Fredericksburg City Daniel Cole Spotsylvania County Chairman Stafford County Caroline County Paul Agnello King George County FAMPO Administrator
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA February 4, 2019 – 9:30 a.m. 406 Princess Anne Street, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401
1. Call to Order – Chairman Daniel Cole 2. Approval of the February 4, 2019 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Agenda 3. Approval of the January 7, 2019 TAC Meeting Minutes 4. Review of the January 28, 2019 Policy Committee Meeting 5. Public Comment Comments and questions from members of the public are welcome at this time. 6. FAMPO Administrator Report 7. Discussion Items a. Federal MPO Requirements – Mr. Paul Agnello i. Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan – Ms. Briana Hairfield a.) Draft Fiscal Year 2019 Joint GWRC/FAMPO Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan ii. Congestion Management Process – Ms. Kari Barber b. Federal Certification Review – Mr. Paul Agnello c. Lafayette Boulevard, Phase 1 – Mr. Paul Agnello i. Adopted Resolution 19-24, Approving the Scope and Budget for Consultant Services for the Phase 1, Transit Component of the Lafayette Boulevard Multimodal Transportation Study ii. Notice-to-Proceed d. SMART SCALE Round 3 Draft Results – Mr. Paul Agnello i. Innovation and Technology Transportation Fund Proposed Projects ii. Preliminary FY2020-2025 Commonwealth Transportation Fund (CTF) Six-Year Financial Plan Outlook iii. I-95 Permanent Count Locations in the Fredericksburg Region iv. SMART SCALE Round 3 Project Results Map e. FY2020-2026 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)/Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP)/Highway Improvement Program (HIP) Call for Projects – Mr. Paul Agnello i. FAMPO CMAQ/RSTP Project Information Form ii. CMAQ/RSTP Prioritization Methodology f. STARS Study: Route 1 Corridor Improvement Study – Mr. John Bentley g. FAMPO Fiscal Year 2019 Committee Meetings Calendar – Mr. Paul Agnello
406 Princess Anne Street (540) 373-2890 Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 FAX: (540) 899-4808 www.fampo.gwregion.org [email protected]
8. Correspondence 9. Staff Report 10. Member Reports 11. Adjourn TAC Meeting / Next Meeting, March 11, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
The Policy Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, and Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability or family status. Persons who require special accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act or persons who require translation services (free of charge) should contact the GWRC/FAMPO at 540 -373-2890 or [email protected] at least four days prior to the meeting. If hearing impaired, telephone 1-800-273-7545 (TDD).
La participación pública es solicitada sin distinción de raza, color, origen nacional, edad, sexo, religión, discapacidad o su estado familiar. Las personas que requieren alojamiento especial de acuerdo con el Americans with Disabilities Act, o personas que requieren servicios de traducción (libre de cargo) deben comunicarse con la GWRC / FAMPO al 540-373-2890 o [email protected] al menos dos días antes de la reunión. Personas con problemas auditivos, llama 800-273-7545 (TDD).
406 Princess Anne Street (540) 373-2890 Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 FAX: (540) 899-4808 www.fampo.gwregion.org [email protected] a `
3. Approval of the January 7, 2019 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes (ACTION ITEM)
FAMPO Technical Committee Meeting Minutes Summary January 7, 2019 http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/technicalcommittee.html
Members Present:
Dan Cole, Chair, Spotsylvania County Erik Nelson, City Fredericksburg Bassam Amin, City of Fredericksburg Craig Pennington, Caroline County Doug Morgan, Spotsylvania County Joey Hess, Stafford County Ciara Williams, DRPT Rodney White, FRED Leigh Anderson, GWRC Chuck Steigerwald, PRTC (Via Go-To-Meeting Call-In) Susan Gardner, VDOT Stephen Haynes, VDOT Sonali Soneji, VRE
Others Present:
Bryon Counsell, Stafford County Alex Owsiak, Stafford County
Staff Members Present:
Paul Agnello, FAMPO Briana Hairfield, FAMPO Kari Barber, FAMPO John Bentley, FAMPO Colin Cate, FAMPO JoAnna Roberson, GWRC
Call to Order
The FAMPO Technical Committee meeting was called to order at 9:33 a.m. by Chair, Mr. Dan Cole.
Approval of FAMPO Technical Committee Agenda
Upon request of Mr. Agnello, with all concurring, Discussion Item 7b was moved to occur prior to Discussion Item 7a.
1 January 07, 2019 – FAMPO Technical Committee Meeting Minute Summary
Approval of FAMPO Technical Committee Meeting Minutes of December 3rd, 2018
Upon motion by Mr. Nelson & seconded by Ms. Soneji, with all concurring, the minutes from the December 3rd TAC meeting were approved as submitted.
Review of FAMPO Policy Committee Meeting of December 10, 2018
Mr. Agnello advised that copies of the Policy Committee meeting from December 10th are not included in today’s agenda packet; however, the following are the meeting highlights:
Discussion occurred on the upcoming FAMPO federal certification review – this is scheduled to occur in Washington, DC in March of 2019 – Mr. Agnello advised that the Policy Committee requested FHWA to come to a meeting to explain the re-certification process in more detail – Mr. Agnello advised this presentation will occur from FHWA at the upcoming January 28th Policy Committee meeting & the meeting will begin at 7:15 p.m. Mr. Agnello advised that due to the large number of people expected to attend this meeting, the meeting place will be moved from the GWRC conference room to the VDOT Fredericksburg District Auditorium. Mr. Agnello relayed that GWRC will also be meeting this night at 6:00 p.m. in the same venue.
Discussion occurred on Smart Scale as a result of recent information provided from the State indicating that weekend data is already included within the analysis for project scoring – Mr. Agnello advised the weekend data is included in the K factor analysis & advised that Mr. Chad Tucker who is the VDOT Smart Scale expert from the Central Office will also be coming to provide a presentation at the upcoming January 28th Policy Committee meeting. Mr. Agnello advised that Round 3 Smart Scale application selections are expected to be received January 15th so Mr. Tucker will address any questions that may arise as a result of the projects that are selected.
Discussion occurred on FAMPO staffing issues – Mr. Agnello relayed that staff was given direction to interview & fill the vacant position from Mr. Nick Quint. Mr. Agnello stated the ad for this position has been posted & will end on January 11th. Direction was also given to FAMPO to hire an intern. Mr. Agnello relayed that 2 vacant & unfilled FAMPO positions still remain & these 2 positions will be discussed in greater detail at the upcoming January 28th meeting.
Public Comment – None
FAMPO Administrator Report
Mr. Agnello advised VDOT will be hosting a meeting on January 30th at James Monroe High School beginning at 5:00 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the northbound Rappahannock River Crossing project. 2 January 07, 2019 – FAMPO Technical Committee Meeting Minute Summary
Mr. Agnello advised staff has amended the FY2019 UPWP & it is currently out now for public review & public comments. To date, no public comments have been received.
Discussion Items
a.) VRE Summer Intern Projects – Ms. Sonali Soneji, VRE
Ms. Soneji advised that in the summer of 2018 VRE had 2 interns who completed a 6-week project on 2 separate VRE issues in regard to multimodal access to the VRE stations. Ms. Soneji relayed the first project provided data on multimodal boarding counts to the VRE stations. Ms. Soneji stated the data detailed a better & enhanced mapping methodology that provided more clarity in what VRE was currently utilizing. The data was compiled to determine how commuters get to a VRE station if they do not drive. Ms. Soneji advised the data showed that approximately 87% of commuters utilizing a VRE station do in fact drive to these locations. For the Fredericksburg VRE station, 76% persons surveyed drive & at Brooke 92% drive. Ms. Soneji stated that for the Fredericksburg VRE station, more commuter bus usage was incurred; with more walking to stations at the Manassas VRE station. Ms. Soneji stated the survey consisted of data compiled for the following 3 stations: Fredericksburg, Lorton & Woodbridge. Ms. Soneji advised that even though bus service is available to both the Lorton & Woodbridge stations that the usage was not as high as in Fredericksburg. Ms. Soneji also relayed that there are more commuters who are bicycling to the Fredericksburg station than to either the Lorton or Woodbridge stations. Ms. Soneji stated that the data showed that those who walk to the VRE stations live within a half-mile to the stations.
Mr. Agnello asked where the data came from. Ms. Soneji stated the data is from the VRE data used and has proven to be very effective. Ms. Gardner asked how the data was obtained. Ms. Soneji stated that online surveys were administered & these too were successful as they had approximately 60% to 70% responses submitted.
Ms. Soneji advised the second project compiled data to determine what can be learned from the 3 stations – what works well; what may need improvements/enhancements, etc. Ms. Soneji stated the Lorton VRE station is the best-case scenario & with the Spotsylvania station being the newest station, data was gathered here to see if there is a chance to do something different.
Ms. Soneji stated the Lorton station is the most mature station and receives a lot of federal employees who utilize VRE. Ms. Soneji relayed that Lorton also is accessible to military sites such as Fort Belvoir. Ms. Soneji stated the Lorton VRE station has larger origination & destination stops whereas the Spotsylvania station have those utilizing the station that come from the furthest to begin their pick-up points at the Spotsylvania VRE station.
Ms. Soneji advised that the increase in ridership at the Lorton station has continued to rise. In 1990, there was no station at Lorton. In 1997 the Lorton station materialized. Growth & utilization rates increased by 2002. Ms. Soneji stated that beginning in 2007, when this region had a surge of new marketplace commercial base; property was beginning to be re-developed after the closure of the Lorton
3 January 07, 2019 – FAMPO Technical Committee Meeting Minute Summary
Prison, etc. have all contributed to the Lorton VRE station being highly utilized & participation numbers continue to rise annually.
Ms. Soneji stated there were 4 goals set that VRE wants to achieve or continue achieving & these are as follows:
Ensure that VRE creates & meets goals To have continued ridership increase as housing needs increase Counties encourage developments by station sites Demand for service continually to increase
Ms. Soneji stated that when the Spotsylvania station opened in 2017, there was an increase of usage at this station & a slight decrease at both the Fredericksburg & Brooke stations. Mr. Morgan concurred that Spotsylvania County does have the thought plan in place for more development to occur in close proximities to the VRE station & zoning applications have been approved at this location. However, at this time, there are no designated site plans in place and/or moving forward but this is where the growth area is expected to rise.
Ms. Soneji thanked the committee for allowing her to update them on the VRE survey results as this could be something the entire region could benefit from in either making enhancements to existing VRE stations and/or for future station & park & ride lot constructions.
b.) Upcoming Launch of I-395 Commuter Choice Program - Mr. Chuck Steigerwald, PRTC
Mr. Steigerwald provided presentation on the I-395/95 Commuter Choice program that will be administered by PRTC. Mr. Steigerwald stated this program is early in its conception with a meeting between PRTC & NVTC scheduled for Friday, January 11th. Mr. Steigerwald stated this is the third year of I-66 funding that has been generated from the toll lanes being implemented on I-66. Mr. Steigerwald stated the I395-95 corridor funding will be cloned to the I-66 successes. Mr. Steigerwald stated the expected revenues the I395/95 corridor allocations will be $15m that will be paid from TransUrban with an expected annual 2.5% increase resulting in a $40m total funding to become available.
Mr. Steigerwald stated that the Commuter Choice program and Smart Scale are similar; however, different as well. Mr. Steigerwald stated one main difference is that the Commuter Choice program will be jointly administered with emphasis placed on the plan of building a program of projects whereas Smart Scale bases project acceptance on individual projects. Mr. Steigerwald also advised that Smart Scale evaluates each project submitted on a scoring percentile to obtain accepted projects. Mr. Steigerwald stated the I395/95 projects would involve more horse-trading efforts being implemented and will allow the administrators to move forward or push backward regional priorities as needed.
Mr. Steigerwald stated the Meeks ruling states that any revenue spent that utilizes toll road funding needs to show benefit to the toll lanes. Mr. Steigerwald stated when the 37 miles of express lanes opens on 395/95, projects need to reflect that they do impact travel & reduce congestion; however, do not necessarily need to have direct benefit to the corridor. 4 January 07, 2019 – FAMPO Technical Committee Meeting Minute Summary
Mr. Steigerwald advised the agreement between TransUrban & the Commonwealth is a 68-year agreement & the Toll Day One for I-395 express lanes is expected to occur in late October of 2019. Mr. Steigerwald stated that any jurisdiction within PRTC/NVTC are eligible applicants that includes transit agencies so VRE is eligible to submit projects for consideration. Mr. Steigerwald stated that eligible project types that would be considered are the following: new or enhanced local bus services; new or enhanced commuter bus services; park & ride lots/access; roadway improvements (corridor management & ITS); TSM (Transportation System Management) & TDM (Transportation Demand Management); etc.
MR. Steigerwald stated the program goals concur with those established by the Commonwealth & each year the administrators of the Commuter Choice program would define a set of regional priorities that would concur with the program goals. Mr. Steigerwald stated the program goals are as follows: to effectively move more people; to reduce congestion; to increase travel options; to enhance transportation connectivity options; & to improve transit service.
Mr. Steigerwald advised the current schedule is as follows: Initial applicant briefing at PRTC on January 11th at 10:00 a.m.; Call for projects in April of 2019; NVTC/PRTC Commission approval in October of 2019; CTB approval in October of 2019; & Projects then selected & approved by Toll Day One.
Mr. Steigerwald advised the initial briefing meeting on Friday will cover the following topics: an overview of the I395 Commuter Choice funding program; overview of the application & scoring processes; overview of working group roles/responsibilities; proposed schedule for initial round of projects; & overview of the program of projects & approval process.
Mr. Steigerwald reiterated that this program differs from Smart Scale in that the working group defines the projects & then seeks the political buy-in which then is submitted to the CTB. MR. Steigerwald stated that members of the working group will include PRTC, NVTC, jurisdictional representation, & representation from other transit agencies or entities.
Mr. Agnello thanked Mr. Steigerwald for the presentation made to the Technical Committee and advised that FAMPO looks forward to working with PRTC in moving forward with this new funding opportunity.
c.) Approval of Amended FY2019 Unified Planning Work Program – Paul Agnello
Mr. Agnello advised the FY2019 UPWP has been released for public comment & the public comment period runs from December 17th 2018 to January 17th 2019. Mr. Agnello stated that to date, no public comments have been received. Mr. Agnello asked for Technical Committee endorsement as it will be submitted to the Policy Committee at the upcoming January 28th meeting for action.
Upon motion by Mr. Nelson & seconded by Mr. Morgan, with all concurring, the draft FY2019 UPWP was endorsed by the FAMPO Technical Committee with a request that it be adopted by the Policy Committee at the upcoming January 28th meeting. 5 January 07, 2019 – FAMPO Technical Committee Meeting Minute Summary
d.) Lafayette Boulevard Study, Phase 1 – Paul Agnello
Mr. Agnello stated the Phase 1 study purpose for Lafayette Boulevard will involve a study of potential transit improvements for the Lafayette Boulevard Corridor to Route 1 in Spotsylvania County. Mr. Agnello stated the study will include improved accessibility for the Fredericksburg Amtrak/VRE station & planned Lee Hill Transfer station. The study will develop a prioritized list of projects for future funding considerations in the Smart Scale, CMAQ, RSTP, etc. funding sources. Mr. Agnello stated that Phase 1 is part of a multimodal study effort with Phase 2 focusing on potential highway & bike/ped improvements within the study area.
Mr. Agnello advised the Phase 1 FY2019 study has approved funding from a Technical Assistance Grant from DRPT. Mr. Agnello stated the deadline to utilize this funding source will expire on September 30, 2019 & cannot be used for any other existing regional projects. Mr. Agnello stated that staff is going to request through DRPT that a 6-month extension be considered to ensure the study does not have to be rushed and inadequately completed.
In regard to the Phase 2 overview & study, the purpose will be to conduct a study of potential highway & bike/ped improvements for the Lafayette Boulevard Corridor in coordination with Phase 1 Transit efforts that will include potential improvements to access to VRE/Amtrak commuter lots & stations; highway improvements to Lafayette Boulevard between Route 1 & Route 3 & bike/ped crossings at Route 3. Mr. Agnello stated this is a City request for RSTP FAMPO funding for $125k that was approved several years back for FY2020.
Mr. Agnello advised the study stakeholders will include the following: DRPT, City of Fredericksburg, FRED Transit, Spotsylvania County, VRE, GWRideConnect, & other interested FAMPO TAC members.
Mr. Agnello stated that recent & upcoming changes could impact the study efforts & these include the following: an interest in studying Fredericksburg VRE/Amtrak commuter parking needs; the results of the Round 3 Smart Scale selected projects by January 15th; etc.
Mr. Agnello advised that some projects which could be selected that could affect the study will include the following: Lafayette Boulevard roundabouts at Charles Street & Kenmore Avenue which would also include a new bus pullout near the VRE station; the Route 3 STARS project that will include improvements to the intersection at Lafayette Boulevard & Route 3 for an extended double left turn lanes; installation of lane reduction arrows on northbound at Lafayette Boulevard; installation of new raised medians between the VCR Trail & Lafayette Boulevard; FRED Transit Shelter/Stop improvements; etc. Mr. Agnello stated that potentially the region could utilize the I395 Commuter Choice program as an additional funding source as these projects would be of benefit to both FRED & VRE.
