AGENDA ITEM #17: FOR YOUR INFORMATION

A. TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES The summary minutes of the July 7, 2010 Transportation Technical Advisory Committee meeting are attached.

Attachment 17‐A

B. CITIZEN TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES The summary minutes of the June 24, 2010 Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee meeting are attached.

Attachment 17‐B

C. HIGH-SPEED AND INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL STEERING COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES The summary minutes of the June 16, 2010 High‐Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Steering Committee meeting are attached.

Attachment 17‐C

D. HRTPO TREASURER’S REPORT Attachment 17‐D

E. ARRA TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE REPORTING Congressman James L. Oberstar, Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee Chairman, pledged the Committee will closely oversee the implementation of transportation and infrastructure provisions of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) to ensure the funds provided are invested quickly, efficiently, and in harmony with the job‐creating purposes of this Act. The Commonwealth of Virginia has submitted its June 2010 update to the T&I Committee. The attachment includes information from Virginia’s June report, summarized by MPO.

Attachment 17‐E

F. SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL – RICHMOND, VA TO RALEIGH, NC The Southeast High‐Speed Rail Corridor (SEHSR) is one of five original corridors the U.S. DOT designated for high‐speed passenger rail. The SEHSR corridor runs from Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC. The SEHSR Tier II Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which evaluates the study alternatives in detail between Richmond, VA and Raleigh, NC, has been released for public review. The public comment period for the Tier II Draft EIS ends on August 30, 2010. Attached is the SEHSR Tier II Draft EIS public hearing schedule.

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Meeting – July 21, 2010 A copy of the draft EIS has been posted on the HRTPO website at www.hrtpo.org, and can also be accessed on the project website at www.sehsr.org and on the DRPT website at www.drpt.virginia.gov/.

The HRTPO Staff has conducted a technical review of the SEHSR Tier II DEIS. The technical review was conducted to provide input on the SEHSR project, with emphasis on its impacts for the future Richmond to Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project. The HRTPO staff comments are enclosed.

Attachment 17‐F Enclosure 17‐F – SEHSR Tier II DEIS HRTPO Staff Technical Comments

G. 2035 VIRGINIA SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PLAN AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT The 2035 Virginia Surface Transportation Plan represents the first time VDOT and DRPT have organized multimodal proposals in a single plan. The plan provides information for potential long‐term project development and investment based on the goals identified in VTrans2035, Virginia’s statewide multimodal transportation policy plan. The draft plan includes possible improvements to transit, rail, freight, highway, and intelligent transportation systems. Transportation needs identified in the plan are used to help determine highway projects for the Six‐Year Improvement Plan. The public review and comment on the draft plan began on June 16, 2010, and runs through July 30, 2010.

The 2035 Virginia Surface Transportation Plan, including a summary map and plan report can be found on the web at www.vtrans.org. Comments can be submitted via e‐mail to [email protected].

H. EAST COAST GREENWAY ROUTE The East Coast Greenway is a developing trail system spanning from Maine to Florida. Attached is an e‐mail message from Ms. Jennifer Wampler of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, requesting comments on the East Coast Greenway in Virginia. Maps illustrating the proposed routes in Virginia are also included in the attachment. Comments are requested by July 15, 2010. More information on the East Coast Greenway may be found on the web at www.greenway.org.

Attachment 17‐H

I. VIRGINIA-NORTH CAROLINA INTERSTATE HIGH SPEED RAIL COMPACT MEETING The Virginia‐North Carolina Interstate High Speed Rail Compact was authorized by Congress and established through legislation enacted by the Virginia and North Carolina General Assemblies. On June 21, 2010, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation announced the inaugural meeting of the Virginia‐North Carolina Interstate High Speed Rail Compact. The meeting was held on July 12, 2010 from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the NCDOT headquarters in Raleigh, N.C. At this public meeting, the members of the Compact were sworn in, officers were elected, and business procedures adopted.

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Meeting – July 21, 2010 It also provided an opportunity for the Compact to discuss strategies to advance multi‐ state high speed rail initiatives. Mr. Dwight Farmer, Dr. Camelia Ravanbakht, and the HRTPO High‐Speed Rail Consultant, Dr. Alex Metcalf of TEMS, attended the inaugural meeting.

For more information, visit: http://drpt.virginia.gov/news/details.aspx?id=504

J. FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE CO-CHAIR As of July 1, 2010, the Freight Transportation Advisory Committee has a new Co‐Chair. HRTPO Board Chair William Sessoms appointed Mr. Stan D. Clark (IW) to replace Mr. Douglas L. Smith (PO).

K. LEGISLATIVE AD-HOC COMMITTEE NEW MEMBERS As of July 1, 2010, the Legislative Ad‐hoc Committee has new members: Mr. Bruce C. Goodson (JC) replaced Mayor Jeanne Zeidler (WM) and Mayor Linda T. Johnson (SU) replaced Mr. Douglas L. Smith (PO).

L. PUBLIC COMMENTS Attachment 17‐L

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Meeting – July 21, 2010 Summary Minutes of the Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) Meeting July 7, 2010,

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

TTAC Voting Members: Mark Shea (CH) Susan Wilson (PO) Gary Walton (CH) Mark Yehlen (PO) Lynn Allsbrook (HA) Sherry Earley (SU) Keith Cannady (HA) Scott Mills (SU) Jane Hill (IW) Travis Campbell(Alternate VB) Michael Stallings (IW) Robert Gey (VB) Allen Murphy (Alternate JC) Phil Pullen (VB) Michael King (NN) Tim Cross (YK) Tom Slaughter (NN) Joe Swartz (DRPT) David Wilkinson (Alternate NN) Jayne Whitney (HRT) Guzin Akan (NO) Tony Gibson (VDOT) John Keifer (Alternate NO) Kim Pryor-Spence (VDOT) Jeff Raliski (NO) Eric Stringfield (VDOT) Joseph Carter (PQ) Kevin Apt (VPA) Richard Drumwright (WATA)

TTAC Voting Members Absent: Earl Sorey (CH) Robert Brown (NO) Anne Ducey-Ortiz (GL) Jeff Bliemel (PQ) Emily Gibson (GL) Debbie Vest (PQ) Christopher Perez (GL) Robert Lewis (SU) Peter Stephenson (IW) Mark Schnaufer (VB) Ellen Cook (JC) Daniel Clayton (WM) Steven Hicks (JC) Steve Martin (WM) Luke Vinciguerra (JC) Reed Nester (WM) Jackie Kassel (NN) J. Mark Carter (YK Al Maddalena (YK)

TTAC Nonvoting Members: Ivan Rucker (FHWA) Wendy Vachet (Navy)

TTAC Nonvoting Members Absent: Randy Brown (Army) Lt. Tiffany Duffy (USCG) Tony Cho (FTA) Clifford Burnette (VDOA)

Summary TTAC Minutes – July 7, 2010 - Page 1 Attachment 17-A HRTPO Staff Jessica Banks Keith Nichols Sam Belfield Joe Paulus Rob Case Benito Pérez Dwight Farmer Camelia Ravanbakht Kathlene Grauberger Stephanie Shealey Mike Kimbrel Dale Stith

Others Recorded Attending: Terri Boothe, Louis Guy, Henry Ryto (Citizens); Carl Jackson (NN); Rob Brown (NO); Heather Ham (VB); Rick Case, Greg Grootendorst, Rob Jacobs, Chris Vaigneur (HRPDC Staff); Ron Hodges (HRT); Frank Azzalina (HRTI); Karen McPherson (Kimley-Horn); John Hendrickson (PB); Chuck Cayton (RK&K); Brandon Borne, Tressell Carter, Joe Curry, David Cutler, Ciera Davidson, Karen Jefferson, Al Riutort (ODU); Bruce Duvall, Lauren Hansen, Ray Hunt, Adam Jack, Jaesup Lee, Stephen Rowan, Robert Scott Jr., Christopher Voigt (VDOT); Debbie Messina (Virginian Pilot); Robby Ferguson, Sara Morris (WTKR); Beth Brown, David Ham (WVEC)

Public Comment Period

There was no public comment.

Approval of Agenda

Chairman Drumwright asked for additions or deletions to the TTAC Agenda.

Mr. Stringfield stated there was a handout regarding the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) contingency funds at the table and he asked to have the item placed on the agenda after item 2. He also asked to switch agenda items 9 and 10. Ms. Spence Moved to approve the agenda with Mr. Stringfield’s amendments; seconded by Ms. Whitney. The Motion Carried.

Summary Minutes

Chairman Drumwright indicated the TTAC Summary Minutes of June 2, 2010 were included in the July TTAC Agenda. He asked for any corrections or amendments to the minutes. Hearing none, Mr. Slaughter Moved to approve the minutes as written; seconded by Mr. Allsbrook. The Motion Carried.

Carolina Road Corridor Study: Final Report

Ms. Ravanbakht indicated HRTPO staff presented the Carolina Road Corridor Study to TTAC at the June meeting. Ms. Earley Moved for recommendation of approval of the Carolina Road Corridor Study: Final Report to the HRTPO Board; seconded by Mr. Mills. The Motion Carried.

Summary TTAC Minutes – July 7, 2010 - Page 2 Attachment 17-A Risk of Contingency Funding on Regional ARRA Projects

Mr. Adam Jack, Assistant District Administrator of Engineering and Investment, of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) stated funding plans for most transportation projects include a contingency of approximately 10% to provide a margin for expenditures above the bid amount. For most ARRA projects, those contingencies are currently funded with ARRA funds. In the event a project is delivered within the bid amount and the contingency amount is not used, those ARRA funds would need to be returned to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). He noted that on projects where contingencies have been funded with statewide ARRA funds, VDOT will move those ARRA funds to other ARRA-certified projects to assure all of the federal money is obligated in accordance with the principles developed for the FY2011-2016 Six Year Improvement Plan (SYIP). The released statewide ARRA funds will be reprogrammed to replace other state funds on existing ARRA projects. No new ARRA projects will be added.

Mr. Jack indicated there are approximately $2-4 million in ARRA funds currently programmed to fund contingencies on ARRA projects in Hampton Roads. He stated VDOT proposes the HRTPO use the recently released FY2010 Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) reserve fund totaling just over $3.5 million, to replace MPO ARRA funds currently programmed to cover contingencies on projects and reprogram those MPO ARRA funds in accordance with the strategy outlined in the HRTPO 2010-06 Resolution approved by the HRTPO Board at its May meeting.

