sources

• Consider a combination of statewide and regional options • Regional funds should be dedicated and prioritized

regionally• Consider incremental implementation of revenue

enhancements (3 to 5 year phase-in)• Consider implementation of a floor on regional gas

taxes as part of solution• Consider dedication of additional PTF revenues to

transit capital• WMATA needs are not fully factored into the

analysis and may result in additional revenue needs beyond replacement of the PRIIA resources.

IllustrativeStructure for Capital ProgramPrioritization

SGR RankingExpansion Ranking

Project Submittal

Project Type

SGRMajor

ExpansionMinor Enhanc.

Minor Enhanc. Ranking

Cost Effectiveness Score

Technical Score:Asset Condition + Service Impact

Weighting

Technical Score

6 CriteriaSGR Needs Screening

Technical Score:Service Impact

State Share of Cost

State Match / Funding Tiers

Funding Allocation

It is possible and desirable to prioritize transit capital projects using quantitative and qualitative measures

Prioritization policies should be developed by CTB, in a manner similar to Smart Scale, via Board policy

Allow for input/outreach to transit partners and ongoing process improvement

Policy Principles for Prioritization

6/16/2017 9

Principles for Transit Capital Program Structure

6/16/2017 10

SGR (95%)

Minor Enhancement (5%)

Fund

ing

Leve

lFunding level to be determined based

on review of needs, funding can be moved to SGR but not from SGR to

expansion

Illus

trat

ive

Stat

e M

atch

up to 80% up to 80% up to 50%

State of Good Repair and Minor Enhancement (80%) Expansion

(20%)

Minimum funding level (floor) for SGRFunding can be moved from expansion to SGR based on need

Funding can move from Expansion to SGR

Funding cannot move from SGR to Expansion

Next Steps

11

• July 2017 – CTB Resolution endorsing final report with legislative recommendations

• August 1 – Report due to General Assembly• Future:

• Development and implementation of CTB policy on transit capital prioritization

HB 1359 – Transit Capital Project Revenue Advisory Board

Status Update

June 19, 2017

Jennifer DeBruhlChief of Public Transportation

a ̀

8f.) Update on Transportation Funding and Potential Sources for Additional Revenues

June 19, 2017

Update on Transportation Funding and Potential Sources for Additional Revenue

Existing Transportation Challenges in GWRC (PD 16)

Severe Reoccurring Congestion along I-95 Corridor • I-95 & Rte 1 • US 301, Rte 207, and Rte 2 • CSX/AMTRAK/VRE Rail Lines

Congestion is Hurting Existing and Potential Future Economic Development

Critical Transportation Needs are Costly

Funding for Major Transportation Improvements at Federal and State Level is Limited

2

3

10+ Miles of Severe Reoccurring

US 301 Traffic Congestion

Rte 3 to Nice Bridge

35+ Miles of Severe Reoccurring I-95 Traffic

Congestion

Ladysmith to Quantico

Making Progress Regionally Since 2015

Major Transportation Projects Advanced by VDOT/DRPT and FAMPO/GWRC: 1. Highway Improvements:

• Atlantic Gateway Express Lane Extension: Garrisonville to Rte 17 • Exit 140 (Courthouse Rd) Interchange Improvements • I-95 SB Rappahannock River Crossing Project • Exit 130 (Rte 3) Interchange Improvements • US 301 Governor Nice Bridge Widening • Increased Commuter Parking Lot Capacity for Exit 140 (Courthouse) and Exit 126 (Rte 1)

2. Transit/Rail Improvements: • New Spotsylvania VRE Station • VRE Station Capacity Expansion: Brooke and Leeland

4

But even with recent progress, there is an estimated $1.6 Billion in unfunded Critical Transportation Needs

1. Highway Improvements: $1.1 Billion (Planning Level Cost Estimate) • I-95 NB Rappahannock River Crossing Project • Exit 130 (Rte 3) & 133 (Rte 17) Interchange Improvements not included in River Crossing Projects • Express Lane Extension from Exit 133 (Rte 17) to Spotsylvania (Rte 208 area) • Fourth I-95 NB General Purpose lane in Stafford between Exit 133: Rte 17 and Exit 136 • Fourth I-95 General Purpose lane in Spotsylvania between Exit 130: Rte 3 and Exit 126: Rte 1 • New I-95 Interchange at Harrison Rd • Exit 126 Interchange improvements • US 301/207 Corridor Capacity and Safety Improvements following Nice Bridge widening • Several local transportation projects in GWRC • Increased Commuter Parking for several areas, e.g., Garrisonville/Aquia Harbor, Southern Stafford, &

Spotsylvania

2. Transit/TDM/Rail Improvements: (~$500 Million) • Third Rail Track for CSX/AMTRAK/VRE • City of Fredericksburg AMTRAK/VRE Station Improvements

5

Future Federal Transportation Funding Uncertainty

Historically funded in a “pay as you go system” with the Federal Gas Tax

Federal Gas Tax has not been raised since 1993 • Gasoline: 18.4 cents/gallon • Diesel: 24.4 cents/gallon • First Class Postage: Increased from 29 cents in 1993 to 49 cents in 2017 • Recent efforts to increase the gas tax or index it to inflation have been political non-starters

System is no longer “pay as you go”

• Current Federal Transportation Bill called “FAST Act” Revenue: $41 Billion/year until 2020 • Planned Spending under “FAST Act” is about $61 Billion/year through 2020

Uncertainty concerning Federal Transportation Funding after 2020

6

Summary of Federal 2018 Budget: Infrastructure Initiative

Plans to use $200 Billion in Federal Transportation Investment to leverage additional private investment with a total target amount of $1 Trillion

Infrastructure plan is broader than just Transportation infrastructure • Pipelines, electricity, dams, flood walls, etc.

Plans to refocus Federal Transportation funding on Major Roads only • Key Principle to “Encourage Self-Help” and “Model of independence” for states and localities • Devolution of Local Transportation Infrastructure to State/Local funding

Successful project applications will likely need significant leveraged funding • Private Sector and/or State/Regional/Local funding

More information: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/fact_sheets/2018%20Budget%20Fact%20Sheet_Infrastructure%20Initiative.pdf

7

Summary of State of Virginia Transportation Funding

State Transportation Funding levels increased in 2013 for first time since 1986. Little support for additional statewide increases in near future.

Effective 2017 State Transportation Taxes significantly lower than most adjacent states and more populous states • Pennsylvania: #1 at 59.30 cents/gallon • Florida: #9 at 36.79 cents/gallon • North Carolina: #10 at 34.55 cents/gallon • Maryland: #14 at 33.50 cents/gallon • West Virginia: #18 at 32.20 cents/gallon • Georgia: #21 at 31.09 cents/gallon • Virginia: #39 at 22.40 cents/gallon

8

Summary of State of Virginia Transportation Funding (Cont.)

Most discretionary transportation funding under Smart Scale Program

Smart Scale Transportation Funding Levels: About $1 Billion every two years • About $500 million expected to be available for Statewide High Priority Projects • About $25 million expected to be available for Fredericksburg District Grant Projects

Statewide Needs: Over $9 Billion in Round 2 compared to $1 Billion in available funding

Current Smart Scale Process favors projects with significant leveraged funding

Difficult for large highway projects with little leveraged funding to score well

• Need leveraged funding for projects to score well in Statewide High Priority • District Grant funding amount too small for large projects

10

Problem: We likely need additional transportation revenue to pursue significant additional federal or state transportation revenue

11

1. Major increases in State or Federal Funding unlikely in short term

2. Planned Federal Infrastructure initiative and existing grant programs like FASTLANE favor

projects with significant private or State/Local transportation funding

3. State Smart Scale Process favors projects with significant leveraged funding • NOVA and Hampton Roads have used additional regional funding effectively.

4. FAMPO/GWRC Smart Scale Projects in Round 2 which had little leveraged funding scored

poorly • Major unsuccessful Smart Scale projects

• I-95 NB Rappahannock River Crossing • Mine Rd PNR Lot expansion • Rte 610 Direct Connect Ramp • Harrison Rd Widening project (Spotsylvania) • US 301/Rte 3 Intersection Improvements (King George)

What are other Regions doing about this?

12

Problem of having significant transportation needs with inadequate funding to meet them is not unique to GWRC/FAMPO and is an issue that many regions are facing:

Option 1: Change land use patterns to move towards a more compact growth scenario which focuses future growth in existing urban areas with multimodal transportation options. Promote bikeable and walkable areas in cities.

Example: State of Oregon and Vancouver, BC Result: Some congestion reduction, more transit orientated development, and higher real estate values in urban areas. Can sometimes increase employment in downtown areas.

Option 2: Raise additional revenues to fund projects to reduce congestion. Most projects create additional highway capacity.

Example: NOVA, Hampton Roads, and Vancouver, BC Result: Significant highway capacity expansion with some congestion reduction. Induced demand can diminish congestion reduction in some areas.

Option 3: Status Quo Result: Increasing congestion and inability to pursue large projects to address congestion problems. Potential loss of some economic development and productivity. Technology improvements with Autonomous and Connected Vehicles may eventually help.

Option 1 Example: Portland, Oregon

13

Option 1 & 2 Example: Vancouver, British Columbia

14

1. Focus most available transportation funding not slated for State of Good Repair highway projects to Transit, Rail, and Bike/Ped projects

2. Have a Transportation Authority for Transit projects called “TransLink”

TransLink: • Local Bus • Trolley Bus • BRT • Rail • Passenger Ferry Vancouver has over 300 Km (~ 180 miles) of protected bicycle lanes/paths and promotes initiatives to make the city more bikeable and walkable.

Option 2 Example: Hampton Roads (HRTAC)

15

Initially started with 7 Large Regional Projects which had regional consensus Use authority funding as leverage in Smart Scale to gain additional State funding. • $295 Million awarded in Round 1 & 2 • $145 Million (Round 1)

I-64 Widening

• $150 Million (Round 2) High Rise Bridge ($100 M) I-64/I-264 Int Phase 2 ($50M)

• Most of initial 7 projects are funded.

HRTAC is working closely with the Hampton Road MPO (HRTPO) to identify and prioritize future needs.