Mr. Agnello advised the study schedule & process has been approved by the FAMPO Policy Committee at its December meeting; however, also gave direction for FAMPO to do more of the study work in house to the extent possible (Mr. Agnello stated this is the purpose of preparing to hire a new FAMPO 6 January 07, 2019 – FAMPO Technical Committee Meeting Minute Summary
intern for work on this study). Mr. Agnello stated that staff plans to begin the study process in February & will utilize any/all existing data to include the I-95 Phase 2 Transit/TDM results; VRE studies/data, etc. Mr. Agnello asked that if any other locality studies are already available to please forward these to staff for utilization as well.
Ms. Soneji stated that VRE can provide ridership data and asked if the study would also gage current & future demands as well. Mr. Agnello concurred this would be a focus point with the study. Mr. Agnello asked Mr. White the projected time frame for the Lee Hill Transfer Station project. Mr. White stated this is an approximate $350,000 project and project construction is expected to begin in April of 2019. Mr. White advised once begun, the project is expected to take 4 months for completion. Ms. Anderson asked Mr. Nelson if the City is planning to also include designated cross walks along the corridor. Mr. Nelson concurred this would be a specific request from the City.
Ms. Gardner asked Mr. Agnello if we are looking at also making improvements at current/existing FRED stops. Ms. Gardner stated that she personally observes daily elderly & handicapped people who are waiting outside in unsheltered FRED bus stop areas in the Dollar General/Paul’s Bakery areas & a blind man that walks from the Sheets area to the Olde Greenwich area. Ms. Gardner asked if considerations would be given within the study to include handicapped & ADA access areas. Mr. Agnello stated this would also be a focal point of the proposed study efforts.
i. Lafayette Boulevard Study Map – Included in packet for review
ii. Resolution 19-17, Approving the use of FAMPO consultants to complete the Lafayette Boulevard Phase 1 study – in packet for review of Resolution approved at December Policy meeting
e.) Smart Scale Update – Paul Agnello
Mr. Agnello reiterated that the Round 3 Smart Scale approved applications will be released to the public by January 15th. Mr. Agnello stated that state-wide there are a lot of projects competing for the district grant funding. Mr. Agnello advised the project needs state-wide still exceed the amount of money that will be available for allocation.
Mr. Agnello advised that for the Fredericksburg District, 35 individual projects were submitted for consideration with a total cost of $493m with $800m total being estimated for allocations from Smart Scale Route 3.
Mr. Agnello stated that to date, the Fredericksburg District had zero projects screened out in Round 1; 3 screened out in Round 2 & 1 screened out in Round 3 which was the Gateway Boulevard project. Mr. Agnello advised this project may be eligible for new or different funding sources so potentially this project will be approved regardless of the Smart Scale Round 3 screen-out. Mr. Agnello stated the project was screened-out for Round 3 consideration due to project readiness. Mr. Agnello stated the project readiness category is more rigorous than the other scoring categories and this is the major factor for projects being screened-out state-wide.
7 January 07, 2019 – FAMPO Technical Committee Meeting Minute Summary
Mr. Agnello stated the next steps in the Smart Scale Round 3 process are as follows: January 15th – release of project scores from the CTB; February-April, development of Draft SYIP; & adoption of SYIP at June meeting.
f.) I-95 Study Update – Paul Agnello
Mr. Agnello advised copies of a letter that will be submitted to the FY2019 General Assembly is included for review in today’s agenda packet.
i. Chapter 741 Acts of the General Assembly Executive Summary
Mr. Agnello advised the letter to be submitted prior to January 9th of the opening of the FY2019 General Assembly is referring to Chapter 741 of the 2016 Acts of Assembly that directed VDOT & FAMPO to conduct a joint evaluation of traffic congestion between mile markers 145 (Stafford County) & 125 (Spotsylvania County) & to provide evaluation of alternative solutions that will address traffic congestion. Mr. Agnello stated these alternative solutions could include, but will not be limited too, extension of the I-95 Express Lanes further south.
Mr. Agnello stated that VDOT & FAMPO conducted a two-phased study that met the requirements of this legislation. Mr. Agnello stated the Phase 1 2016 study objective was to develop a 2040 master plan for I-95 that considered existing & future weekday & weekend travel concerns. Phase 1 relied on macroscopic analysis that utilized the region’s travel forecasting model.
Mr. Agnello relayed the Phase 2 2018 efforts were undertaken to provide detailed microscopic (VISSIM) operational analysis along the I-95 corridor to reveal potential choke points & operational problem areas not known at the macroscopic level. This study resulted in analysis for both near-term actions & long-term planning processes.
ii. INRIX Congestion Hotspot summary
Mr. Agnello stated the recent INRIX data confirms that the Washington, DC area is the worst hot spot in the county for traffic congestion. Mr. Agnello further stated the data also focused on Exit 133 in Stafford County has the worst travel conditions along the I-95 corridor.
g.) Joint GWRC/FAMPO Title VI Non-discrimination Plan Discussion – Briana Hairfield
Ms. Hairfield advised she is updating the joint GWRC/FAMPO Title VI Non-Discrimination Plan and this will be submitted by the end of February to the Technical Committee for review and comments. Ms. Hairfield advised FAMPO will be having a federal certification review in Washington, DC in March so she is just making sure all necessary updates have been made before the federal certification review. Ms. Hairfield advised the last Title VI plan was adopted in FY2016. Ms. Hairfield stated she regularly meets with stakeholders, residents, businesses, etc. to ensure that there is communication between FAMPO and the community it serves. Ms. Hairfield advised that the 2045 LRTP update will include more detailed demographics than what was included in the FY2016 plan. Ms. Hairfield
8 January 07, 2019 – FAMPO Technical Committee Meeting Minute Summary
reiterated that the region is not expecting anything negative to come from the March re-certification process but just wants to ensure that FAMPO remains in compliance.
h.) Federal Certification Review – Paul Agnello
Mr. Agnello advised that FAMPO will be under-going federal certification review in March. Mr. Agnello stated staff will be in Washington, DC for 1-3 days answering questions, providing documentations, etc. Mr. Agnello stated that due to the northern most portion of Stafford County, FAMPO is required to be in compliance with the Washington, DC certification process. Mr. Agnello stated that more information will be forthcoming & at this time, no specific date has been set for when the certification process will occur so at this time both the FAMPO Technical Committee & Transportation Advisory Committee meetings for the month of March will be cancelled.
Mr. Agnello stated the last certification review process occurred in FY2015 & there were no significant negative FAMPO ratings. Mr. Agnello advised this upcoming review process will involve a new risk based process & no other MPO has gone through the new review process to date. Mr. Agnello stated the FAMPO region will be the guinea pig for certification reviews with the new regulations included. Ms. Gardner asked if staff could ask questions prior to the re-certification date for specific documents/questions that will need to be answered so staff can have advance preparation time prior to attending the March session. Mr. Agnello advised that staff will be providing CLRP, TIP, LRTP, MOU’s, Title VI Plan, etc. for review & is hopeful to receive some preliminary guidance on what to expect.
i.) Resolution 19-22, HIP Funding Allocation Transfer to UPC 111753: Rte 1 at Potomac Creek Drive – Paul Agnello
Mr. Agnello advised that Resolution 19-22 is a request from VDOT to utilize $234,353 in FY2019 Highway Infrastructure Program (HIP) funding to be applied to the existing project at US Route 1/Potomac Creek in Stafford County. Ms. Garner advised this funding source was an unexpected surprise to the District and can only be used to fund National Highway System (NHS) highway projects. Ms. Gardner advised the current project has an estimated $238k funding deficit & this unexpected surplus brings the total project cost needed within $4,000. Ms. Gardner relayed that approval of funds being allocated accordingly would also preserve $234,353 in CMAQ/RSTP funds which would allow FAMPO to utilize for other projects.
Mr. Agnello asked Ms. Gardner if this is a one-time allocation. Ms. Gardner stated this is unknown at this time but the funding source is coming from the FAST Act & are funds that need to be used quickly.
Upon motion by Mr. Nelson and seconded by Mr. Hess, with all concurring, Resolution 19-22 was endorsed by the FAMPO Technical Committee with a request that it be approved by the Policy Committee at the upcoming January 28th meeting.
Staff Report: None
9 January 07, 2019 – FAMPO Technical Committee Meeting Minute Summary
Member Report:
City of Fredericksburg:
Mr. Nelson advised the City is looking forward to moving ahead with the upcoming Lafayette Boulevard Study as this corridor will complete the city’s major corridor network program.
DRPT:
Ms. Williams advised that DRPT is in the process of updating its TDP & that they have received the letter & documentation from FRED & the application process ends on February 1st. Ms. Williams advised the deadline for updates outside of transit updates is May 1st.
Adjourn
The January 7, 2019 FAMPO Technical Advisory Committee meeting was adjourned at 11:02 a.m. and the next meeting will be held on February 4, 2019.
10 January 07, 2019 – FAMPO Technical Committee Meeting Minute Summary a `
7. Discussion Items
a. Federal MPO Requirements - Mr. Paul Agnello
▪ – – – – – – –
▪
▪
1 a `
7. Discussion Items
ai. Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan - Ms. Briana Hairfield
▪ – – ▪ – ▪ ▪
2 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪
3 ▪
▪
4 “No person in the United States shall on the ground of race, color or national origin be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” (42 USC 2000d)
5 ▪
– –
–
– –
–
–
6 ▪ –
7 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪
▪ ▪
8 ▪ ▪
▪
▪ ▪
▪
9 ▪ ▪
▪
▪
10 APRIL 5, 2016: SEPTEMBER 27, 2017 2015 VDOT TITLE VI COMPLIANCE USDOT/VDOT FEDERAL CERTIFICATION REVIEW ASSURANCES REVIEW
11 a `
7. Discussion Items
a.) Draft Fiscal Year (FY)2019 Joint GWRC/FAMPO Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan George Washington Regional Commission Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan
Draft Document
January 2019 Update
George Washington Regional Commission Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 406 Princess Anne Street Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 540.373.2890 phone 540.899.4808i fax [email protected] www.fampo.gwregion.org FREDERICKSBURG AREA METROPLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
FAMPO Policy Committee Members:
Members of the Policy Committee are either elected officials or appointed by elected officials or agency administrators.
Matt Kelly City of Fredericksburg Voting Elected
William Withers City of Fredericksburg Voting Elected
Tim Baroody City of Fredericksburg Voting Elected
Mark Whitley City of Fredericksburg Voting Appointed (alternate)
Doug Fawcett City of Fredericksburg Voting Appointed (alternate)
David Ross Spotsylvania County Voting Elected
Tim McLaughlin Spotsylvania County Voting Elected
Kevin Marshall Spotsylvania County Voting Elected
Chris Spotsylvania County Voting Elected Yakabouski (alternate)
Mark Stafford County Voting Elected Dudenhefer
Cindy Shelton Stafford County Voting Elected
Wendy Maurer Stafford County Voting Elected
Alternate Meg Stafford County Voting Elected Bohmke
Thomas Coen Stafford County Voting Elected
ii
Marcie Parker Virginia Department of Voting Appointed Transportation
Michelle Virginia Department of Voting Appointed Shropshire Transportation (alternate)
Charles Potomac & Rappahannock Voting Appointed Steigerwald Transportation Commission
Betsy Massie Potomac & Rappahannock Voting Appointed (alternate #1) Transportation Commission
Cynthia Porter- Potomac & Rappahannock Voting Appointed Johnson Transportation (alternate #2) Commission
Todd Horsley Department of Rail & Voting Appointed Public Transportation
Jennifer Debruhl Department of Rail & Voting Appointed alternate Public Transportation
Ivan Rucker Federal Highway Voting Appointed Administration
John Jenkins King George County Non-Voting Appointed
Ruby Brabo King George County Non-Voting Appointed
Nancy Long Caroline County
Jeff Black Caroline County Non-Voting Appointed
TBD Commonwealth Non-Voting Appointed Transportation Board
David Swan Citizens Transportation Non-Voting Appointed Advisory Group
iii
Boards/Committees Policy Committee
Black or African American 2
White/Caucasian 26
Latino/Hispanic 0
American Indian or Alaska Native 0
Asian 0
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0
Other *Please list below 0
Totals 28
FAMPO Staff
FAMPO Staff
Paul Agnello FAMPO Administrator
Briana Hairfield Public Involvement Coordinator Title VI Coordinator
John Bentley Regional Planner
Kari Barber Regional Planner
Colin Cate Regional Planner
iv
Matthew Lehane Intern
Vacant Principal Planner
Vacant Regional Planner
Vacant Senior Planner
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 3
a. Relationship between GWRC and FAMPO 5 b. Policy Statement 8 c. Title VI Assurances 9
II. ORGANIZATION AND COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES 11
a. Responsibilities of the Title VI Coordinator 11
b. FAMPO/GWRC Roles and Members 13
c. Transportation Planning Documents 16
III. TITLE VI IMPLEMENTATION 20
a. Communication and Participation 20
b. Education and Training 21
c. What is Public Involvement? 21
d. Public Involvement Strategies 23
e. Environmental Justice Plan 36
f. Limited English Proficiency Plan 39
g. Public Participation Plan 49
h. Consultant Contract Policy 50
i. Accommodation Policy 51
IV. NONDISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT PROCEDURES 51
a. Nondiscrimination Clauses 51
b. Discrimination Complaint Procedure 54
1
V. APPENDICES
APPENDIX I: ORGANIZATION CHART
APPENDIX II: NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
APPENDIX III: DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT FORM
APPENDIX IV: REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
APPENDIX V: LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ANALYSIS
APPENDIX VI: SIGNED POLICY STATEMENT AND ASSURANCES
APPENDIX VII: SIGNED RESOLUTIONS
APPENDIX VIII: LEP POPULATION AGGREGATIONS MAP
APPENDIX IX “I SPEAK” CARDS
APPENDIX X: DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY
APPENDIX XI: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION COMMENT PROCESS FOR KEY PLANNING DOCUMENTS
APPENDIX XII: AGENCIES INVOLVED IN REGIONAL TRANSPORATION PLANNING
APPENDIX XIII: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT EVALUATION MEAUSURES
APPENDIX XIV: GLOSSARY
APPENDIX XV: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
2
INTRODUCTION
TITLE VI NONDISCRIMINATION PLAN
This document will serve as the Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan for the George Washington Regional Commission and the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits federal agencies and sub-recipients of federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race, color or national origin, against participants or clients of programs that receive Federal funding. Succeeding laws and Presidential Executive Orders added sex, age, income status and disability to the criteria for which discrimination is prohibited. This plan addresses prohibition of discrimination as mandated by Title VI as well as by the authorities listed in the following section.
In addition to nondiscrimination, this plan provides information regarding two Presidential Executive Orders concerning fairness and inclusiveness. Executive Order 12898 mandates that federal agencies address equity and fairness or Environmental Justice toward low- income and minority populations. Executive Order 13166 mandates that federal agencies ensure that people who have limited English Proficiency (LEP) have meaningful access to federally-conducted and/or funded programs and activities.
Detailed Environmental Justice procedures and outreach strategies for minority, low-income and LEP populations to comply with Executive Orders 1298 and 13166 are included in the GWRC Public Participation Plan.
GEORGE WASHINGTON REGIONAL COMMISSION
The George Washington Regional Commission (GWRC) is the planning district Commission for Virginia Planning District 16. The GWRC was created in 1961 as a result of Virginia’s Regional Cooperation Act. The purpose of Planning District Commissions, as set out in the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-4207, is "...to encourage and facilitate local government cooperation and state-local cooperation in addressing on a regional basis problems of greater than local significance. The cooperation resulting from this chapter is intended to facilitate the recognition and analysis of regional opportunities and take account of regional influences in planning and implementing public policies and services.
The role of the GWRC is to assist its five member localities with regional issues such as growth, the environment, transportation and housing. Other roles of the Commission include grant application assistance, management services for program implementation,
3
land use planning services, GIS mapping and collecting/maintaining demographic and socioeconomic data for the region.
Planning District 16’s member jurisdictions include the City of Fredericksburg as well as the counties of Caroline, King George, Spotsylvania and Stafford. The George Washington Region, with a population of more than 360,000 (Weldon Cooper), is the fastest-growing region in Virginia and the fourth most populous of the Commonwealth’s 21 planning districts.
FREDERICKSBURG AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962 created the federal requirement for urban transportation planning. The Act required, as a condition attached to federal transportation financial assistance, that transportation projects in urbanized areas of 50,000 or more in population be based on a continuing, comprehensive, urban transportation planning process undertaken cooperatively by the states and local governments. The Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO), created in 1992 as a result of the Fredericksburg, Virginia Urbanized Area’s population surpassing 50,000, is the metropolitan planning organization for the Fredericksburg Region. FAMPO serves the City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County and Stafford County.
FAMPO’s mission is to provide a cooperative, continuous and comprehensive ("3C") transportation planning process to build regional agreement on transportation investments that balance roadway, public transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and other transportation needs and support regional land use, economic, and environmental goals for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. Special emphasis is placed on providing equal access to a variety of transportation choices and effective public involvement in the transportation planning process.
