he Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) are required to review, evaluate, and certify the metropolitan transportation planning process in each Transportation T Management Area (TMA), an urbanized area of 200,000 population or more, at least every three years. The certification review is to assure that the planning process is addressing the major issues facing the area, and that the planning process is being conducted in accordance with the following statutory and regulatory requirements: 1) Section 134 of Title 23, U.S.C., and sections 5303-5306 of Title 49; 2) Sections 174 and 176(c) and (d) of the Clean Air Act; 3) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VI assurance executed by each State; 4) Section 1003(b) of ISTEA regarding the involvement of disadvantaged business enterprises in the FHWA and FTA funded planning projects; 5) Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and U.S. DOT regulations “Transportation for Individuals with Disabilities”; 6) Provisions of the Older Americans Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101); 7) The provisions of 49 CFR part 20 regarding restrictions on influencing certain Federal activities; and 8) All other applicable provision of Federal law.

Each urban area is required to have a designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), which is the forum for cooperative transportation decisionmaking in the area. The Federal certification review evaluates a MPO’s transportation planning process, identifies strengths and weaknesses (as appropriate), and makes recommendations for improvements. Following the review and evaluation, FHWA and FTA can take one of four certification actions:

- Full certification of the transportation planning process: this allows federally funded programs and projects of any type to be approved in the Transportation Improvement Program over the next three years in accordance with the continuing planning process. - Certification subject to specified corrective actions being taken: this allows all projects to move forward in the process while corrective actions are taken; this option may take the form of a temporary certification for a certain number of months rather than the full three years. - Limited certification: this allows only certain specified categories of program and project funding to move forward while corrective actions are being taken.

- i - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Preface

- Certification withheld: approval of funding in whole or in part for attributed FHWA and FTA funds that the metropolitan area receives is stopped until the deficiencies in the planning process are corrected.

During the week of May 2-5, 2005, FHWA and FTA conducted a certification review of the transportation planning process in the Poughkeepsie-Newburgh Transportation Management Area. The TMA boundary resides within three MPOs: Poughkeepsie Dutchess County Transportation Council, Orange County Transportation Council, and the Ulster County Transportation Council. This is a new TMA based on the 2000 census, and thus this was the first time for such a review here. This report documents the Federal review, recommendations and conclusions.

- ii - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Preface ...... i Executive Summary ...... 1 Conclusions and Recommendations...... 3 2005 Review Process ...... 7 Introduction to the TMA ...... 9

The Mid-Hudson Valley Transportation Management Area

I. Coordination within the TMA ...... 19 The Three MPOs of the Mid-Hudson Valley Region...... 19 Coordination Efforts Underway ...... 21 Draft MOU ...... 23 Coordination on Air Quality Planning...... 24

II. Organizational Structures...... 27 Emergence of MPOs in the Mid-Hudson Valley Region ...... 27 Formation of the PDCTC, OCTC and UCTC ...... 28 Planning Area Boundaries...... 29 Policy Committee Structure and Membership...... 31 Other Committees...... 33 Agreements and Contracts...... 33 American Indian Territories ...... 35

III. MPO Staffing and Capabilities...... 37 The Shared Staffing Concept...... 37 Staffing Particulars of the MPOs...... 39 Evaluation of Staffing Concept ...... 39 Website and Graphic Capabilities ...... 40 Travel Demand Modeling...... 42

IV. Unified Planning Work Programs...... 43 Activities Planned in 2005-2006 ...... 44 Planning Practices for Consideration ...... 46

V. Long Range Transportation Plans ...... 47 Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transportation Council ...... 48 Orange County Transportation Council...... 49 Ulster County Transportation County ...... 50 Fiscal Constraint...... 51 Enhancement to Consider...... 51

Vi. Transportation Improvement Programs ...... 53 TIP Development Process ...... 54 Evaluating Candidate Projects...... 55

- iii - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Table of Contents

Fiscal Constraint...... 56 TIP Status ...... 57 Annual Listing of Implemented Projects...... 59 Generic Cost Schedule ...... 60 Risk Management...... 60

VII. Transit Activities...... 63 Dutchess County Transit Service ...... 63 Orange County Transit Service ...... 64 Ulster County Transit Service ...... 64 FTA Section 5307 Funds...... 65

VIII. Title VI/Environmental Justice...... 69 The Goal of Environmental Justice ...... 69 Title VI/EJ in the TMA area...... 70

IX. Public Involvement ...... 73 Public Involvement Policy Statement...... 73 PDCTC ...... 74 OCTC ...... 74 UCTC ...... 75

X. Air Quality Considerations ...... 77 Nonattainment Status...... 77 Transportation Conformity Process...... 78 Nonattainment Planning Boundaries...... 79 Conformity of 2025 Plans and 2006-2010 TIPs ...... 79 CMAQ Program ...... 80

XI. Congestion Management System...... 81 CMS in the TMA Area...... 81 Importance of the CMS ...... 82 Draft CMS ...... 82 Identifying Congestion ...... 84 Use of GPS in Collecting Speed Data ...... 84

Glossary...... 85

Appendix A – USDOT Letter

Appendix B – Public Meeting Notice

Appendix C – Site Visit Agenda

Appendix D – Email Comments

- iv - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005

Executive Summary

Main Conclusions The transportation planning process in the Mid-Hudson Valley TMA, as carried out by the Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transportation Council (PDCTC), the Orange County Transportation Council (OCTC), and the Ulster County Transportation Council (UCTC) are very professional endeavors and the three MPOs are hereby fully certified.

The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Background Administration reviewed the transportation planning process in the TMA in accordance with the requirement of 23 CFR '450.334 that all urbanized areas over 200,000 be reviewed at least every three years to assure that the planning process is in accordance with federal

regulations. The review included a desk audit,` site visits to the three

MPOs (May 2-5, 2005), discussions with member agencies and the MPO Staffs, and a night meeting for public input.

Noteworthy Practices There are many examples of good transportation planning efforts in the three MPOs. We note, for example, the draft Memorandum of Understanding that will formalize the coordination activities in the TMA, the pursuit of a Congestion Management System approach for the entire TMA, Orange County’s linking of its investment resources to support the Comprehensive Plan’s development strategies, UCTC’s correlation approach to evaluating candidate projects for the TIP, PDCTC’s Intersection Management Program, just to mention a few. We commend the professional work of the staffs of the three MPOs and the planning professionals at NYSDOT Region 8. Finally, we especially commend the UCTC for how quickly it has become a viable MPO with excellent products.

Besides the commendations of existing practices in this report, Recommendations we also offer several recommendations for consideration in furthering And Needed Actions program excellence. We have also identified several items that must

be in place by October 1, 2005, which is the deadline date set for the

new TMA; most notably are the adoption of a Congestion Management System in the three MPOs, and the adoption of a Long Range Transportation Plan by the UCTC.

Challenges We foresee an intensive and challenging workload facing the MPOs in the immediate future – specifically the challenges of NYSDOT’s Transformation process, the rising freight volumes on the major highway links, and the capital needs of maintaining the transportation infrastructure.

- 1 -

Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions and Recommendations

ased on this 2005 certification review, FHWA and FTA find that the transportation planning processes of the three MPOs (PDTCC, OCTC B and UCTC) that cover the Mid-Hudson Valley TMA comply with the requirements of Section 134 of Title 23, Section 8 of the Federal Transit Act, Sections 174 and 176(c) and (d) of the Clean Air Act, as well as the other sections of law mentioned in '450.334(a). We congratulate the MPOs for their community outreach efforts, and for the excellent technical capabilities of the Central Staffs and the member agencies.

Needed Action for the New TMA and the New MPO

The MPOs have several critical items that are due by October 1, 2005. While the inability to deliver on these items in a timely manner would significantly compromise the process, we have full confidence these items will be delivered on time. UCTC must adopt its new long-range transportation plan by October 1, 2005. The three MPOs need to adopt a CMS program by October 1, 2005.

Recommendations In our partnering effort to further planning excellence, we offer a number of recommendations on elements of the planning process. The respective sections of this report discuss these recommendations in further detail.

Organization The MPOs should formally update existing agreements and/or procedures in order to more closely reflect a coordinated planning process among the three MPOs to reflect the desired and actual functions of the MPOs within the TMA. One specific aspect of the process that needs further clarification is the working relationships among the NYSDOT Region 8, the Region 8 MPO Unit and the County MPO staffs.

- 3 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Conclusions and Recommendations

MPO Staffing & Capabilities The three MPOs should review and assess how the shared-staffing concept is working and what – if anything – can be modified/enhanced to help the TMA to continue to move forward. The MPOs should consider how they might reduce the possible confusion with the shared staffing arrangement over who is speaking as a member agency and who is speaking as a MPO staff member. The MPOs should strive for their websites to portray a MPO identity. As the MPOs may revamp their website to a more visual format, we recommend that they consider having the opening screen offer the reader a choice of either a visually-oriented presentation or a text-only version.

Unified Planning Work Programs The MPOs should consider whether the use of visualization techniques in planning studies would be helpful in their processes.

Long Range Transportation Plan The MPOs should consider the benefits of incorporating Performance Measures into the next versions of their Plans.

Transportation Improvement Program PDCTC, OCTC and UCTC need to include a section in their TIP document that clearly demonstrates fiscal constraint by year. We recommend that the PDCTC and OCTC evaluate whether UCTC’s correlation approach to evaluating candidate projects could be of assistance to their own decision makers. Upon completion of the new TIP cycle, the UCTC will need to develop a list of projects for which Federal funds have been obligated in the preceding year. We recommend that Region 8 consider developing a set of generic costs for use by the MPOs in their project development process. We recommend that the three MPOs evaluate the potential benefits of using risk management techniques in their considerations.

Transit Activities The three MPOs should revisit the Section 5307 distribution method to see if it could more clearly reflect the planning factors in TEA-21.

- 4 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Conclusions and Recommendations

Public Involvement OCTC consider publishing a quarterly newsletter.

Title VI/Environmental Justice As a tool to analyze the extent of outreach to EJ communities, the MPOs should consider overlaying the addresses from mailing lists and comments received onto their maps of EJ communities and TIP projects over a threshold amount.

Air Quality The three MPOs should consider the possible use of CMAQ monies in Ulster County on a project that could reduce emissions in the other two Counties. The UCTC should participate in air quality training when possible to stay abreast of current practices.

Statement of Appreciation We wish to express our gratitude to the courtesy extended to the Review Team during this review and extend our appreciation for the many individuals who met with us and offered their observations on the planning process. We are also grateful for the excellent feedback on our draft report. We congratulate MPOs for the cooperative nature of their planning process and the excellent technical capabilities.

We note that, subsequent to this review, the new Federal transportation legislation was passed: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for User (SAFETEA_LU). This legislation places some additional requirements on the MPO planning process. These changes are not required to be part of the MPO process until July 1, 2007. The Federal agencies are now developing guidance on these new requirements.

- 5 -

Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 The 2005 Review

The 2005 Certification Review

“The Secretary shall-- (i) ensure that the metropolitan planning process in each transportation management area is being carried out in accordance with applicable provisions of Federal law; and (ii) certify, not less often than once every 3 years, that the requirements of this paragraph are met with respect to the transportation management area.” 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(5)(A)

he primary purpose of the Federal Certification Review is to ensure that the MPO process is satisfactorily implementing the planning requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303. The recommendations that result from the review hopefully will improve the T effectiveness and efficiency of the planning process. There are also broader benefits to the review, as the Federal reviewers identify good or innovative practices to share with other states and metropolitan planning organizations.

The 2005 certification review officially began in March 2005 with joint FHWA/FTA letters to PDCTC, OCTC, and UCTC informing the MPOs about the upcoming review and identifying the primary topics for the review (Appendix A). The dates of the site visit were previously coordinated with MPOs’ staffs. The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) received individual copies of the letters. The staffs of the MPOs notified their principals and the public about this review (Appendix B).

In preparation for the on-site visit, the FHWA and FTA conducted an internal desk audit of the PDCTC, OCTC and UCTC material in our files, including the self-certification statements, the existing and draft Unified Planning Work Programs, the existing and draft Transportation Improvement Programs and the existing Long Range Plans.

Site Visits The Federal Review Team conducted site visits to the three MPOs on May 2- 5, 2005. The Federal Team consisted of Ms. Nina Chung (FTA, Region Two Office), and Mr. Joseph Rich (FHWA, NY Division Office). The on-site review took place at the MPOs’ offices.

The certification review was structured so that the initial meeting was a joint meeting with all three MPOs’ staffs to discuss the planning issues, products and coordination that are required in a TMA. The next three meetings were with individual MPOs to establish a basic understanding of the individual MPO capabilities and operations in their respective counties, including those areas of the Counties

- 7 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 The 2005 Review

outside the TMA boundary. The detailed discussions were primarily with the respective County Planning Directors, the staffs of the three MPOs, and NYSDOT Region 8. The agenda for the site visit is shown in Appendix C.

Public Input A public meeting was held on May 3, 2005 at the Marlboro High School (Ulster County). The public meeting was publicized in various media outreach. The opportunity for written comments was also advertised. Four members of the public attended and offered comments. Subsequently, two email comments were also received (Appendix D).

Report Preparation Following the site visits, the Review Team developed a draft version of the report. This was shared with the three MPOs and NYSDOT Region 8 for comment. Comments were received from all three MPOs and NYSDOT, and their comments are reflected herein.

For the format of this report, the Review Team decided to have the initial Section devoted to discussing overall coordination within the TMA and to have separate Sections on individual technical aspects of the planning processes, with a discussion of each MPO’s activities pertaining thereto. We though that this format would be more informative from a comparative standpoint than having separate on each MPO discussing all technical aspects of their individual processes.

- 8 -

Rondout Lighthouse Kingston, NY

Introduction to the TMA Region

Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Introduction to the TMA

Introduction to TMA

very urban area in the United States of more than 50,000 persons, as recognized by the Bureau of the Census, must have a designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in order to qualify for Federal E highway and transit funds. The MPO is to be the “the forum for cooperative transportation decisionmaking for the metropolitan planning area.”1 Those areas with an urbanized population of 200,000 or more persons are classified as Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) subject to additional Federal requirements and scrutiny. One of these additional requirements is for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to specifically review and evaluate the MPO’s transportation planning process at least every three years, and to certify that the MPO is (or is not) meeting said regulations.2

Following the 2000 Census, the U.S. Bureau of the Census identified the Poughkeepsie-Newburgh, NY area as an urbanized area having a population of 351,982.3 Subsequently, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation officially designated the Poughkeepsie-Newburgh, NY area as a Transportation Management Area.4 The TMA area includes parts of three Counties: Dutchess County (including the City of Poughkeepsie), Orange County (including the Cities of Newburgh and Middletown), and the southeastern portion of Ulster County. Locally, TMA is referred to as the Mid-Hudson Valley, NY TMA in deference to the fact that part of Ulster County is also within the TMA boundary.

Three independent MPOs are involved in the transportation planning Picture of Poughkeepsie Railroad processes within the TMA: the Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transportation Bridge Council (PDCTC), the Orange County Transportation Council (OCTC), and the “Bridging the Hudson” Ulster County Transportation Council UCTC). Since all of the three are involved in by Carlton Mabee planning within the TMA, all three MPOs are subject to the triennial FHWA/FTA certification reviews. Given that the Mid-Hudson Valley TMA is a new TMA, the 2005 certification review is the first such review for the three affected MPOs.

The three counties are growing together in many ways. For example, approximately 90% of the Ulster County residents work in one of the three counties. The interrelationships may be better understood by the following short outline of the early history of the Hudson Valley.

- 10 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Introduction to the TMA

The Hudson River Valley It has been almost 400 years since Henry Hudson sailed up the river now named for him. This area would come to see significant events in American history., and Congress declared it “the landscape that defined America”.

Approximately 2.5 million people live in this 150-mile long region, stretching from New York Harbor northward to Troy, New York. Congress deemed the Hudson River Valley to be nationally significant because it has provided the setting and inspiration for new currents of American thought, art, and history and was the "fountainhead of a truly American identity." On November 12, 1996, Congress declared the Hudson River Valley as a National Heritage Area.5 The region contains five National Historic Sites, 58 National Historic Landmarks, 89 historic districts, and over 1,000 sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

The Mid-Hudson Valley TMA is located in the central portion of this north-south corridor along the river. It is made of three Counties – Dutchess, Orange and Ulster.

Early Settlements

Giovanni da Verrazzano, an Italian sailing under the flag of the King of France, sailed into New York Bay in 1524, the first European known to have visited it. He did not sail up the Hudson River, however, but rather continued northward along the coast, exploring the eastern seaboard of North America as far as Nova Scotia. The next notable sailing expedition on the Hudson River would not occur for 85 years.

Most schoolbooks give the honor of discovering the Hudson River to Englishman Henry Hudson, who was looking for a quick passage to China as he sailed into the New York Bay in 1609. With a crew of 18-20 men and employed by the Dutch East Indian Company, Hudson sailed on a ship (Half Moon) up the river until he realized that it was a dead end north of Albany. Along the way, they had sailed through a fifteen-mile stretch of one of the roughest waters in the American northeast – rapids, waterfalls, and a river with hills rising 1,000 feet on either side of the shore. This was the Hudson Highlands, and the Dutch would call this stretch of the river between what is now Peekskill and Newburgh as the “World's End”.

After Hudson informed his employer that the river was not a link to China, the Dutch East India Company withdrew its support of development along this corridor. However, another Dutch trading company – the Dutch Hudson River Valley West India Company – saw the region as potentially profitable for the fur trade. The Dutch claimed the whole territory as theirs, naming it New Netherland. By 1613, four trading houses were built in Manhattan, and a charter to the area was granted in

- 11 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Introduction to the TMA

1615 to the United New Netherland Company. The colony was called New Netherland. The settlement on Manhattan Island (Fort Amsterdam) quickly prospered and grew, but the Dutch had difficulty in finding settlers to go upriver in the Hudson Valley region because of dense forests and occasionally hostile Algonquin Indians.

The English were jealous of the profitable Dutch fur trade. After three Anglo-Dutch Wars during which the colony changed hands several times, the New Netherland colony was finally given to England in 1664 under the Treaty of Westminster, and the colony was renamed New York6. The era of Dutch ownership had ended. However, the Dutch culture had taken a firm hold in the area, giving way to many of the traditions and institutions we see today within the region.

The Huguenots

The Huguenots were French Calvanists fleeing religious persecution during the 1600s, and some fled to the New World, specifically the Hudson Valley. The English governor granted them thirty-nine thousand acres of land south of Kingston that became known as New Paltz. During the spring of 1678, twelve Huguenot households made the journey from Kingston to New Paltz by wagon. During the 1690's, the wood houses were replaced with the stone homes that remain there today. Over the next fifty years, the French language began to disappear due to the increasing number of Dutch and English inhabitants in the area. Given their history of persecution, the Huguenots had no desire to stand out, and they were absorbed into the Dutch culture.