Ms. Akan stated the City of Norfolk’s bids were actually higher than expected and asked how the lost funding would be found if there was no ARRA contingency fund. Mr. Jack replied that all ARRA funds were RSTP funds and a project requiring additional monies could be funded by the reserve fund.

Mr. Slaughter noted there was a recommendation by the Hampton Roads Transportation Operations Subcommittee to utilize the $3.5 million RSTP reserve fund for hurricane evacuation in agenda item 14. There was a suggestion that the issue of whether to use the RSTP reserve to cover contingencies on ARRA projects or for the Hurricane Evacuation item be referred to the Transportation Technical Subcommittee (TTS) meeting in late July. Ms. Ravanbakht stated TTAC needs to make a determination pertaining to the usage of the reserve fund in order to bring the recommendation to the HRTPO Board at the July 20, 2010 meeting.

Ms. Spence suggested amending the HRTPO 2010-06 Resolution to allow the localities to not only transfer ARRA funds from one project to another within a locality, but to also allow ARRA funds to be transferred from one locality project to another.

Mr. Pullen noted the Princess Anne Road Project listed in the HRTPO 2010-06 Resolution came in under bid, and therefore, will not need any additional ARRA funding.

Mr. Allsbrook Moved to use the FY2010 RSTP reserve fund to replace MPO ARRA funds currently programmed to cover contingencies and reprogram the replaced ARRA funds in accordance with the amended HRTPO 2010-06 Resolution which will include the option to

Summary TTAC Minutes – July 7, 2010 - Page 3 Attachment 17-A transfer ARRA funds from one jurisdiction to another; seconded by Ms. Akan. The Motion Carried.

FY2010 CMAQ/RSTP Reserve Funds

Ms. Ravanbakht stated that with the approval of the SYIP, VDOT released the federal reserve funds totaling $2.2 million in Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) funds and $3.5 million in RSTP funds. TTAC has presently approved the use of the $3.5 million RSTP reserve fund to cover contingencies on regional ARRA projects. HRTPO staff recommends that the Transportation Technical Subcommittee (TTS) be convened to discuss how to utilize the $2.2 million CMAQ reserve fund.

Mr. Gey Moved to allow the TTS to discuss options to best utilize the CMAQ reserve fund; seconded by Mr. Walton. Mr. Slaughter asked if the localities should submit projects for the distribution of those funds. Ms. Ravanbakht stated HRTPO staff will send the latest data to the TTAC members to review. She noted that only existing projects would be discussed and no new projects would be added. The Motion Carried.

Procedures for Revising the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

Mr. Kimbrel remarked that at the last TTAC meeting he explained there would be a change in procedure pertaining to requests made by the localities and transit agencies to revise the TIP, particularly with respect to CMAQ and RSTP transfer requests. There have been several instances in which the amounts of available funds to be transferred, as specified in the locality or transit agency request letter, did not match the funding information maintained by the VDOT Programming Division.

Mr. Kimbrel outlined the new procedure which was determined by HRTPO staff in conjunction with VDOT staff. The procedure includes feedback by VDOT, a listing of blackout periods, during which the processing of TIP revisions would be suspended, and a checklist to aid in the process. The goal of the new process is to coordinate more efficiently between the localities, transit agencies, VDOT and DRPT prior to submitting a request to the HRTPO.

Mr. Walton directed the Committee’s attention to Page 2, item 4-a-iv, and asked if the HRTPO staff could also send a copy of the HRTPO action letter to the requesting locality or agency. Mr. Kimbrel replied affirmatively and stated he would amend that section of the procedure.

Mr. Walton asked if TTAC could use electronic voting during the blackout periods. Mr. Kimbrel replied that according to the Freedom of Information act (FOIA), electronic voting was prohibited.

Mr. King Moved to approve the TIP procedure with the one amendment; seconded by Mr. Shea. The Motion Carried.

Summary TTAC Minutes – July 7, 2010 - Page 4 Attachment 17-A FY2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Revision: Request to Reallocate CMAQ and RSTP Funds – Newport News

Mr. Slaughter stated the City of Newport News is seeking to transfer unobligated CMAQ and RSTP funds from two City projects to the Citywide Signal System Upgrade project (UPC #52350). Mr. Slaughter Moved to transfer $1,028,463 (including state match) from the Rivermont Bike Trail project (UPC #52343) and the Oyster Point Cubarea CCTV & Static Signs project (UPC #73002) to the Citywide Signal System Upgrade project (UPC #52350); seconded by Mr. Cross. The Motion Carried.

FY2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Revision: Request for CMAQ Cost Overrun Funds – Portsmouth

Mr. Yehlen stated the City of Portsmouth is requesting additional allocation of CMAQ funds to cover a cost overrun on the City’s Signal System Upgrade Phase II project (UPC #16196). Mr. Yehlen Moved to seek additional allocation of CMAQ funds in the amount of $45,603.20 due to cost overrun on the City’s Signal Upgrade Phase II project (UPC #16196); seconded by Mr. Slaughter. The Motion Carried.

FY2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Revision: Request to Reallocate CMAQ Funds – WATA

Chair Drumwright stated the Williamsburg Area Transit Authority (WATA) is requesting an advancement of CMAQ funding on a previously approved project to purchase a replacement clean diesel trolley (UPC #T9149). Mr. Cross Moved to seek advance allocation of reserve CMAQ funds in the amount of $315,000 (including state match) to purchase a replacement clean diesel trolley to be used in the Historic Yorktown area; seconded by Ms. Whitney. Chair Drumwright added that this project was approved during the 2009 CMAQ/RSTP Project Selection Process; however, CMAQ allocation was to take place in FY2015. The Motion Carried.

FY2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Revision: Request to Allocate Statewide ARRA Funds to Norfolk Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project – VDOT

Mr. Stringfield stated VDOT is requesting to add a new Norfolk LRT project to the TIP to be funded with Statewide ARRA funds. Mr. Stringfield Moved to request the addition of the ARRA Norfolk Light Rail – Enhance Facilities/Stations project (UPC #T9853) to the TIP utilizing Statewide ARRA funds totaling $10 million; seconded by Ms. Whitney. Mr. Pullen asked if the project was ARRA certified. Ms. Spence replied the project was currently being certified. Mr. Rucker asked if the project met air quality conformity requirements. Mr. Stringfield replied it is in the amended 2030 LRTP and conformity issues are being handled. The Motion Carried.

Summary TTAC Minutes – July 7, 2010 - Page 5 Attachment 17-A State Matching Funds for RSTP to be Tied to Regional Transportation and Land Use Performance Measures

Mr. Stringfield explained Chapters 670 and 690 of the 2009 Acts of the General Assembly authorize the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) to require MPOs to develop regional transportation and land use performance measures. The Virginia Budget for the 2010-2012 Biennium directs the CTB to only provide matching funds for federal RSTP funds to MPOs that have developed such performance measures. He referenced a letter from former Virginia Secretary of Transportation Pierce Homer to HRTPO Chairman William Sessoms on the development of these performance measures and goals and the use of such goals by the CTB to evaluate and select projects for inclusion in Virginia’s SYIP.

In a related issue, Mr. Stringfield outlined the time frames for obligating and expending RSTP funds which were also included in the Virginia Budget. Specifically, RSTP funds, in FY2011 and after, shall be federally obligated within 12 months of their allocation by the CTB and expended within 36 months of such obligation. Additionally, RSTP funds, in FY2010 and any preceding fiscal year, shall be federally obligated within 12 months of the effective date of the act (July 1, 2010) and expended within 36 months of such obligation. If these requirements are not met by the recipient, the CTB shall rescind the required match for such federal funds.

Mr. Stringfield concluded, stating that in order to receive state matching RSTP allocations from the CTB starting July 1, 2011, it is recommended that the HRTPO’s regional performance measures be developed in consultation with the Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment (OIPI), adopted by the HRTPO Board, and submitted no later than April 2011 for CTB review and approval.

Mr. Pullen noted the RSTP obligation dates are problematic because there will be RSTP money appropriated under old rules. He also noted that funds for several localities were recently appropriated for consecutive years in order to accumulate money and the new process does not allow for that. He suggested TTAC ask the HRTPO Board to appeal the legislation.

Mr. Cannady asked if the performance measures and the new RSTP obligation time frames were linked. Ms. Ravanbakht replied they were linked in the same legislative bill.

Ms. Ravanbakht stated the HRTPO currently has performance measures in place for the LRTP, the CMAQ/RSTP Project Selection Process, the CMP, Freight Analysis, and the HRTPO Prioritization Tool. She indicated the HRTPO is comfortable with the performance measures that have been established.

Mr. Keifer Moved for recommendation to rescind the RSTP items B-5a and B-5b in the 2010 Budget Bill HB 30, Chapter 874, Item 436 to the HRTPO Board; seconded by Ms. Akan. The Motion Carried.

Summary TTAC Minutes – July 7, 2010 - Page 6 Attachment 17-A VDOT Review of CMAQ/RSTP Unobligated Balances

Mr. Adam Jack stated VDOT reviewed the CMAQ/RSTP unobligated balances in response to a TTAC request at the April 2010 meeting. The data used for the review included the VDOT Programming and Accounting systems and the VDOT Project Pool system. Mr. Jack noted no alterations, amendments, or clarifications have occurred since April 2010.

Mr. Jack noted VDOT has identified more than $70 million in CMAQ and RSTP funds (including match) available for transfer by the HRTPO and explained the summary by category as follows:

Category Description Funds Available for HRTPO Transfers A Projects funded only with CMAQ/RSTP funds that $11.0 million appear to be complete B Projects funded only with CMAQ/RSTP funds that $30.3 million appear to be underway C Projects funded with CMAQ/RSTP and other funds $3.7 million that appear to be complete D Projects funded with CMAQ/RSTP and other funds $28.5 million that appear to be underway E CMAQ/RSTP projects managed by DRPT Audit incomplete Total $73.5 million

Mr. Jack concluded by offering re-programming suggestions to phase allocations to comply with code and policy and to allocate remaining funds on a regional need basis.

Mr. Rucker asked if there was a similar process underway by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT). Mr. Swartz replied transit projects adhere to a different process and there is no way of identifying how much funding has been drawn down. It falls to the individual transit agencies to provide that information to the HRTPO and VDOT.

Mr. Pullen stated his appreciation of the work accomplished by VDOT; however, he believed more research is needed in order to have a more detailed report of the actual amount available for transfer, as opposed to a theoretical amount. Ms. Spence replied VDOT completed the task asked of it by TTAC; knowledge of the amount of unobligated CMAQ/RSTP funds. Mr. Jack suggested discussion by the TTS on this matter.