FAMPO develops plans and programs that the federal government must approve in order for federal-aid transportation funds to flow to the Fredericksburg Region. In particular, federal law and regulations relating to the work of MPOs require the FAMPO to adopt a Fiscally Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan (CLRP) and a short-term, four-year, Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). FAMPO must also ensure compliance with other federal laws and requirements, including federal air quality conformity requirements and planning factors specified in the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. FAMPO conducts an extensive public involvement process, and provides a 30-day public comment period before taking action on plans and programs.
4
GWRC/FAMPO RELATIONSHIP
The GWRC serves as the administrative and financial agent for the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) under an agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Although the FAMPO is an independent body, its staff is provided by the GWRC but operationally function as FAMPO staff reporting to the FAMPO. FAMPO administers a Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) in accordance with the requirements of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. 114-94).
5
TITLE VI AND OTHER NONDISCRIMATION AUTHORITIES
Title VI “declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy.” Any organization that receives Federal funds is bound to comply with Title VI.
Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, other nondiscrimination laws have been enacted to expand the range and scope of Title VI coverage and applicability:
The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 prohibits unfair and inequitable treatment of persons displaced or whose property will be acquired as a result of federal and federal‐aid programs and projects.
The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973 states that no person shall, on the grounds of sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal assistance under this title or carried on under this title.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 states that no qualified disabled person shall, solely by reason of his disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity that receives or benefits from federal financial assistance. This Act protects qualified individuals from discrimination based on their disability.
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 states that no person shall, on the basis of age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. This act prohibits age discrimination in Federally Assisted Programs.
The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, P.L.100‐209 amends Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to make it clear that discrimination is prohibited throughout an entire agency if any part of the agency receives federal assistance.
The American Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodation, communications, and governmental activities.
23 CFR Part 200 – Federal Highway Administration regulations: Title VI Program and Related Statutes – Implementation and Review Procedures.
6
49 CFR Part 21 – Nondiscrimination in Federally‐Assisted Programs.
23 CFR Part 450 – Federal Highway Administration planning regulations.
23 CFR Part 771 – Federal Highway Administration regulations, Environmental Impact Procedures.
In addition to the laws listed above, two executive orders must be taken into account when ensuring compliance with federal nondiscrimination laws, directives, and mandates:
Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice (February 11, 1994), a presidential mandate to address equity and fairness toward low‐income and minority persons/population. Executive Order 12898 organized and explained the federal government’s commitment to promote Environmental Justice. Each federal agency was directed to review its procedures and make environmental justice part of its mission. U.S. DOT Order 5610.2 (April 15, 1997) expanded upon Executive Order 12898 requirements and describes process for incorporating Environmental Justice principles into DOT programs, policies, and activities. FHWA Order 6640.23 (December 2, 1998) – FHWA Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low‐Income Populations.
Executive Order 13166 – Limited English Proficiency (August 11, 2000), a presidential directive to federal agencies to ensure people who have limited English proficiency have meaningful access to services. Executive Order 13166 ensures federal agencies and their recipients to improve access for persons with Limited English Proficiency to federally‐ conducted and federally assisted programs and activities.
7
GWRC/FAMPO POLICY STATEMENT
As sub-recipients of Federal funds, the GWRC and FAMPO are committed to assuring that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (PL 100.259), be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity. The GWRC and FAMPO further assure that every effort will be made to ensure nondiscrimination in all of their programs and activities whether those programs and activities are federally funded or not. In the event that the GWRC or FAMPO distribute federal-aid funds to another governmental entity, Title VI language will be included in all written agreements and will be monitored for compliance. The GWRC Title VI Coordinator is responsible for initiating and monitoring Title VI activities, overseeing the preparation of required reports and overseeing other GWRC responsibilities as required by Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 200 and Title 49 CFR Part 21.
The GWRC Executive Director is responsible for ensuring implementation of the organization’s Nondiscrimination Plan. The Title VI Coordinator, under supervision of the Executive Director, is responsible for coordinating the overall administration of the Nondiscrimination Plan and assurances. The authorities that provide guidance on Title VI and related nondiscrimination laws, regulations, and executive orders can be found in the “Title VI and Other Nondiscrimination Authorities” section of this document.
This plan was developed to document the efforts the GWRC and FAMPO undertake on a continual basis to ensure compliance with Title VI and related statutes regarding nondiscrimination and Environmental Justice. Refer to Appendix VI for the signed Policy Statement and Assurances.
8
TITLE VI ASSURANCES
The George Washington Regional Commission (“Recipient”), HEREBY AGREES THAT as a condition to receiving any federal financial assistance, it will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, 42 USC 2000d, et seq.( “Act”), and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations and other pertinent directives, to the end that in accordance with the Act, Regulations, and other pertinent directives, no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the Recipient receives federal financial assistance, and HEREBY GIVES ASSURANCE THAT it will promptly take any measures necessary to effectuate this agreement.
More specifically and without limiting the above general assurance, the Recipient hereby gives the following specific assurances regarding its federal aid assisted programs:
1. That the Recipient agrees that each “program” and each “facility”, as defined in the Regulations, will be (with regard to a “program”) conducted or will be (with regard to a “facility”) operated in compliance with all requirements imposed by, or pursuant to, the Regulations. 2. That the Recipient shall insert the following notification in all solicitations for bids for work or material subject to the Regulations made in connection with federal aid assisted programs, and in adapted form in all proposals for negotiated agreements:
“The George Washington Regional Commission, in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 78 Stat. 252, 42 USC 2000d, et seq., and Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations hereby notifies all bidders that it will affirmatively ensure that any contract entered pursuant to this advertisement will afford minority business enterprises full opportunity to submit bids in response to this invitation, and will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, sex or national origin in consideration for an award.”
3. That where the Recipient receives federal financial assistance to construct a facility, or part of a facility, the Assurance shall extend to the entire facility and facilities operated in connection therewith. 4. That where the Recipient received federal financial assistance in the form, or for the acquisition of real property, or an interest in real property, the Assurance shall extend rights to space on, over, or under such property. 5. That the Recipient shall include the appropriate clauses regarding a covenant running with the land, in any future deeds, leases, permits, licenses and similar agreements
9
entered into by the Recipient with other parties: (a) for the subsequent transfer of real property acquired or improved under federal aid-assisted programs; and (b) for the construction or use of, or access to space on, over, or under real property acquired or improved under federal aid-assisted programs. 6. That this Assurance obligates the Recipient for the period during which federal financial assistance is extended to the program, or is in the form of personal property, or real property or interest therein or structures or improvements thereon, in which case the Assurance obligates the Recipient or any transferee for the longer of the following periods: (a) the period during which the property is used for a purpose for which the federal financial assistance is extended, or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits; or (b) the period during which the Recipient retains ownership or possession of the property. 7. The Recipient shall provide for such methods of administration for the program, as are found by the official to whom s/he delegates specific authority, to give reasonable guarantee that it, other recipients, sub-grantees, contractors, subcontractors, transferees, successors in interest, and other participants of federal financial assistance under such program will comply with all requirements imposed or pursuant to the Act, the Regulations, and this Assurance. 8. The Recipient agrees that the United States has a right to seek judicial endorsement with regard to any matter arising under the Act, the Regulations, and this Assurance.
THIS ASSURANCE is given in consideration of, and for the purpose of obtaining, any and all federal grants, loans, contracts, property, discounts or other federal financial assistance extended after the date hereof to the Recipient and is binding on it, other recipients, contractors, subcontractors, transferees, successors in interest, and other participants in the Federal Aid Highway Program. The person or persons whose signatures appear below are authorized to sign this Assurance on behalf of the Recipient.
Refer to Appendix VII for the following adopted resolutions:
• FAMPO Resolution 19- – Recommending that the George Washington Regional Commission Adopt the Joint GWRC/FAMPO Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan • GWRC Resolution 19- – Adoption of the Joint GWRC/FAMPO Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan • FAMPO Resolution 19- - Adoption of the Joint GWRC/FAMPO Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan
10
ORGANIZATION AND COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILTIES
TITLE VI COORDINATOR
The GWRC/FAMPO Title VI Coordinator is generally responsible for overseeing compliance with applicable nondiscrimination authorities in each of the metropolitan transportation planning and programming areas. Other staff members are expected to provide data and technical support to assist this staff member perform his or her tasks.
Responsibilities of the Title VI Coordinator
The Title VI Coordinator is responsible for supervising staff activities pertaining to nondiscrimination regulations and procedures set forth in federal guidance and in accordance with the GWRC/FAMPO Nondiscrimination Plan. In support of this, the Title VI Coordinator will:
• Identify, investigate, and work to eliminate discrimination when found to exist. • Process discrimination complaints received by the GWRC/FAMPO. Any individual may exercise his or her right to file a complaint with the GWRC/FAMPO, if that person believes that he or she or any other program beneficiaries have been subjected to discrimination, in their receipt of benefits/services or on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, age, or income status. The GWRC/FAMPO will make a concerted effort to resolve complaints in accordance with Discrimination Complaint Procedures. • Meet with appropriate staff members to monitor and discuss progress, implementation, and compliance issues related to the GWRC/FAMPO Nondiscrimination Plan. • Periodically review the GWRC/FAMPO Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan to assess whether administrative procedures are effective, staffing is appropriate, and adequate resources are available to ensure compliance. • Work with staff involved with consultant contracts and the sub‐recipient found to not be noncompliant, to resolve the deficiency status and write a remedial action if necessary, as described in the Consultant Contracts section of this document. • Review important issues related to nondiscrimination with the Executive Director, as needed. • Maintain a list of Interpretation Service Providers. • Assess communication strategies and address additional language needs when needed.
11
• Disseminate information related to the nondiscrimination authorities. The GWRC/FAMPO Nondiscrimination Plan is to be disseminated to GWRC/FAMPO employees, contractors, the general public, and any of GWRC/FAMPO services. • Coordinate with appropriate federal, state, and regional entities to periodically provide GWRC/FAMPO employees with training opportunities regarding nondiscrimination.
ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The GWRC and FAMPO ensure compliance with all applicable nondiscrimination authorities and with regard to the following:
• Planning and Programming • Communications and Public Participation • Environmental Justice • Consultant Contracts • Education and Training
In addition to the responsibilities listed in this section, GWRC/FAMPO staff responsibilities may include reviewing and updating Title VI guidelines and procedures for the GWRC/FAMPO Nondiscrimination Plan, and incorporating Title VI‐related language and provisions into GWRC documents, as appropriate.
PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING
As previously stated on page 5, the FAMPO, which is staffed by the GWRC, is the metropolitan planning organization for the Fredericksburg Region. FAMPO serves the City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County and Stafford County and is responsible for developing long and short-range transportation plans and programs to provide efficient, comprehensive transportation services. FAMPO coordinates its planning and programming processes and with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), area transit providers, local governments as well as the FHWA and FTA.
GWRC staff is responsible for evaluating and monitoring compliance with applicable non- discrimination authorities in all aspects of the planning and programming processes which include:
12
• Ensuring that all aspects of FAMPO’s planning and programming processes are in compliance with all of the Title VI Non-Discrimination Authorities. • Develop and maintain a detailed demographic profile of the Region using the most current and suitable statistical information pertaining to race, nationality, income levels • Make the demographic profile publicly available to member agencies via the FAMPO website or by hard copy, if requested. • Continue that staff makes concerted, documented efforts to involve members of all of the Region’s social, economic and ethnic groups in the planning and programming processes.
THE FAMPO ORGANIZATION
The Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) is a federally- designated transportation planning agency for the City of Fredericksburg, and the counties of Spotsylvania and Stafford, and serves as a regional partnership among the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), transit agencies, local elected leadership, local planning and public works directors, the business community and citizens in the planning area. The FAMPO region has a population of about 305,000.
The following highlights the structure of MPO and the roles of the committees engaged in the transportation planning process. Please visit FAMPO’s website for current organization and committee information at www.fampo.gwregion.org.
GEORGE WASHINGTON REGIONAL COMMISSION (GWRC)
The George Washington Regional Commission (GWRC) is the planning district commission for the more than 360,000 residents of Planning District 16 which includes the City of Fredericksburg and the counties of Caroline, King George, Spotsylvania and Stafford. Formerly known as the Rappahannock Area Development Commission (RADCO), GWRC has served Planning District 16 for more than 50 years. The principal functions include regional and environmental planning, energy-conservation, hazard mitigation and rural transportation planning programs; and operation of GWRideConnect, the region’s nationally-recognized rideshare brokerage that facilitates and promotes vanpooling and transit use. To learn more about GWRC, visit the GWRC website at www.gwregion.org.
FAMPO carries out the regional transportation planning process in partnership with the George Washington Regional Commission (GWRC). GWRC is the fiscal agent of FAMPO and
13
is responsible for maintaining accounting records for state and federal funds consistent with current state and federal requirements.
FAMPO STRUCTURE
The following highlights FAMPO’s structure and the roles of the various committees engaged in the transportation planning process. Visit the FAMPO website for current committee membership and meeting information.
POLICY COMMITTEE (PC)
The Policy Committee (PC) is the policy decision-making board comprised of eleven elected and non-elected voting members. Caroline County, King George County and the Fredericksburg District Representative of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) serve as ex officio members. The PC acts as the authority on all regional transportation planning matters and ensures that all entities engaged in transportation related activities conform to statutory requirements. The PC works with the public, local governments, organizations, state and federal government agencies, elected and non-elected officials and community groups to develop regional transportation plans.
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established to advise and to provide technical engineering and planning expertise during the transportation planning process. The TAC consists primarily of engineers, planners, and other professionals who represent the region’s local governments and transportation/transit agencies and works with the FAMPO staff to develop planning and programming recommendations for the Policy Committee.
CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE CTAC)
The Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) is an advisory group to the Policy Committee and consists of citizens appointed by the Policy Committee, local governments and local organizations. The CTAC functions to encourage citizen participation during the transportation planning process and to advise the Policy Committee of the citizen’s perspective on transportation planning, programs and projects.
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN COMMITTEE (BPC)
14
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee (BPC) is comprised of citizens, planners, biking and walking organizations and was established to provide guidance to the Policy Committee on issues related to the non-motorized modes of transportation. This committee also provides recommendations for the encouragement and education of the public regarding bicycle and pedestrian routes, safety and other issues.
PUBLIC TRANSIT ADVISORY BOARD (PTAB)
The PTAB is appointed and managed by the City of Fredericksburg. This committee provides FAMPO with citizen, private and public partnership input on the public transit needs of the City of Fredericksburg and the region. The PTAB evaluates the operational and financial performance of the region’s public transit system, and advises the Fredericksburg City Council on any public transit issues that the PTAB considers appropriate for City Council consideration. To learn more about the PTAB, visit the City of Fredericksburg website.
FAMPO STAFF
A professional staff provides information and support to the FAMPO Committees, prepares the documents and plans produced as part of the transportation planning process, facilitates public outreach activities to gain input and feedback, and manages the planning process.
All committee meetings are open to the public and citizens are encouraged to attend and to participate. The best decisions are made with a fully-informed and involved public.
15
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DOCUMENTS
The Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) leads in the development of the region’s key transportation planning documents that identify transportation programs, funding alternatives and projects. FAMPO works closely with city and county transportation planning departments to develop regional transportation plans and programs, which are then forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for inclusion in the overall statewide transportation plan. VDOT programs these projects for funding and development along with others all over the state, in priority order.
With public involvement being integral to good transportation planning, it is very important that the public and federal, state and local partners are involved early in the transportation planning process as it affects the quality of life of every citizen within our region. Early involvement will ensure that the concerns and issues are identified and addressed in the development of the policy, programs, and projects being proposed in their communities.
The following are brief descriptions of the key transportation planning documents developed through FAMPO.
AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS (AQCA)
All projects that are determined to add capacity (i.e., adding a travel lane) to the road network must undergo an air quality analysis as part of the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) processes. Capacity adding projects cannot exceed the amount of allowable emissions as stated in the Statewide Transportation Improvements Plan (SIP). The AQCA is updated along with and included as part of the LRTP and TIP.
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PLAN (BPP)
The primary goals of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan are to preserve and enhance the bicycling and pedestrian network, to improve the safety, attractiveness and overall viability of cycling and walking as legitimate transportation alternatives to the transportation system. The BPP is reviewed and updated every four years in conjunction with the update of the LRTP.
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS (CMP)
16
A Congestion Management Process (CMP) presents a systematic process for managing traffic congestion and enhancing the mobility of persons and goods. It includes alternative strategies for alleviating congestion and enhancing the mobility of persons and goods to levels that meet state and local needs. At the core, a CMP should include a data collection and monitoring system, a range of strategies for addressing congestion, performance measures or criteria for identifying when action is needed, and a system for prioritizing which congestion management strategies would be most effective.
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN (LEP)
Individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English can be Limited English Proficient (LEP). These individuals are entitled to language assistance under Title VI or the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The LEP Plan outlines how to identify persons who may need language assistance, the ways in which assistance may be provided, staff training that may be required, and how to notify LEP individuals that assistance is available. The goal of the LEP plan is to ensure that all residents in the George Washington Region can, to the fullest extent practicable, participate in the transportation planning and decision-making process.
LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (LRTP)
The LRTP is an evaluation of the current status and future needs of our regional transportation system. The LRTP includes anticipated improvements for all modes of travel over the next 20-30 years including streets and highways, public transportation/transit, railroads, aviation, and bicycle and pedestrian needs.