Huguenot Stone House New Paltz New York Counties England reorganized its new colony into twelve counties in 1683, and the three counties in the Mid-Hudson Valley were part of that original twelve (there are now 62 counties in New York):

♦ Dutchess County is on the east side of the Hudson River, approximately 75 miles south of Albany and 74 miles north of New York City. Dutchess County was not named after the Dutch, but as a compliment to the Duchess of York (later Queen Mary); her title was derived from the French word, dutchesse, spelled with a "t". Its boundaries in 1683 included the present Putnam County and a small portion of the present Columbia County (towns ofClermont and Germantown). Until 1713, Dutchess was administered by Ulster County. In 1812, Putnam County was detached and established as a separate entity.

- 12 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Introduction to the TMA

Dutchess County covers roughly 800 square miles, has a population of 280,150 (2000 Census), and it is comprised of 2 cities, 20 towns and 8 villages. It is surrounded by Columbia County to the north, Ulster and Orange Counties to the west, Putnam County to the south, and Litchfield and Fairfield Counties in the state of Connecticut to the east. The Town of Poughkeepsie was formed in 1788; the village of Poughkeepsie was formed in 1799 and became an incorporated city in 1854. The City of Poughkeepsie is the county seat.

♦ Ulster County, on the west side of the river, was settled by the Dutch as early as 1616. When established in 1683, its boundaries included present-day Sullivan County and portions of Delaware and Greene Counties. The City of Kingston, now the county seat, was first called Esopus after a local Indian tribe (a tribe of the delarare Nation), and later renamed Wiltwyck (Dutch: wild woods). After the Dutch colony was taken over by the British in in 1664, the settlement was renamed Kingston.

Because of ocean tides that cause the river to rise and fall as far north as Albany, there are accounts of whale and dolphin sightings as far inland as the Town of Lloyd into the early 1900s. The area is also the birthplace and home of Sojourner Truth, who is famous for her work in the Abolitionist movement. Because of her work with the Underground Railroad, many homes and other buildings that served as hiding places still remain The 2000 Census population was 177,749.

♦ Orange County, also on the west side of the river, is named for William of Orange. When established by the British as a county in 1683, Orange County also included present day Rockland County (split in 1798). Today, the County is comprised of forty municipalities, twenty towns, seventeen villages and three cities, Newburgh, Port Jervis, and Middletown. Port Jervis is located in the southwestern corner, Newburgh is on Orange County’s eastern border and Middletown is centrally located. The County’s 2000 Census population was 341,367. The County seat is at Goshen, New York, which is only 50 miles from NYC.

The Revolutionary War

Both the British and the colonists knew that the control of the Hudson River valley was key to the War effort. Besides its importance as a food producer and transportation system to the middle colonies, the Hudson served both as highway and battlefield, used by British warships and troops to attack the land and water forces of the revolutionaries and vice versa. It was an invasion route to and from Canada at the one end and New York City on the other. Command of the Hudson influenced the economy and affected the movement of manpower and supplies.

- 13 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Introduction to the TMA

The turning point in the War was the defeat of British in 1777 at the Battle of Saratoga. British General Burgoyne was leading an invasion force southward from Canada, and it was expected that British General Clinton in Manhattan would attack upward along the Hudson and meet Burgoyne in Albany. The plan was to capture the Hudson River Valley and separate New England from the other colonies. Clinton only half-heartedly tried to force the Hudson from the south. They did burn Kingston (then the provincial capital of New York) but then turned around. Recognizing no help was coming, General Burgoyne attacked the Americans in the Second Battle of Freeman’s Farm on October 7, 1777 and was repulsed through the heroic leadership of Benedict Arnold. Burgoyne was forced to surrender to American General Gates on October 9, 1777. The defeat of this British Army convinced France to enter the war on the American side.

By 1778, the Americans began to fortify several points along the lower portion of the river, especially around West Point. A Great Chain (iron links, each two feet long weighing between 140 and 180 pounds) stretched between West Point on the west shore and Constitution Island on the east to prevent British Ships from sailing up the Hudson from New York City. The Great Chain was never tested, as no British ship got that far up the river after its creation.

During the War, Dutchess County was protected by the Highlands to the south and thus was spared major violence; it was sometimes called the "breadbasket" because it supplied provisions from field and mill to the embattled colonists. The Village of Fishkill served as an encampment for General George Washington's troops and, briefly, as the capitol of New York State.

In 1782, General George Washington moved his headquarters to Newburgh, where he remained through the end of the War in 1783.7 Poughkeepsie was the state capitol in 1788 when the United States Constitution was ratified with the provision that certain amendments later incorporated into the Bill of Rights were needed to insure personal liberty.

General George Washington lived and worked in this fieldstone farmhouse from April 1782 to August 1783. The home was well situated with protection from the Hudson on the east, the forts at West Point to the south and the cantonment at New Windsor to the west.

- 14 -

Key Elements of the Transportation Planning Process

Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Coordination within the TMA

I. Coordination within the TMA

“Transportation Management Area (TMA) means an urbanized area with a population over 200,000 (as determined by the latest decennial census) or other area when TMA designation is requested by the Governor and the MPO (or affected local officials), and officially designated by the Administrators of the FHWA and the FTA. The TMA designation applies to the entire metropolitan planning area(s).” 23 CFR 450.104 Definitions

he Mid-Hudson Valley TMA is unique in New York for several reasons. First, it is a newly designated TMA. Second, it involves three separate and independent MPOs - the Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transportation T Council (PDCTC), the Orange County Transportation Council (OCTC), and the Ulster County Transportation Council (UCTC). Third, one of the three – UCTC – is a new urbanized area under the 2000 Census, and the majority of the UCTC’s urbanized area is associated with the Kingston urbanized area rather than with the TMA portion. The final reason we consider this TMA to be unique is that it prefers to be identified as the Mid-Hudson Valley, NY TMA, rather that the official USDOT designation – the “Poughkeepsie-Newburgh, NY TMA”. This is in deference to the fact that Ulster County is an active participant in the TMA activities. Accordingly, we have used the preferred appellation in this report.

The MPOs in the Mid-Hudson Valley Region Prior to the 2000 Census and the designation of the TMA, there were two separate urbanized areas in the Mid-Hudson Valley, each having its own MPO: ♦ Poughkeepsie NY urbanized area, covered by the Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transportation Council (PDCTC), and ♦ Newburgh, NY urbanized area, covered by the Newburgh- Orange County Transportation Council (NOCTC). NOCTC would later be renamed as the Orange County Transportation Council (OCTC). Each of these urbanized areas had less than 200,000 people. Ulster County, which was essentially a rural county, physically separated the two urbanized areas.8 The 2000 Census showed that these two urbanized areas had grown together across the southeastern portion of Ulster County into one large urbanized area that exceeds 200,000 population. The Bureau of Census named the new urbanized area as the “Poughkeepsie-Newburgh, NY” area and the U.S. Secretary of Transportation formally designated the new urbanized area as a Transportation Management Area in 2002.

- 17 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Coordination within the TMA

The identification of a new TMA in the Mid-Hudson Valley was only one of several changes brought about by the 2000 Census. The 2000 Census also identified two new urbanized areas in the Mid-Hudson Valley: Middletown NY in Orange County and Kingston NY in Ulster County. Newly designated urbanized areas have the option of forming new MPOs, merging with an existing MPO or (if applicable) remaining under the umbrella of an existing MPO. Middletown chose the latter option. It was already covered by the NOCTC’s process, and Middletown’s local officials chose to remain within the NOCTC. In recognition that Middletown could have been its own MPO, the MPO changed its official name to the Orange County Transportation Council (OCTC).

Kingston, however, was not within an existing MPO, and the local officials had to establish a new MPO (or have the urbanized area assumed into an existing MPO) in order to receive Federal transportation funding. When deliberating how best to do this, they also had to consider that the Kingston urbanized area’s concentration of people is associated in and adjacent to the City of Kingston, which is in the central and northern portion of Ulster County, whereas the portion of Ulster County that resides Kingston, NY within the TMA is much further south.

Besides the Ulster County deliberations over the Kingston area, the officials of the two existing MPOs also had to decide how to proceed now that there the Bureau of the Census had merged the formerly separate urbanized areas into one. There were various alternatives available to the State and local officials of the three Counties on how to structure the MPOs for the TMA area and the Kingston area. The three basic options that were considered: 1) One MPO for all three counties. 2) Two MPOs: a) One TMA MPO covering all of the Dutchess and Orange Counties and the portion of Ulster County within the TMA boundary, plus b) A new MPO in Kingston that covered the rest of Ulster County. 3) Three MPOs, each covering its respective County including the associated portions of the TMA residing therein. The elected officials from all three counties chose the third option – to retain the two existing MPOs (PDCTC and OCTC) and form a third – the Ulster County Transportation Council (UCTC) that would cover all of Ulster County (see illustration on the next page).

- 18 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Coordination within the TMA

Since PDCTC and OCTC were established MPOs, their basic charge was to expand their existing transportation planning activities to address the new TMA requirements. On the other hand, the UCTC was a brand new MPO, which would normally mean that it would have the daunting challenge of starting everything – including meeting the TMA requirements - from square one. Fortunately, this was not the situation here because the Ulster County Planning Board (former Director Herbert Heckler) and the NYSDOT Region 8 Regional Planning and Program Manager (Rich Peters) had the foresight to begin a collaborative transportation decision-making process within the County several years prior to Kingston’s designation as an urbanized area. The County had developed a county transportation plan in 2003 that was partly funded with NYSDOT assistance, and while the MPO would have to modify it to meet federal requirements, the Plan’s basic framework was in place.

The progress shown by UCTC in getting up and running as an MPO so quickly, and with excellent products, is truly remarkable. We recognize the strong technical advice and support it received from the staffs of the adjoining MPOs and NYSDOT Region 8. An equal factor in UCTC’s success is the enthusiasm and dedication of the County Planning Board’s MPO staff.

Kingston area

TMA area

Final UCTC Urban Area Boundary links Kingston’s Census urbanized area boundary with and Ulster County’s portion of the TMA urbanized area.

- 19 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Coordination within the TMA

Coordination Efforts Underway The designation of a TMA carries with it several benefits (e.g., additional Federal funding), but it also imposes additional obligations on the MPOs regarding the coordination of transportation planning activities within the TMA boundary. Even though notable portions of Dutchess and Orange Counties are outside of the TMA boundary per se, and only the southern tip of Ulster County is within the TMA boundary, the metropolitan planning requirements applicable to a TMA apply to the entire metropolitan planning area served by the MPO(s).9

Normally, one might presume that three separate MPOs within one TMA would lead to potentially conflicting planning approaches and priorities. But, this is not the situation in the TMA. All three MPOs are constituted with very similar membership structures, committee structures, voting procedures and staffing formations. The three MPOs rely on a number of mechanisms to coordinate their planning efforts, and one of the most helpful one has been the shared staffing concept – a concept that predates the TMA designation and the formation of the new MPO in Ulster County. Under this concept, the staff of each MPO is a combination of staff from the respective County Planning Bureau/Department and the Region 8 MPO Unit (discussed in more detail in Section II. MPO Staffing & UPWP). This shared staffing arrangement assists in the uniform interpretation of the regulations among the three MPOs, assists in the free flow of information among the MPOs, and it provides uniform State guidance and perspective on transportation initiatives and funding. It has promoted a common approach to the development of Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) and Unified Planning Work Programs (UPWPs).

Newburgh-Beacon Bridge One of four NYS Bridge Authority highway bridges spanning the Hudson River that link the counties of the TMA

- 20 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Coordination within the TMA

The MPOs in the TMA are actively exploring expanded coordination alternatives among their transportation planning activities. Each MPO recognizes its responsibility to the overlapping jurisdictions and has participated and collaborated accordingly. The following are some of the key coordinative activities presently underway: Congestion Management System. A major requirement of having a TMA designation is that the MPOs must develop a Congestion Management System for the TMA area. The MPOs are well along on this effort (see Section IX. Congestion Management System). Quarterly meetings among the MPO staffs concerning the TMA requirements The MPOs provide each other copies of major planning documents (UPWP, TIP, long-range plan), as well as committee meeting notices and summaries. Agreement on a methodology for the distribution of FTA Section 5307 and STP urbanized monies. Planning study boundaries can extend beyond county lines as appropriate; for example, UCTC’s intermodal opportunities analysis looks into both Dutchess and Orange County. Decision by UCTC to have the planning horizon of its long range plan coincide with the other MPO plans. The MPO staffs have identified areas for future coordination and collaboration (e.g. consultant selection, traffic count programs, and travel time surveys).

These coordinative efforts are very positive and laudable. We would like to specifically commend the MPOs for the degree of coordination among the MPOs regarding the Section 5307 funds. This was a great example of coming together to develop a solution to a potentially contentious issue.

Memorandum of Understanding The staffs of the three MPOs have gone beyond the informal agreements to coordinate and have taken an initiative to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to formalize many of the ongoing coordinative efforts in the TMA, plus provide some related enhancements. While the MOU is presently in draft form, the types of issues that are included for consideration are: Shared Products – The parties agree to coordinate and collaborate on items of mutual MPO interest that include, at a minimum, the Congestion Management System, FTA’s 5307 funds, and federal certification review. Data and Information Sharing - The parties agree to coordinate and collaborate to insure that data and information associated with the TMA are

- 21 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Coordination within the TMA

representative and compatible across the respective MPO boundaries. At a minimum this includes transportation modeling, map products, and federal highway classifications. In addition, the MPO’s agree to share meeting and agenda information, long range transportation plans, UPWP’s and other items mutual MPO interest. Decision Making – Following discussion and concurrence at the TMA meetings, coordinated products will be brought to their respective MPO’s according to their operating procedures for approval as needed on a parallel track. Products may be tailored to each respective MPO’s needs within the required framework necessary for approval. Subcommittees - As needed, the TMA will develop subcommittees to discuss specific items of interest. Participation in these subcommittees shall be at the discretion of the core TMA staff and the Chairman of each MPO. Shared Cost Initiatives- the parties agree that from time to time it may be necessary to provide funds for shared costs initiatives to address regional transportation needs within the TMA. In that event, a lead MPO will be identified and expenses concerning projects assigned to lead MPO will be paid by the shared cost initiative specified in each of the MPOs’ Unified Planning Work Program.

The MOU concept is highly indicative of the professionalism and far sightedness of the staffs of the three MPOs.

Coordination of Air Quality Planning Two of the three counties in the TMA - Dutchess and Orange - are in the Poughkeepsie, NY ozone nonattainment area. This means that the PDCTC and OCTC must coordinate their travel forecasting methods, travel model action years, and emission analyses. These efforts have been a major focus in the past year as both the PDCTC and OCTC successfully worked to demonstrate conformity with the new 8-hour Ozone standard by the EPA deadline date of June 15, 2005. The PDCTC and OCTC developed a joint a Conformity Determination Statement that described their planning assumptions, forecasting methods, and combined emissions results. The air quality activities are discussed in greater detail in Section VIII. Air Quality.

While Ulster County is in attainment of EPA’s air quality standards, it recognizes that the issue is important to Ulster County. To help maintain its attainment status, UCTC is striving to maintain uniformity among the three MPOs on major planning products and processes (e.g., common horizon date of the long range plan). UCTC uses “air quality” as a criterion in evaluating candidate TIP projects.

The three counties are open to the possible use of CMAQ monies in Ulster County for projects that would benefit the air quality in the two nonattainment counties (e.g., park and ride lots).

- 22 -

UCTC Home MPO Membership

What's New Click on the parts of the image to view Committee or Staff Member Contact Information. Projects

Long-Range Plan

Meeting Information

MPO Members

Transportation Links

Acronym FAQ

Directions

UCPB Home

Common MPO structure among three MPOs: two main committees (Policy & Technical) and various advisory/subcommittees as deemed necessary by MPO. http://www.co.ulster.ny.us/planning/tran.shtml

- 24 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Organizational Structures

II. Organizational Structures

“23 U.S.C. and Section 8 of the Federal Transit Act ... require that a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) be designated for each urbanized area and that the metropolitan area has a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive transportation planning process that results in plans and programs that consider all transportation modes and supports metropolitan community development and social goals.” 23 CFR Section 450.300

f the three MPOs within the TMA, two have been existence since 1982: the Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transportation Council (PDCTC) O and the Orange County Transportation Council (formerly the Newburgh-Orange County Transportation Council). The Ulster County Transportation Council (UCTC), on the other hand, is newly established in 2003.

The TMA Region includes portions of Orange, Dutchess and Ulster counties, with a TMA population of 351,982. There are significant portions of the three counties that are outside the TMA boundary but that encompass other urbanized populations (e.g., the Kingston and Middletown urbanized areas, small urban areas and rural areas). The total area population of the three counties is 799,266 (2000 Census).10

Emergence of an MPO in the Mid-Hudson Valley Transportation and land use planning in the Mid-Hudson Valley was originally under the jurisdiction of the Tri-State Transportation Committee (more popularly known as the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission or Tri- State). Tri-State was created in 1962 by concurrent legislation in Connecticut, New Jersey and New York. At that time, the federal legislation had not yet mandated the formal establishment of an “MPO”; rather, the legislation required that regional transportation planning be conducted in a continuing, comprehensive and coordinated manner (the “3-C” process). Even so, Tri-State essentially functioned as a super MPO for significant portions of three states. In New York, Tri-State’s jurisdiction extended from New York City and Long Island northward into Orange and Dutchess Counties.

The 1973 Highway Act was the first legislation to require the Governor’s formal designation of an MPO for urbanized areas as a prerequisite for the urbanized area to continue to receive federal transportation funding. In response to this new mandate, New York Governor Malcolm Wilson designated the Tri-State

- 25 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Organizational Structures

Regional Planning Commission in 1974 as the MPO for the New York portion of the greater New York metropolitan area. The Governors of the other two states similarly designated Tri-State as the MPO for their states’ portion of said area. While the Poughkeepsie, NY had been recognized as an urbanized area in the 1970 Census11, a separate MPO was not formed because Tri-State’s jurisdiction covered Dutchess County. Orange County likewise was within Tri-State’s jurisdiction. (Note: Orange County did not have a recognized urbanized area at this time). The Newburgh, NY urbanized area in Orange County was officially recognized after the 1980 Census, but it too remained under Tri-State’s jurisdiction rather than being broken out as a separate MPO. This would change abruptly.

There had been some long-simmering disputes over the land use and other non-transportation policies of the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission. Then, in 1982, Congress eliminated the Federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 701 planning grant program. The HUD funds constituted approximately 13 percent of Tri-State’s planning budget, and replacement-funding sources could not quickly be identified. Connecticut, which was the most upset with Tri-State’s land use policies, chose this opportunity to dissolve the interstate compact effective April 30, 1982.12

The new MPOs: PDCTC, OCTC and UCTC With the demise of the three-state compact, New York and New Jersey considered several options to maintain regional planning. New York offered to establish a bi-state agency with New Jersey, and although New York passed enabling legislation for such an agency13, New Jersey never took a similar action. So, Tri-State as the umbrella for transportation planning in the Mid- Hudson Valley faded into history.

In order to continue transportation planning in the region and keep Federal transportation monies flowing, the three states reorganized the transportation planning structures within their respective portions of the old Tri- State planning boundary. Connecticut formed six separate MPOs, New Jersey formed one MPO covering thirteen counties, and New York decided upon three separate MPOs: one in Orange County (Newburgh urbanized area), one in Dutchess County (Poughkeepsie urbanized area), and one for the greater New York City metropolitan area – the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, the largest MPO in the country.