Potential Impact of Widespread Use of Autonomous and Connected Vehicles in Future

16

Autonomous = Self Driving Vehicles Connected = Vehicles can communicate with one another Potential Impacts:

• Reduction in personal vehicle ownership and increase in driverless ride sharing services

• Reduction in commuter and downtown parking needs

• Reduction in accidents due to distracted driving

• Reduction in traffic congestion since connected vehicles will more efficiently use transportation system

• Reduction in costs for providing Transit/Rail services since about 70% of cost is from the human operator.

• Increase in productivity since people can potentially work while traveling in a self driving vehicle

So when will this happen? Estimates: Gradual transition beginning in 2020’s Widespread usage likely by 2040’s

Some Potential Sources for Additional Transportation Revenues

17

1. Legislatively Updating 1986 District Grant Formula for Smart Scale (SS)

• Estimated additional revenue: $70 Million between 2018 and 2045 (Assuming Bi-Annual SS Cycles)

2. Regional Motor Fuels Tax Floor (VRE Gas Tax Floor in FAMPO/NOVA Regions) • Estimated additional revenue: $158 Million between 2017 and 2045

3. Creating a Regional Transportation Authority • Could generate an additional $35 Million per year (2018$ for all of GWRC based on NVTA model) • Estimated additional revenue: $1.3 Billion between 2018 and 2045 (all of GWRC based on NVTA model) • Authority can be created for two or more adjacent jurisdictions

Of these three options, although #1 & #2 could help some, only #3 could raise the amount of additional funding necessary to meet the $1.6 Billion in Critical Transportation Needs.

June Question: How much would a VRE Gas Tax Floor of $3.17/gallon cost an average tax payer?

18

1. Assumptions

• Average tax payer = average driver • Average Yearly Mileage = 20,000 (Virginia average is 15,464 according to FHWA) • Fuel Efficiency (Miles/Gallon) = 23.6 (Source: EPA) • Existing price of Gas per Gallon = $2.08 (Source: 6/19/17 Statewide average from Gasbuddy) • Regional Motor Fuels Gas tax floor would be set at Statewide gas tax floor of $3.17/gallon

2. Existing VRE Gas Tax per Driver: $37.02/year or $3.08/month

3. VRE Gas Tax per Driver with $3.17 floor: $56.42/year or $4.70/month

4. Additional Tax per Driver: $19.40/year or $1.62/month (52% increase)

Two Models for Authorities in VA: Hampton Roads & NoVA

19

1. Hampton Roads: HRTAC • Generates about $178 Million/year for 2018

Extra regional sales tax of 0.7% (6% Sales Tax in HRTAC area) 2.1% Regional Motor Fuels Tax (No Gas Tax Floor)

• Allocate funding to Regional Projects

2. Northern Virginia: NVTA • Generates about $327 Million/year (FY-2018)

Extra regional sales tax of 0.7% (6% Sales Tax in NVTA area) Grantors Tax ($0.15/$100) Transient Occupancy Tax (2%) – In addition to standard 5% in most of Virginia

• Allocates funding in two categories: Regional Projects = 70% (Subject to HB 599 Prioritization Process) Local Projects = 30%

Biggest Tax Generator from both Authorities is an Additional 0.7% Sales Tax

https://smartasset.com/taxes/virginia-tax-calculator

May Question: How much might an additional 0.7% Sales Tax from an RTA cost a family in Fredericksburg, VA?

20

1. Assumptions for Existing Sales Tax paid

• Annual Household Income: $60,000 • Family makes $17,540 in purchases subject to State Sales Tax • Source: https://smartasset.com/taxes/virginia-tax-calculator#IuRWTznyYR

2. Existing Sales Tax paid based on 5.3% rate: $877/year and $73/month

3. Hypothetical Sales Tax paid based on 6.0% rate: $993/year and $83/month

4. Additional Sales Tax cost: $116/year and $10/month

May Question: What is the Estimated Revenue from an RTA by GWRC Locality?

21

Estimated George Washington Regional Commission Additional Transportation Revenues (Millions of Dollars)

Policy based on NVTA Authority 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 FY 18-23 Total

0.7% Regional Sales Tax $25.20 $28.70 $29.70 $30.80 $31.80 $32.66 $33.54 $187.20 Grantors Tax ($0.15/$100) $4.20 $4.20 $4.20 $4.20 $4.20 $4.20 $4.20 $25.20 Transient Occupancy Tax 2% $1.60 $1.90 $1.90 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $11.80

Total New Local Revenue GWRC $31.00 $34.80 $35.80 $37.00 $38.00 $38.86 $39.74 $224.20

Estimated Revenue from VDOT Estimates (2015) • All of GWRC About $35 Million/year in 2018

Assumption: Revenue shares by locality are similar to locality population Estimates in Millions of dollars per year based on 2016 Population 1. Stafford (40.2%) = $14.1 M 2. Spotsylvania (36.7%) = $12.8 M 3. Caroline (8.4%) = $2.9 M 4. City (7.7%) = $2.7 M 5. King George (7.0%) = $2.5 M

May Question: With an Authority, how could voting on priorities be fair between Large vs. Small jurisdictions?

Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads Authorities have boards organized to promote regional cooperation and geographic equity to overcome this challenge:

NVTA Voting:

• 22 Voting Members: 17 Localities, 3 Virginia General Assembly members, 2 Governor (CTB) • Each locality receives one vote • For motions to carry, generally need 2/3rds of Total votes, 2/3rds of Locality votes, and

votes representing 2/3rds of region’s population • Exception where motions can carry with less than 2/3rds of region’s population if the

project in question is not in a jurisdiction which voted against it

HRTAC Voting: • 19 Voting Members: 10 Cities, 4 Counties, 5 Virginia General Assembly members

• For motions to carry, need 2/3rds of Votes representing 2/3rds of region’s population

22

http://hrtac.org/

http://www.thenovaauthority.org/

Additional Resources

23

1. Staff Discussion Paper on how a potential GWRC regional Transportation Authority could work

• If FAMPO wants to pursue the RTA concept further, this paper details how it could potentially work using elements from both the HRTAC and NVTA examples.

2. HRTAC Presentation providing an overview of their authority: http://hrtac.org/

3. NVTA links providing an overview of their authority: http://www.thenovaauthority.org/

What could be done with extra Transportation Revenue?

24

1. Use Additional Revenue as Leverage in State Smart Scale and Federal Funding opportunities

• Example: I-95 Rappahannock River Crossing Improvements • Cost is $132 M for NB River Crossing • Potential additional cost of $64 M for additional NB and SB improvements at Rte 17 Interchange • Total Cost: $196 M • Leverage $100 M of Regional Revenue to request $96 M in funding from Smart Scale

2. Help get Critical Transportation Needs funded • I-95 NB Rappahannock River Crossing Project • I-95 General Purpose widening from 3 to 4 lanes between Exit 133 and Exit 136 • I-95 General Purpose widening from 6 to 8 lanes between Exit 130 and 126 • US Rte 301 intersection improvements at Rte 3

3. Help get Local District Grant Projects funded in Smart Scale

• Hypothetical Example: Local Intersection Project • Cost is about $10 M • Leverage $6 M from Regional Revenue to request $4 M in funding from Smart Scale

Discussion and Possible Next Steps

25

1. Additional exploratory research for August Meeting?

2. Invite representatives from NVTA and HRTAC to present at a Future FAMPO Meeting

3. Other ideas?

a ̀

8fi.) Regional Transportation Authority White Paper

GEORGE WASHINGTON REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

DISCUSSION PAPER

Background: Traffic and mobility and other transportation issues are well-known in the George Washington Region, caused in part by a 400% population increase in the past four decades, and by the lack of a corresponding increase in transportation funding. Transportation issues consistently rank at the top of citizen concerns in the Region. In the past ten years significant discussion has occurred in the Region, particularly at the Fredericksburg Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO), around forming a Regional Transportation Authority to begin to solve the lack of transportation funding to address transport problems. In recent months the Authority topic has re-arisen, and the FAMPO Policy Committee has directed staff to prepare this discussion paper to provide context to their deliberations on the matter.

Authorization Control: The General Assembly is in control of the creation of any authority and therefore the authorizing language to that end. Two or more municipalities can form any Authority authorized.

If the authorizing language includes any new taxes, then these must be enacted by the General Assembly, per the Virginia Supreme Court. Practically speaking, this means that membership in the Authority (where the taxes are to be applied) must be named in the legislation. Named municipalities cannot choose whether or not to have the taxes imposed at a later date. As shown below, if municipalities in the George Washington Region wish to have the General Assembly authorize an advisory citizens vote on the idea of a new authority, then the full amount of time to actually create the authority may be two years. Year one to authorize the advisory citizens vote and year two to create the new authority in the General Assembly.

Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (NVTA) and Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission: FAMPO Policy Committee members have expressed their desire to receive more information about the NVTA and the Hampton Roads Commission (authority) as they consider the matter of an Authority. Hence the current section of this discussion paper.

The NVTA was created in its present configuration by the General Assembly in 2014, as a new Chapter 25 within Title 33.2 of the Virginia Code (“Highways and other Surface Transportation Systems”). Chapter 25 prescribes in depth nearly all facets of the NTVA in thirteen subsections as described briefly below.

1. 2500 Creation of the Authority/Powers and Duties: The authority is to produce a regional transportation plan PD8 which includes transportation improvements of regional significance. The authority may acquire, lease or otherwise build the projects listed in the plan. The authority may operate facilities or operate them by agreement with others. The authority may enter into agreements with public or private interests to build and operate

facilities. The authority may not regulate taxi cabs. The authority may acquire land by purchase, lease or gift, including advance purchase. The authority may prepare a mass transit plan and may contract for its implementation.

2. 2501 Membership: The counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William, and the cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas and Manassas Park are authority members.

3. 2502 Composition of Board and Terms: The chief elected official of each municipality or their designees are members. Two members of the State House from different counties, appointed by the Speaker and hopefully representing appropriations and transportation, are members. One member of the Senate, appointed by the Rules Committee and hopefully representing the finance and transportation, is a member. Two members of the public who live in different counties and appointed by the Governor are members; one of these is to be a CTB member, the other with experience in a transportation-related area. Ex officio members are to be the DRPT Director, the VDOT Commissioner and the chief elected official of a town with the authority (the latter to be selected by the authority).