Development of the LRTP is a collaborative effort using input provided from regional government, agencies, citizens, committees, and staff. The projects included in the LRTP will ultimately fold into a regional Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). Updating the LRTP every four years ensures that regional demographics, economic trends and travel demands are reviewed and that needed projects are approved and programmed for funding and construction.
17
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN (PPP)
The purpose of the Public Participation Plan (PPP) is to serve as a guide in the development of outreach methods that encourage the public’s involvement in the regional transportation planning process. The PPP outlines the strategies utilized to provide and receive information from the public on the transportation planning and programming process including projects, studies, plans and committee actions. The PPP takes into account Title VI populations and limited English proficiency populations. The PPP is updated every three years.
TITLE VI NONDISCRIMINATION PLAN
The Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan assures that no person shall on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (P.L. 100.259), be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any agency sponsored program or activity. Nor shall sex, age, or disability stand in the way of fair treatment of all individuals.
REGIONAL TRANSIT POLICY PLAN (RTPP)
The Regional Transit Policy Plan (RTPP) was an integral part in the development of the Transit Needs Plan for the LRTP. The RTPP examined a large number of transit improvement scenarios, representing a range of choices, from relatively low levels of transit service to large expansion that could make transit a more integral component of the region’s transportation system.
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP)
The Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) is a financially constrained, four-year list of transportation projects programmed for the FAMPO study area. The TIP is updated annually and includes projects on the Interstate, Primary, Urban and Secondary Highway Systems. It also includes safety, transportation enhancement and public transportation projects. The TIP may also include funding for feasibility studies, preliminary engineering activities and environmental impact studies.
UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM (UPWP)
18
The Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) serves as the annual work program for FAMPO. It provides details of transportation-related planning activities that FAMPO intends to accomplish during the program year utilizing federal, state and local resources. The UPWP further contains a compendium of related transportation planning known to be undertaken by other jurisdictions in the region. It also delineates responsibilities and procedures for carrying out the cooperative transportation planning process. Included in the UPWP is a budget, which details how each funding source will be utilized. This permits the UPWP to act as a grant application for federal funds and also as a management tool for directing the staff activities throughout the year. The UPWP is reviewed and updated annually.
OTHER TRANSPORTATION STUDIES
Corridor Studies, Special Projects, Projects of Regional Significance:
FAMPO may also become involved in local and regional projects and studies that do not fall within the core planning documents. In these cases, FAMPO staff coordinates with interested and affected parties (local jurisdictions, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), residents, organizations) on specific projects and studies affecting the region.
19
TITLE VI IMPLEMENTATION
COMMUNICATIONS AND PARTICIPATION
Transportation systems can shape an area’s growth patterns, economic vitality and quality of life. The region’s transportation system provides for the mobility of people and goods, and influences patterns of growth and economic activity through accessibility to land. Furthermore, the performance of this system affects such public policy concerns as air quality, environmental resource consumption, social equity, “smart growth,” economic development, safety and security.
FAMPO is committed to reaching out to all members of the community for their input, and embraces the fact that all people and communities should receive equal protection under environmental, health, employment, housing, transportation and civil rights laws. As the agency responsible for coordinating the regional transportation planning process, FAMPO makes sure that all segments of the population are given the opportunity to become involved with the planning process. These groups are a rich source of ideas and can improve transportation not only for themselves, but also for the entire community. In order to improve opportunities to reach all segments of the population, greater outreach emphasis will be given to low income, minority, elderly, disabled, low literacy, limited English proficiency and non‐English speaking individuals, and the organizations that advocate and/or provide services on their behalf.
FAMPO seeks public input through a variety of techniques, including public notices, workshops, public hearings, comment periods, website, email, surveys, media relations, and the use of committees and work groups, with citizen representatives as appointed. The specific public outreach techniques employed by FAMPO will vary by the individual planning tasks. The FAMPO Public Participation Plan contains specific information and strategies regarding outreach and communications.
GWRC staff is responsible for evaluating and monitoring compliance with applicable non- discrimination authorities in all aspects of the public participation and process which include:
• Develop and dispense information on nondiscrimination and FAMPO programs to the public • Assure that all public participation activities and communications adhere to applicable nondiscrimination authorities.
20
• Provide services, upon advance notice, for individuals with special needs such as deaf interpreters, translators and Braille documents for public meetings. • Hold all events at locations that meet ADA Standards. • Include the Nondiscrimination Notice to the Public (found in Appendix II) in relevant press releases and on the GWRC/FAMPO websites.
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
In order to improve and maintain nondiscrimination compliance, all nondiscrimination training will be coordinated with FHWA and VDOT. Training will be made available to all GWRC staff on an ongoing basis. This will ensure that all staff members are up-to-date on all nondiscrimination statutes.
The Title VI Coordinator is responsible for overseeing the following activities regarding education and training:
• Maintain and updating of the GWRC/FAMPO Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan. • Dissemination of information to staff regarding nondiscrimination training programs and opportunities. • Follow and oversee staff participation in nondiscrimination training.
WHAT IS PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT?
Public involvement is the process of including a broad spectrum of stakeholders and citizens in the transportation decision making process from inception to completion. Public involvement benefits all participants by bringing a variety of viewpoints to the transportation planning process. The earlier the public is involved in the planning process, the better the plans can address the community’s needs for today and the future.
Public participation is integral to FAMPO's transportation planning success. With citizen input, it is possible to make a long-lasting contribution to our region's economic vitality and quality of life. Public involvement is more than an agency requirement and more than a means of fulfilling a statutory obligation – it is central to good decision-making.
The fundamental objective of public involvement programs is to ensure that the ideas, concerns and issues of everyone with a stake in transportation decisions are identified and addressed in the development of the policies, programs, and projects being proposed in their communities.
21
FAMPO regularly evaluates and refines the public involvement process to provide a wide variety of opportunities for people to get involved in transportation planning. Details are listed in the Public Involvement Goals and Strategies section of this document.
GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
FAMPO carries out the following practices to provide an effective communication process with the public. Strategies for each guideline will be explained in the next section. These guidelines have been derived from Federal Regulation Code 450.316 and 450.212 for Metropolitan Planning processes.
PROVIDE TIMELY INFORMATION
Provide timely information about transportation issues and processes to citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of transportation agencies, private providers of transportation, other interested parties and segments of the community affected by transportation plans, programs and projects.
PROVIDE REASONABLE PUBLIC ACCESS
Provide reasonable public access to technical and policy information used in the development of the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), and other appropriate transportation plans and projects, and to conduct open public meetings where matters related to transportation programs are being considered.
GIVE ADEQUATE PUBLIC NOTICE
Give adequate public notice of public participation activities that allow time for public review and comment on key transportation planning documents. If the final draft of any transportation plan differs significantly from the one available for public comment by FAMPO and raises new material issues of which interested parties could not reasonably have foreseen, an additional opportunity for public comment on the revised plan shall be made available.
PROVIDE A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Provide a public comment period of not less than 30 calendar days prior to adoption of the key transportation planning document, non-technical amendments and other appropriate transportation plans and projects with the exception of providing a public comment period
22
of 45 calendar days prior to the adoption of this Public Participation Plan (PPP) and non- technical amendments.
RESPOND IN WRITING
Respond in writing, when applicable, to public input. When significant written and oral comments are received on the draft transportation plan, a report of the disposition of comments shall be made part of the final plan.
SOLICIT THE NEEDS OF THE TRADITIONALLY UNDERSERVED
Environmental justice and public involvement complement one another in ensuring the fair and equitable participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process. For transportation, Title VI means assessing the nature, extent and incidence of probable impacts, both negative and positive, by soliciting the needs of those traditionally underserved.
Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act legislation requires that the MPO shall provide reasonable opportunities for affected public agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services, private providers of transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, and other interested parties with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the transportation planning process via Section [23 U.S.C. 134(i)(6)(A)]
COORDINATE THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS
Coordinate the public involvement process with local and statewide public participation processes wherever possible, to enhance public consideration on related issues, plans and programs. This coordinated effort reduces redundancies and costs.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT STRATEGIES
STRATEGY 1
Provide timely and continuous information about transportation issues and processes to interested parties and stakeholders.
23
TACTICS
1.1 Interested Parties/Mailing List (Master Contact Database): FAMPO maintains a master contact database. This database is used during the transportation planning process to disseminate timely information to interested parties to ensure reasonable opportunities to review and provide comments. Interested parties follow the guidelines recommended by Federal Regulations (23 USC 134 (i)(5) – Participation by Interested Parties. The database is updated periodically and includes participants from FAMPO studies and projects as well as those who request to be added the FAMPO website or social media outlets.
1.2 Website: www.fampo.gwregion.org - FAMPO maintains a website that is compliant with Section 508 of the Americans with Disabilities Act for disabled users and includes a translation feature for non-English speakers. In 2011, the website received over 20,000 documented web hits. The FAMPO website Accessibility Policy and Document Accessibility Notice are outlined below:
• ACCESSIBILITY POLICY: Through its Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is promoting a high degree of Web access for people with disabilities. In coordination with organizations around the world, WAI is pursuing Web accessibility through five primary areas of work: technology, guidelines, tools, education and outreach, and research and development. To help support the WAI, the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization’s website, www.fampo.gwregion.org/, is complying with W3C guidelines for Web accessibility. • DOCUMENT ACCESSIBILITY POLICY: Hard copy documents are available for those unable to access or view the downloadable files on this website. Simply contact the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization by phone at 540.373.2890, by e-mail at [email protected], by fax at 540.899.4808, or by mail at:
FAMPO 406 Princess Anne Street Fredericksburg, VA 22401
To ensure the public receives timely and continuous information, the website provides the most current and accurate transportation planning information available and uses visualization techniques as appropriate. The website is a comprehensive repository for documents and data, and includes the following tools and information:
24
• Automatic translation to languages other than English • Ability to increase font size for easier reading • Contact information (mailing address, phone, fax or email) • Current MPO committee membership • Meeting notices, calendars and agendas • Transportation planning documents • Public comment form(s) • Links to related agencies • Social networking opportunities • Really Simple Syndication (RSS) Feed direct updates
1.3 Social Media: FAMPO has added two social media outreach opportunities through Facebook (www.facebook.com/FAMPO1VA and Twitter (twitter.com/FAMPO_VA).
1.4 Public Notices: The public is notified on a timely basis of upcoming committee meetings, public meetings, public hearings and public comment periods through various outreach methods. These outreach methods may include local, regional and military newspaper, FAMPO website, electronic mail, social media, RSS feed, internet advertising and/or on local government television bulletin boards. Public notices will include the following Title VI Statement in both English and Spanish. (The Title VI Statement can also be found in Appendix I)
Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability or family status. Persons who require special accommodations under the American with Disabilities Act or persons who require translation services (free of charge) should contact the GWRC/FAMPO at 540-373-2890 or [email protected] at least two days prior to the meeting. If hearing impaired, telephone 1-800-552-7917 (TTY) or 7-1-1.
La participación pública es solicitada sin distinción de raza, color, origen nacional, edad, sexo, religión, discapacidad o su estado familiar. Las personas que requieren alojamiento especial de acuerdo con el American with Disabilities Act, o personas que requieren servicios de traducción (libre de cargo) deben comunicarse con la GWRC / FAMPO al 540-373-2890 o [email protected] al menos dos días antes de la reunión. Personas con problemas auditivos, llama 1-800-552-7917 (TTY) o 7-1-1.
1.5 Press Releases/Media Relations: Press releases are developed and distributed to local, regional and military media outlets. Topics for releases include notices for
25
public meetings, public hearings, updates to transportation planning studies and general FAMPO news.
1.6 Electronic Mail: Electronic mail is used to disseminate notifications regarding upcoming committee meetings, project-related public meetings, public hearings, updates to planning studies as well as informational updates regarding transportation legislation.
1.7 Postcards/Direct Mail: Budget allowing, meeting notices in the form of a postcard mailer may be utilized prior to key public forums, meetings and hearings. It is cost prohibitive to use this method for mass outreach in the greater George Washington region. Postcards are distributed to those in a specific, targeted area either through the master contact database or through a targeted mailing list received from local planning departments.
1.8 Informational Flyers: Informational flyers are developed as appropriate to provide information about FAMPO planning activities. These flyers are distributed to specifically targeted groups and businesses in their region/neighborhood with information announcing projects and studies, public meetings, and review and comment opportunities.
1.9 Signage: Budget allowing, the renting of directional signage may be used to announce public meetings. These signs may be posted outside meeting locations at least two days prior to the meeting date, e.g., sandwich boards, marquees, electronic signage.
1.10 Informational Brochures: Throughout the year, informational brochures are distributed at public meetings, speaker bureaus and inserted into the GWRideConnect Information Packets placed in the regional libraries and real estate agencies.
1.11 Speakers Bureau: Upon request and with a reasonable notice, FAMPO staff members are available to provide general and project-specific information to community interest groups.
1.12 Public Meetings: Public meeting formats such as workshops, seminars, and exhibits can provide vital information directly to the public to help inform and educate. Meeting locations are ADA accessible and, if applicable, are accessible to transit.
26
1.13 Public Hearings: Public hearings are scheduled during the Policy Committee meetings to give the public a more formal opportunity to provide their comments on transportation planning documents, projects and studies.
STRATEGY 2
Provide reasonable public access to technical and policy information used in the development of plans and projects.
TACTICS
2.1 FAMPO Document Library: All final publications of planning documents, projects and studies are available to view in house at the FAMPO office and electronically via the FAMPO website.
2.2 Community Buildings: During all public comment periods, draft planning documents are available at regional libraries and local government planning offices.
2.3 Public Meetings and Hearings: Public meetings and hearings are used as a conduit to release information in the development of studies, plans and amendments as appropriate. Public meetings are held at various locations throughout the region. Whenever feasible, public meetings are held at a site(s) and time(s) convenient to potentially affected citizens. FAMPO conducts public meetings and/or public hearings during the updates key transportation planning documents. Spanish translators and deaf interpreters are made available upon request.
2.4 Copies of Reports/Technical Information: The public is invited to request copies of final reports/documents (other than proprietary software or legally confidential data). These requests are handled as follows:
• Relevant reports and technical information will be distributed “free of charge” during FAMPO committee meetings. • Requests for relevant reports and technical information not distributed during a FAMPO committee meeting can be provided on an “at costs” basis which would include the costs of duplication and cost of staff time associated with the duplication process. • Reports and technical information are made available for electronic download via the FAMPO website. • Upon request, Spanish translation of certain materials is available at a nominal fee.
27
2.5 Committee Meeting Access: The public is encouraged to attend the FAMPO Committee meetings. The public is notified via newspaper, FAMPO website and social media. Each meeting provides the opportunity for the public to provide comments or express concerns under a reasonable time constraint. Comments are recorded, reviewed and considered. Appropriate feedback is given to the individual/group.
2.6 Internet Access: The FAMPO website provides public access to planning documents, meeting notifications, comment opportunities, etc. For those who do not have the internet access at home, the public can access the online information at many regional libraries.
2.7 Visualization Techniques: Visualization techniques are used during to strengthen public participation in the planning and project delivery process. These techniques include the FAMPO website, facebook and printed materials. Examples include the use of charts, graphs, maps, artist renderings and/or computer simulations.
2.8 Public Access for the Traditionally Underserved and for Persons with Disabilities: Recognizing that certain members of the public may have difficulty attending on-site meetings, the following arrangements shall be observed:
• Print and electronic meeting notifications will include information for those who may need special assistance to attend. • Meetings will be held at American with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible locations. • Meetings will be held on or near transit routes whenever possible.
See Strategy 4 for additional insight on reaching the underserved populations.
STRATEGY 3
Provide a reasonable time to comment prior to the adoption of any plan or non-technical amendment.
TACTICS
3.1 Comment periods
• United Planning Work Program (UPWP) – 30 days • Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) – 30 days • Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) – 30 days • Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan – 30 days
28
• Limited English Proficiency Plan (LEP) (included in PPP) – 30 days • LRTP, TIP, UPWP, Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan, and LEP Non-Technical Amendments – 15 to 30 days, as appropriate • Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan (BPP) (included in LRTP) – 30 days • Regional Transit Plan (included in LRTP) – 30 days • Public Participation Plan (PPP) & Non-Technical Amendments – 45 days
3.2 Public Notice of Comment Periods, Public Meetings and Public Hearings:
• Print Notifications: Print notifications will be placed at the start of the comment period and then again 1 to 2 weeks prior to the end of the comment period, before a public meeting or public hearing. • Electronic Notifications: Electronic notifications will be sent via electronic mail or Constant Contact at the start of the comment period. • Website: Website notifications will be posted on the FAMPO website at the start of the comment period in the Public Notice and Planning Document webpages. • Social Media: Social media notifications will be posted at the start of the comment period and then again 1 to 2 weeks prior to the end of the comment period or before a public meeting or public hearing. • Really Simple Syndication (RSS) Feeds: RSS feeds will be posted at the start of the comment period and then again 1 to 2 weeks prior to the end of the comment period or before a public meeting or public hearing.