Mr. Walton Moved to refer the discussion of unobligated balances of CMAQ/RSTP funds to the TTS for further investigation and development of a strategy to determine the true unobligated balances; seconded by Mr. Allsbrook. Mr. Keifer indicated Mr. Shucet of HRT began the investigation process in order to seek unobligated CMAQ/RSTP funds for utilization for The Tide in Norfolk and HRT will be reiterating that request at the TTS. The Motion Carried.

Summary TTAC Minutes – July 7, 2010 - Page 7 Attachment 17-A Project Prioritization and Selection Process: Final Report

Ms. Ravanbakht explained that in the summer of 2009, the HRTPO Board requested staff evaluate the outcome of amending the 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan. During these discussions, the need to establish a methodology for project prioritization and selection was identified. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) provided assistance with this effort via its on-call consultant, Kimley-Horn and Associates. The goal of the project was to develop a methodology to assist the HRTPO Board with prioritizing transportation projects according to their technical merits and regional benefits, in light of scarce financial resources.

In December 2009, the HRTPO Board requested the project prioritization tool be revised to take into account the economic benefits of projects to the region. The methodology for the economic vitality component was approved by the HRTPO Board at its June 16, 2010 meeting. The initial report has been edited to reflect the three components – project utility, project viability, and economic vitality. The document is being made available for public review and comment from June 30, 2010 through July 14, 2010.

Mr. Gey Moved to recommend approval of the Project Prioritization and Selection Process: Final Report to the HRTPO Board; seconded by Mr. King. Mr. Slaughter asked how a Preliminary Engineering (PE)-Only project would compete in the prioritization process in the LRTP. Ms. Ravanbakht replied the topic is currently being discussed with Mr. Rucker of the FHWA.

Ms. Ravanbakht indicated for the process to be effective, staff will align the project categories with the funding as the last step in the process because a number of projects are not going to be able to use certain types of funding. Staff will report back to TTAC with more information and detail.

The Motion Carried.

Hampton Roads 2034 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Status Report

Ms. Dale Stith presented an overview of the major tasks completed to-date by HRTPO staff pertaining to the LRTP. She stated there are approximately 200 projects being considered for inclusion in the 2034 LRTP. The candidate projects were obtained via public survey and TTAC members.

She reviewed the major tasks required for completion of the 2034 LRTP as follows:

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

Summary TTAC Minutes – July 7, 2010 - Page 8 Attachment 17-A Ms. Stith indicated there will be public outreach related tasks for the 2034 LRTP from July 2010 to May 2011.

Hampton Roads Congestion Management Process (CMP): 2010 Update

Mr. Sam Belfield stated the Congestion Management Process (CMP) is a federal requirement for all metropolitan areas with a population of over 200,000. It is one of the core functions of the HRTPO staff. He noted the CMP is a useful tool for the localities and transit agencies and it helps identify the most congested corridors in the region and provides recommendations to address congestion concerns. The report will aid in prioritizing projects within jurisdictions which will be beneficial to the region.

Hampton Roads, with its unique topography and abundance of waterways, is faced with many transportation challenges due to its bridges, draw bridges, tunnels, and traffic incidents that occur within the tunnels.

Mr. Belfield presented two maps that illustrated congested locations in Hampton Roads for 2009 and projected areas of congestion in 2030. He pointed out that nearly all interstates in the region will be severely congested by 2030 and that many rural areas in Isle of Wight County, Suffolk, and Gloucester County will become much more congested by the year 2030. The 2030 map includes the completion of all projects currently in the 2030 Long- Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).

Mr. Keith Nichols, also presenting, stated that because there are so many congested locations in Hampton Roads, the following factors must also be considered when analyzing congested corridors:

• Existing congestion level • Safety • Freight • Travel time • National significance

Mr. Nichols explained the congested roadway segments were combined into 41 congested corridors for analysis purposes. All 41 congested corridors were ranked and the top 16 were analyzed in the CMP report. He outlined both the top six freeway congested corridors and the top ten arterial congested corridors.

Mr. Nichols concluded, noting the data from the CMP will be utilized as input for the LRTP Project Prioritization Tool and staff will continue to monitor the regional transportation network and update transportation databases. The public comment period for the draft CMP is July 7- August 4, 2010 with anticipated final approval by both TTAC and the HRTPO Board in September 2010.

Summary TTAC Minutes – July 7, 2010 - Page 9 Attachment 17-A VDOT Hurricane Evacuation Traffic Control Plan: HRTO Subcommittee Recommendation

Mr. Rob Case explained that in March 2010, Mr. Stephany Hanshaw of VDOT presented the revised VDOT hurricane evacuation traffic control plan to TTAC. Based on the results of that presentation, TTAC requested that the Hampton Roads Transportation Operations (HRTO) Subcommittee review the plan and develop recommendations for improvement. Mr. Case noted that he is Co-chair of the Subcommittee, along with Mr. Robert Lewis of Suffolk.

From discussion at the HRTO Subcommittee meetings, the HRTO recommends the following Responsibilities in the VDOT Plan:

• Request VDOT to revise its Plan in order to identify agency responsible for manning inoperable signals. (page 34) • Request VDOT to revise its Plan in order to identify agency responsible for routing evacuees to refuges of last resort. • Request VDOT to revise its Plan in order to identify agency responsible for removal of disabled vehicles and relocation of their occupants on primaries. (page 32) • Request VDOT to revise its Plan in order to identify agency responsible “to facilitate the merge” for US 17 at Route 134 ramp. (page 35) • Request VDOT to revise its Plan to in order to remove interstates from local law enforcement responsibility. (page 32)

Mr. Case introduced Mr. Gary Walton, of Chesapeake, who is sitting in for Co-chair Robert Lewis.

Mr. Walton Moved to endorse the HRTO Subcommittee recommendations above and have VDOT more clearly define these roles and responsibilities; seconded by Mr. Cross. The Motion Carried.

The HRTO Subcommittee also recommended the following regarding Additional Capacity:

• Allocate $3.5 million in FY2010 RSTP funds to the construction necessary for reversal of US 58/460. • Request that VDOT/VDEM evaluate the costs and benefits of leaving the Monitor Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel (MMMBT) open during evacuations. • Forward the Summary of Recommendations included in the HRTPO staff analysis to VDOT/VDEM for consideration and review.

Mr. Walton noted that since TTAC approved the allocation of the $3.5 million in FY2010 RSTP for reserve funds to replace MPO ARRA funds currently programmed to cover contingencies earlier in the meeting, he Moved for the endorsement of the request for the US 58/460 lane reversal without the allocation of RSTP reserve funds, and for the evaluation into the costs and benefits of having the MMMBT remain open during a hurricane evacuation; seconded by Mr. Yehlen. The Motion Carried.

Summary TTAC Minutes – July 7, 2010 - Page 10 Attachment 17-A Mr. Walton Moved for the evaluation of other funding options for the US 58/460 lane reversal be tasked to the TTS; seconded by Ms. Earley. The Motion Carried.

Draft Hampton Roads Existing Land Use: 2009 Socioeconomic Base Year Update

Mr. Benito Pérez stated the 2009 Socioeconomic Base Year Update and is a required update per federal guidelines that will feed into the region’s travel demand model. Within the update, HRTPO staff used a Geographic Information System (GIS) to determine the location of recent residential and employment data with respect to transportation analysis zones (TAZs) in the HRTPO and HRPDC boundaries. This information was collected in anticipation of possible fluctuations of the boundaries per the Census and also interregional travel demand modeling needs as requested by VDOT. He noted the socioeconomic figures are the most requested data of the HRTPO.

Mr. Pérez explained localities are requested to review the data and submit comments to him by July 21, 2010.

Official Designation of TRAFFIX Oversight Subcommittee

Chair Drumwright stated TRAFFIX provides an important function in congestion mitigation and it has been decided to establish a TRAFFIX Oversight Subcommittee. Mr. Jeff Raliski of Norfolk will be the Chair for the next two years. The TRAFFIX Oversight Subcommittee will report any recommendations for approval to TTAC.

Mr. Case requested the names of those who will serve on the subcommittee from the localities and transit agencies.

Correspondence of Interest

Chair Drumwright noted the items in the Correspondence of Interest section of the agenda packet.

For Your Information

Ms. Ravanbakht directed TTAC to Item 18D regarding the Southeast High-speed Rail Tier II Draft Environmental Impact Statement. She stated HRTPO staff has reviewed the 1,400 page document and has compiled technical comments.

Ms. Ravanbakht also directed TTAC to Item 18E pertaining to the 2035 Virginia Surface Transportation Plan which is now available for public comment.

Finally, Ms. Ravanbakht highlighted Item 18G regarding the Virginia-North Carolina Interstate High Speed Rail Compact Meeting. She indicated that she, Mr. Farmer, and the HRTPO high-speed rail consultant will be attending the meeting.

Summary TTAC Minutes – July 7, 2010 - Page 11 Attachment 17-A Old/New Business

There was no old/new business.

Adjournment

With no further business to come before the Hampton Roads Transportation Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at 12:18 p.m.

Summary TTAC Minutes – July 7, 2010 - Page 12 Attachment 17-A Summary Minutes of the Hampton Roads Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) Meeting June 24, 2010

The Hampton Roads Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) Meeting was called to order at 5:02 p.m. in the Regional Boardroom, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia, with the following in attendance:

Hampton Roads CTAC Members: William Harrison, Chairman (VB) Randy Lougee (NO) Kathy Corley (CH) James Openshaw (NO) Roberta Edwards (CH) Archie Whitehill (NO) Shepelle Watkins-White (CH) Richard Green (SU) Michael Jones (IW) John Malbon (VB) Ricky Clifton (NN) Ray Taylor (VB) Sharyn Fox (NN) Dewey Hurley (WM) Randy Lassiter (NO) Henry Lewis (YK)

Hampton Roads CTAC Members Absent: Philip Olekszyk (GL) Tuck Bowie (VB) Yukari Hughes ( NN) Jerry Flowers (VB) Howard Manly (NN) Delceno Miles (VB) Kirsten Tynch (PO) Prescott Sherrod (VB) Kristen Wells (PO)

HRTPO Staff: Dwight Farmer Brian Miller Kathlene Grauberger Keith Nichols Brett Kerns Camelia Ravanbakht Michael Kimbrel Christopher Vaigneur

Other Participants: Vincent Jackson (HRT) Quentin Kidd (CNU)

Others Recorded Attending: JoAnne Beaver, Holly Kidd, Katherine Sale, Jake Sale, Emily Sale (NN Citizens); Michael Robinson (SU Citizen); Terri Boothe(VB Citizen); Reid Greenmun, Leslie Jones (VB Taxpayer’s Alliance); Brandon Currence, Lisa Moritz (Brandon Currence Architects); Frank Azzalina (Hampton Roads Transportation Inc); Cindy Creede (Senior Services of SEVA); Wendy Vachet (NAVFAC) Martha McClees (VB Vision); Margaret Kubilins (VHB).