4. 2503 Staff: The authority is to employ a CEO and such other staff as it requires. Staff may not be authority members. VDOT and DRPT are to make their staff available to assist the authority, on request.

5. 2504 Authority Decisions: Quorum is obtained when a majority of member municipalities are present. Voting procedures are to be defined by the authority. Decisions of the authority require a two thirds vote of the entire authority present, two thirds of the municipalities present and must represent two thirds of the entire authority population as established in the latest Weldon Cooper publication. If a municipality is the sole no vote on funding a project not to be located in that municipality, then the two thirds population rule does not apply.

6. 2505 Allocation of Expenses among Members: The administrative expenses of the authority are to be allocated among the members based on population.

7. 2506 Payment to Board Members: Board members are to be paid the same as General Assembly members engaged in legislative work between sessions, or a lesser amount as determined by the authority.

8. 2507Advisory Committees: A technical advisory committee is created and consists of nine members, six of whom are appointed by member municipalities and three of whom are appointed by the CTB Chair. The authority is to have a planning coordination advisory committee to include at least one elected official from each town within the authority that receives VDOT street maintenance payments. The authority may also form other advisory committees.

9. 2508 Long Range Planning: In conducting its long range planning, the authority shall establish transportation policies and priorities for projects. These policies and priorities are to be arrived at by consensus, if possible. They are to be guided by performance-based criteria such as improved travel times, reduced delays, connecting regional activity centers, improving safety, improving air quality and moving the most people in the most cost-effective manner.

10. 2509 Authority Fund: A special NVTA fund is created is created for PD8 on the books of the Comptroller. All funds accruing to the NVTA are to be deposited in this fund. These funds include but are not limited to new taxes specific to PD8 and not subject to previous state maximums. These are a $.007 sales tax, a grantor tax of $.15 of each $100 of property sold, and a transient occupancy tax of $.02. Funds in excess of present needs may be deposited in interest bearing accounts the same as for the State’s Transportation Trust Fund. These funds are not to affect (diminish) other funds presently being provided to member municipalities, including education.

11. 2510 Use of Revenues by the Authority: All authority funds are to be used for transportation purposes benefitting member municipalities. 30% of the authority’s funds shall be returned directly to the municipalities, in proportion to the amount of authority revenues attributable to that municipality. Each municipality may spend these funds on transportation improvements of their own choosing, including the operating cost of public transit. A locality may utilize VDOT planning, engineering, right-of-way and construction services for projects 100% funded by the authority. These funds may not be used to repay debt incurred before July 1, 2013. Virginia code already allows municipalities in PD8 to tax commercial and industrial real estate at a rate up to $.125 per $100 of value, over and above the State maximum. If the municipalities within the authority are not taxing at this maximum, then their 30% share cited above is reduced by the amount they are not taxing and redistributed to projects of authority-wide concern, below. 70% of authority revenues are to be expended on projects which are selected by the authority and are in its regional plan. Public transit operating costs are not a valid use of these funds. All projects are to be completed by contractors, and public-private partnerships may be employed. Engineering and right-of-way acquisition services may be provided by municipalities or VDOT. VDOT, the CTB and the authority are to coordinate efforts so as to avoid duplication. In relation to projects selected for funding by the authority, each member municipality’s approximate long term benefits must be about equal to the relative share of authority revenues each municipality generates.

12. 2511 Bonds: The authority may issue bonds or other debt it deems necessary subject to State law. Tolls may not be used to securitize debt, except on the projects for which those tolls are imposed.

13. 2512 Other: Other responsibilities of the authority include oversight of regional TDM programs; providing long range planning, both constrained and unconstrained; recommending to Federal, State and regional agencies priorities and funding allocations, including public-private projects; developing air quality improvement policies in coordination with municipalities; allocating funds to regional project priorities and overseeing those projects; recommending to the CTB regional projects for the receipt of

Federal and State funds; setting and collecting dynamic tolls on facilities for which the authority is responsible; possible imposition of fees and taxes allowed in State law.

The Hampton Roads “authority” is called the Hampton Road Transportation Accountability Commission (HRTAC) and was created in its present configuration by the General Assembly in 2014, as a new set of chapters within Title 33.2 of the Virginia Code (“Highways and other Surface Transportation Systems”). Chapters 466-476 prescribe in depth nearly all facets of the HRTAC as described briefly below.

1. 466 HRTAC Established: The Commission is established as a political subdivision of the Commonwealth. The Commission is to include all counties and cities in Planning District 23.

2. 467 Composition of Commission: The voting members Commission are composed of the chief elected officer of each member jurisdiction (or their designees), as well as three Virginia House members (from different jurisdictions) appointed by the House Speaker and two Virginia Senate members (from different jurisdictions appointed by the Senate Rules Committee. Terms of these members are to coincide with their respective terms of elected office. Non-voting Commission members include a local CTB member appointed by the Governor, as well as the VDOT Commissioner, DRPT Director and Virginia Port Authority Executive Director (or there designees). The Office of the Commonwealth Auditor of Public Accounts is to annually audit the financial accounts of the Commission, at the Commission’s expense.

3. 468 Staff: The Commission is to employ an Executive Director and such other staff as it requires. Staff may not be Commission members. VDOT and DRPT are to make their staff available to assist the Commission, on request.

4. 469 Commission Decisions: A quorum is obtained when a majority of the Commission, including a majority of member municipalities, are present. Voting procedures are to be defined by the Commission. Decisions of the Commission require a two thirds vote of the entire authority present, two thirds of the municipalities present and must represent two thirds of the entire Commission population as established in the latest Weldon Cooper publication. If a municipality is the sole no vote on funding a project not to be located in that municipality, then the two thirds population rule does not apply.

5. 470 Budget and Allocation of administrative Expenses among Members: In addition to an annual budget, the Commission is required to prepare a ‘funding plan’ for four and six years, this would coincide with the TIP developed by the MPO and the Six Year Program developed by the Commonwealth. The administrative expenses of the authority are to be allocated among the members based on population.

6. 471 Authority to Issue Bonds: The Commission may issue bonds as needed, subject to existing requirements in Commonwealth law. Bonds for toll facilities are also limited to existing requirements in law.

7. 472 Powers of the Commission: The Commission may set and collect tolls allowed under State and Federal guidelines to fund transportation capacity expansion or congestion reducing projects. The tolls collected may be used alone or in conjunction with other

Commission revenues. All tolls are to be collected electronically, and signage is to be provided to educate system users how the tolls are being spent.

8. 473 Additional Powers: The Commission has the following additional powers, -To sue and be sued; -To adopt a seal; -To buy insurance (but not to forego sovereign immunity); -To establish bylaws, rules and regulations; -To accept all sorts of funding from public and private entities; -To acquire and own or sell property; -To acquire and construct highways, bridges and tunnels; -In consultation with the CTB and local governments, to work on highways, bridges and tunnels with PD 23, and to acquire property to that end; -To enter into agreements or leases with public or private entities for the operation and maintenance of bridges, tunnels, transit and rail facilities and highways; -To execute such agreements as are required to carry out the Commission’s powers and duties; -To employ such labor as is required to carry out the Commission’s powers and duties; -To exercise the powers of transportation district commissions and to adhere to Commonwealth law regarding local governments.

9. 474 Status as a Responsible Pubic Entity for the Purposes of the Public-Private Transportation Act of 1965: The Commission is given this designation.

10. 475 Interaction with CTB and VDOT: The CTB and VDOT are required to continue to perform maintenance, operations and other work being performed in PD 23 prior to July 1, 2014. This can be changed if the Commission, CTB and VDOT agree.

11. 476 Use of Revenues by the Authority: The Commission’s revenues derive in part from tolls, private sector agreements and grants. However a major source of other revenue is a .7% sales tax and a 2.1% motor fuel tax dedicated to the Commission, which together raised over $150 million for the Commission in FY2016. The only caveat on the expenditure of these funds is that they be expended on expanding the capacity of highway, bridges and tunnels in PD 23. The Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (the MPO) is to support the Commission with staff, for which the Commission is to compensate the MPO.

Projected Revenues for the George Washington Region: Based on the NVTA tax structure authorized in its founding legislation (sales tax, grantors tax, transient occupancy tax), a Regional authority which includes all five George Washington Region municipalities would raise about $50 million or so annually in new transportation revenues over the next twenty-five years, or about $1.3 billion or so. According to the 2040 Long Range Plan, without any new Authority funds, the George Washington Region will receive about $1.2 billion in combined Federal, State and local funding to cover highway construction and reconstruction, transit capital improvements, ongoing transit operations, and bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements through 2040. Highway maintenance is funded separately, and,

according to State statute, is composed of dedicated funds. The City of Fredericksburg maintains its own roadways, and these State revenues are also not included here.

Projected Needs in the George Washington Region: Excluding highway maintenance, the 2040 FAMPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) shows the cost of needs for highway construction and reconstruction, transit capital, transit operations, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements at about $10 billion. This of course leaves a great gap between revenues and needs, brought on by a combination of the Region’s rapid population growth and the lack of corresponding transportation investments.

Managing Needs Against Revenues: To help manage this funding gap, and to build public confidence that scarce transportation resources are being invested in the best projects, several years ago, after much discussion and debate, FAMPO adopted an objective project prioritization process for its Long Range Plans. This prioritization process is fairly simple and understandable by the public. What it does is to sort projects by their respective functional classification, so similar projects compete with one another. Projects are then evaluated and scored by their demonstrated ability to address issues like safety, congestion, environmental impacts, access, community support, etc. and are scored on a scale of 1-100, with the higher the score the better. The FAMPO Policy Committee then takes the available resources and allocates them among the various functional classifications. Projects within each classification are then ranked against each other.

The result of this process is that all of the projects in the LRTP are listed, scored and ranked from top to bottom. In the case of the 2040 LRTP, out of the $10 billion in identified needs, the first $1.2 billion worth of projects were then recommended for funding, because $1.2 billion was all of the funding available during the life of the 2040 Plan.