3.3 Offer Methods for Providing Public Input During Comment Periods:
• Public meetings • Public hearings • Briefings, stakeholder interviews, or speaker bureaus • Comment forms • Electronic Mail • Fax • 711 Virginia Relay Service
3.4 Additional Opportunities for Comment: If significant public comments are received on the final draft transportation plan or program made available to the public for review and comment, an additional public comment opportunity will be provided on the revised changes. FAMPO staff shall determine when changes to the transportation plan or program are significant and warrant. A report on the disposition of comments shall be included in the final transportation planning
29
document or program. Responses from FAMPO staff are usually made within 1-2 days.
STRATEGY 4
This strategy has been developed in coordination with FAMPO’s Title VI Nondiscrimination and Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plans which detail how FAMPO intends to reach out to and consider the needs of the traditionally underserved citizens. The goal of this strategy is to encourage and solicit the involvement of these groups. These special groups include older adults, persons with disabilities, ethnic groups and low income populations.
TACTICS
4.1 General Outreach to Traditionally Underserved Citizens
• Community Resource Directory/Contact List: FAMPO maintains a contact list for local and regional organizations (including local/regional chapters of national organizations) whose membership is drawn principally or largely from underrepresented communities and organizations. • Demographic Survey: This informal survey is used to track profile/background information of public meeting and hearing attendees during the transportation planning process. The demographic survey reviews age, ethnic background, income, and special needs to give FAMPO staff a better understand of the diversity and needs of those participating in transportation planning as well as serving as an indicator of who is not being represented. (See Appendix 4) • Title VI/LEP Focus Group: During the next Public Participation Plan (PPP) update, FAMPO may convene the Title VI Focus Group. The Title VI Focus Group provided valuable input and consisted of individuals of underrepresented communities during this PPP update. These focus groups are a way to remain in contact with these groups, to solicit their input on FAMPO communication and outreach to underrepresented groups and to evaluate and enhance Public Participation, Title VI Nondiscrimination and Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plans. • Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) Membership: The Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) encourages citizen participation during the transportation planning process and advises the Policy Committee of the citizen’s perspective on transportation planning, programs and projects. FAMPO continuously strives to include individuals from underrepresented communities in the TAC membership. Their inclusion serves to guide FAMPO in Title VI and LEP activities and also to serve as ambassadors to their communities.
30
• Postcards/Direct Mail Notifications: For projects and studies affecting a specific area, FAMPO may choose to notify citizens and businesses via postcards or direct mail of public comment opportunities. • Speakers Bureau: Upon request and with a reasonable notice, FAMPO staff members are available to provide general and project-specific information to special interest groups. • Community Informational Events: Occasionally, FAMPO staff may bring informational materials and visualization tools to community events.
4.2 Outreach to Older Adult Citizens
• Partnering Activities: Outreach efforts may be coordinated with agencies and organizations to help reach the older adult citizens. • Informational/Educational Materials: Informational and educational materials may be distributed to senior housing and recreation centers. • Website: The font on the FAMPO website can be increased or decreased as needed.
4.3 Outreach to Low Income Citizens
• Partnering Activities: Outreach efforts may be coordinated with human service agencies to reach the low income households. • Flyers: Flyers may be posted in libraries, community centers, subsidized housing, and grocery stores, etc. that are patronized by low income citizens.
4.4 Outreach to Minority Citizens
• Newspaper Advertisements: Newspaper advertisements may be translated into Spanish and placed in local, regional and military newspapers for public comment periods, public meetings and public hearing notices. • Press Releases: Press releases will be distributed to minority media outlets and translated as appropriate. • Email Notifications: By utilizing the Title VI Community Resources Directory, email notifications will be sent to minority leaders who will in turn forward the information to their groups. (Translate message as feasible and necessary). • Partnering Activities: Coordinate information-sharing with minority/human service agencies and other advocate organizations to distribute information and meeting notices.
4.5 Outreach to Persons with Disabilities
31
• Accessible Formats: In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations, key planning documents will be made available upon request in larger print during the public review period. • Website Font: FAMPO maintains a website that is compliant with Section 508 of the Americans with Disabilities Act for disabled users including a feature to increase font size. • Public Meetings: Public meetings will be held at ADA accessible locations. • Public Notice Statement: Print and electronic advertisements/notifications will include information for those who may need special assistance to attend.
“Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability or family status. Persons who require special accommodations under the American with Disabilities Act or persons who require translation services (free of charge) should contact the GWRC/FAMPO at 540-373-2890 or [email protected] at least two days prior to the meeting. If hearing impaired, please telephone 1-800-552-7917 (TTY) or 711.”
4.6 Outreach to Limited English Proficient (LEP) Citizens
• Translation/Interpreter Assistance: All outreach materials and notifications will state that language services are available free of charge, upon request. When an interpreter is needed, in person or on the telephone, and the FAMPO staff has exhausted the above option, staff will first attempt to determine what language is required. • Interpretation Services: All outreach materials and notifications will state that language services are available free of charge, upon request When an interpreter is needed, in person or on the telephone, and the FAMPO staff has exhausted the above options, staff will first attempt to determine what language is required. • Public Notice Statement: Public Notices will include the following Title VI Statement in both English and Spanish.
Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability or family status. Persons who require special accommodations under the American with Disabilities Act or persons who require translation services (free of charge) should contact the GWRC/FAMPO at 540-373-2890 or [email protected] at least two days prior to the meeting. If hearing impaired, telephone 1-800-552-7917 (TTY) or 711).
La participación pública es solicitada sin distinción de raza, color, origen nacional, edad, sexo, religión, discapacidad o su estado familiar. Las personas que requieren
32
alojamiento especial de acuerdo con el American with Disabilities Act, o personas que requieren servicios de traducción (libre de cargo) deben comunicarse con la GWRC / FAMPO al 540-373-2890 o [email protected] al menos dos días antes de la reunión. Personas con problemas auditivos, llama 1-800-552-7917 (TTY) o 711).
• Website Translation Tool: Powered by Google™, the FAMPO website includes a user-friendly tool available for easy webpage translations which allows users to view HTML content in 52 languages. The service provides automated computer translations that are only an approximation of the websites' original content. • Materials/Document Translation: FAMPO will provide one page summaries the Long Range Transportation Plan, The Transportation Improvement Program, the Public Participation Plan, and other key documents available in Spanish. These summaries may be presented in alternative formats such as fact sheets, flyers or brochures. • Language Identification Cards: If needed, the FAMPO staff may use language identification cards to aid in the communication of LEP individual. These cards, as shown in the appendix and developed by the U.S. Census Bureau, have the phrase “Mark this box if you read or speak [name of language]” translated into 38 different languages. The Language Identification flashcards will be made available at public workshops/hearings and at the front desk of the GWRC/FAMPO office. Once a language is identified, the Title VI/LEP Coordinator or relevant point of contact will be notified to assess feasible translation or oral interpretation assistance. (See Appendix VII) • Partnering Activities: Using the Community Resource Guide, FAMPO will partner with community-based organizations and other stakeholders to inform LEP individuals of MPO services, public information, and comment opportunities. • Spanish Language Outreach Materials: When available and upon request, FAMPO may use already prepared translated educational materials from organizations such as federal, state, and local transportation agencies. • Newspaper Public Notices: Meeting notices will be translated into Spanish and placed in area newspapers when available. (Please note that Hispanic publications are currently not available in the region.) • Email Notifications: Use the Community Resource Directory to reach out to key Limited English Proficiency (LEP) groups and organizations. • Press Releases: Press releases may be translated into Spanish and distributed to print and broadcast Hispanic media outlets as available in the region. (Please note that Hispanic publications are currently not available in the region.)
33
• Flyers: Translate and post meeting notice flyers in areas identified in the Community Resource Directory. Flyers can also be distributed as PDF attachments to email messages. • Comment Forms: FAMPO comment form will be translated into Spanish upon request. • Social Media Posts: Posts will be made to FAMPO’s Facebook and Twitter accounts in Spanish for key informational opportunities such as public meeting/hearing announcements. • Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Availability: The LEP will be shared with community-based organizations and other stakeholders.
4.7 Outreach to Transportation Disadvantaged
• Partnering Activities: Partnerships and regular communication with special interest groups (human service organizations, area agencies on aging, transportation service providers, and other social service agencies) will enhance the public outreach to those without access to an automobile. • Public Meetings: Public meetings will be held on or near transit routes whenever possible.
STRATEGY 5
Coordinate the PPP with local, regional and statewide public participation processes wherever possible to enhance public consideration of the issues, plans and programs, and reduce redundancy and cost.
TACTICS
5.1 Partnering: FAMPO will work with public involvement representatives from VDOT and local governments to coordinate and publicly share information.
5.2 Assistance: Whenever feasible, FAMPO will assist VDOT, local governments and other agencies in the implementation of public involvement techniques for planning and other studies, including major corridor/ feasibility studies, project development and environmental studies and other documents to support planning.
STRATEGY 6
34
Evaluate and improve public participation and maintain and make readily available documentation of its public participation activities and procedures.
Under the provisions of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1962 and the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, FAMPO has the responsibilities for developing and carrying out a comprehensive, continuing and coordinated transportation planning process in the Fredericksburg Urbanized Area.
The Joint Planning regulations issued by the FTA and FHWA on October 29, 1993 require that “the State and the MPO shall annually certify to FHWA and FTA that the planning process is addressing the major issues facing the area and is being conducted in accordance with all applicable requirements…”.
In 2010, FAMPO underwent a Federal Certification Review resulting in recommendations and corrective actions issued by the Federal Team. It was recommended that FAMPO develop a procedural guidance for verifying the process and implementation of the self- certification process resulting in the development of a yearly self-certification schedule and checklist. On July 18, 2011, FAMPO adopted a self-certification process which established a procedural guidance for verifying the process and implementation of the yearly self- certification. (Resolution No. 11-27). In 2015, FAMPO underwent another Federal Certification Review where no corrective actions were issued and FAMPO was found in compliance.
TACTICS
6.1 Continuous Monitoring: FAMPO staff will evaluate public involvement techniques after every public meeting and hearing. Citizen surveys during meetings and via the Internet will solicit opinions to improve public participation techniques.
6.2 Annual Review: As part of the self-certification process adopted in June 2011, FAMPO established a procedural guidance for verifying the process and implementation of self-certification.
6.3 Full Review: Every three years, a thorough review will conducted of the PPP. Any changes to the PPP shall include at a forty-five day public comment period.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
On February 11, 1994, President William J. Clinton signed Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to: Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low‐Income
35
Populations, which directs federal agencies to develop strategies to help them identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low‐income populations. Executive Order 12898 was also intended to provide minority and low‐income communities with access to public information and opportunities for public participation in matters relating to human health or the environment.
Adverse effects as described in Executive Order 12898 is the totality of significant individual or cumulative human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, which may include, but are not limited to:
1. Bodily impairment, infirmity, illness or death. 2. Air, noise, and water pollution and soil contamination. 3. Destruction or disruption of: • man‐made or natural resources • aesthetic values • community cohesion or a community’s economic vitality • the availability of public and private facilities and services 4. Adverse employment effects. 5. Displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or non‐profit organizations. 6. Increased traffic congestion, isolation, exclusion or separation of minority or low‐ income individuals within a given community or from the broader community. 7. Denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits of GWRC/FAMPO programs, policies, or activities.
Environmental Justice joins social and environmental movements by addressing the unequal environmental burden often borne by minority and low‐income populations. The right to a safe, healthy, productive, and sustainable environment for all, where "environment" is considered in its totality to include the ecological (biological), physical (natural and built), social, political, aesthetic, and economic environments.
Environmental Justice helps to ensure that programs, policies, and activities that have adverse effects on communities do not affect minority and low‐income populations disproportionately. To prevent discrimination as described in Executive Order 12898, the Federal Highway Administration Order 6640.23 Order to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low‐Income Populations dated December 2, 1998 defines minority and low‐income individuals and populations as follows:
Minority – a person who is African-American, Hispanic, American Indian and Alaskan Native or Asian American:
36
• African-American – a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. • Hispanic – a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. • American Indian and Alaskan Native – a person having origins in any of the original people of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition. • Asian American – a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific islands.
Minority Population – any readily identifiable groups of minority persons who live in geographic proximity, and if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who will be similarly affected by a proposed program, policy or activity.
Low‐Income – a person whose household income is at or below the United States Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines.
Low‐Income Population – any readily identifiable group of low‐income persons who live in geographic proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who would be similarly affected by a proposed program, policy or activity.
Environmental Justice Provisions are incorporated through all phases of the transportation planning and programming process.
Environmental Justice includes the identification and assessment of disproportionately high and adverse effects of programs, policies or activities on low-income and minority groups. Within the realm of transportation planning, Environmental Justice considers the distribution of costs and benefits from capital transportation investments and policies among various segments of society. GWRC/FAMPO staff is responsible for monitoring and evaluating all applicable nondiscrimination authorities, including Environmental Justice, in all aspects of its planning and programming which include:
• Prepare and maintain a demographic profile of the Region using the most current statistical information available on race, income and other relevant data. • Ensure all aspects of the efforts to address Environmental Justice are in compliance with nondiscrimination authorities. • Undertake an Environmental Justice analysis of proposed projects during Long-Range Transportation Plan Updates.
37
• Disseminate information to the public on the processes used and findings of any analyses.
The FAMPO Public Participation Plan includes Environmental Justice guidelines that outline outreach strategies for minority, low-income and LEP populations during the development and implementation of all FAMPO programs and planning efforts.
38
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN
INTRODUCTION
The George Washington Regional Commission (GWRC) is the planning district commission for Virginia Planning District 16. The GWRC was created in 1961 as a result of Virginia’s Regional Cooperation Act. The purpose of Planning District Commission is “to…encourage and facilitate local government cooperation and state-local cooperation in addressing regional basis problems for greater than local significance.”
The role of the GWRC is to assist its five member localities with regional issues such as growth, the environment, transportation, and housing. Other roles of the Commission include grant application assistance, GIS mapping, and collecting/maintaining demographic and socioeconomic data for the GW Region. The GW Region’s member jurisdictions include the City of Fredericksburg as well as the counties of Caroline, King George, Spotsylvania, and Stafford.
The Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) was created in 1992 as a result of the Fredericksburg, Virginia Urbanized Area’s population surpassing 50,000. It is a transportation policy-making board responsible for planning and prioritizing transportation projects and funding allocation in the George Washington Region. FAMPO serves the City of Fredericksburg and the counties of Spotsylvania and Stafford.
FAMPO works with the public, planning organizations, government agencies, transit agencies, elected officials, and community groups to develop transportation plans and programs through a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive (3-C) planning process. The planning process guides the use of federal and state dollars spent on existing and future transportation projects and programs. The Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan plays an important part in that process. It ensures individuals with Limited English Proficiency have meaningful access to the transportation process.
FAMPO has developed this Limited English Proficiency Plan (LEP) to help identify reasonable steps to provide language assistance for LEP persons seeking meaningful access to FAMPO services as required by EXECUTIVE ORDER 13166. It was prepared in accordance with TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000D, ET SEQ., and its implementing regulations provide that no person shall be subject to discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity that receives federal financial assistance.
39
This plan details procedures on how to identify a person who may need language assistance, the way in which assistance may be provided, training staff, how to notify LEP persons that assistance is available, and information for future plan updates.
On August 11, 2000, President William J. Clinton signed Executive Order 13166: Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency. The Executive Order requires federal agencies to examine the services they provide, identify any need for services to those with limited English proficiency (LEP), and develop and implement a system to provide those services so LEP persons can have meaningful access to them. The Executive Order also requires that federal agencies work to ensure that recipients of federal financial assistance provide meaningful access to their LEP applicants and beneficiaries.
Individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, speak, write or understand English can be limited English proficient, or “LEP.” For an LEP individual, language can present a barrier to accessing benefits and services, understanding and exercising important rights, complying with applicable responsibilities, or understanding other information provided by federally funded programs and activities. These individuals may be entitled to language assistance at no cost to them with respect to a particular type of service, benefit, or encounter.
The United States Department of Transportation guidelines require that recipients of federal financial assistance provide “meaningful access to programs and activities” by giving LEP persons adequate and understandable information and allowing them to participate in programs and activities, where appropriate. Recipients of federal funds must take reasonable steps to remove barriers for LEP individuals. While designed to be a flexible and fact‐dependent standard, the starting point is an individualized assessment that balances the following four factors:
1. Demographics: number and/or proportion of LEP persons served and languages spoken in service area. 2. Frequency: rate of contact with service or program. 3. Importance: nature and importance of program/service to people’s lives. 4. Resources: available resources, including language assistance services.
The FAMPO Public Participation Plan (PPP) includes LEP guidelines that outline outreach strategies for LEP populations during the development and implementation of all FAMPO programs and planning efforts. Policy Statement and Assurances
BACKGROUND
40
The Limited English Proficiency Plan addresses TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. In 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the failure to ensure meaningful opportunity for national origin minorities, with limited-English proficiency, to participate in a federally funded program violates Title VI (Federal-Aid Recipient Programs & Activities) regulations. Additionally, requirements are outlined in EXECUTIVE ORDER 13166: IMPROVING ACCESS TO SERVICE FOR PERSONS WITH LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY signed on August 11, 2000. Its purpose is to ensure accessibility to programs and services to eligible persons who have limited proficiency in the English language.
Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) published POLICY GUIDANCE CONCERNING RECIPIENTS’ RESPONSIBILITIES TO LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT PERSONS in the December 14, 2005 Federal Register VOLUME 70; NUMBER 239. The guidance explicitly identifies Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) as organizations that must follow this guidance. The final Limited English Proficiency Plan must be consistent with the fundamental mission of the organization, though not unduly burdening the organization.
WHO IS A LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT PERSON?
Individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English can be limited English proficient, or “LEP”. The U.S. Census Bureau does not define limited English proficiency or non-limited English proficient populations. It reports data based on the four categories of English-speaking ability; very well, well, not well, and not at all.
DETERMINING THE NEED OF LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY
As a recipient of federal funds, FAMPO must take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to the information and services it provides. As noted in the FEDERAL REGISTER, VOLUME 70; NUMBER 239 ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2005, there are four factors to consider when determining “reasonable steps.” This is known as “THE FOUR-FACTOR ANALYSIS” and is outlined below:
Factor 1 - The number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or likely to encounter an MPO program, activity, or service.
Factor 2 - The frequency with which LEP individuals come in contact with an MPO programs, activity, or service.
41
Factor 3 - The nature and importance of the program, activity, or service provided by the MPO to LEP community.
Factor 4 - The resources available to the MPO and overall costs.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) policy guidance gives recipients of federal funds substantial flexibility in determining what language assistance is appropriate based on a local assessment of the four factors listed above. The following is an assessment of need in the FAMPO Region in relation to the four factors and the transportation planning process.
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY SELF ASSESSMENT
FAMPO has assessed its programs and services using the following four (4) factor analysis:
Factor 1 - The number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or likely to encounter an MPO program, activity, or service.
The planning area of FAMPO includes the City of Fredericksburg, and the counties of Spotsylvania and Stafford.
The first step included the collection of demographic data on the number of LEP persons in the GW Region who are eligible to be served, likely to be served, or likely to be encountered by the MPO through participation in the transportation planning process.
It should be noted that for our planning purposes, people that speak English “less than very well” are included in the analysis. Further, only the top four language groups are examined.
The table below is derived from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2015 American Community Survey. The table reflects the number and percent of LEP persons 5 years and over, both by the LEP population total and by language in the GW Region. (LEP Person: Person that speaks English “less than very well”)
Table 1 shows that the LEP persons within the GW Region area, 2.19% speak Spanish at home, making this the most significant language group as a percentage of population. Those persons who speak Other Indo-European Languages and Asian/Pacific Island Languages at 0.51% and 0.65%, respectively, are the next common languages spoken by the area’s LEP population.
42
TABLE 1: The TOP Three Languages Spoken at Home in the GW Region by LEP Persons
(U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 - 2015 American Community Survey)
Population Number Percentage LEP Persons LEP Persons LEP Persons 5 years of LEP of LEP who speak who speak who speak and older Persons Persons Spanish Other Indo- Asian and European Pacific Island Languages Languages
Total Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent
324,003 11,487 3.55% 7,104 2.19% 1,657 0.51% 2,095 0.65%
The Limited English Proficiency Population Aggregations shows that the LEP population for the GW Region is 3.55% with the largest concentration of LEP individuals residing in the City of Fredericksburg at 4.74%. The other four localities follow close behind with Stafford County at 4.40%, Spotsylvania County at 3.38%, Caroline County at 1.58% and King George County at 0.67%. (See Appendix VIII)
Factor 2 - The frequency with which LEP individuals come in contract with an MPO programs, activity, or service.
The four-factor analysis identified Spanish as the most significant language spoken by the LEP population in the GW Region. The size of the LRP population in this region will likely continue to increase and, as a result, the probability of increased future contact with FAMPO. To date, FAMPO has not received any formal requests by LEP individuals for language translation of any document nor for an interpreter at any public meeting. Public notices in both English and Spanish have been provided for various planning and programming activities.
FAMPO conducts regular board meetings, advisory committee meetings, public workshops and public hearings throughout the year. The main source of potential contact between the MPO and LEP persons have been the community outreach, the MPO’s website and social media. As a result, the frequency of contact is difficult to anticipate.
FAMPO anticipates the development of a web-based interactive map that will provide the identification of Title VI/Environmental Justice populations that would be useful in identifying effective public involvement strategies.
Factor 3 - The nature and importance of the program, activity, or service provided by the MPO to LEP community.
43
The MPO uses federal funds to plan transportation projects, and therefore, does not include any direct service or program that requires vital, immediate or emergency assistance, such as medical treatment or services for basic needs. The MPO does not conduct activities which required activities such as applications, interviews or other activities prior to participation in its program or events. Involvement by any citizen with FAMPO or its committees is voluntary.
However, the FAMPO must ensure that all segments of the population, including LEP persons, have been involved or have had the opportunity to be involved in the transportation planning process to be consistent with the goal of the Federal Environmental Justice program and policy.
The impact of proposed transportation investments on underserved and underrepresented population groups is part of the evaluation process in use of federal funds in THREE MAJOR AREAS for the MPO.
• The Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) outlines tasks to be performed in the upcoming year. • The four-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a program or schedule of short-range transportation improvements and activities intended to be implemented through a combination of Federal, State, and local funding. • The Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) provides direction for transportation investments out to 20 years in the future.
Inclusive public participation is a priority consideration in other MPO plans, studies and programs as well. The impacts of transportation improvements resulting from these planning activities have an impact on all residents. Understanding and continued involvement are encouraged throughout the process. The MPO is concerned with input from all stakeholders, and every effort is taken to make the planning process as inclusive as possible. The use of the web-based interactive mapping tool will allow the MPO staff to identify concentrations of particular populations for use in effective public involvement outreach planning and programming activities.
Factor 4 - The resources available to the MPO and overall costs.
Given the size of the LEP population in the MPO area and current financial constraints, full multi-language translations of large transportation plan documents and maps is not considered as warranted at this time. However, continued growth of the MPO area and its Spanish-speaking population makes offering Spanish translations a sound community investment.
44
As a result, the MPO intends to initiate a program to make the Executive Summaries for the Long Range Transportation Plan, the Transportation Improvement Program, the Public Participation Plan, and other key documents available in Spanish. The translation of these documents will begin after the final English version has been completed. To accommodate the cost, these summaries may be presented in alternative formats, such as fact sheets, flyers or brochures.
The MPO will continue to provide in both English and Spanish notifications for newspaper advertisements, government access channels and flyers. The MPO website has a user- friendly tool available for easy webpage translations which allows users to view HTML content in 52 languages. Although, the website translation tool, powered by GoogleTM Translate, is not a perfect system, it should provide enough information for a potential LEP individual or group to make contact with FAMPO should they have comments or questions.
Spanish language outreach materials from organizations such as federal, state, and local transportation agencies will be used when possible.
MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS AND IMPLEMENTATION
IDENTIFYING LEP INDIVIDUALS WHO NEED LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE
FAMPO staff will use language identification cards when first encountering a LEP individual. These cards, as shown in Appendix IX and developed by the U.S. Census Bureau, have the phrase “Mark this box if you read or speak [name of language]” translated into 38 different languages. It was developed by the Census Bureau and is used by government and non- government agencies to identify the primary language of LEP individuals during fact to fact contacts.
The Language Identification flashcards will be made available at public workshops/hearings and at the front desk of the GWRC/FAMPO office. Once a language is identified, the Title VI/LEP coordinator or relevant point of contact will be notified to assess feasible translation or oral interpretation assistance. (See Appendix VIII)
When FAMPO sponsored citizen informational workshops/public hearings are held, a sign- in sheet and a demographic survey will be utilized to determine the demographic profile of the attendee. (See Appendix IX)
LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE AND TRANSLATION OF MATERIALS
45
• Language assistance will be provided for LEP individuals through the translation into Spanish of some key materials as stated on page 6, upon request or as necessary, as well as through oral interpretation when necessary and possible. • When an interpreter is needed, in person or on the telephone, and the FAMPO staff has exhausted the above options, stall will first attempt to determine what language is required. Staff shall use the telephone interpreter service, Language Line Services at http://www.languageline.com. On the Language Line home page, the staff will select the Need an Interpreter Now link and follow the directions to receive and access code. • A list of FAMPO staff that speaks and/or writes a language other than English and who are willing and able to acts as interpreters has been identified.
PROVIDING NOTICE TO LEP PERSONS
It is important to notify LEP persons of services available free of charge in a language the LEP persons would understand.
• FAMPO will include the following language in English and Spanish (where appropriate) on meeting notifications, for example:
Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability or family status. Persons who require special accommodations under the American with Disabilities Act or persons who require translation services (free of charge) should contact GWRC/FAMPO at 540-373-2890 or [email protected] at least seven days prior to the meeting. If hearing impaired, telephone 1-800-552-7917 (TTY) or 7-1-1.
La participación pública es solicitado sin motivos de raza, color, origen nacional, edad, sexo, religión, discapacidad o familia. Las personas que requieren alojamiento especial en el American with Disabilities Act, o personas que requieren servicios de traducción (libre de cargo) deben ponerse en contacto GWRC/FAMPO al 540-373-2890 o [email protected] al menos siete días antes de la reunión. Si personas con problemas auditivos, teléfono 1- 800-5523-7917 (TTY) o 7-1-1.
• All outreach documents will state that language services are available; • Partner with community-based organizations and other stakeholders to inform LEP individuals of MPO services and the available of language assistance.
DISCRIMINATION-COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
46
LEP persons should be provided notice of their opportunity to file a discrimination complaint in accordance with Title VI. LEP persons may be advised orally of the opportunity to file a discrimination complaint pursuant to the regulations using an interpreter or any type of translator tool. LEP persons should be made aware of the free, oral translation of vital information we will provide upon request.
As a sub-recipient of federal assistance, the Discrimination Complaint Procedures has been adopted by GWRC and FAMPO. The Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan outlines the Discrimination Complaint Procedures and a copy of the Discrimination Complaint Form can be found in Appendix II.
STAFF TRAINING
FAMPO will incorporate the LEP Plan in the next update of the Public Participation Plan. In order to establish meaningful access to information and services for LEP individuals, FAMPO staff will be trained on the following topics:
• Understanding the Title VI Discrimination Plan and the LEP; • What language assistance programs does FAMPO offer; • How to approach and assist individuals with LEP; • How to use the Language Line interpretation and translation services; • How to use of LEP “I Speak Cards”; • How to access Google Translator via computer. Encourage any staff member with Smart Phones to download the free Google translator app. This app can translate by speaking the text instead of typing it and would be very useful for off-site interpretation. This app can translate text between 58 languages, translate by speaking the text instead of typing in 15 languages, and listen to your translations spoken aloud in 23 languages; • How to handle a Title VI and/or LEP complaint as noted in Appendix III in the Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan
MONITORING AND UPDATING THE LEP
FAMPO understands that its community profile is changing and that the four-factor analysis may reveal the need for more LEP services in the future. Annually, the LEP plan will be examined annually to ensure that it remains reflective of the community’s needs. The web-based interactive map will be used to validate the community profile of the GW Region. The following criteria will be used to review the effectiveness of the LEP plan:
• How many LEP persons were encountered?
47
• Were their needs met? • What is the current LEP population for the GW Region? • Has there been a change in the types of language assistance for previously identified MPO programs? Are there other programs that should be included? • Have the MPO’s available resources, such as technology, staff, and financial costs, changed? • Has the MPO fulfilled the goals of the LEP Plan? • Were any complaints received?
DISSEMINATION OF THE LEP
• Any person with internet access will be able to access the LEP Plan on the FAMPO website at http://www.fampo.gwregion.org. For those without personal internet service, the libraries in the GW Region offer free internet access. Alternatively, any person or agency may request a copy of the plan via telephone, fax, mail, or in person, and shall be provided a copy of the plan at no cost. The Plan will be made available in English and Spanish. • The LEP will be shared with community-based organizations and other stakeholders.
CONTACT INFORMATION
FAMPO does not intend that its LEP Plan exclude anyone requiring language assistance and will try to accommodate requests. Anyone who requires special language services should contact GWRC/FAMPO’s Public Information Officer/Title VI Coordinator:
Public Involvement Coordinator/Title VI Coordinator GWRC/FAMPO 406 Princess Anne Street Fredericksburg, VA 22401 (540) 373-2890 (phone) (540) 899-4808 (fax) [email protected]
48
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
The Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) is a key organization charged with planning for transportation improvements to meet future demands. FAMPO is committed to engaging a broad spectrum of community input during its transportation planning and programming activities to ensure that the process considers all possible strategies to meet the needs of our region.
The purpose of this update to the Public Participation Plan (PPP) is to continue to serve as a guide for FAMPO staff in the development of public outreach methods that encourage the citizen involvement in the regional transportation planning process. This update includes an enhanced emphasis on the outreach effort to ensure the inclusion of those affected including older adults, persons with disabilities, ethnic groups and low income populations. Effective transportation planning recognizes the critical link between transportation and other societal goals.
FAMPO’s public involvement process is consistent with the following federal requirements.
• Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act
Continued and enhanced emphasis on strong planning processes and public involvement
• United States Code (USC) Title 23, Sections 134
Participation by interested parties
• United States Code (USC) Title 23, Sections 135
Provides for reasonable access to comment on proposed plans
• United States Code (USC) Title 23, Section 128
Requires public hearings or the opportunity for public hearings for plans for federal- aid highway projects
• Code of Federal Regulations Title 23, Part 450
Guides the development of statewide transportation plans and programs; requires early and continuous public involvement
49
• Code of Federal Regulations Title 49, Part 24
Ensures property owners and people displaced by federal-aid projects are treated fairly, consistently and equitably
• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
Requires consideration of impacts on human environments
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Requires government programs to be accessible to people with disabilities
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Declares that no person shall be excluded from participating in any program receiving federal assistance on the basis of race, color or national origin
• Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice
Addresses avoidance of actions that can cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low income populations
• Executive Order 13166 on Limited English Proficiency
Improving access to services for people with limited English proficiency
CONSULTANT CONTRACTS
The GWRC and FAMPO are responsible for selection, negotiation and administration of its consultant contracts under the provisions of the George Washington Regional Commission Procurement Policy as well as all applicable state and federal laws.
The Title VI Coordinator is responsible for evaluating and monitoring consultant contracts for compliance with nondiscrimination authorities to:
• Ensure inclusion of all applicable nondiscrimination language in contracts and requests for proposals (RFP’s). • Review outreach activities to ensure small, disadvantaged, minority, women and disabled veteran businesses are not excluded to participate in opportunities to compete for consulting contracts.
50
• Review consultants for compliance as follows: • The Title VI Coordinator will ensure that consultants are monitoring and verifying compliance with all applicable nondiscrimination authorities, procedures and requirements within the workplace and in the conduct of grant-funded activities. • If a recipient or sub-recipient is found to not be in compliance with the nondiscrimination authorities, the Title VI Coordinator and appropriate staff members will work to resolve the deficiency and prepare a remedial action, if necessary.
ACCOMODATION POLICY
It is GWRC/FAMPO’s policy to provide equal access for individuals with disabilities and those with limited English skills to programs, meetings, publications, and activities. Reasonable accommodations will be provided by GWRC/FAMPO upon request with reasonable advance notice. Reasonable accommodations may include translation services, modifications or adjustments to a program, publication or activity to enable an individual with a disability or someone who does not speak English to participate.
NONDISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT PROCEDURE
NONDISCRIMINATION CLAUSES
The following nondiscrimination clauses shall be included in all GWRC/FAMPO Requests for Proposals and other solicitations for bid:
DBE – The George Washington Regional Commission, in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 78 Stat. 252, 42 USC 2000 d – 42 and Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, hereby notifies all bidders that it will affirmatively ensure that any contract entered pursuant to this advertisement will afford minority business enterprises full opportunity to submit bids in response to this invitation, and will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, sex or national origin in consideration for an award.
The following nondiscrimination clauses are included in all GWRC contracts and subgrant agreements:
Civil Rights Requirements – 29 U.S.C. § 62, 42 U.S.C. § 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 602, 42 U.S.C. § 12112, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, 49 U.S.C. § 5332
51
DBE Assurance – The contractor or subcontractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this contract. The contractor shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR Part 26 in the award and administration of USDOT assisted contracts. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such other remedy as the recipient deems appropriate.
Nondiscrimination – In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, section 303 of the Age Discrimination Act of 175, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 6102, section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and all other provisions of Federal law, the Contractor agrees that it will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age or disability. In addition, the Contractor agrees to comply with applicable Federal implementing regulations.
Equal Employment Opportunity – The following equal employment opportunity requirements apply to the underlying contract:
Race, Color, Creed, National Origin, Sex – In accordance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, the Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable equal employment opportunity requirements of U.S. Department of Labor (U.S. DOL) regulations, “Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Equal Employment Opportunity, Department of Labor,” 41 CFR Parts 60 et seq., (which implement Executive Order No. 11246, “Equal Employment Opportunity”, as amended by Executive Order No. 11375, “Amending Executive Order 11246 Relating to Equal Employment Opportunity,” as amended by Executive Order No. 11375, “Amending Executive Order 11246 Relating to Equal Employment Opportunity,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e note), and with any applicable Federal Statutes, executive orders, regulations, and Federal policies that may in the future affect activities undertaken in the course of this Project. The Contractor agrees to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, national origin, sex, or age. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. In addition, the Contractor agrees to comply with any implementing requirements the funding federal agency may issue.