CTAC Summary Minutes – June 24, 2010 - Page 1

Attachment 17-B Public Comment Period

One person requested to address the CTAC. Chair Harrison asked him to limit his comments to five minutes as established in the CTAC bylaws.

Reid Greenmun Good afternoon. My name is Reid Greenmun. I’m the Vice Chairman of the Virginia Beach Taxpayer’s Alliance and I come to you today to address the issue of losing our way. The goal of this committee is to find out what the 1.6 million citizens living in Tidewater desire regarding our transportation needs and communicate those to the Transportation Planning Organization. So far the HRPDC staff and the CTAC Committee, appointed by the Chair, have drafted some bylaws; the full committee has reviewed them, and the result: you have reduced the number of minimum required meetings from twelve to six, thus reducing the alignment between the CTAC and TPO. The TPO meets every month and they cover an amazing amount of important transportation business that impacts our region. From what I have seen, the CTAC has not yet begun to review the agenda items coming out before the TPO, discuss them among yourselves, go back to your city, gather the citizen input, and provide direction to your Chairman who has a seat on the TPO to provide the citizen viewpoint to the TPO on the agenda items of which we are a member of the Board. We need to get those citizen viewpoints to the Board. Well, what happened next? Recapping further, the Chairman, Mr. Harrison, after the first meeting, asked you to pick five or so of your highest priorities and the Planning District Commission gathered them together in a matrix, and I read that matrix, and it was presented at the second meeting that the most common theme on there was that we needed more money for transportation. So the third meeting, and this is the fourth, we spent with a big dog and pony show about transportation that clearly was making the point that we need more money. The VBTA came before you and made the point that you were placing the horse before the cart because you haven’t decided what the citizens want, then priced out what it is, and decided how to pay for it. So here we are. What is it that we can do today? Well, we need you, we, need to decide, how do we find out? How do we go out and determine what our citizens want? On your agenda today you are going to be covering this report: Final Report – The Present and Future of Transportation in Hampton Roads. You didn’t gather this information. This is being given to you representing the view of the citizens. You need to do a little research into who it is that wrote this report and how it was done. These people have a dog in the fight. They are not impartial. If you turn to page two of the report, you will read – These focus groups were conducted under the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) through the Judy Ford Wason Center, through Christopher Newport, from the Hampton Roads Center for Civic Engagement – and put together by Bonney and company which is Chris Bonney. Great! Chris Bonney and I are facebook friends. We have known each other a long time. We chat all the time. What’s the Hampton Roads Center for Civic Engagement? It is one of our premiere original groups with an agenda for transportation and regionalism that is not represented of the citizens’ views but represented of an academic government and business lobby point of view. This has been borne out in the regional sales tax referendum on transportation which was defeated by a 2-1 margin where the Hampton Roads Partnership and Future of Hampton Roads, and the YES Campaign advanced one set of priorities through the TPO, or MPO, and the citizens overwhelmingly rejected it. Who else is on this Board? Bert Schmidt – he is the President and Chief Executive of WHRO. He is a member of the Hampton Roads Partnership, the Greater Hampton Roads Council, Smart Beginnings of South Hampton, and Future of Hampton Roads. His wife, one of my friends, Missy Schmidt – Missy Schmidt came to Hampton Roads and she currently serves as the Communication Marketing Director of Hampton Roads Partnership. The Hampton Roads Partnership was behind the YES Campaign that pushed the six projects that the citizens said No! Who else is on

CTAC Summary Minutes – June 24, 2010 - Page 2 Attachment 17-B this Hampton Roads Center? It’s a Who’s Who of the business lobby. Jim Oliver is the current Chairman of the HRCC – a former Assistant City Manager of Norfolk, County Administrator of James City County, City Manager of the City of Norfolk and later, the City of Portsmouth. Clyde Hoey, Jim Babcok, Sharon Adams (who I personally adore), Bob O’Neill, John Rowe, Roger Richman, Henry Light, Quentin Kidd, Minette Cooper (who I also like), Vivian Paige, Anita Poston, Suzanne Puryear, and Dr. Alvin Schexnider who I don’t know. And last but not least, our very own Ray Taylor. Rear Admiral Ray Taylor serves on the Board of the Hampton Roads Center for Civic Engagement and is the current President of Future of Hampton Roads. Folks, you need to look, not that there is not good information in this report….(Timer sounded) Thank you Mr. Greenmun (Chair Harrison). Mr. Greenmun – Thank you.

Approval of Agenda

Chair Harrison asked the committee if there were any agenda items to add to the Old/New Business agenda section. Hearing none, Chair Harrison asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Ms. Watkins-White Moved to approve the agenda as written; seconded by Ms. Fox. The Motion Carried.

Summary Minutes of May13, 2010 CTAC Meeting

Mr. Jones Moved to approve the minutes as written; seconded by Ms. Lougee. The Motion Carried.

Election of CTAC Vice-Chair and Members’ Term of Office

Chair Harrison stated the CTAC bylaws that were approved at the May 13, 2010 meeting were subsequently approved by the HRTPO Board at its May 19, 2010 meeting. Those bylaws provide for the election of a Vice-Chair to serve with the Chair and fulfill the duties of the Chair, if the Chair is unable to do so. The bylaws also provide that the Vice-Chair’s term of office, once elected, is coincidental with the term of the Chair, unless his or her term is less than the term of the Chair.

Chair Harrison directed the Committee to Attachment 2B in the CTAC Agenda, listing the initial terms of each CTAC member. At this time, Chair Harrison opened the floor for nominations for Vice-Chair. Mr. Malbon Moved to nominate Ms. Watkins-White; seconded by Ms. Fox. Ms. Watkins-White Moved to nominate Mr. Taylor; seconded by Mr. Whitehill. Mr. Taylor thanked the members for the nomination; however, he voiced his approval of Ms. Watkins-White and withdrew his name from consideration. Ms. Watkins-White was declared the CTAC Vice-Chair by acclamation.

Traffic Congestion Relief Proposal

Chair Harrison indicated that CTAC Member, Mr. Richard Green, submitted information regarding a traffic congestion relief proposal and asked him to present it to the Committee. Mr. Green explained he has been a resident of Hampton Roads for 25 years, currently living in Virginia Beach and working in Suffolk. His daily commuting challenge prompted him to explore traffic congestion in the area and a proposed transit solution.

CTAC Summary Minutes – June 24, 2010 - Page 3 Attachment 17-B He stated the traffic congestion in Hampton Roads is worsening and noted the following:

• building additional roads is costly and not the total solution • HRT service does not provide the “cross region” solution required by most commuters. • no known plan to address alternative commuting options for regional citizens • potential negative impact to regional growth and economy

Mr. Green researched the service provided by Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) and discovered it was a service provided to each city, rather than regionally as a whole. He commented this type of service was beneficial within each city, but did not match his need to move from city to city.

Mr. Green suggested re-aligning the existing HRT resources for a regional “hub and spoke” service to and from main sources based on rider demand. The outcome expected from his proposal is:

• an efficient alternative for Hampton Roads commuters • lower cost and better use of HRT resources • reduction of traffic congestion • improved environmental impact • potential model for regional light rail solution

Chair Harrison introduced Mr. Vincent Jackson of HRT to explain the service provided to the cities of Hampton Roads. Mr. Jackson, Vice President of Service Development and Strategic Planning, explained HRT is the regional provider of public transportation in Hampton Roads with 70 regular fixed routes. HRT is headquartered in Hampton with a major operations facility in Norfolk that serves the Southside. Mr. Jackson presented the HRT FY2011 Budget and noted that HRT contracts with each city separately, and each city determines how much service will be funded in its area. He indicated state funding has declined over the years, with federal funding remaining relatively unchanged. HRT passenger rates have been unchanged for ten years, and due to declining passenger revenue, HRT will more than likely have to raise its rates in the next few months.

Mr. Jackson noted HRT provides point to point service via park and ride lots to military installations and major employers in the area; however the bus frequencies are between 30 and 60 minutes and most cities end service by 7:00 p.m. He also noted HRT is a multiple “hub and spoke” time transfer base network with approximately 40% of the riders transferring at least once before their final destination. He commented this percentage is high; it should be more in the 20-30% range. He explained the MAX Service provides regional connections for commuters, though more routes and funding are needed to provide better service to the entire region. He concluded, stating it is hoped that The Tide light rail system will provide beneficial changes to the area, becoming a “spine” and connecting to the HRT “spokes”.

Ms. Fox stated that at one time in Newport News, there was an HRT bus named “Jump over Jeff”; however it did not have the ridership and the service was stopped. She indicated that

CTAC Summary Minutes – June 24, 2010 - Page 4 Attachment 17-B although the project failed, it had good intentions. She asked if a similar project could be utilized at the new Wal-Mart being constructed on Jefferson Avenue in Newport News. Mr. Jackson replied “Jump over Jeff” was a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funded project and due to the lack of ridership, the monies were transferred from the project to one that had better survival potential. He stated Wal-Mart will be included in the HRT existing route; however, it will be regular service, rather than the MAX service.

Ms. Lougee commented there is $93 million for high-speed rail from Richmond to Hampton Roads, and although this is an opportunity for the area, it is not providing high-speed rail to the area. She suggested transferring the $93 million to HRT to implement better regional transit service. Mr. Farmer replied the $93 million is from the Rail Enhancement Fund and cannot be used for any other service.

Mr. Hurley asked if an effort was underway to inform the public how The Tide will change service in the area. Mr. Jackson replied HRT had not finalized its plans yet; however, HRT will publish information by the end of January.

Mr. Lassiter inquired if HRT has tried to develop a route from the Southside to Busch Gardens. Mr. Jackson replied HRT had discussion with Busch Gardens through the Williamsburg Area Transit Authority (WATA); unfortunately, the plan was never implemented.

Chair Harrison thanked Mr. Jackson for attending the CTAC meeting and asked Mr. Green his thoughts regarding his proposal. Mr. Green asked CTAC if his proposal was reasonable and viable, and could it possibly be introduced as a pilot program to relieve congestion in Hampton Roads. Chair Harrison remarked that CTAC will request Mr. Green’s grid concept proposal be reviewed by the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC). Mr. Farmer stated an HRT Technical Committee had been created and perhaps CTAC could interact with them as well.