In 1982, New York Governor Carey designated the Poughkeepsie- Dutchess County Transportation Council, the Newburgh-Orange County Transportation Council, and the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council as the recognized MPOs for their respective urbanized areas. Even though Dutchess and Orange Counties were organizationally now separated from the NYC metropolitan transportation process, NYMTC still recognizes these two counties as being in its “extended region”.

- 26 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Organizational Structures

In the 1990 Census, the Poughkeepsie urbanized area grew westward across the Hudson River into Ulster County (Town of Lloyd). PDCTC subsequently expanded its planning boundary and its voting membership to include representation from Ulster County. At that time, there was no independent urbanized area in Ulster County.

The 2000 Census showed that the Poughkeepsie and Newburgh urbanized areas continued to expand, so much so that they had grown together across the lower part of Ulster County. The Bureau of the Census determined that the two previously separate urbanized areas were now essentially one – the Poughkeepsie-Newburgh urbanized area. The 2000 Census also identified Ulster County’s first independent urbanized area – Kingston. Following the discussions noted in Section I. Coordination, the State and local officials set up the Ulster County Transportation Council, and on June 4, 2003, Governor Pataki joined with the Ulster County and the urbanized area officials to execute a Memorandum of Understanding among the Parties thereby creating the MPO.

FHWA’s Urban Areaea Bouundandary UAUABB – (Adjustusted UZA)

Census UZA Metropolitan Planning Area Boundary (MPA) (may be expanded to match Nonattainment Area)

Air Quality Nonattainment Area Boundary

Planning Area Boundaries The Metropolitan Planning Area Boundary (MPA) is the primary setting within which an MPO’s planning efforts take place. The current MPAs of the three MPOs are all of their respective counties. The MPA is determined by an MPO after two prerequisite boundaries have been defined: ♦ Census Urbanized Area (UZA). The basic boundary is the UZA, which is set by the Bureau of the Census after each decennial

- 27 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Organizational Structures

Census. The UZA is established for each urbanized area together with maps showing what communities (or parts thereof) compose the urbanized population. The UZA sets the urbanized area’s population in the apportionment formulas for FHWA’s STP- attributable and FTA’s Section 5307 funds. The MPO may adjust this boundary outwards for its own planning purposes.14

♦ FHWA Urban Area Boundary (UAB) is set by the MPO. Using the Census UZA as a starting point, the MPO may smooth and adjust the UZA outwards to better reflect area’s transportation needs. Adjustments are routinely necessary because the Census UZA boundaries solely reflect population density and thus do not usually include some significant non-residential facilities (e.g., airports) or parks. For an MPO to adjust the UZA boundary outward, there must be agreement among “the responsible State and local officials in cooperation with each other.”15 This adjusted boundary (UAB) serves many purposes. It is the official “urban/rural” boundary for FHWA purposes: it is used for highway functional classification, appropriate roadway design standards, FHWA eligibility for improvements, Emergency Relief funding eligibility, and outdoor advertising control16. The adjusted boundary is subject to approval by the Secretary of Transportation. Following the release of the 2000 Census UZA, the PDCTC and OCTC reviewed their existing UABs. PDCTC’s major revision to its boundary was the elimination of the Town of Lloyd within Ulster County, since said area would now be under UCTC’s jurisdiction. OCTC reviewed and made appropriate adjustments to its UAB. UCTC established its first UAB in 2004. The FHWA and FTA approved the new UABs: PDCTC (July 13, 2003), OCTC (January 26, 2004), and UCTC (February 4, 2004).

The MPOs have updated the Functional Classification of roadways within their jurisdiction. NYSDOT has submitted this material to FHWA, and it is now under review.

♦ Metropolitan Planning Area Boundary (MPA) is established after the UAB is set. The MPA is the geographical area in which the main efforts of an MPO’s transportation planning process are carried out. The MPA is to encompass the UAB area plus any other areas that the MPO anticipates will become urbanized in 20 years.17 The MPO and the Governor must agree on the MPA.18 For those MPOs that are in an air quality nonattainment or maintenance area, the MPA boundary must include the entire nonattainment area – unless the Governor and the MPO agree otherwise19. All three MPOs chose to designate their MPA boundaries to be their respective County limits. EPA designated all of Orange and

- 28 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Organizational Structures

Dutchess Counties as nonattainment for Ozone. Since the PDCTC and OCTC planning boundaries cover the entirety of their respective counties, this air quality coverage requirement is satisfied. Although the UCTC is in attainment, its boundary would also have satisfied the air quality coverage requirement.

Policy Committee Structure and Membership All three MPOs are similarly structured. The Policy Committees are the main decision-making body composed of the principal elective officials of general-purpose local government, as well as principal officials of regional and State transportation agencies (see Table 1). The Policy Committee has the ultimate responsibility for setting the direction of the MPO’s transportation planning activities and approving the products thereof (e.g., Long Range Plan, Transportation Improvement Program and Unified Planning Work program). Regular meetings are held quarterly. The official name of the Policy Committee in each MPO (according to approved Operating Procedures) is slightly different: PDCTC – “Executive Committee”; UCTC – “Transportation Council”; OCTC – “Council”. However, their functions are essentially the same.

Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transportation Council When the PDCTC was designated as the MPO, it had 10 voting members, and it’s Census urbanized area boundary was entirely within Dutchess County. However, the 1990 Census showed that the Poughkeepsie urbanized area had grown westward across the Hudson River into Ulster County (primarily the Town of Lloyd). In response, the PDCTC expanded its voting membership in 1994 to thirteen so as to include some voting representation from Ulster County20. After the 2000 Census and the designation of a separate MPO in Ulster County, the Ulster County representation chose to be under the umbrella of its own County’s MPO; the Ulster County representation was dropped from the PDCTC. At the same time, PDCTC also expanded representation from within Dutchess County to reflect the population growth seen in the 2000 Census. Today, there are 15 voting members on the PDCTC, as shown in Table 1.

Orange County Transportation Council When OCTC (NOCTC) was designated as an MPO in 1982, it also had a smaller membership (nine) than it has today commensurate with its smaller Census urban area boundary. NOCTC further expanded membership over the years. In 1995, the New York State Thruway Authority was added as a voting member. Today, there are 15 voting members (Table 1).

The 2000 Census identified Middletown as the second urbanized area in Orange County; while it was allowed to form a separate MPO, the local officials chose to remain within the existing MPO through a memorandum of understanding with Orange County. In deference to the fact that there was a

- 29 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Organizational Structures

second urbanized area within the County, the official name of the MPO was changed to the “Orange County Transportation Council”.

Table 1: Policy Committee memberships

PDCTC OCTC UCTC

Dutchess County Executive; Mayor, Orange County Executive, Permanent Ulster County – Chair of Ulster Permanent City of Beacon; Mayor, City of Chairperson; NYSDOT- Regional County Legislature*; City of Kingston Voting Poughkeepsie, Town of East Director; Metropolitan Transportation Mayor; Town of Saugerties, Members Fishkill; Town of Fishkill, Authority, Executive Director; NYS Supervisor; Town of Ulster, Supervisor; Town of Hyde Park; Thruway Authority Executive Supervisor; NYSDOT, Commissioner; Town of Poughkeepsie, Supervisor; Director; City of Middletown, Mayor; NYS Thruway Authority, Executive Town of Wappinger, Supervisor; City of Newburgh, City Manager; Director NYSDOT, Commissioner; MTA, City of Port Jervis, Mayor Executive Director (10) (7) (6) Two members from Town of Newburgh Urbanized Area; Southern - Village of Saugerties Mayor & Rotating Beekman; Town of LaGrange; and Area; Western Gateway Area Town of Hurley Supervisor (1) members Town of Pleasant Valley (6) - Supervisors Town of Rosendale & 2-year terms (2) Town of Esopus (1) Two members from any two of - Supervisors Town of Lloyd & Town

Orange County’s 17 Villages for a of Marlborough (1) One (1) rotating Mayor serving a two-year rotating term. - Supervisors Town of Plattekill & two-year term Village of Fishkill; (2) Town of Shawangunk (1)

Village of Wappingers Falls - Mayors Village of Ellenville & (1) Village of New Paltz (1) - Supervisors Town of New Paltz & Two Supervisors selected annually Town of Wawarsing (1) by the Dutchess County Association - Supervisors Town of Woodstock & of Mayors and Supervisors Town of Town of Kingston (1) Amenia; Town of Clinton; Town of Dover; Town of North East; Town (7) of Milan; Town of Pawling; Town of Pine Plains; Town of Red Hook; Rural voting membership: One voting Town of Rhinebeck; Town of member (Supervisor) selected by Stanford; Town of Union Vale; Ulster County Association of Town Town of Washington Supervisors from Towns of Denning, Gardner, Hardenburgh, Marbletown, (2) Olive, Rochester, and Shandaken (1)

Total Voting members 15 15 14 Federal Highway Administration; Federal Highway Administration; Federal Highway Administration; Federal or State Federal Transit Administration; Federal Transit Administration; NYS Federal Transit Administration; NYS non-voting NYS Thruway Authority Bridge Authority Dept. Envir. Conservation; NYS Members NYS Bridge Authority Bridge Authority * Note: Ulster does not have a County Executive, so the Ulster County Legislature Chair represents Ulster County

- 30 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Organizational Structures

Ulster County Transportation Council The 2000 Census identified Ulster County’s first urbanized area – Kingston. Additionally, the southern tip of Ulster County was now also identified as being within the newly identified Newburgh-Poughkeepsie TMA. On June 4, 2003, Governor Pataki joined with the County of Ulster and its municipalities in executing the Memorandum of Agreement formally designating the Ulster County Transportation Council (UCTC) as the MPO for the Kingston Urbanized Area. Ulster County (Town of Lloyd) chose to be included within the UCTC MPO, and thus Ulster County representation was dropped from PDCTC voting membership.

Other Committees Below the Policy Committees are the Technical Committees, which are composed of individuals from the staffs of the Policy Committee members. The Technical Committees, which meet monthly or bimonthly, are responsible for the supervision of all planning activities conducted by the staffs. Voting is by majority of those members present at a meeting. The Technical Committees are responsible for assisting staff on proposed programs and projects to be addressed in the Long- range Transportation Plan, the UPWP and the TIP, and for making recommendations to the Council regarding policy issues.

The PDCTC and UCTC each have on additional oversight committee – the Administrative Committee, which is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the MPO. The Committee consists of the County Executive, the Regional Director of NYSDOT Region 8, and staff representatives of the County Planning department.

Agreements and Contracts Federal legislation (23 USC 134) requires the MPO to work in cooperation with the State and public transportation agencies in carrying out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive (3C) metropolitan planning process. These agencies determine their respective and mutual roles and responsibilities and procedures governing their cooperative efforts. Federal regulation requires that these relationships be specified in agreements between the MPO and the State and between the MPO and the public transit operators. 23 CFR 450.310 (a) The responsibilities for cooperatively carrying out transportation planning (including corridor and subarea studies) and programming shall be clearly identified in an agreement or memorandum of understanding between the State and the MPO. (b) There shall be an agreement between the MPO and the operators of publicly owned transit services which specifies cooperative procedures for carrying out transportation planning (including corridor and subarea studies) and programming as required by this subpart.

- 31 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Organizational Structures

The regulations specifically address the situation in which there is more than one MPO in a metropolitan area:

23 CFR 450.310 (g) “Where more than one MPO has authority within a metropolitan planning area or a nonattainment or maintenance area, there shall be an agreement between the State department(s) of transportation and the MPOs describing how the processes will be coordinated to assure the development of an overall transportation plan. For the metropolitan planning area that are nonattainment or maintenance areas, the agreement shall include State and local air quality agencies. The agreement shall address policy mechanisms for resolving potential conflicts that may arise between the MPOs…”

The MPOs within the Mid-Hudson Valley TMA are still adjusting to the Census 2000 changes. There are no written agreements among the three MPOs are in place yet, although a MOU is being developed to officially reflect the extensive coordinative activities now underway.

We recommend that the partners in the planning process update existing agreements in order to more closely reflect a coordinated planning process among the three MPOs, and to reflect the desired and actual functions of the MPOs within the TMA. Having official written agreements in place helps to ensure that the 3C process is executed as intended and can be readily understood by the participants in the planning process and the public.

One specific aspect of the process that needs further clarification is the working relationships among the NYSDOT Region 8, the Region 8 MPO Unit and the County MPO staffs. The three MPO staffs - further discussed in the next section - are a composite of individuals from the respective County Planning agencies and the NYSDOT Region 8 MPO Unit. Although physically housed in the Region 8 Offices of NYSDOT, the individuals in the MPO Unit are not NYSDOT Region 8 employees, but rather they are employees of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council – the MPO for the greater NYC area. This arrangement seems to disagree with the PDCTC Operating Procedures (May 2003), which state, “(T)he Dutchess County Department of Planning and the Region 8 Office of the New York State Department of Transportation shall serve as council staff..." PDCTC’s UPWP likewise seems to indicate NYSDOT for certain task responsibilities (e.g., TIP), where the MPO Unit is probably intended. Similar wording regarding NYSDOT being staff to the MPO is contained in OCTC’s Operating Procedures (9/3/2004)

The identification of NYSDOT Region 8 staff as staff to the PDCTC and OCTC, rather than the MPO Unit, is undoubtedly vestigial. However, the composite staff arrangement can occasionally lead to confusion as to who is speaking as a member agency and who is speaking as a MPO staff member. This observation is not a criticism of the shared staffing concept, but rather a point in need of some clarification.

Additional clarification may be needed as to the role and responsibilities of the Secretariat (presently NYSDOT Region 8) in the three MPO processes.

- 32 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Organizational Structures

American Indian Territories Presently, there are no Federally-recognized American Indian territories within the three counties. However, there is continuing interest in establishing Indian casinos in the Region, the most recently mentioned site being in the Town of Saugerties (Ulster County). Presently, this would require the purchase of land by a recognized Indian entity. Even if such an endeavor becomes reality, the mere purchase of land by a Federally-recognized Indian group does not mean that the land is automatically recognized as a Federal Indian Territory under the definition of “Indian Reservation” as contained in 23 USC 101(a). The U.S. Secretary of the Interior must make such formal designation.

Recommendation: The MPO agreements should formally update existing agreements and/or procedures in order to more closely reflect a coordinated planning process among the three MPOs and to reflect the desired and actual functions of the MPOs within the TMA. Clarification is needed regarding the working relationships among the NYSDOT Region 8, the Region 8 MPO Unit and the County MPO staffs.

- 33 -

Rock Climbing Trapps Cliff, Mohonk Preserve Ulster County, New York

Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 MPO Staffing & Capabilities

III. MPO Staffing & Capabilities

“The Dutchess County Department of Planning and Development and the Region 8 Office of the New York State Department of Transportation shall serve as council staff and shall perform the administrative and secretarial duties of the Council. The staff shall be accountable to the Council” PDCTC Operating Procedures, May 2003

he above statement from the PDCTC’s Operating procedures illustrates the joint staffing arrangement in all three MPOs. The MPO staffs here are a T composite of County Planning personnel and members of the NYSDOT Region 8 MPO Unit. The MPO Unit staff functions in a major coordinating role, as the same individuals are members of all three MPO staffs. This shared staffing arrangement assists in the uniform interpretation of the regulations among the three MPO, assists in the free flow of information among the MPOs, and it provide uniform State guidance and perspective on transportation initiatives and funding. Having the same MPO Unit staff on all three MPO staffs has led to a common approach among the MPOs in the development of TIPs, Plans and Unified Planning Work Programs (UPWPs).

As a general rule, the County Planning staff assumes primary responsibility for the development and administration of the UPWP, the coordination of data activities, and long range transportation planning. The task division is such that the shared NYMTC staff mostly assists with TIP development and air quality issues, and it gives general support of other OCTC, UCTC and PDCTC efforts. In the air quality arena, the NYMTC staff sharing also results in close coordination of NYMTC, OCTC and PDCTC. This has become increasingly important as the three MPO's are linked by over lapping non-attainment areas and can have great impacts on each others' programs.

Evolution of the Shared Staff Concept The staffs of the each of these MPOs consist of the individuals from the respective County Planning agencies plus staff from the NYSDOT Region 8 MPO Unit. While the Region 8 MPO Unit is physically housed in the Region 8 Office in Poughkeepsie, the individuals are not technically Region 8 employees. Rather, they are actually New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) staff contracted to work on the planning activities of these three MPO. When acting on MPO activities, the staff is suppose to be accountable to the respective MPO Council rather than solely to its parent organization. The PDCTC chart on the next page illustrates the interaction between the staffs. How did this curious arrangement with NYMTC develop?

- 35 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 MPO Staffing & Capabilities

The shared-staffing concept developed from the decentralized system of three Transportation Coordinating Committees that cover the New York City metropolitan urbanized area dating back to 1974. Tri-State Regional Planning Commission staff, now NYMTC staff, was stationed in the offices of the three NYSDOT Regions (8, 10 and 11) that exist Organizatzational Stafaffing Chart within the New York City urbanized area. The TCC's were created to facilitate the involvement of local elected officials by DDuutctchheesss Coun Countyty NeNeww York York M Meetrtropopolitanolitan bringing the decision making of a very large DeDeppaartrmtmeenntt o off TTranransporsportatitatioonn C Couounnccilil MPO to a more local level. This approach PPlanlannininngg & & D Deevveelopmlopmentent DDiriercetcorto r– –JoJoeel lEEtttingtingeerr utilizes three self-identified geographic areas Commissioner Roger Akeley Commissioner Roger Akeley of common interest: New York City, Long Island, and the lower Hudson Valley (known RReeggionion 8 8 MP MPOO U Unnitit as “Mid-Hudson South”). These areas were MMPOPO S Seectcitoionn JJeeanan Sh Shananahahanan a logical local basis for incorporating KKeeaalylySSaalloommoonn DDaannieiel lC Cooootsts coordinating committees and combining EEooinin Wra Wraftfteerr JJeeananGGunschunsch these sub-regional entities - the TCC's - into MMaarrkkDDeebbaaldld DDaarrrrininMMoorerett the regional MPO. Since the NYSDOT KKrrisistitnin C Coottttoonn Regional Offices had the same geographic dispersion, housing the TCC staffs within the respective Regional Office became a logical low cost location for housing the TCC/ MPO staff. Thus, NYSDOT Region 8 houses the Mid-Hudson South TCC staff.

After TriState’s demise, two new MPOs were formed in the Hudson Valley – OCTC and PDCTC. Since these MPOs were within Region 8’s geographical jurisdiction, it seemed logical to "borrow" some of the existing Mid-Hudson South TCC staff expertise to assist these new MPO's.

Then, in 2003, the UCTC was formed, and the same successful administrative organization was replicated. This allowed the UCTC to come up to speed very quickly as experienced staff was in place immediately to assist the new Ulster County staff. The three MPOs of the Mid-Hudson Valley TMA thus share a common staff resource that insures coordination within their own TMA and with the much larger TMA, NYMTC, to their immediate south.