Age – In accordance with section 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 623 and other applicable law, the Contractor agrees to refrain from
52
discrimination against present and prospective employees for reason of age. In addition, the Contractor agrees to comply with any implementing requirements the funding federal agency may issue.
Disabilities – In accordance with section 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12112, the Contractor agrees that it will comply with the requirements of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “Regulations to Implement the Equal Employment Provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act”, 29 CFR Part 1630, pertaining to employment of persons with disabilities. In addition, the Contractor agrees to comply with any implementing requirements the funding federal agency may issue.
The Contractor also agrees to include these requirements in each subcontract financed in whole or in part with Federal Assistance, modified only if necessary to identify the affected parties.
53
DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits federal agencies and sub-recipients of federal funds from discriminating, on the basis of race, color or national origin, against participants or clients of programs that receive federal funding. Succeeding laws and Presidential Executive Orders added sex, age, income status and disability to the criteria for which discrimination is prohibited. As a sub-recipient of federal assistance, the GWRC and FAMPO has adopted a Discrimination Complaint Procedure as a part of its Nondiscrimination Plan to comply with Title VI and associated statutes.
PROCEDURES
1. Any individual, group of individuals, class or in connection with any disadvantaged business enterprise, has been subjected to discrimination prohibited by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, or any nondiscrimination authority, may file a complaint with the GWRC or FAMPO. All complaints will be referred to the GWRC/FAMPO Title VI Coordinator for review and action. A formal complaint must be filed within 180 calendar days of the alleged occurrence or when the alleged discrimination became known to the complainant. The complaint must meet the following requirements: a. The complaint shall be in writing and signed by the complainant(s). b. The date of the alleged act of discrimination (date when the complainant(s) became aware of the alleged discrimination; or the date in which the conduct was discontinued or the latest instance of the conduct). c. Submit a detailed description of the issues including names and job titles of the individuals perceived as parties in the incident. d. Allegations received by fax or email will be acknowledged and processed, once the identity(ies) of the complainants(s) and the intent to proceed with the complaint have been established. In order to process the complaint, the complainant is required to mail a signed, original copy of the fax or email transmittal to the GWRC/FAMPO. e. In the event that a person makes a verbal complaint (received by telephone or in person) of discrimination to an officer or employee of the recipient, the person shall be interviewed by the Title VI Coordinator. If necessary, the Title VI Coordinator will assist the person in putting the complaint in writing and submit the written version of the complaint to the person for signature. The complaint shall then be handled in the usual manner.
54
2. In order for the complaint to be accepted, the complaint must meet the following criteria: a. The complaint must be filed within 180 calendar days of the alleged occurrence or when the alleged discrimination became known to the complainant. b. The allegation(s) must involve a covered basis such as race, color, natural origin, gender, disability, or retaliation. c. The allegation(s) must involve a program or activity of a federal-aid recipient, sub- recipient, or contractor, or, in the case of ADA allegations, an entity open to the public. 3. Within 10 days, the GWRC/FAMPO Title VI Coordinator will in acknowledge receipt of the allegation in writing, inform the complainant of action taken or proposed action to process the allegation, advise the respondent of their rights under Title VI and related statutes, and advise the complainant of other avenues of redress available, such as the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 4. Within 10 days, a letter will be sent to the VDOT Central Office, Civil Rights Division, and a copy to the FHWA Virginia Division Office. This letter will list the names of the parties involved, the basis of the complaint, and the assigned investigator. 5. In the case of a complaint against the GWRC/FAMPO , a VDOT investigator will prepare a final investigative report and send it to the complainant, respondent (GWRC/FAMPO person listed), the GWRC/FAMPO Title VI Coordinator, and FHWA Virginia Division. 6. Generally, the following information will be included in every notification to the VDOT Office of Civil Rights: a. Name, address, and phone number of the complainant. b. Name(s) and address (es) of alleged discriminating official(s). c. Basis of complaint (i.e., race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, income status, limited English proficiency). d. Date of alleged discriminatory act(s). e. Date of complaint received by the recipient. f. A statement of the complaint. g. Other agencies (federal, state or local) where the complaint has been filed. h. An explanation of the actions of the recipient has taken or proposed to resolve the issue in the complaint. 7. Within 60 days, the GWRC/FAMPO Title VI Coordinator will conduct and complete an investigation of the allegation and based on the information obtained, will render a recommendation for action in a report of findings to the Executive Director of the recipient of federal assistance. The complaint should be resolved by informal means
55
whenever possible. Such informal attempts and their results will be summarized in the report of findings. 8. Within 90 days of receipt of the complaint, the GWRC/FAMPO Title VI Coordinator will notify the complainant in writing of the final decision reached, including the proposed disposition of the matter. The notification will advise the complainant of his/her appeal rights with the Virginia Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration, if they are dissatisfied with the final decision rendered by the GWRC/FAMPO The GWRC/FAMPO Title VI Coordinator will also provide the VDOT Civil Rights Central Office with a copy of the determination and report findings. 9. In the case a nondiscrimination complaint that was originated at the GWRC/FAMPO is turned over to and investigated by VDOT, FHWA or another agency, the GWRC Title VI Coordinator will monitor the investigation and notify the complainant of updates, in accordance with applicable regulations and VDOT policies and procedures. 10. In accordance with federal law, the GWRC/FAMPO will require that applicants of federal assistance notify the GWRC/FAMPO of any law suits filed against the applicant or sub‐recipients of federal assistance or alleging discrimination; and a statement as to whether the applicant has been found in noncompliance with any relevant civil rights requirements. 11. The GWRC/FAMPO will submit Title VI accomplishment reports to the VDOT Central Office, Civil Rights Division, in compliance with VDOT’s established processes. 12. The GWRC will collect demographic data on staff, committees, and program areas in accordance with 23 CFR, 49 CFR and VDOT’s established procedures and guidelines. 13. Pursuant to the Virginia Public Records Act (VPRA) § 42.1‐76 et seq., the GWRC will retain Discrimination Complaint Forms and a log of all complaints filed with or investigated by the GWRC/FAMPO . 14. Records of complaints and related data will be made available by request in accordance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.
56
APPENDIX I: ORGANIZATION CHART
57
APPENDIX II: NOTICE TO PUBLIC
Per 49 CFR § 21.9(d), the GWRC and FAMPO shall provide the following statement to the public regarding their Title VI requirements and describe members of the public of the process against discrimination furnished to them by Title VI. This statement will be included into all publications that are distributed to the public, including the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP).
“The George Washington Regional Commission and the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization fully comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. For more information or to obtain a Discrimination Complaint Form, please visit www.gwregion.org or www.fampo.gwregion.org or call (540)- 373-2890. Para información en español, llame al (540)-373-2890.”
58
APPENDIX III: DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT FORM
59
60
61
62
63
64
APPENDIX IV: REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
GEORGE WASHINGTON REGION DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
The GWRC and Fredericksburg MPO weigh impacts that its programs may have on Title VI protected populations. Additionally, FAMPO evaluates areas that have a high concentration of Limited English Proficiency populations being served by the MPO in order to ensure that the materials are translated in the respected languages as needed.
To identify Title VI protected populations, GWRC and FAMPO staff have utilized data from the 2015 American Community Survey on the county and census tract levels, and evaluated the following social characteristics: minority populations, low-income, persons with disabilities, older adults, and limited English speakers. This data was used to geographically illustrate traditionally underrepresented communities and to begin assessing the needs of, and analyzing potential impacts on Title VI protected populations, as well as assisting the process of outreach to Title VI protected populations.
Each of the maps illustrates a story. That story is where the minority populations live within the George Washington Region and Fredericksburg Metropolitan Planning Region. The FAMPO region is comprised of the City of Fredericksburg, and the Counties of Spotsylvania and Stafford. Additionally the GWRC Region includes the three aforementioned municipalities as well as the Counties of Caroline and King George.
AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION
The first set of maps and graphs to be analyzed depict the settlement patterns of African Americans within the five municipalities that comprise the FAMPO and GWRC regions. Persons with African American ancestry make up roughly 17.3% of the total regional population. Spotsylvania has the lowest percentage of African-Americans (15.3%) living within the county; following Spotsylvania County is Stafford County at 15.4%, King George County at 17.92%, the City of Fredericksburg with 21.6%, and finally Caroline County with the highest percentage at 29.3%. Naturally, with Caroline County having the highest percentage within the Region, it has relatively high percentages split up amongst its six census tracts. Four of the seven tracts have 21.2-30.6% of their populations comprised of African-Americans, with 2 tracts representing 30.61-47.9%. The remaining municipalities with an exception to Fredericksburg have a relatively even percentage distribution of persons with African- American heritage. The City of Fredericksburg has five census tracts; the one on the southeastern portion of the city has 43.5% of the population with African-
65
American heritage. The middle two tracts have between 0% and 10%, with the remaining two on the western half of the city with 20.7% and 30.6%.
The following map illustrates the information that was previously mentioned about the African American population aggregations.
Map 1: African American Population
ASIAN AMERICAN POPULATION
The second set of maps being analyzed comprises data pertaining to the percentage of Asian Americans living within the Region. The Asian-American demographic makes up a relatively small portion of the overall population, with an average of 2.2% for the entire FAMPO and GW Region. To the contrary of the data observed for African-American populations, Asian-Americans have a higher concentration in the more urbanized areas of the region. Stafford County is tied with the City of Fredericksburg for the highest percentage with 2.54%; Caroline County has the lowest with 0.7%, followed by King George
66
County with 1.12% and Spotsylvania County with 2.39%. Most of this population group lives along and to the west of the I-95 corridor.
The following map illustrates the information that was previously mentioned about the Asian American population aggregations.
Map 2: Asian American Population
HISPANIC/LATINO AMERICAN POPULATION
The third set of maps being analyzed coincides where the percentages of the Hispanic/Latino demographics reside. Overall this population group is spread evenly throughout the Region. Overall, the regional percentage of the Hispanic/Latino population is roughly 8.1%. Stafford County leads this segment with approximately 10.10% of its population descending from Hispanic/Latino heritage. The City of Fredericksburg follows closely behind with 9.25%,
67
Spotsylvania County with 8.2%, King George County with 3.82%, and finally, Caroline County with 3.15%. Much like the distribution of the Asian-American population group, Hispanics/Latinos have higher concentrations along and to the west of the I-95 corridor, with a majority located in the urbanized areas of Fredericksburg and northern Stafford County. The following map illustrates the information that was previously mentioned about the Hispanic/Latino population aggregations.
Map 3: Hispanic/Latino American Population
68
LOW-INCOME POPULATION
The fourth set of maps being analyzed are those depicting the distribution of the Low-Income population group in the Region. The definition of “low Income individual” is a person whose family’s taxable income for the preceding year did not exceed 150 percent of the poverty level. 21.44% of GW Region’s residents fall into that category. By locality, Caroline County has the highest percentage of low income residents at 29.22%. The City of Fredericksburg follows with 28.78% overall but it is heavily concentrated in the eastern portion with one census tract at 54%. The other localities are lower: Spotsylvania County with 17.85%, King George County with 17.36%, and finally Stafford County with 13.93%. The following map illustrates the information that was previously mentioned about the Low Income population aggregations.
Map 4: Low-Income Population
69
DISABLED POPULATION
The fifth set of maps being analyzed are those depicting the distribution of the Disabled population group in the Region. In the George Washington Region approximately 10.61% of the population is disabled. By localities, Caroline County has 15% overall but as high as 19.7% in at least one southeast tract. King George County follows with 11.38%, Spotsylvania County with 11.30%, the City of Fredericksburg with 9.28% overall (although its easternmost census tract has 18%) and finally Stafford County with 8.86%. The following map illustrates the information that was previously mentioned about the Disabled population aggregations.
Map 5: Disabled Population
70
OLDER ADULT POPULATION
The sixth set of maps to be analyzed depict where Older Adults live within the Region. Overall, about 10.9% of the Region’s population is comprised of Older Adults, with Caroline County having the highest percentage at 15.5%. King George County follows with 12%; Spotsylvania County is next with 11.51%, followed by the City of Fredericksburg with 10.10% and finally Stafford County with 9.03%. The southern and eastern portions of the Region have the highest percentages of Older Adults living in them. The following map illustrates the information that was previously mentioned about the Older Adult population aggregations.
Map 6: Older Adult Population
71
APPENDIX V: LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ANALYSIS
72
2045 FAMPO Constrained Long Range Transportation Equity Analysis
Table of Contents Title VI Nondiscrimination Statement...... 2 I. A Brief History of Environmental Justice ...... 3 II. Methodology ...... 4 III. Results ...... 5 IV. Appendices ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. A. African American Population EJ Analysis Map ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. B. Asian American Population EJ Analysis Map ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. C. Hispanic Population EJ Analysis Map ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. D. Low Income Population EJ Analysis Map ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. E. Low Income Population EJ Analysis Map ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. F. Older Adult Population EJ Analysis Map ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. G. Limited English Proficiency Population EJ Analysis Map ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1
Title VI Nondiscrimination Statement
“The George Washington Regional Commission and the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization fully comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities.
2
2045 FAMPO Constrained Long Range Transportation Equity Analysis
I. A Brief History of Environmental Justice
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin. During the decade after passage of the Civil Rights Act, Congress passed a series of laws extending civil rights protections in federally assisted programs and activities. These laws, modeled on Title VI, prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex in Federally assisted education programs (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972), disability in Federally assisted and conducted programs (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973), and age in Federally assisted programs (the Age Discrimination Act of 1975).
More recently, Congress has passed legislation and the White House has issued Executive Orders to further clarify and expand the reach of Title VI: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 was passed to eliminate discrimination on the basis of physical or mental disability in employment and in programs and services provided by state and local governments. Executive Order 12898 was issued in February 1994 to address Environmental Justice (EJ) in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations (Environmental Justice). Federal agencies were called upon to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental impacts of its programs, policies and activities on minority and low‐income populations. Executive Order 13166, issued in August 2000, requires that Federal Agencies undertake proactive efforts to ensure meaningful access to federally funded programs for persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP).
On May 2, 2012, USDOT reaffirmed their commitment to Environmental Justice by issuing an update to Departmental Order 5610.2(a). This order explicitly states the purpose and authority of the order and EJ policy, as well as data collection and analysis procedures associated with EJ. The result of the past 47 years of Civil Rights regulations, statutes, policies, technical advisories and Executive Orders, is that nondiscrimination provisions apply to all programs and activities of Federal‐aid recipients, sub‐ recipients, and contractors, regardless of tier. Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO), the metropolitan planning organization for the Fredericksburg, VA urbanized area, is subject to these requirements.
3
II. Methodology
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) does not specifically outline how an EJ analysis should be conducted. FAMPO staff conducted an equity analysis on the distribution of 2045 Constrained Long Range Transportation Plan (CLRP) projects as they relate to identified EJ areas.
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping, based on 2015 American Community Survey (ACS) 5‐ year estimates retrieved from the US Census Bureau, was used to define the aggregated populations for seven characteristics identified as a Title VI or EJ population. Data provided included County and Regional averages for each population as well as the percentage of each population at the Census Tract level. These populations include:
EJ Populations—Low Income and Minority
• African American Populations • Asian Populations • Hispanic Populations • Low Income Populations
Title VI Populations
• Disabled Populations • Older Adult Populations • Limited English Proficiency
The locations of site specific highway and transit projects from FAMPO's Transportation Improvement Program were then analyzed against the EJ mapping. Current transit routes, stations and proposed transit projects were also evaluated.
Census tract data for each population was evaluated based on the overall percent for each City and County, shown in Table 1. For example, any census tract in Fredericksburg City that was above 21.60% for the African American Population Aggregation, was designated an African American “EJ” Census Tract. The same was done for all EJ and Title VI populations. In this way, the region was divided into EJ/ Title VI and non‐EJ/Title VI Census Tracts.
Overall, there was considerable overlap among the minority EJ populations, which were widely spread in the central and northern parts of FAMPO’s service area. Roughly 41-46% of the Census tracts were
4
designated Hispanic, African American, or Asian. Low Income populations were located in 28 Census tracts which accounts for nearly 44% of the regions total census tract inventory.
The Older Adult populations were the most prevalent of the Title VI populations. Fully 47.6% of the Census tracts are designated Older Adult. Thirty-nine percent of the Census tracts were disabled, and forty-two percent are LEP.
In order to evaluate which highway projects, both fully and partially funded, were in an EJ or Title VI area, a project layer file was overlaid on the maps. Projects that fell partially in or ran along the border of an EJ or Title VI Census tract were selected as an EJ or Title VI project for each criterion. This was also done separately for each criterion.