Congestion Management Process Overview

Chair Harrison introduced Mr. Keith Nichols, Senior Transportation Engineer, of the HRTPO to brief CTAC on this process. Mr. Nichols explained he was asked to speak to CTAC regarding roadway congestion in Hampton Roads and work tasked to the HRTPO as it pertains to managing congestion. Hampton Roads, surrounded by water, is faced with many transportation challenges due to its bridges, draw bridges, and tunnels. He noted there are 15 billion total miles of roadway traveled in Hampton Roads each year; however, state funding for roadway construction has declined over the past several years.

Mr. Nichols presented two maps that illustrated congested locations in Hampton Roads for 2009 and projected areas of congestion in 2030. He pointed out that nearly all interstates in the region will be severely congested by 2030 and that many rural areas in Isle of Wight, Suffolk, and Gloucester will become much more congested by the year 2030. The 2030 map includes the completion of all projects currently in the 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).

CTAC Summary Minutes – June 24, 2010 - Page 5 Attachment 17-B Mr. Nichols stated the Congestion Management Process (CMP) is a federal requirement for all metropolitan areas with a population of over 200,000. The CMP is an ongoing process that:

• monitors the regional roadway network • identifies congested locations • determines the causes of congestion • develops strategies to mitigate congestion

Mr. Nichols explained HRTPO staff examines congested corridors throughout the region and sixteen corridors were analyzed as part of the 2010 update: These corridors included:

• Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel • Downtown Tunnel • I-64 near Ft. Eustis • Dominion Boulevard • Indian River Road • Jefferson Avenue • Route 17

Mr. Nichols concluded, stating the Draft 2010 CMP is expected to be released on July 7, 2010 and public comments will be received between July 7 – August 4, 2010 with final approval by the HRTPO Board in September. Chair Harrison asked HRTPO staff to mail the Draft CMP report to each CTAC member.

Mr. Green asked what other groups will receive the CMP report. Mr. Nichols replied the report will be presented to the TTAC, which is comprised of planners and engineers from the cities, counties, transit agencies, and VDOT. The report will then be presented to the HRTPO Board which includes mayors, county administrators, city managers, and general assembly members. Lastly, the report will be given to any civic groups or local organizations who may wish to view it.

Recap of Panel Discussion on Transportation Funding and Results of Citizen Focus Groups Study

Chair Harrison introduced Dr. Quentin Kidd, Associate Professor of Political Science, from Christopher University (CNU), to recap the results of the citizen focus groups study. Dr. Kidd explained CNU had recently conducted focus group research for the HRTPO related to public perceptions on regional transportation.

Dr. Kidd noted that CNU developed six focus groups – three on the Southside, three on the Peninsula – two general, two of the six involved military personnel only, and then the other two were divided geographically on the Southside and Peninsula. Perceptions of traffic resulting from the study were as follows:

• Almost 90% say traffic congestion is high or very high • Almost 75% believe traffic has become worse over the last five years

CTAC Summary Minutes – June 24, 2010 - Page 6 Attachment 17-B • Almost 75% say traffic congestion negatively impacts their daily quality of life • Approximately 75% of residents consider traffic to be the region’s number one problem

Dr. Kidd explained the study showed there is a paradox regarding transportation: not everyone experiences traffic congestion every day or in the same way. He described various diverse perceptions of traffic congestion by the public and how those perceptions help shape how the public views traffic issues differently. He explained these perceptions are created and reinforced by the public’s own personal experience, hearsay, constant media attention, and major events such as the flooding of the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel (HRBT) last year.

Dr. Kidd stated the results of the study show citizens are currently frustrated with the transportation situation in Hampton Roads and believe the issues will only worsen over time. He indicated the public believes the leaders of the area are not working as a region to solve the problems and those who have lived elsewhere and have seen transportation issues addressed do not understand why Hampton Roads cannot attend to its traffic challenges.

The public views the solution to traffic congestion as replacing the automobile as the primary mode of transportation with a well-coordinated, regional light rail system supported by an extensive and regular network of buses and shuttles. Dr. Kidd noted the citizens thought a solution needed to be set in motion regarding congestion at the HRBT.

Dr. Kidd commented that unfortunately, the public does not know how to fund the transportation issues in Hampton Roads. Most people have no idea of the magnitude of the cost involved and first impression revenue solutions are not feasible. There is also an inadequate trust in elected leaders and the government to support a modest state income tax increase dedicated to transportation.

Dr. Kidd explained the localities must work together in order to restore citizen trust including the creation of a visionary transportation plan and that is:

• agreed upon by all localities • outlined to the public to build consensus • includes realistic and reliable cost estimates • has a realistic and dependable timeline • has noticeable interim improvements throughout its implementation • has complete and ongoing managerial and financial transparency and accountability

Dr. Kidd concluded, stating there is a recognized frustration amongst the public regarding transportation both on the interstates and tunnels and the local roads.

Mr. Lassiter asked why there were such a small number of people questioned in the scientific studies that preceded the focus group studies when the region is comprised of 1.6 million. Dr. Kidd replied that if 500 samples are randomly drawn from a region of this size, the population can be reflected with an error margin of only 4-5%. Pertaining to the focus

CTAC Summary Minutes – June 24, 2010 - Page 7 Attachment 17-B groups, the numbers were meant to be small with twelve or less in order to give people the time for in-depth discussion.

Due to time constraints, Chair Harrison asked HRTPO staff to position the recap of the May 13, 2010 Transportation Funding Panel Discussion at the beginning on the next CTAC agenda.

Ms. Watkins-White noted CTAC should have the military’s perspective regarding traffic encroachment. Chair Harrison agreed and asked HRTPO staff if there could be military presentation at the next meeting. Mr. Farmer explained HRTPO Chairman Sessoms has had several conversations with the military regarding transportation. Both Admiral Boensel and Admiral Tobin have spoken at the HRTPO Board meetings and Mr. Farmer will try to obtain the videos of their presentations to share with CTAC.

Mr. Malbon asked if CTAC could expand the discussion on high-speed rail at the next CTAC meeting. Chair Harrison applied affirmatively and asked HRTPO staff to have an agenda item regarding high-speed rail with either a video or a presenter, followed by discussion and perhaps a resolution, for the next meeting

Next Meeting

Ms. Ravanbakht commented that based on the CTAC bylaws, CTAC will meet on a bi- monthly basis on the second Thursday of the month in January, March, May, July, September, and November. A complete schedule is included in the agenda packet. She stated the first meeting based on this new schedule will be September 9, 2010 from 5:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. at the HRT Board Room, 3400 Victoria Boulevard, Hampton, VA 23661.

Mr. Lewis Moved to approve the CTAC meeting schedule; seconded by Mr. Malbon. The Motion Carried.

Adjournment

With no further business to come before the Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at 7:11 p.m.

CTAC Summary Minutes – June 24, 2010 - Page 8 Attachment 17-B Summary Minutes HRTPO High-Speed & Intercity Passenger Rail Steering Committee Meeting of June 16, 2010

Mr. Richard Drumwright, Chair, called the HSIPR-SC to order at 2:35 p.m. in the Regional Building Board Conference Room A/B with the following in attendance:

HSIPR-SC Members: Richard Drumwright, Chair (WATA) Michael King (NN) Anne Ducey-Ortiz (GL) Mark Schnaufer (VB) Christine Fix (DRPT) Roderick S. Woolard (NO) Jane Hill (IW)

Absent: Jeff Bliemel (PQ) Robert E. Lewis, P.E. (SU) W. Keith Cannady (HA) Jeff Mann (AMTRAK) Timothy C. Cross (YK) Reed T. Nester (WM) John Friedmann (NS) Kevin B. Page (DRPT) Richard A. Hartman, P.E. (PO) Bill Schafer (NS) Steven W. Hicks (JC) Earl Sorey (CH) Quintin Kendall (CSX) Jayne B. Whitney (HRT)

HRTPO Staff: Camelia Ravanbakht Andy Pickard Jessica Banks Benito Pérez

Other Participants: Edwin “Chip” Kraft (TEMS) Ronald Thompson (TEMS) Alexander Metcalf (TEMS) Yang He (TEMS)

Others: Jim Bayley (VA Assoc. Railway Patrons) Bryan Pennington (NO) Donald Cole (Woolpert) Jaleh Shea (CH-Planning) Martha McClees (VB Vision) Mark Shea (CH) Allan Mushett (SU) Ray Taylor (FHR)

Public Comment Period

Mr. Richard Drumwright asked if there were any public comments. No public comments were received.

High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Steering Committee Meeting Summary Minutes | June 16, 2010 | Page 1

Attachment 17-C Approval of Agenda Mr. Richard Drumwright asked for the approval of the meeting agenda. Approval was unanimous. Approval of Minutes of May 2010 HSIPR-SC Meeting Mr. Richard Drumwright asked for the approval of the minutes of the 19 May 2010 HSIPR-SC meeting. Approval was unanimous. Phase I Progress Report Dr. Alexander Metcalf initiated his presentation, noting that the work to date on the Phase I Vision Plan is on time and on budget. For the benefit of the audience, Dr. Alexander Metcalf provided a brief overview of the Phase I study objectives and development steps. In providing an overview of the project corridor, Dr. Alexander Metcalf suggested that the region needs to think of the project corridor as a Washington to Hampton Roads project, versus a Richmond to Hampton Roads, or segmented project pieces. As a complete corridor, the Washington to Hampton Roads corridor is a strong national corridor with high utility, versus limited utility of the various segments of the project. As a result, the Washington to Hampton Roads corridor should have a brand name to provide an identity to the corridor and associated strong utility. Dr. Alexander Metcalf suggested naming the corridor as either the Old Dominion or Chesapeake Bay corridor; a logical strong extension of the Northeast corridor. Dr. Alexander Metcalf provided a comparison slide of how the Washington to Hampton Roads corridor fared with other potential high-speed rail corridors, of which Dr. Alexander Metcalf noted how the Raleigh to Charlotte corridor is significantly weaker than the Washington to Hampton Roads corridor.