Staffing Particulars of the MPO Staffs Dutchess County Department of Planning and Development Of the three county planning agencies involved, the staff of the Dutchess County Department of Planning and Development has, as a whole, the most experience in MPO activities. Ms. Kealy Salomon, who is highly respected by MPO staff directors across New York State and is recognized as a capable leader, leads the MPO Section. Eoin Wrafter (Senior Planner) is responsible for much of the technical activities on the staff, and his abilities are widely recognized. Mark Debald is relatively recent addition to the staff and is noticeably contributing to the planning activities.

- 36 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 MPO Staffing & Capabilities

Orange County Department of Planning The Planning Department has greatly increased its involvement in MPO activities in recent years with a change in County administration; previously, the “MPO” activity by the County staff (except for Fred Budde) was somewhat minimal. David Church is a relatively new as Planning Commissioner, and his leadership is responsible for this revitalization of the focus on MPO identity. Chris Campany, who served as Deputy Commissioner and acting director of the MPO staff, had been instrumental in the turnaround.21 John Czamanske recently became the MPO staff director and he is already showing creditable leadership; John has a very valuable background in local planning,. Fred Buddy has been with the MPO staff for many years and continues to function as the professional pillar of this MPO. Ron Parrington coordinates transit services within the County, and his participation in MPO discussions is a valuable resource.

Ulster County Planning Board The Ulster County Planning Board has actively spearheaded the formation of the new MPO, and its leadership is a major reason why this new MPO has come up to speed so quickly on MPO issues. Herbert Heckler, the previous Planning Board Director, oversaw the establishment of the MPO in 2003. Dennis Doyle is the current Planning Board Director (and MPO Director), and his energy and board professional knowledge base has significantly contributed to the MPO’s being at a professional level far beyond what is normally to be expected of a small MPO. Bill Tobin, the Principal Transportation Planner, is similarly motivated and has experience on another MPO in the Midwest. Bill has day-to-day oversight of the MPO’s programs, projects, and data. Thomas Mank (Senior Transportation Planner) is new to the UCTC staff and has already made a visible contribution to GIS mapping, travel demand modeling, and transportation data activities.

Table 2: The Joint MPO Staffs County MPO NYMTC Agency Individuals

Dutchess County Roger Akeley* Department of Kealy Salomon PDCTC Planning and Eoin Wrafter Development Mark Debald (DCDP)

David Church* Region 8 John Czamanske MPO Unit Orange County Fred Budde OCTC Department of Jean Shanahan Rob Parrington Planning Jean Gunsch Nancy Bakker Kate Schmidt Dennis Doyle* Ulster County Jennifer Schwartz UCTC Planning Board William Tobin

Thomas Mank

- 37 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 MPO Staffing & Capabilities

As noted above, the UCTC is performing well above what is expected by a new MPO, and its planning activities could be considered ambitious for any MPO, let alone a new one. For example, the staff showed initiative in helping to form the Ulster County Traffic Operations and Public Safety (TOPS) Committee in August 2004; the TOPS Committee is helping the improvement of coordination between local emergency responders and traffic operations professionals. Committee membership ranges from local fire and police departments to CSX, NYSDOT, and the Federal Railroad Administration. The staff also helped to form the Ulster and Delaware Railroad Corridor Rail-With-Trail (RWT) Committee in 2004 for the purpose of guiding the Rail-With-Trail study funded in the UPWPs.

NYSDOT Region 8 MPO Unit Ms. Jean Shanahan leads the Region 8 MPO Unit and spends approximately 20% of her time with the Mid-Hudson Valley MPOs – the rest being spend on the MPOs within NYMTC. Jean is very knowledgeable and does an extraordinary job at “keeping all the balls in the air”22. Ms. Jean Gunsch is the MPO Unit’s primary contact for three MPOs, and she plays a valuable role in the coordinative efforts among the staffs. Other members of the MPO Unit (Daniel Coots, Darrin Moret and Kristin Collins) contribute on as needed basis to the Mid- Hudson Valley TMA, but their primary work focus has been with Mid-Hudson South TCC.

While not a member of the MPO Unit, we would like to acknowledge the significant contributions of Mr. Richard Peters, NYSDOT Region 8’s Regional Planning & Program Manager, a position that has wide responsibilities in the NYSDOT structure. Mr. Peters is actively involved in discussions at the meetings of all three Mid-Hudson Valley MPOs, and the planning process would not function as efficiently as it does do without his advice. We also want to recognize the contribution of Michele Bager of the NYSDOT Main Office’s MPO Bureau for her assistance in MPO procedures and regulations.

Evaluation of Staffing Concepts The shared-staffing concept, whereby the MPO’s staff is a composite of the County Planning agency plus individuals from the MPO Unit, is uncommon among the MPOs in New York. Most MPOs nationwide have elected to establish stand- alone, independent central staffs. The shared-staffing concept was part of PDCTC and OCTC structures for many years prior to the recent establishment of the UCTC. Given that this new MPO had to get up to speed in a relatively short period of time, and given that the shared-staffing concept was already in place and working efficiently in the other two MPOs of the new TMA, it was adopted as part of the operational structure of the UCTC.

Now that the Mid-Hudson Valley TMA has been formed, the three MPOs may want to review and assess how the shared-staffing concept is working. This is not a criticism of the shared-staff concept per se, as we have noted the coordinative advantages to this arrangement within the TMA and the contribution to the

- 38 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 MPO Staffing & Capabilities

individual MPOs’ processes. We make this suggestion as part of our standard approach to ask MPOs to periodically review and assess how they address the various aspects of the planning process. Other small MPOs in New York (Elmira, Ithaca, and Glens Falls) have chosen alternative approaches to staffing and to the working relationships with member agencies. Their experiences could provide valuable lessons to the TMA - and vice-versa.

We also recommend that the MPOs consider how they might reduce the possible confusion regarding who is speaking as a member agency and who is speaking as a MPO staff member. For example, the NYSDOT Region 8 Planning and Program Coordinating Manager attends MPO meetings as a representative of a member agency, not part of the MPO staff. He may be sitting next to a member of the NYSDOT Region 8 MPO Unit, who is hosted by NYSDOT and housed in the same NYSDOT building, but who is not speaking for NYSDOT Region 8.

Website and Graphic Capabilities The websites of the three MPOs vary in quality and “MPO identity”. The information technology sections of the host counties presently maintain all three websites. Of the three, the UCTC website23 is the most visibly devoted to the MPO and it is readily identified as such. We commend Ulster County for the high quality of the site, both visually and in content.

The website for Orange County, on the other hand, does not have any direct reference to the existence of the OCTC.24 Transportation information is contained on the Orange County Department of Planning accessed through a submenu of “County Departments”; however, you would have to already know that “transportation” is under the Department of Planning. Even when you find the site, the information is not readily presented as products of an MPO but rather of the County. The OCTC’s Visions 2025 Plan is not available for viewing on the site. During the review, Planning Commissioner David Church indicated that he has already begun an effort to raise the MPO identity on the site. To this end, John Czamanske recently met with the Information Services Department to discuss changes to elevate the MPO’s presence on the site.

The PDCTC website25 is midway between the other two MPOs regarding separate MPO identify. It recognizes the existence of the PDCTC (through a “Transportation” submenu of the County’s opening menu), but visually it still implies “County Planning Department” rather than “MPO”. Ms. Kealy Salomon noted that several of her staff would be undergoing training so that they might be able to run the MPO website rather than depending upon the County’s information services section.

All three sites do provide the public with a status of ongoing projects, a viewing of completed projects, the opportunity for downloading of selective material, and occasionally an opportunity to provide comments on selective topics.

We believe that a website with a specific MPO identity is a very critical element of an MPO’s public involvement effort. With their many commendable

- 39 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 MPO Staffing & Capabilities

planning practices and products, the MPOs have a “story to tell”, and one of the best mediums for that purpose is the website. The three MPOs – most specifically the OCTC - might better tell their stories by revamping the format of the current websites. Furthermore, some text-oriented information on the sites might be better presented in a visual context; it would enhance accessibility and perhaps generate some interest in topics that the average reader might not otherwise investigate. At the same time, we do note that some individuals who are physically and visually handicapped may find the text-oriented website easier to use, rather than with drop- down menus popular in windows’ format.

We suggest that the MPOs consider that the website’s opening screen offer two options – the visually oriented presentation and a text only version.

Travel Demand Modeling A major responsibility of transportation planners is to forecast changes in travel demand that will happen - or may happen - due to alternative transportation policies. Travel models are key tools for making the decisions that shape our transportation system. MPOs invest significant monies on highways and transit, relying on travel models to enable transportation officials to make the highest payoff on that investment. Additionally, modeling plays an important role in emerging priorities such as road pricing, operations, freight, land use-transportation integration, homeland security, safety and suppressed travel. Modeling can increase the power of scenario planning, visualization and communication of results to the public and elected officials.

Most travel demand forecasting models are generally based on a four-step approach: Trip generation Trip distribution Modal Split Traffic Assignment

The OCTC uses a four-step, gravity-based model, utilizing Visim travel demand modeling software. OCTC has established 550 Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) within the County. For each TAZ, socio-economic data is identified (e.g.; population, employment, housing, vehicle availability, etc.)

The UCTC also uses a four-step, gravity-based model, but it relies on the TransCAD travel demand modeling software. The UCTC has established 397 TAZs populated with similar types of information to OCTC.

The PDCTC also relies on the TransCAD travel demand modeling software, but it only employs three-steps in its analyses. PDCTC’s three-step approach is a slight modification of the four-step approach, in that it does not include a calculation for modal split; PDCTC believes that their low level of transit ridership does not warrant it. PDCTC has established 190 TAZ with similar data to the other MPOs.

- 40 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 MPO Staffing & Capabilities

Recommendations The three MPOs should review and assess how the shared-staffing concept is working and what – if anything – can be modified/enhanced to help the TMA to continue to move forward. The MPOs should consider how they might reduce the possible confusion with the shared staffing arrangement over who is speaking as a member agency and who is speaking as a MPO staff member. The MPOs should strive for their websites to portray a MPO identity. As the MPOs may revamp their website to a more visual format, we recommend that they consider having the opening screen offer the reader a choice of either a visually-oriented presentation or a text-only version.

- 41 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 MPO Staffing & Capabilities

PDCTC’s Maybrook Multi-Modal Corridor Study

- 42 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Unified Planning Work Program

IV. Unified Planning Work Program

“In TMAs, the MPO(s) in cooperation with the State and operators of publicly owned transit shall develop unified planning work programs (UPWPs) that meet the requirements of 23 CFR Part 420, subpart A and: (1) Discuss the planning priorities facing the metropolitan planning area and describe all metropolitan transportation and transportation-related air quality planning activities (including the corridor and subarea studies discussed in ' 450.318 of this part) anticipated within the area during the next one or two year period, regardless of funding sources or agencies conducting activities, in sufficient detail to indicate who will perform the work, the schedule for completing it and the products that will be produced; (2) Document planning activities to be performed with funds provided under title 23, U.S.C., and the Federal Transit Act.” ' 450.314 (a)

POs are required to develop Unified Planning Work Programs (UPWPs) as a basis and condition for all FHWA and FTA funding assistance for transportation planning within their boundaries. UPWPs describe all M metropolitan transportation planning and transportation-related air quality planning activities anticipated within the next 1- or 2-year period, regardless of funding source.26 MPOs develop these documents in cooperation with the State and public transit agencies. The degree of detail in the UPWPs differs according to the type of area, with the TMA areas generally having more detail than non-TMA areas. All three MPOs in this TMA have opted for the one-year UPWP format.

The two main Federal funding sources for the UPWPs are the FHWA’s Planning Funds (PL) and FTA’s Section 5303 Funds. These monies are distributed to MPOs through a NYSDOT formula developed in consultation with the thirteen New York MPOs and approved by FHWA and FTA. The formula contains three components: a minimum amount, a share based on the MPO’s relative percentage of urbanized area population, and an extra amount for being in a TMA area. In 2002, the NYSDOT developed new estimates based on the results of the 2002 urbanized area designations. The PDCTC, OCTC and UCTC also now receive additional funds based on its new TMA status.27

Table 3: UPWPs - April 1, 2005-March 30, 2006

FHWA PL $ FTA $ MPO Total (matched) (matched)

PDCTC $ 626,861 $ 100,249 $ 727,110

OCTC $ 495,651 $ 105,500 $ 601,151

UCTC $ 517,020 $ 107,028 $ 624,048 total $1,639,532 $ 312,777 $ 1,952,309

- 43 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Unified Planning Work Program

The majority of the funding in the UPWPs is for activities performed by the MPO staffs of the three Counties. The Federal PL and Section 5303 programs require a State/local 20% non-federal match. In the current UPWPs, the NYSDOT provides 15% of the non-federal match, and the counties provide the other 5% non- federal match.

Activities Planned in 2005-2006 UPWP The activities planned for the 2005-2006 UPWP share come commonality because of the TMA coordination but remain highly focused on the needs of their respective counties.

Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transportation Council The emphasis during the next program year is on long-range planning, data collection and analysis, public outreach, and plan implementation activities. The priority projects are the transfer of the transportation model to TransCAD, data collection and analysis, community outreach, and air quality compliance activities.

PDCTC just completed the implementation of TransCAD software as its transportation model, and it was successfully used in the air quality emissions analyses of the TIP and Plan for EPA’s deadline of June 15, 2005. The PDCTC will continue its community planning assistance program, and the focus will shift from pedestrian and bicycle planning to an examination of transportation and land use policies that support the County’s Greenway Connections program.

A major effort in this year’s UPWP will involve the MPO staff working with its member agencies to develop comprehensive corridor/access management plans in priority locations, such as Route 9 in northern Poughkeepsie, Route 52 in the Village and Town of Fishkill, Route 9G in Hyde Park, and Meyers Corners Road (CR 93) in Wappinger.

The PDCTC has a very respectable data collection and analysis program that includes a comprehensive traffic count program on non-state roads that are part of the federal aid system. Using the data collected in 2005, PDCTC will publish a 2005 Traffic Count Report. It also has an Intersection Management Program, which evaluates the operation of important intersections (both signalized and unsignalized) to assess their operational characteristics and to suggest potential low-cost improvements such as re-striping or re-timing that may improve air quality, reduce congestion, delay, accidents, and potential for aggressive driving. Working with its member agencies and using on call consultants, PDCTC plans to evaluate up to 10 intersections per year throughout the county. This activity is a valuable assistance to the local governments.

In the current UPWP, NYSDOT provides 15% of the required non-federal match funds: $96,823 for the PL program and $15,037 for the FTA Section 5303 program, making the total State match contribution to be $111,860. Dutchess County Planning & Development provides the other 5% of the required non-federal

- 44 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Unified Planning Work Program

match: $28,517 for the PL program and $5,013 for the Section 5303 program, which represents a UPWP total of $33,530.

Orange County Transportation Council The MPO has devoted significant planning resources to activities included under its UPWP category of Long Range Transportation Planning, constituting $430,000 of the 2005-2006 UPWP total of $601,000. These activities include the continued implementation of key recommendations of the County-wide Transit Study and the Southeaster Orange County (SEOC) Traffic and Land Use Study, traffic simulation modeling, transit system management, and the continuation of inter-agency data collection and analysis. The Staff is actively participating in the Tappen Zee Bridge I-287 Corridor Scoping, Major Investment and Alternatives Analysis Study, a major regional planning activity that has impacts far beyond the Hudson Valley. The primary analysis area is the I-287 Corridor from the I-287/I- 87 Interchange in Suffern to the I-287/I-95 Interchange in Rye, NY. A joint MPO stakeholders committee for the Scoping/MIS/AA/ has been formed - the Inter-Metropolitan Planning Organization or I-MPO. This group is comprised of representatives from Orange County, NYSDOT, the Thruway Authority, FTA, FHWA, MTA/MNRR, and NYMTC’s Mid-Hudson South TCC members. Tappen Zee Bridge In the current UPWP, NYSDOT’s 15% non-federal match funds amounts to $74,348 for the PL program and $15,825 for the FTA Section 5303 program, making the total State match contribution of $90,173. Orange County provides the other 5% of the required non-federal match: $24,783 for the PL program and $5,275 for the Section 5303 program, which represents a UPWP total of $30,058.

Ulster County Transportation Council In 2005, UCTC is devoting a considerable portion of its planning activities to Long Range Transportation Planning ($366,500 out of $624,048 total). Consultant activity represents $212,000 in that activity (Long Range Transportation Plan, studies for municipalities, transit studies.)

The UPWP sets aside $20,000 for consultant services to begin a three-year rotational traffic count program. Staff may utilize NYSDOT’s consultant to help collect traffic count data. It is anticipated that an annual traffic count report will be produced and distributed to the UCTC and made available on the UCTC web site.

In the Transit Systems Integration Analysis task ($10,000), the Staff will help initiate and coordinate consultant services for a City of Kingston Citibus/Ulster County Area Transit public transit systems integration analysis study. This study will explore the costs, benefits, and institutional issues associated with the phased integration of the City of Kingston Citibus and Ulster County Area Transit systems

- 45 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Unified Planning Work Program

under various scenarios. Types of integration scenarios to explore range from shared transit maintenance and operations to a complete systems merger.

The UPWP also provides funding for staff assistance to the Ulster County Traffic Operations and Public Safety Committee, the Ulster and Delaware Railroad Corridor Rail-With-Trail Committee and various other local study efforts (e.g., Saugerties Area Mobility Analysis).

In the current UPWP, NYSDOT’s 15% non-federal match funds amount to $77,553 for the PL program and $16,054 for the FTA Section 5303 program, making the total State match contribution to be $93,607. Ulster County, the host agency for the County MPO staff, provides the other 5% of the required non-federal match: $25,851 for the PL program and $5,351 for the Section 5303 program, which represents a UPWP total of $31,202.

Planning Practice to Consider During certification reviews, we occasionally note some planning practice on another MPO that might be useful in the MPO under review. To this end, we wish to highlight the use of visualization techniques in planning studies by the Buffalo, NY MPO.

The Buffalo MPO made good use of computer graphics on a recent planning study in East Aurora, New York. The purpose of the study was fairly standard: to evaluate existing conditions within the Village of East Aurora and to identify locations ideal for system improvements. It would identify current and future transportation needs and make recommendations as to transportation system improvements along the corridor.

“Before” & “after” of what the street would look like with a certain improvements.

- 46 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Unified Planning Work Program

The best practice aspect of the study was the Central Staff’s use of the computer to help give the community a visual understanding of what the impacts of various choices would look like. The visual understanding was achieved by a “before” and “after” look at both the roadway and potential commercial development schemes. This helped with the approach: what do you want and then design for it versus what design do you want and then develop several alternatives.

Recommendation: The MPOs should consider whether the use of visualization techniques in planning studies would be helpful in their processes.

- 47 -

- 48 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Long Range Transportation Plan

V. Long Range Transportation Plan “(The planning process shall explicitly consider)…the likely effect of transportation policy decisions on land use and development and the consistency of transportation plans and programs with the provisions of all applicable short- and long-term land use and development plans.” 23 CFR 450.316(a))

he MPO Transportation Plan (Plan) establishes the long-term transportation investment, service, and policy agenda for the region. It should demonstrate T that the federal regulations for its development have been met, as well as showing how locally expressed priorities, public involvement, and many other critical inputs to the planning process have been addressed. The Plan provides a central opportunity for the planning agencies to communicate the priorities, critical choices, and general directions for the region to a broad audience, including planning partners, other stakeholders, elected officials and the public.