Because of this and other factors (balanced local budgets in the face of extreme growth, excellent bond ratings, successful GWRC audits, successful FAMPO Certification Reviews, etc.), it is clear that George Washington Region elected officials are good stewards of scarce transportation resources, and therefore undue restrictions placed on the use of authority funds by the General Assembly, such as those placed on Northern Virginia, should be avoided.

General Assembly Action: If GWRC and FAMPO conclude that creation of an authority should be recommended to the General Assembly, then that recommendation should contain the following provisions:

1. Advisory Voting: Before any creation of a new authority, and the General Assembly should authorize a non-binding advisory vote among the PD16 municipalities, to test public attitudes toward an authority. This mean that actual creation of an authority would take on full session, with the advisory vote in year one, and creation of the authority in year two.

2. Tax Structure: The tax structure should be the same as that currently imposed by the NVTA. 3. Regional/Local Revenues: No recommendation is offered here. In Northern Virginia 30% of

funds are returned to local governments. In Hampton Roads the Commission controls all the funds but delivers a local grant program with VDOT and contractor support.

4. Use of Authority Funds: As shown above, the Authority should be given broad flexibility in the use of funds, including paying the public transportation operating costs.

5. Organization of the new Authority: the Authority should determine its own organization, including its voting structure, although the General Assembly may wish to designate which local governments and other potential groups (VDOT, DRPT, General Assembly, etc.) may be represented.

6. In general, if the George Washington Region is to pursue creation of a Transportation Authority, then the tax structure of Northern Virginia is recommended. At the same time Hampton Roads has a very economical division of responsibilities which Northern Virginia perhaps lacks. This is to say the, in Hampton Roads, the MPO, in addition to housing and partially staffing the Commission, also develops the long range plan of projects and prioritizes them on behalf the Commission. The MPO also develops the four year plan of improvements in its TIP. VDOT develops the six year plan of improvements in its SYIP and assists the Commission and local governments with developing projects through their various phases. So the job of the Commission is to work with its partners, build agreed upon projects and manage its investments and financing. This division of responsibilities adopted in Hampton Roads is simple and attractive and is recommended for the George Washington Region going forward.

Regional Action: During consideration of the new Authority, the following Regional activities are recommended for elected officials and staff:

1. Reach Out to the General Assembly: Members of the Region’s State delegation should be contacted to develop support. The Region’s project prioritization process and its proven management record should be emphasized. Interest groups should be encouraged to become involved. A Regional presence should be established in Richmond throughout General Assembly consideration. This presence should be coordinated by Eldon James.

2. Make Key Authority Issues Known Prior to the Local Advisory Votes: Just as with the General Assembly, Regional residents should be familiarized with the prioritization process and the resulting list of ranked projects. In this fashion people will have a better understanding of what they are to receive in exchange for increased taxes. Similarly the strong management track record Regional governments should be emphasized, to build public confidence that Authority funds will be well-administered. Interest groups can and should be brought into this outreach.

3. Organize the New Authority: The Authority will need to be organized with by-laws, leadership, a voting structure, etc. In terms of the voting structure, a number of models exist, including the NVTA, the Hampton Roads Authority, PRTC, the VRE Operations Board, other Authorities around the country, etc. In addition, member governments could loan the Authority seed money to provide for initial staffing and office spaces, until the Authorities cash flow is established.

a ̀

8g.) Proposed Legislative Items

June 19, 2017

Proposed Legislative Items

Potential Transportation Legislative Items for 2018

2

1. Enabling additional rural multilane divided highways to potentially have a speed limit of 60 mph

2. Updating 1986 District Grant Formula for Smart Scale (SS) to be less focused on City/Town population within the District vs. total population• Assuming $500 million in statewide District Grant funding, this could generate an additional $5 million

per SS cycle for Fredericksburg District, from about $35 to $40 million. • Estimated additional revenue: $70 million between 2018 and 2045 (assuming bi-annual SS cycles)

3. Support a Regional Motor Fuels Tax Floor based on Statewide Floor of $3.17/gallon• Could generate an additional $5.5 million per year for FAMPO jurisdictions• Estimated additional revenue: $158 million between 2017 and 2045

4. Support the ability for adjacent localities, MPO regions, or PDC regions to create Regional Transportation Authorities

5. Smart Scale Changes• Potentially submit recommendations developed by FAMPO Smart Scale Task Force

Existing 60 Mph Speed Limit State Code

3

§ 46.2-870. Maximum speed limits generally.

Except as otherwise provided in this article, the maximum speed limit shall be 55 miles per hour on interstate highways or other limited access highways with divided roadways, nonlimited access highways having four or more lanes, and all state primary highways.

The maximum speed limit on all other highways shall be 55 miles per hour if the vehicle is a passenger motor vehicle, bus, pickup or panel truck, or a motorcycle, but 45 miles per hour on such highways if the vehicle is a truck, tractor truck, or combination of vehicles designed to transport property, or is a motor vehicle being used to tow a vehicle designed for self-propulsion, or a house trailer.

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the maximum speed limit shall be 70 miles per hour where indicated by lawfully placed signs, erected subsequent to a traffic engineering study and analysis of available and appropriate accident and law-enforcement data, on: (i) interstate highways, (ii) multilane, divided, limited access highways, and (iii) high-occupancy vehicle lanes if such lanes are physically separated from regular travel lanes. The maximum speed limit shall be 60 miles per hour where indicated by lawfully placed signs, erected subsequent to a traffic engineering study and analysis ofavailable and appropriate accident and law-enforcement data, on U.S. Route 29, U.S. Route 58, U.S. Route 360, U.S. Route 460, and on U.S. Route 17 between the town of Port Royal and Saluda where they are nonlimited access, multilane, divided highways.

Map of Potential Eligible Highways for 60 mph Speed Limit

4

US Rte 17, US Rte 301, Rte 207, & Rte 3

Questions?

5

Paul AgnelloFAMPO Administrator(540) [email protected]

a ̀

8h.) Approval of Resolution No. 17-39, Recognizing the Dedicated Service of Matthew Kelly


A RESOLUTION OF THE FREDERICKSBURG AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION RECOGNIZING THE DEDICATED

SERVICE OF MATTHEW KELLY

WHEREAS, Mr. Matthew Kelly served with distinction as Chairman of the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization from July 2016 to June 2017, and WHEREAS, Mr. Kelly carried out his responsibilities with great diligence and dedication, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE FREDERICKSBURG AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION EXPRESSES ITS DEEPEST APPRECIATION AND MOST SINCERE THANKS TO MR. MATTHEW KELLY FOR HIS DEDICATED SERVICE AS CHAIRMAN, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT A PLAQUE OF APPRECIATION BE PRESENTED TO MR. MATTHEY KELLY AS A TOKEN OF ITS ESTEEM AND APPRECIATION



Matthew Kelly

Fredericksburg City Chairman Spotsylvania County



____________________________________________________


Date:___________________


a ̀

8i.) FAMPO Meeting Calendar

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S26 27 27 28 29 30 1 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 72 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 149 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 2823 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31 1 2 3 430 31 1 2 3 4 5

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S29 30 31 1 2 3 4 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 28 29 30 31 1 2 35 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 1719 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 2426 28 29 30 1 2 3 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 25 26 27 28 1 2 3

31 1 2 3 4 5 6

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S25 26 27 28 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 27 28 29 30 31 1 24 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 1618 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 2325 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

APRIL 2018

AUGUST 2017

Deadline for VDOT/DRPT/locality to submit final versions of TIP amendments and adjustment requests

SEPTEMBER 2017 OCTOBER 2017

NOVEMBER

JULY 2017

2017 DECEMBER 2017

2018 JUNE 2018

FY2018 FAMPO Committee Meetings Calendar

Citizens Transportation Advisory Group

Policy CommitteeTechnical Committee

HolidayPC Meeting Snow Date

MAY

FEBRUARY 2018JANUARY 2018

2018MARCH

a ̀

11.) Correspondence

Interstate 95 Southbound

Collector Distributor Lanes – Rappahannock River Crossing

City of Fredericksburg

Spotsylvania County

Stafford County

Citizen Information Meeting

Wednesday, June 28 2017, 5-7 p.m. Fredericksburg Hospitality House & Conference Center

Fredericksburg Room 2801 Plank Road, Fredericksburg, VA 22401

Come see a revised design for the I-95 southbound collector distributor lanes from Exit 133 (Route 17) in Stafford County to Exit 130 (Route 3) in the City of Fredericksburg. The revised design includes construction of three new I-95 southbound lanes in the current median of I-95 for through traffic. The new through traffic lanes would be built from north of Exit 133 at Route 17 in Stafford to south of Exit 130 at Route 3 in Spotsylvania. The three existing I-95 southbound lanes from north of Exit 133 to south of Exit 130 would be converted to lanes for local traffic, also known as collector distributor lanes. The project would require construction of a new crossing of the Rappahannock River, parallel to the existing I-95 southbound bridge, to carry the new lanes for through traffic. In compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 and 36 CFR Part 800, information concerning the potential effects of the proposed project on historic properties is provided in the Environmental Assessment. VDOT ensures nondiscrimination and equal employment in all activities in accordance with Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you need more information or special assistance for persons with disabilities or limited English proficiency, contact VDOT’s Civil Rights District Manager Valerie Talley at 540-899-4562 or TDD/TTY 711.