Dr. Alexander Metcalf proceeded on with his presentation, providing an overview of terminal visions; similar to Washington's Union Station or London's St. Pancras Station, which are noted as developed multi-use terminals for shops and other mixed-use development. Dr. Alexander Metcalf also provided an overview of the train and passenger amenities that is to be expected within the project, bringing comfort and high quality customer service for the project. Providing an overview of train travel times for the various development steps of the project, Dr. Alexander Metcalf noted how the project has the ultimate goal in Step 4 build-out of bringing travel time from Washington to Hampton Roads from four hours to two hours. Dr. Alexander Metcalf noted some statistics of the market, citing how growth in the market is expected to be 0.8% over the life of the project, yet 30% trip growth in the same period. With such statistics, congestion will be a major issue in the Washington to Hampton Roads corridor by auto, driving up high-speed rail demand from an initial 0.5 million to 4 million ridership. Adding in the connecting trips to New York and Charlotte, ridership estimates go up 30-50%. As the project develops from

High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Steering Committee Meeting Summary Minutes | June 16, 2010 | Page 2

Attachment 17-C Step 1 to Step 4, the mode share of rail goes from 1% to 11 % mode share, with a large contribution from diverting auto mode shares.

Dr. Alexander Metcalf provided an overview of operating cost breakdown, as well as delving into details on the relationship between revenues and operating costs. Within Steps 1 and 2, operating subsidies will be necessary to sustain the passenger rail service. As the project phases into Steps 3 and 4, the operating subsidies can be phased out, allowing the passenger rail service to be franchised, due to higher and established cash flow and profit potential. Furthermore, Steps 3 and 4 provide an opportunity for the project to apply for FRA capital grant funding. Dr. Alexander Metcalf noted how legislators are favorable towards providing capital grants for projects, so long as operating subsidies are not requested. Such case examples have occurred in Illinois and Wisconsin. The FRA has a set requirement for funding of projects, where projects need to have an operating ratio greater than 1.0, noting that the project can run without subsidies. To get to Step 3, the project should take advantage of TIFIA loans to pay off the operating losses in Steps 1 and 2, and get to Step 3 sooner. Dr. Alexander Metcalf provided an overview of capital improvements and costs for such improvements along the project corridor from Washington to Hampton Roads via Richmond and Petersburg. Within the overview, Dr. Alexander Metcalf noted how some of the capital costs already has DRPT committed funds, which could be demonstrated as matching funds for federal grants. Furthermore, since the segment from Richmond to Washington will be concurrent with the Southeast High Speed Rail, 65% of the funding for the corridor development should come from the Hampton Roads project, and 35% funding from the Southeast High Speed Rail project.

Dr. Alexander Metcalf provided a timeline of possible development of the projects via the defined project development steps. The earliest build-out timeframe for the project is 2020. The timeframe has 6 years built in for a heavy NEPA mitigation process for greenfield track development along the corridor. Dr. Alexander Metcalf provided an overview of the cost/benefit ratios of the various steps of the project. Within the overview, Dr. Alexander Metcalf expressed surprise at such high ratio values clustered near a value of 2. Dr. Alexander Metcalf noted he expected a greater range in the cost/benefit ratios among the various development steps. With such high cost/benefit ratios, the project can demonstrate to the FRA the viability and benefit of the project.

In order to pay for the project, Dr. Alexander Metcalf provided an overview of ideas that can be used to pay for the development and build-out of the project. In the initial Steps 1 and 2, federal and state capital grants and subsidies will have to pay a role in funding the project. Going forward to Step 3 and beyond, public-private partnership funding and agreements could help finance and develop the project. It should be the goal of the development of the project to get through Steps 1 and 2 quickly to get to Step 3. Going forward beyond Step 3

High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Steering Committee Meeting Summary Minutes | June 16, 2010 | Page 3

Attachment 17-C can be at the discretion of the region to charge on or take time to get to Step 4. Dr. Alexander Metcalf suggested TIFIA loans and parking to assist paying for the project. Furthermore, Dr. Alexander Metcalf suggested Vendor Equity funding and other private funding mechanisms to help pay for the project. With the various private funding options, it could be feasible to request 35-50% funding from the FRA. With such a moderate funding request, it could be possible to jump the queue for funding opportunities, due to demonstrating intent of investing heavily in the project. This is in comparison to other projects requesting up to 80% funding from the FRA.

Dr. Alexander Metcalf transitioned his presentation to a discussion of supply side benefits in Step 4. Dr. Alexander Metcalf noted more details on this section of the presentation will be made available and in-depth next month. The current figures on supply side benefits were preliminary, and used to demonstrate the economic impact of the project. Noting how a cost/benefit ratio is above 2.0, Dr. Alexander Metcalf stated that such a value is a powerful value; denoting strong economic benefits. Dr. Alexander Metcalf noted the economic benefits (30,000 jobs or nearly 1 million person years of jobs; $6 billion income, and significant real estate impact) as a whole, and per region along the corridor. Dr. Alexander Metcalf noted that Northern Virginia, followed by Richmond, and lastly Hampton Roads will yield a stepped yield in economic benefit, but that should be seen as an opportunity for the region to garner their support to advocate for the Washington to Hampton Roads project.

Concluding his presentation remarks, Dr. Alexander Metcalf noted that the HRTPO project objectives can be achieved; citing a strong project corridor. The project is expected to convert 10-15% of auto mode shares into rail mode shares. To sell the utility of the corridor, the corridor needs to be marketed as a national corridor priority, on parity to other prominent high-speed rail corridors in the nation. When it comes to the public-private partnership for the development Steps 3 and 4, project development should be a 'DBOM' or Design, Build, Operate, and Maintain. Dr. Alexander Metcalf also noted the importance of branding the corridor sooner, rather than later, to denote the utility of the corridor, and provide an identity to such utility. The corridor should be reflective of Washington to Hampton Roads, not just only Richmond to Hampton Roads. Dr. Alexander Metcalf notes how only one-third of trips on the corridor are connecting trips, which is quite a potent figure as it relates to the utility of the corridor.

Mr. Richard Drumwright opened the meeting to questions on the presentation at this juncture of the meeting. Ms. Christine Fix provided a comment on the overall work done to date. Ms. Christine Fix noted how the Richmond to Hampton Roads Tier I DEIS denotes Alternative 1 on the Norfolk Southern/Route 460 route for 90-mph rail service. Within the TEMS presentations to date, Step 2 of the project has the Norfolk Southern/Route 460 route slated for 79-mph rail service. Ms. Christine Fix noted the inconsistency of information, and

High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Steering Committee Meeting Summary Minutes | June 16, 2010 | Page 4

Attachment 17-C how the presentations has aligned Step 2 to the DEIS, which should be reversed or information corrected. Dr. Alexander Metcalf noted that north of Richmond, 90-mph rail service will be achieved. South of Richmond, 79-mph rail service will be achieved, per request of Norfolk Southern and their concern of comingling freight rail with passenger rail above 79-mph. This was done to be sensitive to the concerns of the freight rail partners. Ms. Christine Fix stated that her comment is to ensure consistency in information, especially as this information is conveyed to the FRA. It would be damaging to have inconsistent information in the TEMS vision plan compared to the DEIS. Dr. Camelia Ravanbakht noted that the change for the Norfolk Southern/Route 460 corridor speed was at the behest of Mr. Bill Schafer of Norfolk Southern, at a previous HSIPR-SC meeting. Mr. Richard Drumwright suggested that a footnote conveying Norfolk Southern's concern be posted within the DEIS to allow for consistency in information. Language suggested was to state how 90-mph rail service will be achieved, but at the discretion of the freight railroad partners and the operating agreements that will be in place for rail service. Ms. Christine Fix added an inquiry as to whether the HRTPO has spoken to other MPOs about the project, especially with the concerns of greenfield rail developments in their MPOs. Dr. Camelia Ravanbakht has noted that the HRTPO has reached out to other MPOs informally.

Mr. Donald Cole inquired about the travel time slide for the project, specifically Step 4 rail service on the Norfolk Southern/Route 460 route. Mr. Donald Cole inquired if it is a correct assumption that trains will operate at 90-mph from Suffolk to Norfolk, with a lower speed approaching the Norfolk terminal. Dr. Alexander Metcalf noted that for each stop, the train will have to slow down. The braking process to approach a station happens 2-3 miles out from the station, to provide time to place anchors to slow the train down. Furthermore, as the trains are operating in the urban areas, they will follow a set speed, not 150-mph, which would be expected on the greenfield tracks. This is standard practice for other high-speed trains. Mr. Donald Cole inquired as to the purpose of the Bowers Hill stop, whether it is to capture Peninsula traffic. Dr. Alexander Metcalf noted that such issues haven't been resolved, and further research as to the viability of Bowers Hill versus a Suffolk stop is ongoing. With the viability of 16 trains daily, it could be some trains will stop in Suffolk, and others in Bowers Hill. Dr. Alexander Metcalf noted how in a typical high-speed rail system, small stations will usually see 3-4 trains daily; larger stations get 8-10 trains daily; and the terminal receiving 12+ trains daily. Dr. Alexander Metcalf noted further information will be provided in the next meeting.

Ms. Christine Fix posed an inquiry as to why the cost benefit ratio for the project starts to decline in Step 4. Ms. Christine Fix wondered if such a trend could be viewed negatively by the FRA and other project reviewers. Dr. Alexander Metcalf noted his amazement at the cost/benefit ratios being clustered near a value of 2.0. Dr. Alexander Metcalf noted that further refinement of the ratios is still pending; factoring in fares. Dr. Alexander Metcalf

High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Steering Committee Meeting Summary Minutes | June 16, 2010 | Page 5

Attachment 17-C noted further that elasticity between Hampton Roads and Washington was underestimated, leading to revisions in travel demand assumptions. Such revisions could lead to optimizing the fare from $0.35/mile to $0.42/mile. Final results will close the margin of error gap in the cost/benefit ratios. Lastly, for the drop in the Step 4 ratio, it could be later determined that the Step has one too many trains, and the optimal train service calls for 15 versus 16 trains daily.

For Your Information Mr. Richard Drumwright encouraged everyone to comment and participate in the Southeast High-Speed Rail public hearings. Ms. Christine Fix explained the EIS Tier process and why there were no public hearings in Hampton Roads. Ms. Christine Fix noted that the Tier I EIS covers macro-level impacts of the project, whereas Tier II covers the micro-level impacts. Ms. Christine Fix explained that these public hearings need to take place within the corridor study area where there are direct community impacts. However she did encourage all to attend since it is open to all. Dr. Camelia Ravanbakht inquired about having an informational meeting on the project in Hampton Roads. Ms. Christine Fix expressed support of such request, but stated it will be best to have such a meeting after the public hearings, so as to not confuse the intent of the two types of meetings. Mr. Ray Taylor inquired if Ms. Christine Fix could elaborate on the alternatives, specifically on the Petersburg segment of the project. Ms. Christine Fix noted that the project has three main alternatives that vary by segment along the corridor. Mr. Ray Taylor cited the Petersburg connection to the Hampton Roads Passenger Rail project, which directly impacts the Hampton Roads community. Ms. Christine Fix stressed that the public hearings related to the Southeast High-Speed Rail have to stay within the project corridor, but the public is welcome to comment at the public hearings or submit written comments. Dr. Camelia Ravanbakht noted that the HRTPO staff is preparing technical comments on the Tier II DEIS for DRPT.