Each successive update of a Plan responds to trends and projected changes in the region’s demographics, economy and transportation needs, thus providing a relevant, informative and dynamic long-range guide for transportation decision- making.

Presently, two of the three MPOs in the TMA (PDCTC and OCTC) have approved Long Range Transportation Plans, and UCTC is now in the process of developing its own plan by October 1, 2005. The PDCTC and OCTC plans have 2025 as their horizon year. The next versions of these existing plans - due by December 2007 - will have 2030 has their horizon year. Because of this, UCTC chose 2030 as the horizon year for its new plan effort.

Table 4: Long Range Transportation Plans FHWA/FTA MPO MPO Approval Date Conformity Date* PDCTC November 28, 2003 December 15, 2003 OCTC November 28, 2003 December 15, 2003 UCTC September 25, 2005 N/A (anticipated) * In air quality nonattainment areas, the date of the FHWA/FTA conformity determination is the date that the plan becomes valid. In attainment areas, the MPO’s approval date is the date that the plan becomes valid.

The transportation plans of each of the MPOs are discussed on the next pages.

- 49 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Long Range Transportation Plan

Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transportation Council PDCTC’s first long-range transportation - PDCTC Transportation Plan - was adopted by the MPO in 1994. The 1994 Plan had two components – the Dutchess County Highway Plan and Transit Policy Plan. The 1994 Plan received a positive Federal conformity determination on December 29, 1994. Prior to the 1994 Plan, the MPO’s approach was more piecemeal, relying on several documents that were developed with minimal coordination: the County Planning Department’s Interim Highway Plan (1991), NYSDOT Region 8 plan entitled the Hudson Valley Plan, Moving People and Goods in the 21st Century (1992), Transit Development Plan (1991), Transit Policy Plan (1992) and Directions: The Plan for Dutchess County – the County’s master plan.

Whereas previous transportation planning recommendations focused on on accommodating increased traffic by expanding the capacity of the major roads (e.g. Route 9, Route 44/55), the 1994 Transportation Plan looked at the entire transportation system: highways, roads, local and regional bridges, public and private bus systems, regional and national rail services, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

In 1998, PDCTC adopted Transportation Plan Update, which was indeed an update to the 1994 Plan. The horizon year was set at 2020, and the new Plan included the Town of Lloyd in Ulster County (added to Poughkeepsie urbanized area by 1990 Census).

In November 2003, the PDCTC adopted Connections 2025, their current long-range transportation plan. Connections 2025 was developed in consideration of the seven factors that TEA-21 identified as crucial to the regional planning process. These included the consideration of projects and strategies that will: 1. support the economic vitality of the metropolitan planning area 2. increase the safety and security of the transportation system 3. increase the accessibility and mobility options 4. protect and enhance the environment, 5. enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system 6. promote efficient system management and operation; and 7. emphasize the efficient preservation of the existing transportation system. PDCTC’s Connections 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan In the twenty-year period covered by the Connections 2025, the MPO estimated that approximately $1.2 billion will be available to allocate among the various projects and programs that have been identified for the PDCTC metropolitan area. Project cost estimates indicate that the plan recommendations can be accomplished within the available sources.

- 50 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Long Range Transportation Plan

Connections 2025 received a positive Federal conformity determination under the 1-hour ozone standard on December 15, 2003. (Note: since Dutchess County is in the Poughkeepsie, NY ozone nonattainment area, the conformity analysis had to total the emissions from Dutchess, Orange and Putnam Counties). Because of EPA’s new 8-hour ozone standard, nonattainment areas had to reconform their existing Plans to the new standard by June 15, 2005. The Connections 2025 Plan received a positive FHWA/FTA conformity determination for the 8-hour standard on June 14, 2005.

PDCTC’s next Plan (with the federal conformity determination made thereon) is due by December 15, 2006 under the TEA-21 cycle, and it will have a 2030 horizon year. With the passage of SAFETEA_LU, the update cycle for future Plans in nonattainment areas (starting after July 1, 2007) will be set at four years from the date of the federal conformity determination.28

Orange County Transportation Council Orange County’s original plan was the Transportation Plan 1981, Orange County, New York. As indicated by its title, the plan covered all of Orange County and it was developed before an MPO was established; once the NOCTC was established in 1982, the Plan was formally adopted as the MPO Plan. The 1981 Plan was subsequently updated in 1987.

In 1993, Orange County hired Creighton Manning Incorporated to develop a new 20-year transportation plan, and NOCTC adopted its 2020 Vision – A Transportation Plan for Orange County, New York in 1994. The 2020 Vision Plan divides the County its three planning subareas: Newburgh urbanized area, Middletown urban area, and the Monroe/Chester/Goshen area. As a nonattainment area, the Plan needed to receive a positive FHWA/FTA conformity determination, which was achieved in December 1994.

The 2020 Vision Plan analyzed three alternative future land use scenarios (the Incremental Future, the Land Use Planning Future and the Technology Future) for their impact on the transportation system. Transportation improvements were recommended for each land use scenario to maintain existing transportation infrastructure, enhance transit services and to alleviate future traffic congestion based upon constrained and unconstrained funding sources. In 1998, NOCTC subsequently updated the 2020 Vision Plan to provided new information concerning the transportation system and further addressed issues concerning the interaction between transportation and land development patterns in the County.

- 51 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Long Range Transportation Plan

The current OCTC Plan is Vision 2025, adopted by the MPO on November 28, 2003. Vision 2025 was not a totally new plan, but rather a reaffirmation of the 2020 Vision Plan (1994) and its 1998 update. The Vision 2025 Plan received a positive Federal air quality conformity determination for the 1-hour ozone standard on December 15, 2003 (as noted under the PDCTC discussion, the conformity analysis had to total the emissions from Dutchess, Orange and Putnam Counties). The Vision 2025 Plan received another FHWA/FTA conformity determination on June 14, 2005 because of the new 8-hour ozone standard.

The next OCTC transportation plan is due by December 15, 2006, and it will have a 2030 horizon year to coincide with the horizon year of the PDCTC and NYMTC (Putnam County). It is anticipated that the strategies for the development of the 2030 Plan will be similar to those previously implemented in the past, although more timely. Adjustments to the goals and objectives of that Plan will also be made for consistency with the updated Orange County Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2003 with subsequent amendments in 2004. Notably, this updated policy will require reconsideration of the Long-Range Transportation Plan’s three alternative futures (incremental, land use planning, and technology) against the “priority growth area” principles of the new County Comprehensive Plan.

Elements of the next Long-Range Plan will also be formed by the findings of the Southeast Orange County Transportation and Land Use Study – a very successful collaborative research and action effort directly involving the MPO, County agencies, NYS DOT, six municipalities, and several other relevant transportation, transit, civic and business organizations.

Ulster County Transportation Council Being a newly formed MPO, UCTC must adopt a long-range transportation plan that meets the requirements of the metropolitan planning regulations by October 1, 2005. Ulster County is not starting from scratch on this endeavor. In April 2003, the Ulster County Planning Board had adopted the 2003 Ulster County Transportation Plan. This 2003 Plan describes the existing transportation system in the county and presents an analysis of transportation needs out to the year 2020. The Plan also provides a package of “Primers” to local officials that contained technical guidance to consider when evaluating transportation issues. Therefore, many of the basic elements required to be an MPO’s plan are already in place.

The UCTC plan will be entitled the Ulster County Transportation Council’s Long-Range Transportation Plan. The UCTC has contracted with the consultant firm of Edwards and Kelcey to incorporate missing elements that are needed to comply with the federal regulations for MPO long range plans (e.g., analysis of fiscal resources that are reasonably expected to be available over the period to 2030 versus costs of transportation needs). In order to foster public involvement, the UCTC has developed a specific webpage29 devoted to the new Plan, which we believe is a good outreach endeavor. We also commend UCTC for its decision to foster coordination with the two other

- 52 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Long Range Transportation Plan

MPOs in the TMA by choosing the new plan’s horizon year as 2030, since the next PDCTC and OCTC plans will have said horizon date. The draft Plan is scheduled for adoption by the Policy Committee in late September, just in time to satisfy the October 1, 2005 deadline. Because it is in an air quality attainment area, the UCTC Plan will be on a five-year update cycle, although the MPO may decide to update it more frequently).

Financial Constraint When a MPO is developing a list of projects and strategies to include in a Plan, it must consider financial constraint. This requires an MPO to estimate the future level of revenues that can reasonably be expected to be available to implement projects from the Plan.30 Typically, the transportation “needs” will outstrip the estimated available resources.

Financial constraint is especially important in air quality nonattainment areas such as PDCTC and OCTC. Under the federal environmental process (National Environmental Policy Act - NEPA), the Federal agencies cannot issue a Record of Decision (ROD) on a nonexempt31 project unless the project is included in an air quality analysis on the Plan. According to EPA conformity regulations, a project cannot be included in said analysis unless it is in the financially constrained portion of the Plan. This is done so that an MPO will not take credit in its conformity analysis for air quality improvement projects for which there are no funds to actually implement. Until the Federal agencies issue a ROD, subsequent work on a nonexempt project (final design, right-of-way actions, construction) cannot be included in the TIP. The bottom line is that a nonexempt project cannot advance beyond the environmental stage of its development until it is in the financially constrained portion of the Plan. This restriction applies whether the project is Federally funded or not.

PDCTC’s Connections 2025 accurately states that… “any estimate of future fund availability is problematic, due to difficulty of anticipating future federal and state transportation policies and priorities.”32 The only monies specifically targeted for the MPOs are FTA Section 5307 and 5311 (formerly Section 18) funds, and the FHWA CMAQ program (PDCTC and OCTC only) and STP monies for areas greater than 200,000 population. All other monies are allocated to the NYSDOT’s Regional Offices for distribution among the MPOs/metropolitan counties and the rural areas under its jurisdiction. The resource estimates should include federal, state, and local sources of funding.

The three MPOs do not have a formal MPO procedure in place for the development of fiscal revenue projections for either the TIPs or the long-range plans. NYSDOT Region 8 prepares resource estimates for federal and state capital funds through the Plan’s horizon year based on historical allocations among the State’s regions and the Region 8 counties.33 Other reliable sources of funds include those for the special authorities and county highway funds (general and bond), but it is more difficult to estimate what resources might be available from local government (city, town, village) over the period of the long-range plan.

- 53 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Long Range Transportation Plan

Enhancement to Consider One of the newer aspects to some MPO plans is the incorporation of Performance Measures into the transportation planning process. The purpose of this effort is to measure progress toward the Plan’s desired outcomes and to aid in investment decisions that impact thereon. An example of such measures is shown in Table 5, which depicts the measures adopted by the Genesee Transportation Council (MPO for Rochester, New York).

Table 5: Performance Measures Performance Measure Plan Goals Addressed Support Economic Vitality Average travel time to work Increase Accessibility & Mobility Promote Efficiency Support Economic Vitality Average travel time on major roads with Increase Accessibility & Mobility above average traffic Promote Efficiency Support Economic Vitality Excess delay by highway link Increase Accessibility & Mobility and system-wide Promote Efficiency Support Economic Vitality Increase Safety & Security Volume/Capacity ratio Increase Accessibility & Mobility Promote Efficiency Increase Safety & Security Accident rate Promote Efficiency Protect Community Character and Emission Levels Conserve Energy Support Economic Vitality % of Federal roadways with pavement Increase Safety & Security conditions rated “fair” or better Increase Accessibility & Mobility Promote Efficiency Support Economic Vitality % of low-income persons within ¼ mile Increase Accessibility & Mobility of fixed route transit service Promote Efficiency Protect Community Character and Energy usage Conserve Energy User Cost per Mile per Trip Promote Efficiency

We believe that the incorporation of performance measures in transportation plans is a good tool for an MPO that wants to assess how well the area is doing in achieving its desired goals.

- 54 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Long Range Transportation Plan

Recommendation: The MPOs should consider the benefits of incorporating performance measures into the next versions of their Plans.

Needed Action: UCTC must adopt its new long-range transportation plan by October 1, 2005.

- 55 -

Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Transportation Improvement Programs

VI. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

“The metropolitan transportation planning process shall include development of a transportation improvement program (TIP) for the metropolitan planning area by the MPO in cooperation with the State and public transit operators.” 23 CFR §450.324(a)

ne of an MPO’s most important responsibilities is the development of a multi-year program of transportation improvements that implement recommendations of the planning process, particularly those in the O Long Range Transportation Plan. This program of projects is the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP identifies the timing and funding of all highway, bridge, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation projects scheduled for implementation over a five-year period using FHWA or FTA funding, and it estimates the effect upon regional air quality. Federal regulations require that these projects be included on the TIP in order to be eligible for federal funding. The TIP also includes, for informational purposes, non-federally funded projects, including 100% State funded projects (NYSDOT and New York State Thruway Authority) in the region.

There are certain federal requirements of the TIP document34: Covers at least four years Updated at least every four years Consistent with approved Transportation Plan Conforms to air quality requirements Identifies each project Financially constrained by year; each project has an estimate of total costs and the amount of federal funds, state, and/or local matching funds Identifies the responsible party for project implementation Approved by MPO and Governor Modifications during the year are subject to appropriate project selection procedures

There is broad agreement in all three MPOs for investing in the transportation system in the area. Transportation remains a largely non- partisan issue with bi-partisan support. Understandably, there may be differences regarding what constitutes a good investment and how we should pay for it. This is why technical staff members often affirm that putting a TIP program together is a little science and a little art. Once the “science” of project evaluation is completed, the “art” of project programming begins. The MPO developed draft TIPS by making the best

- 57 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Transportation Improvement Programs

projects ‘fit’ within overall program constraints, such as available funds, relationship to other projects, and considerations of equity.

TIP Development Process

The Development Process for all three MPOs is generally similar. It begins with the solicitation of new projects approximately eight months before the TIP’s approval. The MPO issues a "call letter" to municipalities, participating agencies, contacts on the public information mailing list, and other interested parties. The letter announces the start of the TIP update process, and includes information on how municipalities and agencies can participate in the transportation planning process and propose specific transportation projects. It also provides a TIP adoption schedule and application.

The MPO staffs review all project applications for completeness. Any projects submitted on a facility that is under the jurisdiction of another agency are forwarded to that agency for examination. All MPOs screen the projects to assure that they:

• Address or correct a specific problem • Included in the Long Range Transportation Plan • Serve the general public without duplicating existing projects • Over 20 feet long for bridge projects • On the Federal Aid System for road projects • Sponsorship from the affected member of the PDCTC • Identify local funding source(s) to match federal funds

Following that initial assessment, all the eligible projects are forwarded to the Technical Committee for review and selection. The Technical Committee develops a draft TIP composed of existing projects (with updated costs and schedules) and new projects selected for funding. Once the agreed upon list of projects is developed, the Staff publishes a summary of the TIP, a notice of public meeting, and information on how to get a copy of the draft TIP is circulated to the public information mailing list. The Staff then holds a public meeting to solicit public input on the TIP development process, the projects being proposed for the new TIP, and the required air quality conformity analysis. All TIPs are five-year documents.

Upon final approval, a user-friendly TIP document is distributed to all council members, the technical committee, and contacts on the PDCTC public information mailing list. The user-friendly TIP document is an abridged version of the TIP. The summary provides readers with a basic overview of the function of the TIP, the highlights of the five-year program, and general financial information. Any person or agency requesting a final TIP is sent a copy and added to the mailing

- 58 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Transportation Improvement Programs

Evaluating Candidate Projects

While the TIP Development Process for the three MPOs is generally similar, the approach to evaluating the candidate projects is not. The UCTC uses specific criteria to assess the merits of candidate projects, whereas PDCTC and OCTC do not. The UCTC employs a “correlation” approach, whereby a project is ranked through a scoring system based on the degree of relatedness the project has to sixteen different criteria. The goal of the project ranking criteria is to ensure consistence between the mix of projects and investments in the TIP and the goals and policies implemented through the UCTC Long Range Transportation Plan. A TIP Project Scoring Sub-Committee performs a detailed assessment and evaluation of applicant proposals and develops a project’s draft score for consideration by the Technical Committee and eventually by the Policy Committee.

The following table shows the sixteen criteria and points assessed for each based on the degree of correlation to the individual criteria:

UCTC Project Score Sheet Degree of Correlation Criteria High Moderate Low 10 points 5 points 1 point 1. Economic Vitality 2. Safety & Security 3. Accessibility/Mobility 4. Environment 5. Connectivity 6. Sys. Mgmt. & Operation Paving & Existing Bridge Projects Begin Here 7. System Preservation 8. Air Quality 9. Environmental Justice 10. Congestion Mgmt. 11. Statewide Transp. Plan 12. Statewide Energy Plan 13. County Transp. Plan 14. Sponsor’s Priority 15. Local Commitment 16. Facility Condition Score * Sub Scores Total Score

The Facility Condition Score is used on bridge replacement/maintenance and pavement resurfacing projects only. The score can be anywhere between 0-10 based on a matrix (see next page) of road pavement condition score and AADT levels.

- 59 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Transportation Improvement Programs

UCTC: FACILITY CONDITION SCORE MATRIX Road Pavement Traffic Volumes (AADT) Condition Score < 3,000 3,000-8,000 8,001-20,000 >20,001 PVT ≤ 4 7 8 9 10 PVT ≤ 5 6 7 8 9 PVT ≤ 6 4 5 6 7 PVT ≤ 7 0 1 1 3 Bridge Rating < 3.0 7 8 9 10 3.1-3.49 6 7 8 9 3.5-4.49 4 5 6 7 4.5-4.99 2 3 4 5

Where a UCTC project is in direct conflict with a particular criteria, it can be given a minus score (minus 5 points) for that criteria. A project is primarily ranked based on the total number of points earned. Bridge and pavement resurfacing projects are ranked separately. The priority order is further refined based on eligibility and availability of specific fund sources.

We believe that this approach is a good practice. In New York, the MPOs who use specific criteria for ranking candidate projects are about equal in number to those that do not. There is no correct approach to such evaluation, but we like the UCTC approach because it does provide decision makers with another source of information about the relative merits of the projects. We recommend that the other two MPOs evaluate whether UCTC’s type of approach to evaluating candidate projects could be of assistance to their respective decision makers.

Fiscal Constraint As noted in Section IV. Long Range Transportation Plan, the three MPOs do not have a formal MPO procedure in place for the development of fiscal revenue projections for either the TIPs or the long-range plans. The MPOs receive information about available FHWA monies from NYSDOT Region 8 based on projections of expected or reasonable federal funding based on an analysis of historic distribution among the four MPO areas (NYMTC Mid-Hudson South, OCTC, PDCTC and UCTC) and the one non-urban county (Columbia). These projections are usually done after Region 8 receives its Annual Allocation Table from NYSDOT-Main Office, which establishes the Region’s program levels by federal highway fund source and by year. These estimates are then adjusted to reflect a MPO’s historic percentages of the Region’s federal-aid resources, and then the Region itself further refines these figures.