State Project 0095-111-259,P101

UPC 101595

a ̀

12.) FAMPO Committees Meeting Minutes

May 9, 2016 – FAMPO Technical Committee Meeting Minutes 1

FAMPO Technical Committee Meeting Minutes May 9, 2016

www.fampo.gwregion.org/fampo-technical-committee

Members Present: Mr. Dan Cole, Chair, County of Spotsylvania (In at 9:45) Mr. Bassam Amin, City of Fredericksburg Mr. Erik Nelson, City of Fredericksburg Mr. Jack Green, County of King George Mr. Joey Hess, County of Stafford (In at 9:12) Mr. Tim Roseboom, Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) Mr. Rodney White, Fredericksburg Regional Transit (FRED) Ms. Cynthia Porter Johnson, Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC) Mr. Stephen Haynes, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Ms. Nutan Pande, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Ms. Sonali Soneji, Virginia Railway Express (VRE) Others Present: Ms. Doris McLeod, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Mr. Todd Horsley, Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) Mr. Dan Grinnell, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Mr. Jim Ponticello, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Mr. Rupert Farley, Citizen Staff Members Present: Mr. Paul Agnello, FAMPO Mr. Lloyd Robinson, FAMPO Ms. Marti Donley, FAMPO Mr. Daniel Reese, FAMPO Mr. Nicholas Quint, FAMPO Ms. Fiona Curtis, FAMPO Ms. JoAnna Roberson, GWRC CALL TO ORDER The FAMPO Technical Committee meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m. by Vice-Chair, Mr. Nelson. APPROVAL OF TECHNICAL COMMITTEE AGENDA The May 9th FAMPO Technical Committee agenda was approved, with a request from Mr. Agnello that Item #6F be moved for presentation after Item #6B.

http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/fampo-technical-committee


APPROVAL OF TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 11, 2016 The minutes from the April 11, 2016, Technical Committee meeting were accepted as submitted. REVIEW OF FAMPO POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING ON APRIL 18, 2016 Mr. Agnello advised that the Policy Committee minutes are included in today’s agenda packet. PUBLIC COMMENT None DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS

a.) Discussion of Possibly Changing FAMPO Technical Committee Meeting Date/Time - Mr. Paul Agnello

Mr. Agnello advised that the Policy Committee has requested that they receive meeting materials earlier and the bylaws state seven days in advance of the scheduled monthly meeting. Mr. Agnello stated that in order to accommodate this request, that consideration of changing the monthly Technical Committee meeting dates earlier needs to be addressed. Mr. Agnello stated that staff recommendation is to schedule the Technical Committee meetings for the first week of each month instead of the second week. Mr. Agnello advised that staff would accommodate the Technical Committee if a meeting day other than a Monday works better. There was committee consensus that the first Monday/Tuesday of each month works better than either a Wednesday/Thursday/Friday. Mr. Agnello stated that as some members were not in attendance today that he would email everyone for concurrence, but tentatively beginning in July, the Technical Committee meetings will move to the first Monday of each month. (Mr. Agnello stated that for the upcoming June meeting, this meeting will meet on the second Monday of the month as already scheduled).

b.) May Transportation Update – Mr. Paul Agnello Mr. Agnello advised that the spring public meeting for the Fredericksburg VDOT District is scheduled for May 10th at 5:30 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Germanna Community College Spotsylvania Campus. Mr. Agnello stated that as the Draft Six Year Improvement Program (SYIP) release date is not until May 17th, the May 10th meeting will be to accept feedback on the Draft HB2 funding plan. Mr. Agnello stated that the deadline for submitting comments on the SYIP ends on May 27th, so there will be time to provide comment from when the plan is released on the 17th to when it closes on the 27th. Mr. Agnello advised that staff is now in receipt of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)/Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funding allocations for the FY 2017-2022 and that there was a significant decrease in CMAQ funding but a significant increase in RSTP funding. Mr. Agnello advised that Mr. Reese would be discussing this in greater detail later in the meeting. In regard to the I-95 Phase 1 Corridor Study, Mr. Agnello stated that draft results should be available by the June Technical Committee meeting and that the second round of locality meetings are planned


to occur in May. Mr. Agnello stated that May 18th is the deadline for staff to receive candidate projects for both the 2040 CLRP amendments and for the New Regional Economic Development Plan.

c.) Discussion of Resolution 16-31 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment for UPC 105463 – Mr. Paul Agnello

Mr. Agnello advised that Resolution 16-31 was already approved by the FAMPO Policy Committee at the April 16th meeting and is included in today’s agenda packet for informational purposes only. Mr. Agnello relayed that a TIP amendment was required for the Mudd Tavern Road project in Spotsylvania County. Mr. Agnello stated that the original resolution was for right-of-way only and it actually should have been for right-of-way and construction.

d.) Resolution 16-32, Adopting the FY2017 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) – Mr. Paul Agnello

Mr. Agnello stated that Resolution 16-32 is for adoption of the FY2017 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). Mr. Agnello advised that a public hearing and public comment period began on April 20th and will end on May 19th. Mr. Agnello relayed that to date, we have received one requested change from FHWA and this request was to include start and end dates to the projects included. Mr. Agnello advised that staff has amended the UPWP as requested. There was committee concurrence for endorsement of Resolution 16-32, with a request that it be adopted by the FAMPO Policy Committee at the upcoming May 16th meeting.

e.) State Presentation on Air Quality Conformity Updates – Ms. Doris McLeod, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

Ms. McLeod with DEQ provided an air quality update for the Fredericksburg region. Ms. McLeod advised that ozone is an air pollutant that is a lung irritant formed within the atmosphere. Ms. McLeod stated that this is mainly a summertime pollutant and the primary component comes from smog. Ms. McLeod stated that ozone levels are heavily regulated and monitored by the Clean Air Act. Ms. McLeod advised that the ozone requirement levels are established by the Federal Government and the ratings from 2015 have a standard rate to meet that is 0.070 ppm averaged over an eight-hour period. Ms. McLeod provided ozone history for the Fredericksburg area which is as follows:

• 1991 – the most impacted county within the Fredericksburg region was Stafford County – As Stafford was a part of the Washington, DC conformity area the region received a fail grade.

• 1997 – the 2004 results assesses this region as being a moderately nonattainment area. At this time, Stafford County became a part of the ratings assigned to the City of Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County. Due to air quality improvements made within the region, in 2006 the Fredericksburg region was re-designated and classified as an attainment area.

• 2008 – the 2012 results showed that the Fredericksburg region was a designated attainment area. In 2013, ozone advance action plans were submitted by the City of Fredericksburg and the Counties of: Caroline, Spotsylvania and Stafford.


• 2015 – the 2017 designations for the Fredericksburg area are currently projected to be an attainment area. Ms. McLeod stated that there are two ozone monitoring stations within the region; one in Stafford County and one in Caroline County. The results currently show that Caroline County has a rating of 62% and Stafford County a rating of 63% so the region again should be classified as an attainment area.

Ms. McLeod advised that the region has created two ozone advance action plans; one that is applicable to the City of Fredericksburg and to Spotsylvania and Stafford counties; and the second one that applies to Caroline County. Ms. McLeod stated that this region has implemented advance action plan control programs which have played a large factor in the region reaching and sustaining an attainment classification. Ms. McLeod stated that some of the programs that have been implemented include things such as: GWRideConnect, CMAQ projects, A.P. Hill sustainability programs, DMME Energy Efficiency programs, Virginia Clean Cities EV programs, and VDEQ-RapidPass program (RapidPass program is now established in Stafford County). Ms. McLeod stated that this region is fortunate in that it does not have large industries or large power stations that cause ozone levels to escalate.

f.) Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) Update on I-95/I-395 Study Process – Mr. Tim Roseboom and Mr. Todd Horsley, DRPT

Mr. Todd Horsley provided an update on the I-95/I-395 Study Process. Mr. Horsley advised that the regional express lane network includes six fully-funded projects. Mr. Horsley stated that four of the projects will occur along the I-95 corridor and two will be on I-66. The two projects for I-66 are outside of the beltway projects. Mr. Horsley relayed that all beltway projects inside the beltway at this time are expected to be funded with both private/public funds. Mr. Horsley stated that, if approved, a seventh project would be included. This project is for express lanes to Fredericksburg and is currently unfunded; however, funding has been applied for. Mr. Horsley stated that by 2021 there is to be an 84-mile seamless network of express lanes that will provide for faster and more reliable trips for single occupancy drivers, carpoolers, and transit vanpool users in Northern Virginia. The express lane projects currently planned are:

• I-95 Express Lanes (operational) with a 2-mile southern extension • I-495 Express Lanes (operational) • I-395 Express Lanes Northern Extension (planned) • Transformation of I-66 – inside the beltway (planned) • Transformation of I-66 – outside the beltway (planned)

Mr. Horsley stated that the goal of the network is to maximize person throughput versus vehicular throughput. Guaranteed funding from toll revenues will be spent on multimodal solutions in Northern Virginia. The benefits of these multimodal improvements include: improved mobility along the corridors; new and diverse travel options; and enhanced transportation safety and travel reliability. Mr. Horsley stated that the amount of the annual transit investment has not yet been determined; however, a guaranteed annual transit investment payment from the new I-395 Express Lane toll


revenues will be submitted to the Commonwealth. This revenue is for multimodal improvements along the I-95 and I-395 corridors. Mr. Horsley stated that the preliminary estimates of the revenues to be received will be available in September of 2016. Mr. Horsley advised that the annual transit investments will escalate annually and the funding generated will come from revenues on the new I-395 Express Lanes only. Mr. Horsley advised that the DRPT has been designated as the lead in the development of the new I-95/I-395 Transit/Transportation Demand Management (TDM) study in coordination with the stakeholders. Mr. Horsley stated that the five original stakeholders included: Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax, Northern Virginia Transportation Commission (NVTC) and PRTC. Mr. Horsley stated that the stakeholders committee has now been expanded to include representation from the following: City of Fredericksburg, Prince William County; Spotsylvania County; Stafford County and VRE. Mr. Horsley stated that the study will identify transit services and TDM enhancement programs that could be funded by the Annual Transit Investment revenue payments the Commonwealth will receive. The stakeholder group will not be making the decisions on projects that will be funded by the Annual Transit Investment payments. The Commonwealth will make future determinations on who will ultimately make decisions on projects that will be funded by the Annual Transit Investment revenues. Mr. Horsley advised that projects that are eligible for funding are those that increase mobility and person throughput along the I-95 and I-395 corridors and the project must benefit those paying tolls along the I-395 corridor. Mr. Horsley stated that the types of projects that would be eligible for funding would include new bus and rail services, new and improved park and ride lots, and new TDM program enhancements. Mr. Horsley advised that the study area will extend the entire length of the I-95/I-395 network of Express Lanes from Arlington to Stafford. Mr. Horsley advised that the study will include parallel commuting corridors, routes and multimodal transportation. Mr. Horsley stated that Cambridge Systematics will serve as the consultant, and the task order was signed in April with a study completion date of December, 2016. Mr. Horsley stated that the next stakeholder meeting will be held on May 24th in Fredericksburg at the VDOT District Office. Public outreach will begin during the summer and end in the fall/winter time frame. A draft report of the study findings will be provided by November 15th, with a final report due by December 15th. Mr. Robinson asked if the Annual Transit Investment funds apply to both capital and operating expenses. Mr. Horsley advised that it can be applied to both; however, it is likely that a cap will be applied to the capital expenses. Mr. Horsley stated that this percentage amount has not been finalized to date; however, in reference to the I-66 project, a 20% allocation to capital funds has been designated. Mr. Horsley stated that DRPT will come back late this year with updates to the study.