Mr. Richard Drumwright briefed the committee on the National Rail Plan FYI item. Ms. Christine Fix commented that DRPT also submitted comments, which were exclusively policy-oriented in nature. Ms. Christine Fix expressed appreciation that the HRTPO is representing Virginia on such matters of national importance by submitting comments on National Rail Plan. Ms. Christine Fix delved into a comment of note that the DRPT prepared for the National Rail Plan. Ms. Christine Fix expressed that there needs to be an exemption for the rail system as it pertains to the historic review process. Currently, the highway system could be deemed historic but would receive an exemption. However, currently, the same has not been done for the rail system. DRPT has requested FRA to exempt the Virginia rails to expedite project delivery.

Old/New Business

High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Steering Committee Meeting Summary Minutes | June 16, 2010 | Page 6

Attachment 17-C Ms. Christine Fix provided a status update on the Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Project Tier I DEIS. Noting 1,200 comments received from 600 persons, Ms. Christine Fix stated that the DRPT is rewriting various chapters of the document, to prepare it for submission to the FRA. The rewritten DEIS will also reflect the preferred alternative. The goal is to get the Tier I FEIS out to the FRA in August 2010, with a Record of Decision returned by the end of the calendar year. This timeline is at the determination of the FRA's review process. Mr. Ray Taylor inquired as to when the Tier II DEIS process would start and be posted in the Federal Register, in relation to the Tier I FEIS. Ms. Christine Fix stated that it is dependent on various things, notably the Tier I FEIS review process. Ideally, the Tier II DEIS would start in mid 2011.

Adjournment There being no further business, Mr. Richard Drumwright Moved to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Mr. Michael King. The Motion Carried. The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.

High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Steering Committee Meeting Summary Minutes | June 16, 2010 | Page 7

Attachment 17-C HRTPO Fiscal Year 2010 JUNE 30, 2010

STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES

Annual Current REVENUES Budget Month YTD

VDOT- PL Sec 112 Federal 2,205,177 - 1,287,004 VDOT- PL Sec 112 State 275,647 - 160,875 VDOT- PL Sec 112 Local 275,647 - 160,876 HRT Match 30,503 - 22,926 WAT Match 10,000 - 6,662 State Pass-Through 40,502 - 29,587 Federal Pass-Through 324,020 - 236,715 VDRPT 5303 Federal 252,614 - 163,019 VDRPT 5303 State 31,577 - 20,377 VDRPT 5303 Local 31,577 - 20,379

Total Revenue 3,477,265 - 2,108,420

EXPENDITURES Personnel 2,004,817 126,825 1,646,571 Special Contracts 170,411 - 135,649 Office Services 221,766 20,576 154,281 Pass Through Expenditures 405,026 - 295,890 Indirect Costs 675,245 69,013 571,670

Total Expenses 3,477,265 216,414 2,804,061

Agency Balance 0 (216,414) (695,641)

Attachment 17-D American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 Commonwealth of Virginia Report to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives June 20, 2010

Data Summarized by MPO

ARRA Funds ARRA Funds ARRA Funds Projects in ARRA Funds Number of Direct, On- Total Job Hours Total Payroll of Number of Projects Projects in Federal Formula ARRA Funds ARRA Funds ARRA Funds Associated w/ Associated w/ Associated w/ Which Work Associated w/ Project Jobs Created or Created or Job Hours Created Metropolitan Planning Organization Projects Put Under Which Work Program Allocated Obligated Outlayed Projects Put Projects Under Projects in Which has Been Completed Sustained by ARRA Sustained by or Sustained by Out to Bid Contract Has Begun Out to Bid Contract Work Has Begun Completed Projects Funds ARRA Funds ARRA Funds Northern Virginia Transportation Highway Authority (Metropolitan Washington Infrastructure Council of Governments) Investment $51,262,196 $49,942,196 $96,375 16 $50,937,196 5 $13,757,021 1 $2,200,000 0 0 112 1490 $51,829 Highway Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Infrastructure Planning Organization Investment $1,399,191 $1,399,191 $0 1 $13,991,910 1 $17,528,512 1 $17,528,512 0 0 2 43 $1,314 Highway Richmond Area Metropolitan Planning Infrastructure Organization Investment $20,848,262 $20,848,262 $0 3 $20,848,262 0 $0 0 $0 0 0 0 0 $0 Highway Tri-Cities Metropolitan Planning Infrastructure Organization Investment $3,252,112 $3,252,112 $0 2 $3,252,112 0 $0 0 $0 0 0 0 0 $0 Highway Hampton Roads Metropolitan Planning Infrastructure Organization Investment $41,041,797 $39,691,797 $315,794 30 $41,041,797 5 $4,087,296 4 $4,087,296 0 0 492 6344 $213,792 Attachment 17-E Southeast High Speed Rail – Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC Tier II Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Overview Welcome to the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) Tier II Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) website. The SEHSR project proposes to implement approximately 162 miles of high speed rail as part of an overall plan to extend high speed passenger rail service from the Northeast Corridor (Boston to Washington, DC) southward through Virginia to Charlotte, NC. The Richmond to Raleigh portion includes nearly 100 new bridges/overpasses that, when combined with existing bridges/overpasses, will create a fully grade-separated system to ensure the safety of passengers and crews, motorists and the surrounding community.

The project corridor generally follows the CSX S-line from Main Street Station, Richmond, VA, to Centralia, VA, then the CSX A-line to Collier Yard, Petersburg, VA. South of Collier Yard the corridor follows the Burgess Connector rail line to Burgess, VA, and the former Seaboard Air Line (S-line) to Norlina, NC, where the S-line returns to an active freight railroad. In Raleigh, NC, the study corridor includes two alternatives: the western branch follows the existing Norfolk Southern (NS) NS-line; the eastern branch continues to follow the CSX S-line. The two branches rejoin before the terminus of the project at the Boylan Wye.

The Tier I EIS completed in 2002 established the purpose and need for the overall project and selected a preferred corridor between Washington, DC, and Charlotte, NC. This Tier II DEIS evaluates detailed study alternatives within this preferred corridor between Richmond and Raleigh In the Tier II DEIS, the project corridor is divided into 26 sections. There are three alternatives in each section, and each rail alternative includes an associated set of highway improvements. In many areas, the alternatives are concurrent. The endpoints of each of the 26 sections are in locations where the alternative alignments are in a common location. The alternatives are evaluated section by section based on impacts to the human and natural environment, as well as costs and constructability, allowing a “best-fit” preferred alternative to be developed for the entire study corridor.

Public Hearing Schedule Learn more about the project and provide your input at the Tier II DEIS public hearings! Dates and locations for the public hearings are listed below. “Open House” information sessions will be held from 5:00 – 7:00 p.m. followed by public hearings at 7:00 p.m. EST.

Tuesday Northside Elementary School Warren County, NC July 13, 2010 164 Elementary Avenue, Norlina, NC 27563

Southside Virginia Community College Thursday Brunswick and Mecklenburg Counties, VA Christanna Campus July 15, 2010 109 Campus Drive, Alberta, VA 23821

Virginia DMV Cafeteria Tuesday Richmond, VA 2300 W. Broad Street, 1st floor July 20, 2010 Richmond, VA 23269

Union Station Wednesday Chesterfield County, 103 River Street July 21, 2010 Colonial Heights, and Petersburg, VA Petersburg, VA 23804

Sunnyside Elementary School Thursday Dinwiddie County 10203 Sunnyside Road July 22, 2010 McKenney, VA 23872

Raleigh Convention Center Monday Wake County, NC 500 South Salisbury Street July 26, 2010 Raleigh NC 27601

Aycock Elementary School Tuesday Vance County, NC 305 Carey Chapel Road July 27, 2010 Henderson, NC 27537

Franklinton High School Gym 6948 N. Cheatham Street Thursday 1 block north of Mason Street Franklin County, NC July 29, 2010 (enter via Rams Way, GPS users should enter “Cheatham & Vine, Franklinton, NC”) Franklinton, NC 27525

Attachment 17-F Andy Pickard

From: Wampler, Jennifer (DCR) Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 2:55 PM To: Spiliotopoulos, Debbie; Waple, Andy; Andy Pickard; Liu, victor; Anne Darby; Corker, carol b Cc: Weis, Eric Subject: East Coast Greenway route for review and comment Attachments: ECG.dbf; ECG.shp.xml; ECG.shx; ECG.shp; ECG.prj; ECG-upper.pdf; ECG-lower.pdf

Dear Regional Representatives,

I have attached the shapefile for the route of the East Coast Greenway through Virginia, and would like to hear back from each PDC/MPO on any changes that are needed prior to the printing of the ECG Traveler's Guide. This shapefile contains the existing on-road route, the historic coastal route, and some off-road proposed sections as well.

Please forward this shapefile or the maps you generate on to your affected local governments so they also have a chance to review and comment.

Please request that all comments be sent back to me by July 15, 2010. If special circumstances require more than a month's review time, please contact me to make other arrangements.

Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedules to coordinate this review.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Wampler, Trails Coordinator VA Dept. of Conservation and Recreation Planning and Recreation Resources Division 203 Governor Street, Suite 326 Richmond, VA 23219 804-786-9240 [email protected]

1

Attachment 17-H Loudoun County Falls Church city Arlington County Warren County Fairfax city Alexandria city Shenandoah County Manassas Park city Fairfax County Manassas city Fauquier County

Rappahannock County Prince William County

Page County

Rockingham County Culpeper County

Harrisonburg city Stafford County Madison County

Fredericksburg city Greene County King George County

Orange County

Spotsylvania County

Augusta County Westmoreland County

Waynesboro city Charlottesville city Caroline County Albemarle County Louisa County Essex County Richmond County

Fluvanna County Attachment Lancaster County King William County Nelson County Hanover County King and Queen County Goochland County 17-H Middlesex County

Buckingham County Powhatan County Amherst County Richmond city New Kent County Mathews County Cumberland County Henrico County Gloucester County Appomattox County Chesterfield County Amelia County James City County Charles City County Caroline County Richmond County Louisa County Northumberland County Albemarle County Essex County

Fluvanna County

King William County Nelson County Hanover County King and Queen County Lancaster County Goochland County

Middlesex County

Buckingham County Powhatan County Richmond city New Kent County

Cumberland County Henrico County Legend Mathews County

ECG Gloucester County waterbodiestgr83 Chesterfield County Charles City County Appomattox County Amelia County

Hopewell city Williamsburg city Colonial Heights city James City County York County Prince Edward County Petersburg cityPrince George County

Poquoson city Nottoway County Surry County Newport News city Dinwiddie County

Charlotte County

Lunenburg County Norfolk city Sussex County Isle of Wight County Portsmouth city Attachment

Brunswick County Halifax County Southampton County Suffolk city Chesapeake city Mecklenburg County Emporia city Franklin city 17-H

Greensville County ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HRTPO Comment ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Name: Reid Greenmun Date: June 24, 2010 Subject: CTAC – Losing our way

Comments (Via June 24, 2010 CTAC Meeting)

Virginia Beach Taxpayer Alliance (VBTA) recommendations:

The goal of this committee is to find out what the 1.6M citizens living in Tidewater desire regarding transportation needs and to communicate the citizen’s views to the TPO board.

So far the HRPDC staff and a CTAC committee appointed by the Chair have drafted bylaws and the full CTAC committee has gone over the bylaws. The result? You have reduced the number of minimum required meetings from 12 to 6, thus breaking the alignment between the CTAC and the TPO.

The TPO meets every month and covers an amazing amount of important transportation business impacting our region.

From what I have seen, the CTAC has not yet begun to review the agenda items coming before the TPO at the next TPO meeting. This is needed so that our CTAC board members can discuss the upcoming TPO agenda items with their citizens in their respective cities and then communicate back to the CTAC what their citizens want.

This discussion is needed so that our CTAC Chairperson can then communicated back to the TPO the CITIZEN VIEWPOINTS on TPO agenda items. In this way the CTAC can use our seat on the TPO to provide citizen INPUT to the TPO deliberations and decision-making process.

The VBTA strongly encourages the CTAC to revisit your bylaws and change them such that the CTAC is required to meet a minimum number of meeting that align with the number of TPO board meetings.

The notion that the CTAC would not have enough issues to discuss to fill a 12 meeting a year schedule was grossly premature – having made the original motion to reduce the meeting to only 4 a year after only 1 meeting! Had it not been for the input from the VBTA most likely you would now only be only required to meet 4 times a year, not 6.

Recapping further, the Chairman, Mr. Harrison, asked the CTAC members to submit their top 3 to 5 priorities between the 1st CTAC meeting and the 2nd. CTAC meeting. A list was compiled and then opinion was advanced that the “consensus” was that a

Attachment 17-L lack of funding was the most common priority provided from the CTAC board members.

But that really wasn’t the case when we study the individual submissions. They tended to mention a broad spectrum of diverse transportation needs as high priorities.

Next the CTAC spent the 3rd meeting with an education program on transportation funding. This presentation was clearly intended to support a viewpoint that more transportation funding is needed.

That brings us to today, meeting Number 4.

Thus far our region’s CTAC has failed to discuss in any detail a strategy for the CTAC board members to gather public viewpoints on specific transportation issues and needed projects.

After establishing bylaws and electing officers, a strategy for gathering citizens input on specific issued coming before the TPO should be the greatest focus of the CTAC.

How can this be done?

By regional referenda – that is an amazing tool for determining what our region’s citizens really want. For more citizens are involved than a focus group or 400-500 hand picked individuals.

Today you will discuss a “Final Report” titled “The Present and Future of Transportation in Hampton Roads”. It is a report by the Watson Center at CNU but it was prepared by “Bonney & Company” of Virginia Beach. Chris Bonney and I are facebook friends. Read page 2 and you will observed that this report was created the HRCCE.

Who is the HRCCE? I have a great deal of experience with the HRCCE. I have participated in many of their events billed as venues for gathering citizen viewpoints. Billed as a “safe place” for “civic enegagement”.

Chris Bonney is the board member of the HRCCE. That is a regional non-profit with a HUGE agenda. Chris Bonney is far from an impartial individual when it comes to matters of advancing “regionalism” – or advancing certain regional transportation projects. Chris is a great guy – but he has an agenda.

Other HRCCE Board members:

Bert Schmidt is the President and Chief Executive of WHRO. Bert is also a member of The Hampton Roads Partnership, the Greater Norfolk Council, Smart Beginnings South Hampton Roads, Future of Hampton Roads.

Attachment 17-L His wife is, Missy Schmitt. She and I have been friends for many years – since she first arrived in our region. Missy Schmitt is currently the performing Marketing Communications for the Hampton Roads Partnership.

The Hampton Roads Partnership is largely a business lobby pushing a regional agenda – a regional transportation agenda – an agenda that is often at odds with the desires of the 1.6M citizens living in our region. How do I know this? It was revealed at the ballot box in 2002. The YES Campaign lost by a 2-to1 margin. The Hampton Roads partnership lead “The YES Campaign”.

Who else is a board member of the HRCCE? It is a who’s who of local business lobby and hard core “regionalists” with a strong agenda. A strong BUSINESS and GOVERNEMT agenda – but not a strong CITIZEN and TAXPAYER agenda! You need to understand who it is that is involved in this “Final Report” and how, exactly, the data was gathered, complied, and who stated the conclusions of the report.

Jim Oliver is the current Chairman of the Board for the HRCCE – he is also the former Assistant City Manager for the City of Norfolk, County Administrator for James City County, City Manager for the City of Norfolk and later, the City of Portsmouth.

Also on the Board of the HRCCE are:

• Clyde Hoey • Jim Babcock • Sharon Adams (who I adore) • Bob O'Neill • John Rowe • Roger Richman • Henry Light • Quentin Kidd • Minette Cooper • Vivian Paige • Anita Poston • Suzanne Puryear • Roger Richman • Alvin J. Schexnider

And that brings us to our won CTAC Board member:

Rear Admiral Ray Taylor. Ray is also on the board of the HRCCE …

. . . and he is also the President of the Future of Hampton Roads.

Clearly Future Hampton Roads is pushing an agenda – to include a regional transportation agenda – friends, their agenda is often at odds with what the

Attachment 17-L majority of our region’s citizens want. This has been proven by the results of a key regional referendum conducted about – of all things – transportation.

A regional sales taxing scheme for a certain set of 6 major business lobby transportation projects that were spearheaded under Art Collins and the HRPDC/MPO; now renamed the TPO. And now … thank the Lord … under the leadership of Dwight Farmer! Thanks to Dwight, we now have a CTAC.

What is the point?

The point is that you need to understand WHO is developing reports like the one you are being given – and YOU need to find out on your own what your city’s citizens really want.

It is great to read and consider this report. Data is good. But you need to understand WHO wrote it – and to take its conclusions with a healthy dose of salt – be aware of folks providing reports to the CTAC when they have a dog in the fight.

The VBTA encourages the CTCA to get back on the right track as follows:

1. To being to discuss the agenda items coming before the TPO at their next meeting. To develop positions on significant TPO agenda items and then direct your Chairman to communicate the consensus of the CTAC to the TPO – this is your primary purpose - to serve the 1.6M citizens of Tidewater by ensuring that we have the CITIZEN’S VOICE heard during the TPO deliberations and decision-making process. 2. Amend the CTAC bylaws to require a minimum of 12 meetings a year. 3. Elect your own Chairman – and limit the term to only 1 year – rotating the chairmanship by city, just as the TPO does. This will require the CTAC asking the TPO to amend THEIR bylaws so that the Chair of the TPO no longer APPOINTS the spokesperson for the CTAC. 4. Focus on strategies for YOUR role in gathering citizen viewpoints – you can’t simply depend on others to hand you THEIR reports; perhaps to be quietly pushing THEIR AGENDA – in the guise of representing the views of the CITIZENS. Do your own research. Talk to people. Develop a process to gather information from citizens that you can trust to be nonbiased. Beware of well managed “civic engagement”. 5. Discuss the process whereby you might place regional referenda questions on the ballot to gather true citizen input to help the CTAC. 6. Above all the VBTA encourages you to understand that your appointment to this body is not a mandate to advance your own personal agenda, but rather a volunteer role where you are to serve your community by representing the views of others.

Attachment 17-L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HRTPO Public Comment ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ RE: Public Comment Regarding the Hampton Roads Congestion Management Process: 2010 Update Draft Report (Public Comment Follows HRTPO Staff Response)

HRTPO Staff Response

Mr. Riutort,

Thank you for taking the time to review and provide comments regarding the Hampton Roads Congestion Management Process: 2010 Update Draft Report. We agree with your suggestion to emphasize the 2030 congestion levels. We plan to add text in the document to show the importance of using the 2030 congestion levels in the development of long-range projects and congestion solutions.

Prior consideration has already been made to show only severe congestion (LOS E and F) for the table in the report showing congested lane-miles by jurisdiction. The reason for including low to moderate congestion levels (LOS A – D) was to show the total lane-miles within each jurisdiction. For example, the severe congestion levels in Newport News were similar to those in Virginia Beach. However, the CMP roadway network in Newport News is much smaller than Virginia Beach, which shows that a larger portion of Newport News’ city network is severely congested. If we only show LOS E and F, we would not know how it compares to the overall network size within each jurisdiction.

Thank you again for your interest in the HRTPO's work.

Name: Al Riutort Date: July 8, 2010 Subject: HR Congestion Management 2010 Update

Public Comment Input (Via E-mail)

I have a few suggestions. First, I agree with Keith Cannaday. Its more important to show 2030 congestion levels, otherwise the extent of improvements by priority are too truncated. For example, on the Peninsula I-64 needs to be widened to 199 and not stop at Yorktown Road. Likewise, Rte. 17 needs to be improved through Gloucester. Also, showing priorities for 2009 congestion eliminates improvements that are now completed, such as recent widenings of Jefferson Avenue and Warwick Boulevard. So, to me the most important information is 2030 congestion, not 2009 levels.

I also think that the table showing congested lane miles by jurisdiction is a little misleading because you include low and moderate congestion levels (A-C). I believe a better visual picture of Severe Congestion (E &F) by jurisdiction would be a graph that only shows those levels of congestion. That way we could more easily see how bad congestion is and will be.

Attachment 17-L