The distribution of the FTA Section 5307 Capital Funds is handled by the three MPOs in a cooperative and coordinated way. The Region 8 MPO Unit has taken the lead in bringing the various participants together to develop consensus on the distribution of the funds. The three MPOs adopted resolutions regarding the

- 60 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Transportation Improvement Programs

FFY 2005 distribution at their respective Council meetings in May 2005. The 5307-fund distribution is further discussed in Section VI. Transit Activities.

The regulations require that the TIP be financially constrained by year.35 Fiscal constraint takes on an even more stringent test in air quality nonattainment areas: “The TIP shall be financially “In [air quality] nonattainment and maintenance areas, constrained by year and include a financial plan that projects included for the first two years of the current STIP/TIP shall be limited to those for which funds are demonstrates which projects 36 are to be implemented using available or committed.” current revenue sources and While we find that fiscal constraint was maintained which projects are to be during the development of the TIPs, the documents do not reflect implemented using proposed this fact. The metropolitan planning statute states that the TIP revenue sources (while the must include a “financial plan” that “indicates resources from existing transportation system public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be available to carry out the program”.37 The purpose of the financial plan is to demonstrate fiscal constraint. The MPOs need to adjust the format of their next TIP to clearly demonstrate fiscal constraint by year.

TIP Status Table 6 summarizes the status of the TIPs in the three MPO areas. In PDCTC and OCTC, this year’s TIP development process and TIP effective date has been quite different than in the past. Previously, the effective date for TIPs in New York State usually coincides with the effective date of the new Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) – which begins October 1. However, because of new air quality regulations (see Section IX. Air Quality), PDCTC and OCTC chose to develop new TIPs effective June 15, 2005. UCTC approved its new TIP on May 3, 2005, with the normal effective date of October 1, 2005.

Table 6: Transportation Improvement Plans FHWA/FTA MPO & Years MPO Approval Conformity TIP Date Date Effective Date PDCTC 2006-2010 May 11, 2005 June 14, 2005 June 15, 2005 OCTC 2006-2010 May 12, 2005 June 14, 2005 June 15, 2005 UCTC 2006-2010 May 03, 2005 N/A October 1, 2005

The following is a short summary of the TIPs in each area.

Poughkeepsie –Dutchess County Transportation Council The recently approved TIP is the 2006 – 2010 Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transportation Council Transportation Improvement Program, which was approved by the Policy Committee on May 12, 2005. In the resolution approving the TIP, the Policy Committee stated

- 61 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Transportation Improvement Programs

“(T)his endorsement shall be effective without further action by the Council once the required air quality conformity analysis has been completed and shown to meet the necessary federal requirements.”

Because of the short time frame for the TIP’s acceptance, the MPO and the New York Interagency Consultation Group decided that this approach would be best for meeting the June 15th, 2005 deadline for the 8-hour ozone conformity determination. The cited conformity analysis received a positive FHWAFTA conformity determination on June 14, 2005, so the 2006-2010 TIP is effective June 15, 2005.

As customary, the TIP is a five-year capital program that assigns federal funds to priority highway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian, and travel demand management projects, while the conformity determination assesses the cumulative air quality impacts of implementing those projects (combined air quality analysis for OCTC and PDCTC). The TIP emphasizes the preservation of the existing transportation system, with approximately $303 million in federal-aid dedicated to pavement and bridge preservation projects, and another $147 million supporting other highway projects such as safety and intersection improvements. Mobility projects, which include actions that reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and promote other forms of transportation, receive $26 million. In addition, $25 million is allocated to support local and regional bus transit, and $10 million supports capacity improvement projects.

While the PDCTC TIP is fiscally constrained, the TIP document itself does not demonstrate such. Therefore, recommend that PDCTC include a section in their next TIP document that clearly demonstrates the fiscal constraint by year.

Orange County Transportation Council The OCTC 2006-2010 TIP is a five-year capital program that assigns federal funds to priority highway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian, and travel demand management projects; the air quality conformity determination assesses the cumulative air quality impacts of implementing those projects (combined air quality analysis for OCTC and PDCTC). A total of $807million was programmed in the 2006-2010 TIP. The TIP emphasized the preservation of the existing system. Approximately $587 million for pavement and bridge preservation projects, $21million for mass transit and $29 million for capacity improvement projects. Additionally, $134million is for safety and intersection improvements, and $35million for mobility projects. Similar to the PDCTC document, OCTC’s 2006-2010 TIP is fiscally constrained but the TIP document itself does not demonstrate such. Therefore, recommend that OCTC include a section in their next TIP document that clearly demonstrates the fiscal constraint by year.

- 62 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Transportation Improvement Programs

Ulster County Transportation Council UCTC approved its first-ever TIP in May 2005. The MPO began the process of TIP development by agreeing upon project evaluation criteria over the summer of 2004, and issued a “Call for Projects” in September 2004. The Call Letter was sent to all Ulster County municipalities, and authorities. UCTC then held a TIP applicant workshop was held in early October to assist prospective applicants with the application process. The TIP application closing date was October 20, 2004.

In November 2004, the UCTC staff screened all TIP project proposals submitted to ensure completeness. A detailed assessment and evaluation of applicant proposals was then performed by the UCTC appointed TIP Project Scoring Sub-Committee. Projects were eventually assigned a draft score. The staff presented this information at the December 2004 Technical Committee meeting. UCTC staff presented and compared all TIP project applications. A recommendation was made by staff to the UCTC to rank projects accordingly based on the application scores and a “fix it first” philosophy.

The preliminary rankings from the December UCTC Technical Committee meeting were revisited to consider making adjustments to rankings to reflect overall funding considerations, geographic balance, and other factors not specifically captured by project evaluation criteria. A list of projects were recommended for funding, as well as those projects proposed but not funded, will be prepared for public review and comment. The UCTC Policy Committee upheld the “fix it first” philosophy.

The fiscally constrained 2006-2010 TIP then underwent a 30-day public review and comment period on in March 2005. After consideration of the comments received upon the completion of all public comment periods, the UCTC Public Committee formally adopted the 2006-2010 TIP on May 3, 2005; this TIP will become effective on October 1, 2005, the beginning of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program that NYSDOT chooses to tie to the Federal Fiscal year.

Annual Listing of Implemented Projects MPOs are required by Title 23 to annually publish the list of projects for which Federal funds have been obligated in the preceding year: “Publication of annual listings of projects--An annual listing of projects for which Federal funds have been obligated in the preceding year shall be published or otherwise made available by the metropolitan planning organization for public review. The listing shall be consistent with the categories identified in the transportation improvement program.” 38

- 63 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Transportation Improvement Programs

Both the PDCTC and the OCTC publish such a listing as part of their disposition of the TIP. The UCTC has understandably not yet published such a list because their first TIP will only begin in October 2005. UCTC should prepare the required Annual Listing after their first TIP expires.

Generic Costs As project selections are prioritizations naturally flow from the estimated costs of candidate projects, it is in the interest of all concerned to prepare estimates with suitable levels of scoping information when submitting said candidate projects for consideration. To facilitate more consistent reviews of proposals, it would be helpful if a set of generic costs is available to give a common basis for estimating project costs by various sponsors. During the review, we discussed this tool. Region 8 noted that they had developed some generic costs for MPO TIP applications a while ago to try to get some consistency. However these cost figures are a few years old and would need to be updated. We recommended that Region 8 compile such generic cost estimates for the MPOs’ use.

Risk Management An integral part of developing TIPs and Plans is making policy decisions on investment strategies for the eventual allocation of resources. We encourage the consideration of risk assessment techniques when evaluating expenditures in the TIP and LRP.

The concept of risk management begins with the premise that significant physical highway capacity additions carried out in the context of major infrastructure renewal are appropriate only under certain conditions. Traditionally, facilities are designated to accommodate projected demand at acceptable levels-of- service throughout the physical design life of the facility. With a bridge structure, for example, this involves designing to accommodate traffic projections for a date 30 or 40 years beyond the expected date of completion of the project. A risk management approach examines the costs and benefits of alternative designs and makes capacity treatment an explicit choice. A risk assessment approach to bridge reconstruction asks questions like: Do 20-year traffic projections justify widening the bridge now? What is the projected congestion risk of replacement in-kind? What would be the additional expense involved in providing the incremental capacity at a later date?

The revised design approach reaches a determination of facility design through a risk assessment (tradeoff analysis) that focuses on the opportunity cost of selecting alternative designs. Assuming that a bridge has reached the end of its “useful life” and requires replacement at the same location, the risk assessment focuses on several factors: • Incremental costs and benefits of designs that add capacity to accommodate future traffic, relative to less-accommodating

- 64 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Transportation Improvement Programs

designs. • the projected amount of time that will lapse before a given design with greater capacity would be expected to have annual benefits sufficient to return an incremental benefit/cost ration comparable to other capacity projects included in the TIP. • the additional expense involved in providing the incremental capacity at a later date. • the degree of uncertainty present regarding future demand forecasts. • the compatibility of the additional capacity with regional, county and local land use plans.

We recommend that the three MPOs evaluate the potential benefits of using risk management techniques in their considerations.

Recommendation: PDCTC, OCTC and UCTC need to include a section in their TIP document that clearly demonstrates fiscal constraint by year. We recommend that the PDCTC and OCTC evaluate whether UCTC’s correlation approach to evaluating candidate projects could be of assistance to their own decision makers. Upon completion of the new TIP cycle, the UCTC will need to develop a list of projects for which Federal funds have been obligated in the preceding year. We recommend that Region 8 consider developing a set of generic costs for use by the MPOs in their project development process. We recommend that the three MPOs evaluate the potential benefits of using risk management techniques in their considerations.

- 65 -

Last Trolley Trip in Poughkeepsie 1935

Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Transit Activities

VII. Transit Activities “Development of plans and programs -To accomplish the objective stated in paragraph (1), metropolitan planning organizations designated under subsection (b), in cooperation with the State and public transit operators, shall develop transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas of the State.” 23 U.S.C. 134(a)(2)

oordination among the MPOs and the region’s public transit operators is paramount for the successful delivery of transit services that meet the needs C of the region and also ensure the proper development of programs and/or projects that reflect the trip needs of an area. The PDCTC, OCTC, OCTC and the major transit operators for the Mid-Hudson Valley region are successful in achieving this coordination.

The Mid-Hudson Valley TMA is unique in New York in that it is the only TMA in which the majority of transit services are not under a regional transit authority (these are public benefit corporations by New York State to promote the development and improvement of transportation services in a region). Rather, most transit services are provided by a myriad of small public and private entities. The Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) does operate some commuter railroad services in the region and is a voting member of the PDCTC and OCTC policy committees. However, MTA’s presence is not so dominant (transit service wise) as the other authorities in other TMAs.

Dutchess County Transit Service According to Census 2000, approximately 4% of work trips in Dutchess County are made by public transit. The city of Poughkeepsie had the most people using mass transit; still, it was only 10.2% of the population.

There is a range of local public bus, paratransit, and private carrier services in Dutchess County. The most visible public bus services are the Dutchess County LOOP Bus System and the City of Poughkeepsie Bus System. Dutchess County’s Division of Mass Transportation (LOOP) provides public transit service to Dutchess County through two modes of service: fixed route service and demand response services like Dial-A-Ride and Paratransit. Dutchess County maintains a fleet of 52 vehicles. LOOP runs a Commuter Train Connection bus service in cooperation with the Metro-North railroad. The Division of Mass Transportation also coordinates non-emergency Medicaid transportation for the Dutchess County Department of Social Services. The staff is a private contractor to the County. The City of Poughkeepsie Transit System is a small system (nine vehicles) run by the City that circulates throughout the City and the immediate surrounding

- 67 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Transit Activities

areas. This is important to those without vehicles, as there are no grocery stores within the City of Poughkeepsie! There are six other transit operators servicing the Dutchess County area: the MetroNorth Railroad, Amtrak, Adirondack Trailways, Arrow Bus Lines, Leprechaun Lines, and Shortline Bus (the latter four are private operators). Both public and private bus carriers provide connecting service to 7 of the 8 Metro-North Stations in Dutchess County. In addition, Amtrak has two stops in Dutchess County providing service between New York City and Albany.

Orange County Transit Service According to Census 2000, approximately 5% of work trips in Orange County were made by public transit. The County is served by eighteen (18) private and municipality-operated regional, local, and dial-a-bus services. Local routes mainly serve transit-dependent public within commercial and retail areas in cities of Newburgh and Middletown. Regional inter-county service primarily serves those commuting to New York City. According to the 2000 Census, 8% of work trips from the County are to New York City and 36% of these work trips are via bus and rail. For rail commutes to New York City, the County is served by MTA Metro-North’s Railroad’s Port Jervis Line, located on the west side of the Hudson River. But Orange County residents prefer to use the Metro North Beacon Station, located west of the Hudson, because the Hudson line service is more frequent and direct.

Ulster County Transit Service Approximately 2% of work trips in Ulster County are made by public transit. There are seven public and private transit operators that serve Ulster County. Ulster County Area Transit (UCAT) and City of Kingston Bus (or CitiBus) are public operators mainly providing local service, while the remaining five private operators offer longer distance travel service. UCAT operates ten deviated-fixed routes throughout the County. Local service within the City of Kingston is provided by CitiBus, which offers fixed route, paratransit, and dial-a- ride service.

The UCTC has established a Transit Advisory Committee. A countywide transit study (Ulster County Fixed Route Public Transportation Coordination and Intermodal Opportunities Analysis) was initiated in SFY 2004-2005 with contractual support; approximately $13,250 is remaining in contractual obligations. This study is investigating opportunities for improving coordinated public transit services and is will assess the locations and functions of intermodal transit centers in major population centers throughout Ulster County. This task also includes the provision for staff support to the Transit Advisory Committee established to help guide this planning study.

In addition to the Intermodal Opportunities Study, the UCTC Staff will coordinate consultant services for a City of Kingston Citibus/Ulster County Area Transit public transit systems integration analysis study. This study will explore the

- 68 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Transit Activities

costs, benefits, and institutional issues associated with the phased integration of the City of Kingston Citibus and the UCAT systems under various scenarios. Types of integration scenarios to explore range from shared transit maintenance and operations to a complete systems merger.

The new Ulster County Transit Center

FTA Section 5307 funds for Poughkeepsie-Newburgh urbanized area As a result of the 2000 Census, the Poughkeepsie-Newburgh urbanized area39 was classified as a TMA area. This had both positive and negative impacts on the transit operations in the region. A negative was that transit operators in the TMA could no longer be reimbursed for operating assistance. Another impact – although we do not consider it a negative per se – is that the TMA area must also program at least one percent of the funding for transit enhancement activities.

A positive is the increase in funding from the FTA Section 5307 program. The 5307 program, otherwise known as the Urbanized Area Formula Program, makes Federal resources available to urbanized area for transit capital and operating assistance and for transportation related planning. Eligible purposes include planning, engineering design and evaluation or transit projects, and other technical transportation-related studies; capital investments in bus and bus-related activities; and capital investment in new and existing fixed guideway systems.

Prior to the TMA designation, the Section 5307 funding for Dutchess County, Orange County, and Kingston (in Ulster County) was based on a population/population density formula. With the TMA designation, the apportionment formula now also includes transit service operating statistics (e.g., revenue bus service miles). Federal Fiscal Year 2003 (FFY-2003) was the first year in which operating statistics were used. FFY-2005 was the first year that included data from two major commuter bus operators; also in 2005, Metro North began reporting a portion of its commuter rail statistics in this TMA. The end result was the annual allocation of Section 5307 to the area has jumped from approximately $3.2 million to $13.8 million.

There is a federal requirement regarding the allocation of these funds within the TMA area:

- 69 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Transit Activities

“Procedures or agreements that distribute sub-allocated Surface Transportation Program or Section 5307 (formerly section 9) funds to individual jurisdictions or modes within the metropolitan area by predetermined percentages or formulas are inconsistent with the legislative provision that require MPOs in cooperation with the State and transit operators to develop a prioritized and financially constrained TIP and shall not be used unless they can be clearly shown to be based on considerations required to be addressed as part of the planning process.” 23 CFR 450.324 (l)

The above requirement presents a challenge in developing and prioritizing each respective TIP while also coordinating regional priorities. Each of the MPO areas must not only ask themselves how does their TIP reflect the priorities of the County, but also the priorities of the region as a whole? How is this being reflected in the planning process? Another challenge is recognizing the needs of private operators who generated revenue vehicle miles. There are approximately fifteen (15) private bus operators that serve the TMA area.

Being part of a TMA area, the three MPOs must coordinate and agree on how the Section 5307 funds will be split among the MPOs. Each MPO must then determine how those funds will be distributed within the County through their respective MPO planning processes.

For FFY-2005, the TMA has decided that the proposed split for Section 5307 funds would be based on bus mile revenue reports to the National Transit Database (NTD). Public and private operators would be “allotted” up to the amount generated by reports to NTD. Designated recipients suballocate to public agencies and in-turn, enter into a third party contract with a private operator for service. Although there is no requirement to allot a certain amount to private operators, the MPOs agree that this is a way to recognize the preventative maintenance needs of private operators. For all three MPOs, preventative maintenance is a priority. The remaining amount of 5307 funds would be available for open competition among the MPOs. Criteria for allocating this competitive amount have not been established.

The cooperation among the three areas in developing the method distributing the Section 5307 funds among the various operators has been exemplary. We congratulate all parties involved.

As to the method that was developed, we are recommending that the MPOs consider a method that is less formula-driven but rather more clearly reflects the 3C process. Under such an approach, MPOs could determine what 5307-funded transportation projects should be prioritized and programmed in the TIP without regard for whose data was used in the FTA 5307 apportionment formula. For the benefit of the regions, the MPOs must coordinate their planning activities at a level that will facilitate the planning process in order to make programming decisions based on priorities and needs of the region.

For future decisions on suballocations, the TMA may continue to use NTD information. However, the methodology should be more clearly derived from considerations addressed as part of the planning process. NTD data are not

- 70 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Transit Activities

planning factors and cannot be used for the primary basis of a formula to distribute 5307 funds. We recommend that the MPOs consider using the TEA-21 planning factors40 during deliberations on how the funds should be split. The factors are: - Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area (or State), especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity and efficiency; - Increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users; - Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight; - Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve quality of life - Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight; - Promote efficient system management and operation; and - Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.

We understand that the required planning factors were considered in the distribution process, but this has not been documented. Transit operators should be able to clearly justify their projects based on these factors.

Recommendation: The three MPOs should revisit the Section 5307 distribution method to more clearly reflect the planning factors in TEA-21.

- 71 -

PDCTC GIS Mapping of TIP Projects as part of Environmental Justice Analysis

Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Title VI/Environmental Justice

VIII. Title VI/Environmental Justice

“No person in the United States shall on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded in participation or be denied the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

“Each federal agency shall ensure that their actions do not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effect on minority populations and low income populations.” Executive Order 12898

he Civil Rights Act of 1964 guarantees equal protection under law and prohibits intentional discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. In 1984, Federal regulations implementing Title VI were T amended to prohibit recipients of Federal aid from carrying out any policy or program that has the effect of discriminating against individuals covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In 1994, President Clinton issued the Executive Order on Environmental Justice, citing the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Title VI as foundational pillars.41 The Executive Order directs all Federal agencies to incorporate, as part of their mission, the goal of achieving environmental justice by ensuring that federally funded policies and programs do not subject minority and low-income communities to “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects”. 42

In 1999, FHWA and the FTA issued a memorandum Implementing Title VI Requirements in Metropolitan and Statewide Planning that gave a clear message that Title VI and Environmental Justice are integral throughout the transportation planning process.43 As part of the annual self-certification and in its adoption of the TIP, the MPOs will certify that their planning process adheres to Title VI.