g.) Update of FY2017-2022 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ)/Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) Process – Mr. Daniel Reese

Mr. Reese advised that the draft CMAQ/RSTP budgets for FY2017-2022 were received on April 18th. The resolution was adopted approving allocations for the FY2017-2022 year by the FAMPO Policy Committee on April 18th. Mr. Reese advised that the funding allocations to the CMAQ budgets were less than anticipated; however, the projected RSTP budgets were greater than anticipated. Mr. Reese stated that the revised changes were made following the April Policy Committee meeting for preparation for inclusion of the funds into VDOT’s SYIP. Mr. Reese advised that staff reallocated the funding and all projects that were already fully funded remained fully funded. Even though the funding changed from fiscal year to fiscal year the overall funding allocated to projects either stayed the same or increased. Mr. Reese stated that VDOT requested that phases of projects become fully funded with any remaining funding allocations. Mr. Reese advised that at least one phase of each of the seven operational study projects was fully funded, and a contingency fund was created including ~$200,000 in RSTP and ~$150,000 in CMAQ. The majority of the contingency funds will be allocated once the results of the operational studies are known. The seven operational studies are for the following projects:

• Roundabout for Lafayette @ Kenmore/Charles Street • Butler Road widening from 2 to 4 lanes • Route 628 Intersection improvements • Beulah/Salisbury Drive Intersection improvements (this is a new project submitted by the

City of Fredericksburg) • Route 208 – Courthouse Road/Route 636 Intersection improvements • Harrison Road and Lafayette Boulevard for turn lane improvements (new project) • Courthouse Road and Breckenridge Drive Intersection improvements (new project)

Mr. Reese stated that staff anticipates hearing back from VDOT regarding the operational studies in late May/early June and will make changes to funding allocations as necessary. Each of the seven projects will be fully funded for at least one project phase.

h.) Resolution 16-33, letter, TIGER Grant application for the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Atlantic Gateway Program – Mr. Paul Agnello

Mr. Agnello advised that Resolution 16-33 is an endorsement of the TIGER grant application being submitted by VDOT for the Atlantic Gateway Program. Upon motion by Mr. Nelson and seconded by Mr. Roseboom, with all in concurrence, resolution 16-33 was endorsed with a recommendation that it be adopted by the Policy Committee at the upcoming May 16th meeting.


i.) Update on HB2 Preparations – Mr. Paul Agnello

Mr. Agnello advised that staff is preparing for the next round of HB2 and the next Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP) update. Mr. Agnello stated that staff is working on how to best position the region’s projects so that the project scores assigned can potentially rank higher than some did in round one of the HB2 project application process. Mr. Agnello stated that for round two of the HB2 process, that the Virginia MPO’s have been advised that any large statewide project also be included within that MPO’s CLRP. Mr. Agnello stated that the localities are also encouraged to include projects for HB2 consideration within their comprehensive plan, whether the project is a large or small one. Mr. Agnello stated that for FAMPO’s CLRP, all statewide high priority candidate projects within the City of Fredericksburg, and the Counties of Spotsylvania and Stafford need to be fiscally constrained. However, projects in the Counties of Caroline and King George are not fiscally constrained. Mr. Agnello advised that some regions that had higher scores for round one of the HB2 process received credit for having their projects in a Regional Economic Development Plan. Mr. Agnello stated that staff is preparing a Regional Economic Development Plan for the FAMPO region for round two of the HB2 process. Mr. Agnello advised that the Regional Economic Development Plan is not fiscally constrained. Mr. Agnello advised that the local comprehensive plans are also not fiscally constrained. The goal for completion of these preparations is by June/July and staff will be coordinating efforts with the localities to gather the necessary information. Mr. Agnello relayed that staff is reviewing the existing projects in FAMPO’s 2040 CLRP and a planned amendment is expected to be available for review in either June/July. Staff will also be removing any projects that are no longer planned for moving forward. Staff will be including any new and committed projects that will be included in the Draft FY2017-2022 SYIP and possibly any new projects to be added that are subject to fiscal constraints. Mr. Agnello stated that the deadline for submitting new candidate projects that would amend the existing 2040 CLRP is May 18th. Mr. Agnello relayed that the points of contact for submission of new projects are Mr. Danny Reese and Mr. Nick Quint. Mr. Agnello stated that to date, no new projects have been submitted. Mr. Agnello stated that candidate projects for FAMPO’s next CLRP for the 2045 horizon year do not need to have committed funding allocated in order for the project to be considered. Mr. Agnello advised that inclusion into the CLRP would be subject to prioritization and fiscal constraints. Mr. Agnello relayed that the points of contact for submitting any 2045 CLRP project are Mr. Reese and Mr. Quint, and the deadline for submittal is May 31st. Mr. Agnello stated that for round two of the HB2 project process considerations, a Regional Economic Development Plan will be submitted in order for the region to receive additional credit in the project selection process. Mr. Agnello relayed that a draft Regional Economic Development Plan is included in today’s agenda packet. Mr. Agnello stated that the intent of the Regional Economic Development Plan is to develop a plan that has goals consistent with those already developed by GWRC/FAMPO, the jurisdictions, and the Fredericksburg Regional Alliance (FRA). Mr. Agnello stated that projects in this plan are not fiscally constrained and the project list will include all projects that are currently in the 2040 CLRP and any committed projects that are in the Draft 2017-2022 SYIP. Mr. Agnello stated that the deadline for projects to be considered in the Regional Economic


Development Plan is May 18th and again any project submissions need to be forwarded to Mr. Reese and Mr. Quint. Mr. Agnello requested that the Technical Committee review the draft goals for the Regional Economic Development Plan and provide comments to Mr. Quint by May 23rd. Mr. Agnello stated that the localities’ HB2 candidate projects need to be determined by August 1st. Mr. Agnello stated that staff will be working with each of the localities to ensure that any potential HB2 candidate projects are also included in the specific locality’s comprehensive plan. Mr. Agnello reiterated that maximizing project scores by including projects in the Regional Economic Development Plan can make a significant difference in the Economic Development score a project receives. Based on the last round of HB2 project scores, a project specifically mentioned in a local comprehensive plan received full credit; a project consistent with the local comprehensive plan received half credit; and a project inconsistent with the local comprehensive plan received no credit.

j.) Draft Results from I-95 Phase 1 Corridor Study – Mr. Paul Agnello Mr. Agnello advised that six alternatives have been modeled. Alternative 1 is the base-line no-build alternative. This alternative includes the I-95 Express Lane extension; a fourth southbound general purpose lane in segment 2; reconstruction of Courthouse Road widening project (Exit 140); the I-95 southbound Rappahannock River Crossing Collector-Distributor (CD) lane project; and the Route 3 interchange Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) project. Mr. Agnello stated that Alternative 3C is the bi-directional general purpose widening project. This alternative widens I-95 in the general purposes lanes in both directions and results in one additional lane of capacity. This alternative would occur between Exit 126 and the new Express Lane extension south of Exit 143. This alternative would utilize the full-depth inside shoulders between mileposts 138 and 145 in both directions, to help minimize costs. Mr. Agnello advised that Alternative 4 (the northbound Rappahannock River Crossing project) is the only one that has not changed. This project would construct CD lanes in the northbound direction from Exit 130 to Exit 133. The CD lanes would also serve as a companion to the southbound CD lanes that are a part of the future No-Build alternative. There are no new access points assumed as part of this alternative. The specific functional details of this northbound CD lane alternative are described in the Interchange Modification Report. This alternative will include implementation of a directional flyover that will serve the Route 3 eastbound to I-95 northbound CD lane movement. Mr. Agnello relayed that Alternative 7A has been requested by the Spotsylvania Board of Supervisors and would provide new access points at both the Harrison Road and Courthouse Road interchanges. This alternative will provide north-facing connections with Harrison Road and Courthouse Road. This alternative includes a southbound off-ramp and a northbound on-ramp but no southbound on-ramp or northbound off-ramp. This alternative requires CD lanes in both directions between Exit 130 and the two new access points at Harrison/Courthouse. The CD lanes will not extend south of Courthouse Road, but the southbound deceleration lane going to Exit 126 would be lengthened. All elements of Alternative 4 are also included in this alternative. Alternative 7A would result in the widening of Harrison Road to four lanes east of I-95 and possibly more than four lanes west of I-95. There is no significant widening of Courthouse Road being assumed as part of this alternative. Mr. Agnello advised that Alternative 9A is the reversible Express Lane extension to Route 3. This alternative also includes the elements described in Alternative 4. This alternative will also include a


north-facing direct connection point from the Route 610 corridor to the I-95 Express Lanes. The Express Lane access assumptions are consistent with those included in FAMPO’s current CLRP. Mr. Agnello stated that Alternative 11 is the reversible Express Lane extension to Route 17. This alternative will have reversible express lanes south of Exit 143 to south of Exit 133. This alternative also includes the elements described within Alternative 4. This alternative also includes a north-facing direct connection point from the Route 610 corridor to the I-95 Express Lanes. The Express Lane access assumptions are consistent with those included in FAMPO’s current CLRP. Mr. Agnello stated that VDOT has requested modeling data be performed that depicts the weekend travel. VDOT stated that the preliminary data shows that a general purpose lane widening is better than Express Lanes on the weekends; whereas Express Lanes are probably better for the commuters during the week. Mr. Agnello stated that Alternative 3C is the only alternative that covers the entire I-95 corridor. Mr. Agnello relayed that the current study work has shown that Alternatives 9A and 11 are the highest performing alternatives in throughput and delay for both AM and PM. Alternative 3C is also effective but due to the design, this alternative would provide only one new lane of capacity in any peak direction during any peak time. Mr. Agnello relayed that Alternatives 4 and 7A are valuable in the segments where they exist but they are penalized by the fact that they do not include improvements to the northern segments and thus result in built-in choke points. Mr. Agnello stated that when focusing on the combination of I-95 and US 1, there is less differentiation between the alternatives from a person-movement standpoint and more from a delay reduction standpoint. Mr. Agnello relayed that alternatives 9A and 11 still continue to perform the best. Mr. Agnello stated that the Advisory Committee will need to select two alternatives for further study by May 12th. Mr. Agnello stated that possibly two hybrid alternatives will be the final outcomes submitted. These are Alternative 3C7A and Alternative 7A11. Mr. Agnello relayed that Alternative 3C7A is the general purpose widening project, the northbound Rappahannock River Crossing project, CD lanes, and new access points at both Harrison Road and Courthouse Road. Mr. Agnello advised that Alternative 7A11 would be for express lane extension to Exit 133, the northbound Rappahannock River Crossing project, CD lanes, and new access points at Harrison Road and Courthouse Road with CD lanes. Mr. Agnello stated that outreach to the three FAMPO committees will occur in May (Tech on May 9th; CTAG on May 11th and Policy on May 16th), and staff will have meetings with the localities by month-end. The next Advisory Committee meeting will be scheduled for late May/early June CORRESPONDENCE In packet and self-explanatory STAFF REPORT Mr. Agnello stated that staff is glad to have Marti Donley back.