The Goal of Environmental Justice The goal of Environmental Justice is to ensure that services and benefits are fairly distributed to all people, regardless of race, national origin, or income, and that they have access to meaningful participation. In transportation programs, this includes: Avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects (social and economic) on minority and low-income populations. Ensuring the full and fair participation in the transportation decision-making process by all potentially affected communities.

- 73 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Title VI/Environmental Justice

Preventing the denial of, reduction in, or a significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations.

The types of communities and individuals that are of concern to Title VI and EJ largely overlap, with a slight addition under EJ. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin. The DOT Order on Environmental Justice and Executive Order 12898 address persons belonging to any of the following groups: African American, Hispanic, Asian American, American Indian and Alaskan Native, and Low-Income.

Title VI/EJ in the TMA

The TMA area consists of a wide range of income and demographic conditions. Historically, EJ communities have been located in the most urban or most rural neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are also more likely to depend on transit. Within the TMA, each MPO’s UPWP allocates staff time and funding to conduct EJ analysis and each use Geographic Information Systems (GIS) as a tool to conduct some EJ analysis. For example, the illustration below is a GIS mapping of low income locations in Ulster County.

Low Income Locations on GIS Ulster County

- 74 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Title VI/Environmental Justice

The three MPOs are fortunate to be seated within their respective County Planning Departments. This facilitates information exchange and sharing of resources. A brief description of some of the efforts each MPO is taking to satisfy these requirements is described below.

PDCTC PDCTC has mapped neighborhoods with higher than County average concentrations of minority populations and persons living in poverty. TIP and LRP projects were overlayed onto this information as one way to analyze whether the recommendations contained in the LRP and TIP disproportionately negatively impact EJ communities. No significant issues were found.

OCTC Orange County Planning Department has a full-time demographer on staff and is able to identify Environmental Justice communities in the County. The Department regularly tracks demographic and economic trends. They have mapped economically challenged areas by Census block group. This information is used to inform MPO decision-making and MPO planning products.

UCTC The UCTC has incorporated Title VI and Environmental Justice considerations in various ways. Using 2000 Census data, the MPO has mapped areas of high minority and low-income populations within the County. They are in the process of also overlaying information on location of TIP projects in order to consider EJ on the plan level. On the project level, they have incorporated EJ considerations into the TIP scoring process. Projects are given additional points for addressing the needs of low income and minority populations. Although it is not a federal requirement, the UCTC have also developed a Title VI complaint process. This is rolled into the public involvement process.

A recommendation to each MPO is to analyze the extent of outreach to EJ communities by overlaying the addresses from mailing lists and comments received onto their maps of EJ communities and TIP projects. Although this may provide limited information, it may provide a certain insight to the level of outreach achieved.

Recommendation: As a tool to analyze the extent of outreach to EJ communities, the MPOs should consider overlaying the addresses from mailing lists and comments received onto their maps of EJ communities and TIP projects over a threshold amount.

- 75 -

Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Public Involvement

IX. Public Involvement

Sections 134(g)(4), 134(h)(1)(B), 134(h)(4) of Title 23 and Section 5303(f)(4) and 5304(d) of Title 49, require a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to provide adequate opportunity for the public to participate in and comment on the products and planning processes of the MPO. The law states that the public shall have Aa reasonable opportunity to comment@ on the Long Range Plan (Plan) and the transportation improvement program (TIP).

ublic involvement in the transportation planning process is a mandated core MPO activity in both Title 23 and 23 CFR 450. The requirements for public P involvement are set forth in 23 CFR 450.316(b)(1): Proactive Have early and continuing public involvement in developing Plans and Programs Have timely public notice of activities and information about transportation issues and processes Provide full public access to key decisions and adequate time for public review and comments Take explicit consideration and response to public input Consider of the needs of people traditionally underserved by transportation Perform a periodic review of the effectives of the public involvement process.

The three MPOs have very active public involvement programs. As indicated in the regulations, public involvement should be a proactive continuous effort. The MPOs realized this and continue to make improvements to the overall process.

Public Involvement Policy Statement Public involvement is a mandated core MPO activity that supports the overall metropolitan area transportation planning process and development of all key MPO products – the UPWP, TIP, and LRP. The requirements for public involvement are set forth primarily in 23 CFR 450.316 (b)(1), which addresses elements of the metropolitan planning process. The regulations require that MPOs provide timely information, reasonable public access to technical and policy information, adequate public notice of public involvement activities, explicit consideration and response to public input, and consideration of needs of those traditionally underserved by the transportation system.

- 77 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Public Involvement

The requirements pertaining to the Transportation Plan (450.322(c)) are elaborated as follows: Opportunity for public official and citizen involvement in the development of the Transportation Plan, including involvement in the early stages of Plan development, public comment on the proposed Plan, and at least one formal public meeting annually to review planning assumptions and the plan development process.

The three MPOs of the Poughkeepsie-Newburgh TMA have adopted their own public involvement policies. Each clearly outlines the minimum requirements for public outreach and involvement, and each policy supports proactive processes that encourage broad participation. They provide timely public notice, public access to key decisions, and support for early and continuing public involvement in developing their planning products. In addition, each MPO realizes the value of websites as a tool to provide timely information and receive public input. We recommend that this effort continue and be enhanced. Websites can also provide information on TMA coordination, neighboring MPO links, and regional efforts. We also recommend that each make efforts to periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the public involvement plans and outreach efforts.

A brief description of how each MPO has satisfied the public involvement requirement is provided below.

PDCTC The PDCTC Public Involvement Procedures, contained in their 2003 Operating Procedures, outline how the MPO is to conduct public outreach, including maintaining and updating their mailing list. The MPO mailing list consists of approximately 500 individual and organizations. PDCTC’s website is dedicated to MPO activities, even though the site’s banner initially suggests “Dutchess County”. It not only provides an introduction of what an MPO does, it provides clear and easy access to their planning products and other publications. The PDCTC also produce and distribute quarterly newsletters and notices. This one- page newsletter describes the MPO current and recent past efforts. It provides just enough information in an accessible format.

OCTC Public Involvement Procedures are described in part 8 of the OCTC Operating Procedures, approved in September 2004. The procedures describe general public participation activities, including maintaining and updating a mailing list, documenting all public meetings and notifying the press of public meetings. The MPO mailing list consists of approximately 120 individuals and organizations. Additionally, all approved and draft policy documents are made available on the county planning website. Although there is no dedicated website for the MPO, they are in the process of reformatting the website to allow for a more clear presence of an MPO in Orange County.

- 78 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Public Involvement

UCTC The UCTC has adopted a Public Involvement Procedures, which are contained in the UCTC 2003 Operating Procedures. UCTC approved their Operating Procedures the on June 4, 2003. It describes how the MPO will conduct public outreach, similar to that of OCTC procedures. The procedures also describe providing information through its website (which is very well done). In addition to this, the MPO is in the process of developing a Public Involvement Plan, which is still in draft form and will be complete by mid-2006. There are approximately 150 individuals and organizations on the UCTC mailing list. The MPO also plans to integrate their newsletter with the County Board Newsletter.

Recommendation OCTC consider publishing a quarterly newsletter.

- 79 -

Truck traffic on the NYS Thruway

Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Air Quality

X. Air Quality Considerations

“In nonattainment and maintenance areas, projects included shall be specified in sufficient detail (design concept and scope) to permit air quality analysis in accordance with the U.S. EPA conformity requirements.” 23 CFR 450.324(h)

he concept of transportation conformity was introduced in the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1977, which included a provision to ensure that T transportation investments conform to a state's air quality plan for meeting the Federal air quality standards. Conformity requirements were made substantially more rigorous in the CAA Amendments of 1990 (CAAA90). This legislation has had a fundamental impact on air quality and transportation-related air quality. The transportation sector is now required to be an active participant in the work to achieve attainment of the health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Nonattainment areas are those geographic regions that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designates as not meeting one or more of the NAAQS due to monitored levels of pollutants. In 1990, ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter under 10 microns in diameter (PM10) were the primary transportation-related pollutants of concern. The CAAA90 set severity classifications of non-attainment based on monitored air quality concentrations. Each nonattainment area was given an attainment deadline depending on the severity of nonattainment; if an area’s monitored failed to meet the attainment date; it was “bumped up” to a higher severity and was subject to more stringent regulatory requirements.

Nonattainment Status The air quality nonattainment situation within the Mid-Hudson Valley TMA has many moving parts. Of the three counties, Ulster County alone attains all of EPA’s NAAQS, and thus it is not required to conduct a conformity determination. Orange County and Dutchess Counties, however, must deal with air quality requirements (often convoluted).

In 1991, EPA grouped Orange County (except for the seven southeastern towns), Dutchess County, and Putnam County from the NYMTC area into the Poughkeepsie, NY 1-hour ozone moderate nonattainment area. Lower Orange County (the seven southeastern towns) is in a different nonattainment area - the NYMTC 1-hour severe ozone nonattainment area.

In 1994, EPA designated nonattainment areas under its new 8-hour ozone standard. Under this new standard, the seven southeastern towns now join with

- 81 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Air Quality

the rest of Orange County, Dutchess County and Putnam County in the Poughkeepsie, NY 8-hour moderate nonattainment area.

Because both Orange and Dutchess counties are in the same ozone nonattainment area, they must coordinate their travel forecasting methods, especially as they relate to travel model action years and emissions results with NYMTC, which has jurisdiction over Putnam County. These efforts have been a major focus in the past year as both the PDCTC and OCTC work to meet the new 8-hour Ozone standard by EPA’s deadline of June 15, 2005. The PDCTC and OCTC developed a joint Conformity Determination Statement that described their planning assumptions, forecasting methods, and combined emissions results. The two MPOs have worked together with an Interagency Consultation Group throughout the conformity process. They were successful, as FHWA/FTA made a positive conformity determination on the Plans and 2006- Poughkeepsie, NY 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 2010 TIPs on June 14, 2005.

Ulster County is in attainment of all NAAQS. However, we believe that the UCTC should participate in air quality training when possible to stay abreast of current practices.

As if the conformity process is not sufficiently complicated in the TMA, , EPA recently classified Orange County as being in the new PM2.5 nonattainment area that includes all of NYMTC (except for Putnam County) plus adjoining MPOs in New Jersey and Connecticut.

Table 7: Air Quality Nonattainment Status of Mid-Hudson Valley MPOs Nonattainment Area Orange County Duchess County Ulster County Poughkeepsie 1-hour √ (except seven SE √ --- moderate ozone towns) NYMTC 1-hour √ (seven SE towns) ------Severe ozone Poughkeepsie 8-hr √ √ --- moderate ozone PM 2.5 √ ------

- 82 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Air Quality

Transportation Conformity Process The MPOs that cover portions of designated nonattainment areas, such as PDCTC and OCTC, are subject to two sets of related regulations: the USDOT’s Metropolitan Planning Regulations (23 C.F.R. Part 450) and EPA’s transportation conformity regulations (40 C.F.R. Part 93). Basically, the transportation regulations require that projects proposed for funding with FHWA and FTA monies in nonattainment areas cannot proceed unless they come from an air quality “conforming” TIP and Plan. The EPA conformity regulation details how the conformity analysis is to be done.

An area’s official attainment designation is based on the pollutant levels that are physically monitored by NYSDEC. Until it reaches attainment, the MPO must theoretically demonstrate that the implementation of projects and strategies in the TIP and Plan meet the emission goals established in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to enable the area to reach attainment. This analysis process is known as the conformity process (i.e.; “conform” to the SIP). The analysis is based on “modeled” levels of pollutant emissions, using an MPO’s travel demand forecasting model and EPA’s latest MOBILE emissions model.

The FHWA and FTA jointly, in consultation with EPA, make the determination of whether or not a transportation plan and TIP is in conformance with the SIP. There are also two State New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Region 3)’s Air Quality Monitoring Sites agencies involved in reviewing the conformity analyses: in the Region NYSDOT and NYSDEC. In order to better coordinate the Federal, State and local reviews and discussions, Interagency Consultation procedures have been developed to ensure that all groups are appropriately involved. In New York, the Interagency Consultation Group (ICG) is composed of five permanent members: FHWA (New York Division), FTA (Region II), NYSDOT, NYSDEC and EPA (Region II), with representation from an MPO when the subject matter directly pertains to said MPO. The ICG reviews the air quality analyses on draft TIPs and draft Plans before finalization so as to identify problems before the MPO formally acts on the TIP and/or Plan.

Nonattainment and Planning Boundaries In air quality nonattainment/maintenance areas, the MPO’s planning area boundary (MPA) is required to encompass the entire nonattainment area – unless the Governor and the MPO agree otherwise.44 EPA designated all of Orange and Dutchess Counties as nonattainment for Ozone. Since the PDCTC and OCTC planning boundaries cover the entirety of their respective counties, this requirement is satisfied. UCTC is in attainment; had it also been designated an

- 83 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Air Quality

nonattainment, the fact that the MPO planning boundary covers the entire county would satisfy the requirement.

Plan and TIP Conformity Orange County and Dutchess County are in the Poughkeepsie, NY 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, together with Putnam County. As such, all three counties would have their emission numbers combined into one overall analysis. Since Putnam County presently was under a waiver from the transportation conformity process when the June 15, 2005 EPA deadline was 45, PDCTC and OCTC merely had to combine their emissions and run through the analysis. PDCTC and OCTC received positive conformity determinations on their 2025 Plans and 2004-2006 TIPs on December 15, 2003, so normally they would not need further analyses thereon until the next conformity cycle.

EPA, however, subsequently issued new 8-hour ozone designations in 2004 that gave nonattainment MPOs until June 15, 2005 to conform existing Plans and TIPs with the new 8-hour standard. PDCTC and OCTC both realized that an analysis on their 2025 Plans was needed. However, the MPOs did not want to perform two conformity analysis on TIPs within a period of four months – one on the “old” 2004-2006 TIP that would still be in effect on June 15th and then another on their new 2006-2010 TIP for October 1st - both MPOs decided to make the 2006-2010 TIPs effective on June 15, 2005, thereby superceding the “old” TIPs and eliminating the necessity of such an analysis on the old TIP.

The combined analyses on the 2025 Plans and 2006-2010 TIPs were submitted to FHWA and FTA on June 2, 2005, and the federal agencies subsequently issued a positive conformity determination on June 14, 2005.

Because NYMTC’s conformity waiver expires as of October 1, 2005, the OCTC and PDCTC TIPs and Plans must now undergo another conformity analysis, only this time including the emissions from Putnam County. A new FHWA/FTA conformity determination is needed by October 1, 2005.

As noted, Orange County is also in the new PM2.5 multi-state nonattainment area46 that includes New York State (Orange County plus all of NYMTC except for Putnam County), Connecticut (two counties in southwestern part of State) and New Jersey (10 counties). Procedures are now being developed as to how the conformity analyses will be done. We do know that the PM2.5 analysis must include all portions of the nonattainment area until a SIP PM2.5 budget is developed for New York.

CMAQ Program The Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Program (CMAQ) was established by ISTEA as a new FHWA funding category, the purpose of which is to help air quality nonattainment areas reach attainment. CMAQ funds come to the State (NYSDOT) in a lump sum determined by the relative population and severity of nonattainment in the nonattainment areas in the State versus other

- 84 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Air Quality

States. The State can choose to allocate the funds among nonattainment areas as it sees fit; however, NYSDOT commendably allocates the CMAQ funds among the areas in the same proportion as the federal formula. Since new federal transportation legislation has not yet passed, the Federal formula does not yet reflect those areas in nonattainment of the new 8-hour ozone standard (Orange and Dutchess Counties) nor the PM2.5 standard (Orange County).

Both PDCTC and OCTC include CMAQ projects in their TIPs. OCTC includes $20.472 million in new CMAQ projects in the 2006-2010 TIP, and PDCTC includes $20.90 million in new CMAQ projects.47

Ulster County is not directly eligible for CMAQ funds, since it is an attainment area. However, being in close proximity to both Orange and Dutchess Counties – actually connecting the said counties of the TMA – it is feasible to allow CMAQ funds for a project in Ulster County that would have the real possibility of reducing emissions in either Orange or Dutchess Counties. An CMAQ: Advancing Mobility example of this might be a park-and-ride lot. In order for this to happen, either and Air Quality OCTC or PDCTC would have to agree to “donate” CMAQ monies to Ulster County for the project. We believe that such opportunities should be investigated. FHWA May 2003

Recommendations: The three MPOs should consider the possible use of CMAQ monies in Ulster County on a project that could reduce emissions in the other two Counties. The UCTC should participate in air quality training when possible to stay abreast of current practices.

- 85 -

Congestion at Woodstock, New York Ulster County 1969

Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review – 2005 Congestion Management Systems

XI. Congestion Management System

“The need to relieve congestion and prevent congestion from occurring where it does not yet occur, including---in TMA’s, a congestion management system that provides for effective management of new and existing transportation facilities through the use of travel demand reduction and operational management strategies in accordance with 450.320.” 23 CFR 450.316(a)(3)(ii)

ecause of the designation of a TMA, the MPOs in the Mid- Hudson Valley TMA must develop a Congestion Management System (CMS). The CMS is actually a process that is designed B with the goals of providing the opportunity for the MPOs, the member agencies, and the general public, to measure existing and future regional congestion, quantify the effectiveness of proposed strategies on reducing congestion, and offer strategies in developing and implementing practical measures in managing congestion.

The CMS is one component of the larger regional planning process. It is not a replacement for existing planning procedures, and congestion is not the only factor under consideration when determining the priority of transportation projects. The proper role of the CMS is as a sub-process that adds value to the planning process by providing agencies, the public and decision-makers with a tool by which congestion can be examined in greater detail.

Normally, a new TMA is required to have a CMS in operation within 18 months of the Secretary of USDOT’s designation (January 2005).48 However, since this TMA also includes a portion of a new MPO (Ulster County) that does not have to have its planning processes fully in place until October 1, 2005, the FHWA and FTA agreed that the October 1, 2005 date would be appropriate deadline for the adoption of the CMS in the Mid-Hudson Valley TMA.

Congestion in the TMA Most of the major roadways in the TMA are not congested, with the a few exceptions during the pm peak hour, as people are traveling home from work, or at certain times on the weekends. The draft CMS identified congestion as roadways with a volume/capacity ratio of greater than 0.9. There are a handful of roadways in each county that surpass this ratio.

- 87 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review – 2005 Congestion Management Systems

Importance of the CMS There are several reasons why the CMS is important to the TMA. First is the regulatory reason: the PDCTC and OCTC are under a restriction applicable to all TMAs designated as nonattainment for ozone or carbon monoxide: Federal funds may not be programmed for any project that will result in a significant increase in carrying capacity for single occupant vehicles (a new general purpose highway on a new location or adding general purpose lanes, with the exception of safety improvements or the elimination of bottlenecks) unless the project results from a CMS.49 Thus, the MPO may add an additional lane only if that is the only feasible way to resolve a problem. Even then, the regulations require that such projects shall incorporate all reasonably available strategies to manage the SOV facility effectively (or to facilitate its management in the future). Since the Poughkeepsie, NY air quality nonattainment area includes all of Dutchess and Orange Counties, the CMS is essential to capital programming decisions.