MEMBER REPORTS DRPT: Mr. Roseboom stated that the 5303 grant applications were received by DRPT on time and that the SYIP should be adopted at the upcoming June CTB meeting. VRE: Ms. Soneji stated that VRE has completed a customer service survey and they will be having upcoming events over the next several months. Ms. Soneji stated that a new customer service survey that will now include feedback from the new Spotsylvania Station is scheduled to take place on June 8th. Spotsylvania County: Mr. Cole advised that Spotsylvania County is in the process of revising its comprehensive plan to better position the County for the upcoming round of HB2. NEXT TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING, JUNE 13th, 2016/ADJOURN The next Technical Committee meeting will be held on Monday June 13th at 9:00. The Technical Committee meeting for May 9th was adjourned at 11:15 a.m.

May 11, 2016 – Citizens Transportation Advisory Group Meeting Minutes

Citizens Transportation Advisory Group (CTAG) Meeting Minutes

May 11, 2016 fampo.gwregion.org/citizens-transportation-advisory-group

Committee Members Present: Mr. Guy Gormley, City of Fredericksburg Mr. Jim Perkins, Spotsylvania County Mr. Todd Rump, Spotsylvania County Mr. Art Snyder, Spotsylvania County Mr. William “Michael” Wood, Spotsylvania County Ms. Fran Larkins, Stafford County Ms. Dawn McGarrity, Stafford County Mr. David Swan, Stafford County Mr. Rupert Farley, At-Large Member (Spotsylvania County) Mr. Larry Gross, At-Large Member (Spotsylvania County) Staff Present: Mr. Paul Agnello, FAMPO Ms. Marti Donley, FAMPO Mr. Nick Quint, FAMPO Mr. Daniel Reese, FAMPO Ms. JoAnna Roberson, GWRC Others Present: None CALL TO ORDER Mr. Gormley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The CTAG agenda for the May 11th meeting was approved as submitted.

http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/transportation-advisory-group/

May 11, 2016 – Citizens Transportation Advisory Group Meeting Minutes 2

APPROVAL OF CTAG MEETING SUMMARY OF APRIL 13, 2016 Mr. Snyder asked that an amendment be made to the sentence structure of a comment that was made on page three of the minutes. The requested edit was given to staff and will be updated accordingly. Upon motion by Mr. Farley and seconded by Ms. Larkins, with all in agreement, the April 13th CTAG minutes were approved as submitted, with noted edit to follow. REVIEW OF FAMPO MEETING OF APRIL 18, 2016 Mr. Agnello advised that the minutes are included in tonight’s agenda packet. Mr. Agnello stated that the Policy Committee endorsed both letters of support and grant applications for FASTLANE and TIGER grant applications that were submitted by VDOT. Mr. Agnello advised that the region will receive the results of these grant applications by September 1st (FASTLANE) and October 1st (TIGER). Mr. Agnello also relayed that copies of these documents are included in tonight’s agenda packet under Correspondence. PUBLIC COMMENT None NEW BUSINESS None DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS

a.) May Transportation Update – Mr. Paul Agnello Mr. Agnello advised that the spring public meeting for the VDOT Fredericksburg District was held yesterday. Mr. Agnello relayed that this meeting was poorly attended. Mr. Agnello stated that the Draft SYIP release date is May 17th. Mr. Agnello relayed that the public comment period will end on May 27th, so there will still be time for comments to be provided after the Draft SYIP is released. Mr. Agnello advised that staff received the FY2017-2022 CMAQ and RSTP allocations and that CMAQ decreased significantly; however, RSTP increased significantly so overall the region should not have any setbacks. Mr. Agnello advised that the State’s allocation updates were completed by May 6th for inclusion into the Draft SYIP. The final allocations, based on revised estimates for the seven operational study projects, should be available in June.


Mr. Agnello stated that the I-95 Phase I Corridor Study is close to completion, and a final report should be available for review in the June timeframe. Ms. Larkins asked as now that the southbound Rappahannock River Crossing project is fully funded in the six-year plan, are there any maps available to date that depict how the truck traffic weaving mechanism will be accomplished on Route 17. Mr. Agnello stated that preliminary design maps were done, and he would have staff forward these to the CTAG members. In regard to the Regional Economic Development Plan, Ms. Larkins asked if a draft of this plan was available for review. Mr. Agnello stated that staff is still completing the write-up but that hopefully a draft plan would be presented to the FAMPO Committees in June. Ms. Larkins asked if the individual locality plans are commonly related and Mr. Agnello stated that they are. Mr. Agnello advised that creation of a Regional Economic Development Plan is not designed to re-create the wheel, but instead is to just for FAMPO to utilize the plans already in place by GWRC, Fredericksburg Regional Alliance, and the localities and combine all of the plans into one regional plan. Mr. Snyder stated that in order for a regional economic development plan to be successful, that the broad-band issues throughout the region need to be addressed as businesses will continue to be unsuccessful without an enhanced system in place.

b.) Resolution No. 16-31, Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment – Mr. Paul Agnello

Mr. Agnello advised that Resolution No. 16-31 has already been adopted by the Policy Committee at their April meeting. Mr. Agnello stated that this resolution request came from VDOT after both the Technical and CTAG Committees had met for the month. Mr. Agnello advised Resolution 16-31 is a TIP amendment for the Mudd Tavern Road project in Thornburg. Mr. Agnello stated that the original resolution was supposed to be for the right-of-way and construction phase for the project. However, VDOT inadvertently submitted the original resolution for the right-of-way phase only. Mr. Agnello stated that Resolution 16-31 is for informational purposes only.

c.) Resolution No. 16-32, Adopting the FY2017 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) – Mr. Paul Agnello

Mr. Agnello stated that Resolution No. 16-32 is for adopting the FY2017 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). Mr. Agnello stated that the UPWP is the plan that details the work staff and consultants will be assigned for the upcoming year. Mr. Agnello stated that for the UPWP to be adopted, per federal


requirements, there needs to be a thirty-day public comment period. Mr. Agnello stated that the public comment period opened on April 18th and will close on May 19th. Mr. Agnello stated that assuming there are no adverse public comments received, the UPWP will be presented to the Policy Committee on Monday night for adoption. Mr. Agnello stated that to date, we have received one comment which came from FHWA. Mr. Agnello advised that the comment from FHWA was that they did not want to see tasks listed that did not have a start and end date. Mr. Agnello relayed that staff has made the revisions to the plan that were recommended by FHWA. Mr. Gross asked what was considered to be an adverse comment. He stated that he was going to make some comments but did not want to submit these now if it was going to result in staff having to go back and re-do the plan. Mr. Gross added that addressing Mr. Snyder’s concerns about having better broad-band opportunities could be a topic that he would comment on. Mr. Agnello encouraged the members to make comments and forward those to us before the 18th, even if something specific is recommended that is not currently listed as a task to be performed, it could very well be a task that could be combined into another category for study and review. There was also discussion about the upcoming construction improvements to the metro lines where over the next several years entire segments of a metro line could be down or impacted and staff should be looking at how this is going to affect the region as we have a large amount of commuters from here. Questions were asked if park & ride lot availability data, van pool data, VRE ridership data and slugging information was available. Mr. Agnello stated that we could obtain data on all of the items with the exception of the slugging ridership. The committee stated that they would be interested in seeing the vanpool and park and ride lot data. Upon motion by Mr. Snyder and seconded by Mr. Swan, with all in concurrence, Resolution No. 16-32 was endorsed with a recommendation that it be approved by the Policy Committee at the upcoming meeting on May 16th.

d.) Department of Rail & Public Transportation (DRPT) Update on I-95/I-395 Study Process – Mr. Paul Agnello

Mr. Agnello advised that Mr. Todd Horsley with DRPT provided an update to the Technical Committee on the I-95/I-395 Transit/TDM study and Mr. Agnello wanted to brief the CTAG committee as well. Mr. Agnello stated that by 2021 an 84-mile seamless network of express lanes will be constructed that will provide faster trips and more reliable trips for drivers, carpoolers, van poolers, and transit providers for users in Northern Virginia.