The second reason why the CMS is important is that it can save drivers money. The Road Information Program (TRIP) estimates that New York’s roadways that lack desirable safety features, have inadequate capacity to meet travel demands or have poor pavement conditions cost the state’s drivers nearly $16 billion ($15.7 billion) annually in the form of traffic accidents, additional vehicle operating costs and congestion- related delays.

While recognizing its importance, the CMS is still just one component – albeit a potentially important one - of the larger regional planning process. It is no a replacement for existing planning procedures, and congestion is not the only factor under consideration when determining the priority of transportation projects. The proper role of the CMS is as a sub-process that adds value to the planning process by providing agencies, the public and decision-makers with a tool by which congestion can be examined in greater detail.

The Draft CMS The three MPOs in the TMA are presently well on their way “In the end, the confluence of toward a coordinative approach to a CMS. This will include the joint travelers on our transportation adoption of an overall CMS document that reflects both the common system cannot be disentangled by issues and approaches among all three areas while still reflecting the a lone person or a single individual characteristics of each area. organization, but only through a multi-player partnership in The MPOs began discussing possible approaches to a CMS planning ” in 2004 with a series of “shared staff” meetings. In January 2005, the three MPOs agreed to jointly produce a single CMS for the region.

The MPOs envision that the CMS will be a four-step process:

- 88 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review – 2005 Congestion Management Systems

1) measure and defining congestion through data collection and travel demand modeling, 2) locate congested intersections and links, 3) manage congestion through transportation demand and system management techniques, 4) integrate the CMS into current planning processes and reassessing its effect.

On behalf of other MPOs in the TMA, the PDCTC has taken the lead to complete a draft CMS which will be adopted by all three MPOs by October 2005. The intent is to follow federal guidance, but to also develop a simple, effective program. The draft CMS includes a single, agreed upon definition for congestion in the Mid-Hudson TMA.

Since this is the first CMS for the region, the idea is to use existing data resources and programs to meet the requirement and then to revise the CMS as new ideas or procedures come about. For example, initial CMS data collection efforts and identification will rely on newly updated travel demand models, which are now being used for air quality conformity analyses. Upon completion of the conformity analyses, the three MPOs will use those models to identify congestion on the region’s road network.

The TMA plans to adjust the new CMS as new management techniques and resources arise. This will likely occur when the Relevant Congestion Mitigation System (CMS) Best Practices study is completed in the fall of 2005. The study is a Shared Cost Initiative (SCI), administered by the Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council (SMTC) on behalf of the Congestion Mapped in Ulster County NYS MPOs, which seeks to identify the relevant CMS best practices of small and medium sized MPOs. The PDCTC, OCTC, and UCTC plan to integrate some of the industry’s best practices into their CMS.

Identifying Congestion Congestion is often a subjective concept. The CMS regulations recognize that the definition of “congestion” usually differs from one MPO to another: ACongestion is the level at which transportation system performance is no longer acceptable due to traffic interference. The level of system performance deemed acceptable by State and local officials may vary by type of transportation facility, geographic location (metropolitan area, subarea, rural area), and/or time of day.@50 Thus, a resident of New Paltz would have a different idea of acceptable congestion than a resident of Manhattan. The degree of congestion of a certain vehicle flow is usually related to the capacity of the roadway. The Highway Capacity Manual

- 89 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review – 2005 Congestion Management Systems

(HCM) defines capacity as “the maximum rate of (traffic) flow that can reasonably be expected to pass a point or uniform section of a lane or roadway under prevailing roadway traffic and control conditions.” Level of Service (LOS) standards are established in the HCM to evaluate operating conditions, ranging from a high Level-of-Service A (vehicles are free to maneuver within the traffic stream), down to Level-of-Service F (the number of vehicles arriving at a point is greater than the number of vehicles that can traverse it - traffic demand exceeds the capacity of that location).

Most MPOs measure congestion either by LOS or by travel time/delay in excess of that normally incurred under free-flowing travel conditions. The MPOs have agreed to begin using the LOS criteria as the primary basis of identifying congestion, but plan to use excess time delay as their measure. According to the draft CMS, the TMA’s initial congestion thresholds will be:

Vehicle-to-Capacity Ratio for the Mid-Hudson Valley TSA Level of Congestion V/C Ratio Low or None <= 0.8 Moderate > 0.8 but <= 0.99 High > 0.99 but < = 1.24 Serious > 1.24

At present, none of the roadways in the TMA have a v/c ratio > 0.99.

Use of GPS in Collecting Speed Data The three MPOs have discussed the possibility for a joint consultant contract to collect accurate speed data for use in the CMS analyses. Accurate speed data is a critical data need in the air quality conformity analyses, as well as a significant indicator of congestion. One technique under consideration is the approach used by the Baltimore MPO – using Global Positioning System (GPS) in the collection of such data. In addition, a GIS-based application was created to improve the processing, management, display and reporting of GPS speed data. This GPS/GIS application allows for the use of speed data for projects such as origin-destination studies, CMS reporting, emissions modeling, and validation and refinement of the travel demand model.

Needed Action: The three MPOs need to adopt a CMS program by October 1, 2005.

- 90 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review – 2005 Glossary

Mohonk Resort, New Paltz, New York

Glossary, Notes & Appendix

- 91 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Glossary

Glossary

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

1-Hour Ozone NAAQS - The 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard codified at 40 CFR 50.9.

8-Hour Ozone NAAQS - The 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard codified at 40 CFR 50.10.

AADT - Average Annual Daily Traffic: Estimate of typical daily traffic on a road segment for all days of the week over a period of one year.

ADA - Americans with Disabilities Act: Federal law designed to help provide transportation services for the elderly and handicapped.

ATMS – Advanced Traffic Management System (ITS)

CAAA90 - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990: Federal law which stresses the relationship of transportation and air quality and the attainment of national ambient air quality standards.

CBD - Central Business District: Core area of urban center where commercial activity is concentrated.

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations: a codification of the rules and guidance published in the Federal Register by the Executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government.

CMAQ - Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Improvement Program: category of FHWA funds to help improve air quality in non-attainment and maintenance areas.

CMS - Congestion Management System: required management system in TMAs that addresses congestion on the highway system.

CNG - Compressed Natural Gas - one of the alternate fuels to gasoline.

CO - Carbon Monoxide: A colorless, odorless, tasteless gas formed in large part by incomplete combustion of fuel. Human activities (i.e. transportation or industrial processes) are largely the source for CO contamination in ambient air.

COE - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

CSS – Context Sensitive Solutions

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement: a detailed statement required by the Environmental Policy Act of 1969 when applying for federal funds

- 92 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Glossary

EJ - Environmental Justice: effort to assure that the planning and decision-making process does not have a disproportional high impact on minority and low-income populations.

EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FFY – Federal Fiscal Year: October 1 to September 30

FHWA - Federal Highway Administration

FTA - Federal Transit Administration

HBRR - Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program: category of FHWA funds.

HC - Hydrocarbons: gaseous compounds made of carbon and hydrogen (used interchangeably with VOC).

HOV - High Occupancy Vehicle: vehicle carrying a large number of passengers, such as buses, carpools, and vanpools.

ISTEA - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991: federal law passed by Congress covering federally funded highway and transit programs for the period 1992-1997.

ITS - Intelligent Transportation System: Development and use of technology to enhance ground travel, to improve safety and the environment. This includes the gathering and dissemination of traveler information, traffic management and vehicle management in an overall manner.

JARC – Job Access Reverse Commute: FTA grant program that assists states and localities in developing new or expanded transportation services that connect welfare recipients and other low income persons to jobs and other employment related services.

LOS - Level of Service: Traffic engineering term describing the operating conditions a driver experiences while traveling a particular street or highway.

MAB - Metropolitan Area Boundary: Federally approved transportation planning boundary of a MPO; the MAB covers the area presently urbanized and that area expected to be urbanized during the next 20 years – sometimes called the MPA.

MIS - Major Investment Study: Stand-alone analysis required under ISTEA for major corridor or subarea study. TEA-21 replaced the stand alone MIS requirement with the directive that the planning analyses be integrated with NEPA.

MPA – Metropolitan Planning Area: the MPO’s study area (see MAB)

MPP - Metropolitan Planning Program: FTA=s planning funds supporting MPOs.

MPO - Metropolitan Planning Organization: Federally mandated organization of coordinating transportation planning. Each urbanized area with a population of over 50,000 must have an MPO.

- 93 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Glossary

MSA – Metropolitan Statistical Area: a core area containing a substantial population nucleus, together with adjacent communities having a high degree of social and economic integration with that core. Defined by the Office of Management and Budget

MTA – Metropolitan Transit Authority

NAAQS - National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Federal Emissions standards established under the CAAA90 and subsequent rulings by EPA; the NAAQS set allowable concentrations and exposure limits for various pollutants.

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). It is the major legislation that requires federal actions to address potential environmental impacts.

NHS - National Highway System: designated a priority system of highways; it is also a category of FHWA funds.

NOx - Nitrogen Oxides: A group of highly reactive gases that contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts. Many of the nitrogen oxides are colorless and odorless. NOx is formed when the oxygen and nitrogen in the air react with each other during combustion. The primary sources of nitrogen oxides are motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other industrial, commercial, and residential sources that burn fuels.

NTD – National Transit Data

NYSDEC - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

NYSDOT - NYS Department of Transportation

NYSERDA - NYS Energy Research & Development Authority

PIN –Project Identification Number: identification number given by NYSDOT to each project.

PL - Metropolitan Planning Funds: a category of FHWA funds established specifically for metropolitan transportation planning purposes.

PM-10 - Particulate Matter with a diameter less than 10 micrometers (microns): Particulate matter is material that exists as solid or liquid in the atmosphere. Particulate matter may be in the form of fly ash, soot, dust, fog, fumes, etc. Small particulate matter is too small to be filtered by the nose and lungs. PM-10, is particulate matter that is less than 10 microns in size. A micron is one millionth of a meter.

PM-2.5 - Particulate Matter with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers (microns)

SAFETEA_LU – Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for User: Federal law passed by Congress covering federally funded highway and transit programs for the period FFY 2005-2009.

- 94 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Glossary

Section 3010 - FTA-funded discretionary program for New Starts.

Section 3037 - FTA-funded discretionary program supporting Access to Jobs initiatives.

Section 5303 - FTA-funded discretionary program supporting continuing planning activity and special transit studies.

Section 5307 - FTA-funded formula grant program for capital improvements and operating assistance to mass transit.

Section 5308 - FTA-funded discretionary program supporting Clean Fuels programs.

Section 5309 - FTA-funded discretionary program for capital improvements to mass transit.

Section 5310 - FTA-funded program for capital projects to meet the special needs of elderly and handicapped (formerly 106(b)(2)).

SEQRA - State Environmental Quality Review Act: Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Act.

SFY – State Fiscal Year: April 1 to March 30

SHPO - State Historic Preservation Officer

SIP - State Implementation Plan for air quality: A document required by CAAA90 to be produced and updated. The document details required levels of pollution emission reductions and sets deadlines to meet emission reduction targets.

SOV - Single Occupant Vehicle: A vehicle occupied by one person, the driver.

STIP - Statewide Transportation Improvement Program: State document combining the federally funded highway and transit projects contained in all MPO TIPs plus those projects planned in rural areas of a State.

STP - Surface Transportation Program: a category of FHWA funds.

TANF - Temporary Assistance to Needy Families: US Department of Health and Human Services program that replaced the Aid to dependant Children and several other social aid programs.

TAZ – Traffic Analysis Zone: The smallest geographical unit used in the travel-demand forecasting model.

TCM - Transportation Control Measure: Means established by ISTEA and CAAA90 to reduce single occupant vehicle use or total vehicle miles of travel (e.g., HOV lanes, new parking restrictions, tolls).

TCSP - Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program: FHWA demonstration program to help control urban sprawl.

- 95 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Glossary

TDM - Transportation Demand Management activities: Strategy designed to improve travel by reducing demand through techniques such as ridesharing.

TE - Transportation Enhancement: a subcategory of STP funding; set aside for strengthening the cultural, aesthetic and environmental aspects of the intermodal transportation system.

TEA-21 - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century: Federal legislation June 1998; authorizes the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the six-year period 1998-2003.

TIP - Transportation Improvement Program: Five-year program of capital and operating projects, as required by federal regulation.

TITLE VI - Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

TMA - Transportation Management Area: An urbanized area that contains over 200,000 population according to the Bureau of the Census.

TOA – NYS Transit Operating Assistance.

TSM - Transportation System Management: strategies to improve travel through low-cost techniques such as signalization and channelization.

UAB – Urbanized Area Boundary: sometimes called the FHWA UAB. Boundary resulting from an MPO’s smoothing/adjusting of the Census UAZ

UPWP - Unified Planning Work Program: The annual or biennial document that guides the federally funded transportation planning activities within the MPO area.

USDOT - United States Department of Transportation

UZA – Urbanized Area Boundary: urbanized area boundary according to the Bureau of the Census.

VHD - Vehicle Hours of Delay: Measure of delay indicating the number of hours the traffic stream is delayed.

VMT - Vehicle Miles of Travel: One vehicle traveling one mile.

VOC - Volatile Organic Compounds: gaseous compounds made of carbon and hydrogen (used interchangeably with HC). VOCs come from vehicle exhaust, paint thinners, solvents, and other petroleum-based products. A number of exhausts VOCs are also toxic, with the potential to cause cancer.

4(f) - Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966: requires special effort to preserve public parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuge areas and historic sites.

- 96 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Notes

TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTNotes

1 23 CFR ' 450.104 Definitions.

2 23 CFR 450.334

3 Federal Register, May 1, 2002, page 21962.

4 Federal Register, July 8, 2002, page 45173.

5 There are 27 federally designated Heritage Areas, funded through the National Park Service and Department of the Interior by annual appropriations. The Hudson River Valley Institute (HRVI) at Marist College is the central hub for information about the region.

6 In honor of James Stuart, the king’s brother and the Duke of York. The Dutch had previously surrender the colony to him, had retaken it in 1673, and surrendered it permanently to the English in 1686.

7 The final cantonment of the army (about 10,000 soldiers) was at Newburgh. Washington, who wanted to go home to Virginia, stayed at Newburgh because of growing dissatisfaction among a large number of officers whose financial needs were being ignored by Congress. There were also rumors of a potential military rebellion by a small number of officers nominally headed by General Gates (the plot came to be known as the Newburgh Conspiracy). Washington convinced the officers that their sufferings and self-sacrifices were noble and would be well remembered down through history, even if many in Congress were not acting as such.

8 A small portion (Town of Lloyd) of Ulster County was included in the Poughkeepsie urbanized area.

9 23 CFR 450.104 Definitions. “The TMA designation applies to the entire metropolitan planning area(s).”

10 Dutchess: 280,150; Orange: 341,367; Ulster:177,749.

11 Formal designation occurred in 1974.

12 The abolishment of the HUD 701 program was not the sole reason for TSRPC=s demise, but it did provide the final impetus for Connecticut to dissociate itself from the compact.

13 New York Laws of 1982, Ch. 67 (amended 1982, Chap. 451); expired June 30, 1983.

14 The population used in the Federal apportionment formulas does not change.

15 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(37)

16 Visible advertising signs adjacent to the Interstate system and highways designated as part of the primary system on 6/1/91, as well as signs beyond 660 feet outside of urban area, are controlled. The section does not allow new sign permits beyond 660 feet of the right of way outside of the urban area. Changing the UAB, whether from growth or census definition, affects the number of billboards allowed along the freeways. If the boundary moves out, then new signs are allowed. If the boundary moves in, then FHWA and the States have the issue of whether to grandfather or remove existing signs. See 23 CFR § 750.704

17 23 U.S.C. 134(c)(2)

- 97 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Notes

18 23 U.S.C. 134(c)(1)

19 23 CFR 450.308(a)

20 The Ulster County Legislature and the Town of Lloyd shared one vote, and there were two rotating votes from Ulster County towns.

21 Chris left in 2005 for the position of Deputy Director, Calvert County (Maryland) Department of Planning and Zoning.

22 Quote by Ms. Kealy Salomon of PDCTC

23 Hhttp://www.co.ulster.ny.us/planning/tran.shtmlH

24 Hhttp://www.co.orange.ny.usH

25 Hhttp://www.dutchessny.gov/CountyGov/Departments/Planning/PLpdctcIndex.htmH

26 23 CFR 450.314

27 The total additional funding (PL and MPP) for the three MPOs amounts to approximately $100,000. PDCTC and OCTC have chosen not to add additional staff at this time, pending possible new mandates from Federal legislation. UCUC has decided to expend the additional funding on consultant services, primarily in connection with the development of the new Long Range Transportation Plan.

28 23 U.S.C. 134 (i)(1), as per SAFETEA_LU

29 Hhttp://www.ulstertransportationplan.orgH

30 23 CFR '450.322(b)(11)

31 The EPA conformity regulations attempt to capture the impacts of transportation projects that have a regional impact on emissions. Localized projects are classified as “exempt” – they are automatically considered to have small or negligible impacts on regional emissions (e.g., turning lanes, guardrail, resurfacing without widening, etc.). Any project not classified as exempt is considered as nonexempt. Typically, nonexempt are projects that add significant capacity to the transportation system and they must be specifically included in the air quality conformity analysis of the MPO’s TIP and Plan.

32 Connections 2025, Chapter 4, Financial Resources.

33 In NYSDOT Region 8, this allocation is distributed among the six urban counties (Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Ulster and Westchester) and the one rural county (Columbia)

34 23 U.S.C. 134 (j), as per SAFETEA_LU

35 23 CFR 450.324(e)

36 23 CFR 450.324(e)

37 134(h)(2)(B)(ii)]

38 23 USC 134(h)(7)(B)

39 Officially identified as Urbanized Area # 89.

- 98 - Mid-Hudson Valley TMA Planning Certification Review - 2005 Notes

40 23 U.S.C. 134(f)(1)(A-G) and (23 U.S.C. 135(c)(1)(A-G); 49 U.S.C. 5303(a)(1)(A-G), describes planning factors.

41 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations, signed by President Clinton on February 1, 1994.

42 EJ is concerned with issues as they impact both the individuals in the Title VI identified categories, plus the low-income sector, which was not covered by Title VI.

43 October 7, 1999.

44 23 CFR 450.308(a)

45 P.L. 107-230, Signed by President Bush on October 1, 2002. The waiver from transportation conformity applies to the entire NYMTC nonattainment region plus Putnam County, which is a member county of NYMTC.

46 New York–N. New Jersey–Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA

47 Of the total, $4.515 is set aside for projects to be identified.

48 Frequently Asked Questions: Applying 2000 Census Data to Urbanized and Urban Areas http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/faqa2cdt.htm#48

49 23 CFR 450.320(b)

50 23 CFR 500.109

- 99 -