Mr. Agnello stated that even though the I-95 Express Lanes with the two-mile southern extension is planned in this region, originally Stafford County was the only locality from the region serving on the committee. Mr. Agnello stated that FAMPO wrote a letter to the State asking that consideration be given for GWRC/FAMPO and the other localities to also be members on the advisory committee. Mr. Agnello stated that the State denied the request and stated that GWRC/FAMPO were actually being represented by PRTC, so they would not be appointed as stakeholder members to the committee; however, they did appoint representatives from both the City of Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County to serve on the advisory committee. Mr. Agnello stated that this item would be on the Policy Committee’s agenda for their May meeting for further discussion by them. Mr. Agnello advised that the five original stakeholders were: Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax, NVTC and PRTC. Mr. Agnello stated that DRPT is leading the development of the new I-95/I-395 transit/transportation demand management (TDM) study in coordination with the key stakeholders. The study will identify transit services and TDM program enhancements that could be funded by the Annual Transit Investment payments as a result of profits made from the Express Lanes. Mr. Agnello advised that the stakeholders will not make the decisions on which projects would be funded through the proceeds received from the investment payments. Mr. Agnello stated that the projects eligible for funding would increase mobility and person throughput along I-95 and I-395, but they also must benefit the toll payers on the I-395 corridor. The types of projects that would be eligible for funding could include new bus and rail service, park and ride lots, and TDM enhancement programs. Mr. Agnello stated that the study area will extend from Eads Road in Arlington to the end of the current I-95 Express Lanes in Stafford County and will also include parallel commuting corridors, routes, and modes of alternative transportation. Mr. Agnello stated that the study is to be completed by December of 2016.

e.) Resolution No. 16-33, Letter/TIGER Grant Application for the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Atlantic Gateway Program – Mr. Paul Agnello

Mr. Agnello advised that Resolution No. 16-33 is an endorsement of the letter and TIGER grant application to be submitted by VDOT for the Atlantic Gateway Program. Mr. Agnello advised that FAMPO was initially planning to submit a grant application for consideration of the northbound Rappahannock River Crossing project. However, after staff had completed 75% of the application requirements, they were advised by the State to not pursue with the application process to ensure that FAMPO was not in competition with the State.


Ms. Larkins stated that there is nothing in the letter to the Secretary of Transportation that indicates the Atlantic Gateway Project will address the truck traffic on Route 17. Ms. Larkins also asked if the expanded bus service would be coming further south of Woodbridge into this region. Mr. Agnello stated that funding allocated to the southbound Rappahannock River Crossing project was used as leverage with the TIGER grant application and that $25 million is what the grant is being submitted for. Upon motion by Mr. Farley and seconded by Mr. Snyder, with all concurring, Resolution No. 16-33 was endorsed with a recommendation that it be approved by the Policy Committee at the upcoming May 16th meeting.

f.) Draft results from I-95 Phase I Corridor study – Mr. Paul Agnello

Mr. Agnello advised that the I-95 Phase I Corridor study area is from Exit 143 (Garrisonville) to Exit 126 (Massaponax). Mr. Agnello advised that the Advisory Committee has selected six of the original ten alternatives for recommendations that they move forward with more study and in-depth modeling. The six alternatives are: No Build; Alternative 3C; Alternative 4; Alternative 7A; Alternative 9A and Alternative 11. Mr. Agnello advised that Alternative 1 is the No-Build Alternative and this would include the following: I-95 Express Lane extension project; a fourth southbound General Purpose lane in segment 2; Interchange reconstruction at exit 140; widening of Courthouse Road; the I-95 southbound Rappahannock River Crossing Project; and the Route 3 Interchange HSIP safety project. Mr. Agnello relayed that Alternative 3C is the bi-directional General Purpose lane widening project that has been revised. This alternative would widen the I-95 General Purpose lanes in both directions, between Exit 126 at Massaponax and US Route 1 and the new 95 Express Lanes extension south of Exit 143 at Garrisonville Road. Mr. Agnello stated that this would be applicable with the exception of segments five and six where new CD lanes are already proposed. The General Purpose lane widening would utilize the full-depth inside shoulder that exists between mileposts 138 and 145 in both directions. Mr. Agnello advised that Alternative 3C is the only alternative that covers improvements to the entire I-95 corridor of study. Mr. Agnello stated that Alternative 4 is the northbound Rappahannock River Crossing project and this is the only alternative that has not had any revisions made to it. Mr. Agnello advised that this alternative would consist of CD lanes constructed in the northbound direction from Exit 130 to Exit 133. The CD lanes would serve as a companion to the southbound CD lanes that are part of the future No-Build Alternative. There would be no new access points assumed as part of this alternative. This alternative


would include implementation of a directional flyover to serve the Route 3 eastbound to I-95 northbound CD lane movement. Mr. Agnello stated that Alternative 7A is a new alternative that has been recommended for study and analysis from the Spotsylvania Board of Supervisors. This alternative would result in new north-facing access points at both Harrison Road and Courthouse Road. It would include a southbound off-ramp and northbound on-ramp but no southbound on-ramp or northbound off ramp. This alternative would require CD lanes to be built in both directions between Exit 130 and the two new access points be constructed. The CD lanes would not extend south of Courthouse Road, but the southbound deceleration lane that goes to Exit 126 would be lengthened. This would include the widening of Harrison Road to four lanes east of I-95 and possibly more than four lanes west of I-95. There is no significant widening of Courthouse Road assumed as part of this alternative. Mr. Agnello stated that all elements of Alternative 4 are included in Alternative 7A. Mr. Agnello advised that Alternative 9A is for a reversible Express Lanes extension to Route 3 and this is a revised alternative as well. Mr. Agnello stated that this alternative would result in reversible express lanes from south of Exit 143 to south of Exit 130. This alternative includes the elements that are described in Alternative 4 and will also include a north-facing direct connection point from the Route 610 corridor to the I-95 Express Lanes. The Express Lane access assumptions are consistent with those included in FAMPO’s current CLRP. Mr. Agnello relayed that Alternative 11 is for a reversible Express Lanes extension to Route 17. Mr. Agnello advised that this alternative would result in reversible express lanes south of Exit 143 to south of Exit 133. This alternative also includes the elements that are described in Alternative 4. This alternative also includes a north-facing direct connection from the Route 610 corridor to the I-95 Express Lanes. Mr. Agnello stated that the Express Lane access assumptions in this alternative are consistent with those included in FAMPO’s current CLRP. Mr. Agnello stated that the overall alternative comparison to date shows the following data:

1. the northbound Rappahannock River Crossing project (alternative 4) is included in all five alternatives that have been modeled and will greatly reduce the northbound I-95 congestion that occurs at the Rappahannock River;

2. the Express Lane alternatives (9A and 11) are the highest performing in throughput and delay for both am and pm peak travel periods;

3. the General Purpose lane widening alternative (3C) was also shown to be effective, but due to the design, it would only provide one new lane of capacity in any peak direction during any peak time periods; and


4. the CD lane alternative (7A) is valuable in segments where it exists, but is not as popular due to the fact that it does not include any improvements in the segments to the north, which implies built-in choke points would exist.

Mr. Agnello advised that the next step is to narrow the alternatives down to two hybrid alternatives. One of these, Alternative 3C7A, would consist of a General Purpose lane widening in Stafford County, the northbound Rappahannock Crossing project, and CD lanes with new access points at both Harrison Road and Courthouse Road. Mr. Agnello stated that the other hybrid alternative being studied is Alternative 7A11. This alternative would include an Express Lane extension to Exit 133; the northbound Rappahannock River Crossing project; CD lanes in Spotsylvania County; and new access points at both Harrison Road and Courthouse Road. Mr. Agnello advised that the Advisory Committee will be meeting again on May 31st: The following list of items will need to be completed before then:

1. a determination of the two preferred alternatives for additional analysis; 2. meetings with localities and gathering MPO input; 3. provide planning level cost estimates for the Express Lanes, General Purpose lanes and CD

Lane option; 4. obtain additional analysis of design challenges with the physical constraints – i.e. right-of-way,

bridges, etc.; and 5. provide more data that will analyze Express Lane versus General Purpose Lane improvements

in Stafford County for peak weekday versus peak non-holiday weekend traffic counts CORRESPONDENCE Mr. Agnello stated that correspondence included in tonight’s agenda packet is a request that FAMPO staff was directed to submit regarding the I-395 Transit/TDM Study. Mr. Agnello advised that the Policy Committee tasked staff with submitting a letter to Secretary Layne in regard to the concerns from the lack of Fredericksburg area representation on the I-95/I-395 Transit/Transportation Demand Management (TDM) study process. Mr. Agnello stated that because northern Stafford County is a part of PRTC’s focus area; this is the only locality in the area that has member representation. Mr. Agnello stated that TDM funding revenues are guaranteed to be available for the next 60-70 years. As PRTC has huge operating overhead expenses, there is concern that a large portion of the funding allocated to the Northern Virginia region would be allocated to cover operational expenses and therefore would not be evenly distributed throughout the


region. The local officials did not feel as though the Fredericksburg region was adequately represented in the study effort. The letter submitted is simply asking that consideration is given to have an additional representative on the committee that represents Planning District 16. STAFF REPORT Mr. Agnello stated that he was happy to report that Ms. Donley is now back to work on a part-time basis and that we are glad to have her back. MEMBER REPORTS Ms. Larkins: Ms. Larkins stated she had recently learned that the Chamber of Commerce has a transportation task force committee. Ms. Larkins asked how CTAG could go about facilitating with the Chamber in dealing with regional transportation issues. Ms. Larkins stated that she was not aware the Chamber had a transportation task force committee, and likewise the person to whom she was talking too had no idea who CTAG is; what they do; etc. Ms. Larkins stated that Ms. Donley had forwarded a transportation survey to CTAG that was from the Chamber. Mr. Farley stated that most of the Chamber focus events require a fee in order to participate. Mr. Agnello stated that he is a member of the Chamber’s transportation task force committee and that their focus is more on major transportation improvements to the I-95 corridor that promote economic development rather than on the full range of regional and local transportation issues; etc. There was consensus from the group that at least approaching the Chamber to see if there were events, etc. that could be of benefit to both their organization and to CTAG would be worth pursuing. Mr. Gormley asked Mr. Agnello if he could keep CTAG informed of Chamber transportation events. Mr. Agnello stated that FAMPO could do this and that no events were scheduled at this time. Mr. Snyder: Mr. Snyder expressed his appreciation to the staff for having detailed presentations, graphics, and data at tonight’s meeting. Mr. Snyder’s comments were shared by the committee members and the FAMPO staff was commended for their efforts. ADJOURN The May 11th meeting concluded at 8:22 p.m. The next CTAG meeting will be held on June 8th at 6:00 p.m. Meeting Minutes completed by JoAnna Roberson