Table 1. Average Percent of Select Population by Location
Fredericksburg Spotsylvania Stafford City County County African American Population Aggregations* 21.60% 15.35% 15.44% Asian American Population Aggregations* 2.35% 2.39% 2.54% Hispanic Population Aggregations* 9.25% 8.02% 10.18% Low Income Population Aggregations* 28.78% 17.85% 13.93% Disabled Population Aggregations* 9.25% 11.23% 8.85% Older Adult Population Aggregations* 10.16% 11.51% 9.00% Limited English Proficiency Aggregations* 3.98% 3.33% 3.77% **Data derived from 2015 American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates
III. Results
The Federal Highway Administration does not specifically outline how EJ analysis should be conducted. FAMPO prepared the equity analyses for both highway and transit projects separately for the individual EJ or Title VI populations. The result is a series of seven tables included in the report and seven maps found in the Appendix. The results are presented sequentially by population characteristic.
Examination of the location of highway projects against the percent of minority populations (Tables 2‐4) indicates that these EJ areas will receive a greater percent of transportation investments than their overall population by Census Tract.
• African American Census Tracts are the site of 82.41% of all 2040 Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP) projects. The percentage of African American Census Tracts overall is 47.6%.
5
• Asian Census Tracts are the site of 71.42% of all CLRP projects. Again, the percentage of Asian American Census Tracts overall is 46.03%. • Hispanic Census Tracts are the site of 64.83% of all CLRP projects. The overall percent of Hispanic Census Tracts is 41.2%. • Low income Census Tracts are the site of 78.02% of all CLRP projects. The percentage of Low Income Census Tracts overall is 44.4%.
Table 2a. African American Population – 2045 CLRP Analysis
Total Number of Census Tracts in FAMPO Region 63 Number of African American EJ Census Tracts 30 47.6% Total Number of 2045 CLRP Projects 91 Total 2045 CLRP Projects within African American EJ Census Tracts 75 82.41%
Table 2b. African American Population –Overview (EJ Tracts Bold & Italicized)
Locality Census Tract Total African Percent American Population 1 288 9.10% Fredericksburg (>21.60%=EJ Tract) 2 1370 20.70% 3.01 151 6.40% 3.02 908 19.3% 4 1465 43.50% 5 2201 30.6% 201.04 584 11.80% 201.05 82 3.60% Spotsylvania(>15.35%=EJTract) 201.06 433 8.40% 201.07 116 6.10% 201.08 1198 28.90% 201.09 510 14.50% 201.10 508 12.40% 201.11 513 22.90% 201.12 549 19.70% 201.13 515 11.90% 201.14 1259 22.40% 202.01 832 13.80% 202.02 834 16.80% 202.03 1354 26.60% 202.04 564 13.60% 202.05 827 17.30% 203.04 637 14.20% 203.05 788 22.30% 203.06 1721 28.50% 203.07 875 22.20%
6
203.08 398 10.00% 203.09 1175 18.50% 203.10 635 14.20% 203.11 1076 19.20% 204.03 450 11.10% 204.04 324 8.20% 204.05 604 15.90% 204.06 329 9.30% 204.07 543 10.40% 204.08 162 5.90% 101.03 601 15.80% 101.05 1357 19.30% Stafford(>15.44%=EJTract) 101.06 263 8.40% 101.07 408 12.30% 101.08 1589 27.30% 102.01 601 6.70% 102.02 1357 6.30% 102.04 263 15.50% 102.05 408 17.70% 102.06 1589 21.20% 102.07 149 27.90% 102.10 388 28.20% 102.11 1357 23.60% 102.12 1227 16.10% 102.13 1131 16.10% 102.14 2315 17.60% 103.01 2167 12.30% 103.03 1033 20.10% 103.04 731 17.10% 103.05 405 23.20% 104.03 710 13.80% 104.04 512 13.80% 104.05 1996 8.30% 104.06 964 13.50% 105.02 1437 9.00% 105.03 436 0.40% 105.04 865 5.40% *Data derived from 2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
7
Table 3a. Asian American Population – 2045 CLRP Analysis
Total Number of Census Tracts in FAMPO Region 63 Number of Asian American EJ Census Tracts 29 46.03% Total Number of 2045 CLRP Projects 91 Total 2045 CLRP Projects within Asian American EJ Census Tracts 64 70.32%
Table 3b. Asian American Population – Overview (EJ Tracts Bold & Italicized)
Total Asian American Locality Census Track Percent Population 1 63 2.00% Fredericksburg(>2.35%=EJTract) 2 146 2.20% 3.01 94 4.00% 3.02 89 1.90% 4 0 0.00% 5 286 4.00% 201.04 63 1.30% Spotsylvania(>2.39%=EJTract) 201.05 8 0.40% 201.06 108 2.10% 201.07 66 3.50% 201.08 130 3.10% 201.09 139 4.00% 201.10 250 6.10% 201.11 10 0.40% 201.12 44 1.60% 201.13 32 0.70% 201.14 252 4.50% 202.01 261 4.30% 202.02 112 2.30% 202.03 218 4.30% 202.04 107 2.60% 202.05 142 3.00% 203.04 134 3.00% 203.05 153 4.30% 203.06 477 7.90% 203.07 153 3.90% 203.08 123 3.10% 203.09 81 1.30% 203.10 81 1.80% 203.11 6 0.10% 204.03 69 1.70% 204.04 0 0.00% 204.05 0 0.00% 204.06 0 0.00% 204.07 0 0.00%
8
204.08 17 0.60% 101.03 78 2.00% Stafford(cont.)(>2.54%=EJTract) 101.05 322 4.60% 101.06 37 1.20% 101.07 77 2.30% 101.08 163 2.80% 102.01 42 1.90% 102.02 188 3.00% 102.04 351 4.00% 102.05 198 2.80% 102.06 119 2.20% 102.07 304 3.70% 102.10 325 4.20% 102.11 155 3.50% 102.12 56 1.20% 102.13 92 3.70% 102.14 55 1.40% 103.01 63 1.50% 103.03 359 3.60% 103.04 283 5.00% 103.05 414 6.70% 104.03 33 1.00% 104.04 47 0.80% 104.05 201 3.10% 104.06 25 0.80% 105.02 13 0.30% 105.03 32 1.50% 105.04 0 0.00% *Dataderivedfrom2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
9
Table 4a. Hispanic Population – 2040 CLRP Analysis
Total Number of Census Tracts in FAMPO Region 63 Number of Hispanic EJ Census Tracts 26 41.20% Total Number of 2045 CLRP Projects 91 Total 2045 CLRP Projects within Hispanic EJ Census Tracts 59 64.83%
Table 4b. Hispanic Population – Overview (EJ Tracts Bold & Italicized)
Total Hispanic American Locality Census Tract Percent Population 1 74 2.40% 2 1047 15.80% Fredericksburg(>10.73%=E 3.01 149 6.30% JTract) 3.02 456 9.70% 4 194 5.80% 5 1117 15.50% 201.04 258 5.20% 201.05 21 0.90% 201.06 178 3.40% 201.07 46 2.40% 201.08 466 11.20% 201.09 45 1.30% 201.10 708 17.30% 201.11 193 8.60% Spotsylvania(>7.58%=EJTract) 201.12 387 13.90% 201.13 328 7.60% 201.14 277 4.90% 202.01 928 15.40% 202.02 535 10.80% 202.03 454 8.90% 202.04 237 5.70% 202.05 615 12.90% 203.04 745 16.60% 203.05 256 7.20% 203.06 605 10.00% 203.07 977 24.80% 203.08 174 4.40% 203.09 475 7.50% 203.10 230 5.10% 203.11 617 11.00% 204.03 200 4.90% 204.04 54 1.40% 204.05 90 2.40% 204.06 84 2.40% 204.07 179 3.40%
10
204.08 252 9.10% 101.03 454 11.90% Stafford(>9.21%=EJTract) 101.05 1000 14.20% 101.06 118 3.80% 101.07 302 9.10% 101.08 520 8.90% 102.01 482 21.70% 102.02 426 6.90% 102.04 535 6.10% 102.05 357 5.10% 102.06 817 15.30% 102.07 1912 23.00% 102.10 1290 16.80% 102.11 984 22.50% 102.12 746 16.40% 102.13 204 8.10% 102.14 465 11.50% 103.01 207 5.00% 103.03 729 7.40% 103.04 559 9.90% 103.05 702 11.30% 104.03 138 4.40% 104.04 604 9.70% 104.05 475 7.20% 104.06 196 6.50% 105.02 289 6.40% 105.03 74 3.40% 105.04 40 2.50% *Dataderivedfrom2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
11
Table 5a. Low Income Population – 2045 CLRP Analysis
Total Number of Census Tracts in FAMPO Region 63 Number of Low Income EJ Census Tracts 28 44.40% Total Number of 2045 CLRP Projects 91 Total 2045 CLRP Projects within Low Income EJ Census Tracts 68 76.92%
Table5b. Low Income Population– Overview (EJ Tracts Bold & Italicized)
Total Low Income Locality Census Percent American Population Tract 1 705 22.40% 2 3585 54.1% Fredericksburg(>28.78%=EJTract) 3.01 303 12.9% 3.02 1125 23.9% 4 1302 38.70% 5 1488 20.70% 201.04 522 10.50% 201.05 247 11.00% 201.06 883 17.10% 201.07 117 6.20% 201.08 1544 37.20% 201.09 1324 37.70% 201.10 515 12.60% 201.11 300 13.40% Spotsylvania(>17.85%=EJTract) 201.12 264 9.50% 201.13 414 9.60% 201.14 1120 19.90% 202.01 1396 23.20% 202.02 994 20.00% 202.03 1135 22.30% 202.04 446 10.80% 202.05 791 16.60% 203.04 828 18.50% 203.05 777 22.00% 203.06 501 8.30% 203.07 722 18.30% 203.08 384 9.70% 203.09 1270 20.00% 203.10 389 8.70% 203.11 1367 24.40% 204.03 1133 27.90% 204.04 1280 32.40% 204.05 811 21.40% 204.06 814 23.00%
12
204.07 666 12.70% 204.08 292 10.60% 101.03 423 11.10% 101.05 534 7.60% 101.06 585 18.70% 101.07 219 6.60% 101.08 610 10.50% 102.01 380 17.10% 102.02 635 10.30% 102.04 1300 14.80% 102.05 1744 25.10% 102.06 559 10.50% 102.07 1444 17.40%
102.10 2143 27.90% 102.11 272 6.20% Stafford(>13.93%=EJTract) 102.12 304 6.70% 102.13 88 3.50% 102.14 206 5.10% 103.01 433 10.4% 103.03 1308 13.20% 103.04 1245 22.10% 103.05 1302 21.00% 104.03 230 7.30% 104.04 757 12.10% 104.05 854 13.00% 104.06 790 26.20% 105.02 612 13.60% 105.03 390 18.20% 105.04 317 20.00% *Dataderivedfrom2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates **Tract3.01contains the University of Mary Washington and skews the results for low‐income tracts in the City of Fredericksburg.
Often other factors are taken into consideration when evaluating transportation projects including disabilities, older adult, and Limited English Proficiency (LEP). As shown in Tables 6a, 7a, and 8a, all of these criterions had a relatively higher percentage of 2045 CLRP projects located within EJ census tracts. Percentages of 2045 CLRP projects with EJ census tracts varied from 72.5% for older adult populations to 79.1% for limited English proficiency populations.
13
Table 6a. Disabled Population over 5 years of age– 2045 CLRP Analysis*
Total Number of Census Tracts in FAMPO Region 63 Number of Disabled EJ Census Tracts 25 39.60% Total Number of 2045 CLRP Projects 91 Total 2045 CLRP Projects within Disabled EJ Census Tracts 64 72.52%
Table 6b. Disabled Population over 5 years of age–Overview (EJ Tracts Bold & Italicized)
Total Disabled Locality Census Tract Percent Population (aged 5+)
1 165 5.60% 2 768 11.90% Fredericksburg 3.01 80 3.90% (>9.25%=EJ Tract) 3.02 291 6.50% 4 572 17.90% 5 678 9.70% 201.04 371 7.70% 201.05 189 9.00% 201.06 576 11.70% 201.07 182 10.30% 201.08 657 16.80% 201.09 689 21.00% 201.10 179 4.70% 201.11 239 10.29% 201.12 248 9.30% 201.13 584 13.90% 201.14 493 9.10% 202.01 638 10.60% Spotsylvania 202.02 465 9.60% (>11.23%=EJ Tract) 202.03 682 13.80% 202.04 244 6.20% 202.05 733 15.60% 203.04 570 13.10% 203.05 356 10.50% 203.06 472 7.70% 203.07 288 7.70% 203.08 396 10.30% 203.09 546 8.90% 203.10 302 7.00% 203.11 820 14.76% 204.03 479 12.10% 204.04 734 19.10%
14
204.05 368 10.00% 204.06 510 14.80% 204.07 381 7.60% 204.08 371 13.90% 101.03 370 10.40% 101.05 513 7.60% 101.06 274 9.70% 101.07 294 6.30% 101.08 277 5.20% 102.01 9 18.00% Stafford 102.02 520 8.80% (>8.85%=EJ Tract) 102.04 645 8.45%
102.05 382 5.90% 102.06 385 7.70% 102.07 429 5.50% 102.10 291 4.10% 102.11 227 5.70% 102.12 258 6.20% 102.13 166 7.30% 102.13 336 8.70% 103.01 506 12.50% Stafford 103.03 972 10.10% (>8.85%=EJ Tract) 103.04 619 11.30% 103.05 367 6.30% 104.03 323 10.70%
104.05 435 7.40%
104.05 276 4.60% 104.06 377 13.00% 105.02 430 10.10% 105.03 212 10.60% 105.04 252 16.80% * Data derived from 2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
15
Table 7a. Older Adult Population – 2045 CLRP Analysis
Total Number of Census Tracts in FAMPO Region 63 Number of Older Adult EJ Census Tracts 30 47.60% Total Number of 2045 CLRP Projects 91 Total 2045 CLRP Projects within Older Adult EJ Census Tracts 64 72.52%
Table 7b. Older Adult Population – Overview (EJ Tracts Italicized)
Locality CensusTract TotalOlderAdult Percent Population 1 388 12.30% 2 874 13.20% Fredericksburg(> 3.01 27 1.10% 10.16%=EJTract) 3.02 526 11.20% 4 576 17.10% 5 440 6.10% 201.04 486 9.80% 201.05 208 9.20% 201.06 979 18.90% 201.07 229 12.10% 201.08 677 16.30% 201.09 980 27.90%
201.10 301 7.40%
201.11 201 9.00%
201.12 160 5.70% 201.13 399 9.20% Spotsylvania(>1 201.14 517 9.20% 1.51%=EJTract) 202.01 398 6.60% 202.02 704 14.20% 202.03 373 7.30% 202.04 479 11.60% 202.05 365 7.70% 203.04 681 15.20% 203.05 267 7.60% 203.06 635 10.50% 203.07 260 6.60% 203.08 392 9.90% 203.09 393 6.20% 203.10 502 11.20% 203.11 574 10.20% 204.03 407 10.00% 204.04 540 13.70% 204.05 814 21.50%
16
Spotsylvania(cont.)( 204.06 507 14.30% >11.51%=EJTract) 204.07 932 17.80% 204.08 240 8.70% 101.03 369 9.70% 101.05 466 6.60% 101.06 358 11.40% 101.07 371 11.20% 101.08 376 6.50% 102.01 5 0.20%
102.02 566 9.20%
102.04 1015 11.60%
102.05 370 5.30% 102.06 314 5.90% 102.07 432 5.20% 102.10 218 2.80% 102.11 136 3.10% Stafford(>9.00%=E 102.12 165 3.60% JTract) 102.13 124 4.90% 102.14 203 5.00% 103.01 425 10.20% 103.03 1007 10.20% 103.04 1274 22.60% 103.05 472 7.60% 104.03 308 9.80% 104.04 639 10.20% 104.05 600 9.10% 104.06 281 9.30% 105.02 691 15.30% 105.03 369 17.20% 105.04 307 19.40% *Dataderivedfrom2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
17
Table 8a. Limited English Proficiency (LEP) – 2045 CLRP Analysis
Total Number of Census Tracts in FAMPO Region 63 Number of LEP EJ Census Tracts 27 42.80% Total Number of 2045 CLRP Projects 91 Total 2045 CLRP Projects within LEP EJ Census Tracts 70 76.92%
Table 8b. Limited English Proficiency – Overview (EJ Tracts Bold & Italicized)
Total Limited English Locality CensusTract Percent Proficiency Population 1 16 0.50% 2 455 7.60% Fredericksburg( 3.01 57 2.40% >3.98%=EJTract) 3.02 116 2.60% 4 134 4.10% 5 427 6.70% 201.04 45 1.00% 201.05 13 0.60% 201.06 33 0.70% 201.07 5 0.30% 201.08 337 8.70% 201.09 117 3.50%
201.10 548 14.30%
201.11 45 2.10%
201.12 150 5.70% 201.13 41 1.00% 201.14 31 0.60% 202.01 288 5.10% 202.02 182 4.00% 202.03 135 2.80% Spotsylvania(> 202.04 161 4.10% 3.33%=EJTract) 202.05 162 3.70% 203.04 152 3.60% 203.05 94 2.80% 203.06 263 4.70% 203.07 456 12.40% 203.08 163 4.40% 203.09 111 1.90% 203.10 60 1.40% 203.11 216 4.20% 204.03 120 3.20% 204.04 14 0.40% 204.05 8 0.20%
18
204.06 17 0.50% 204.07 60 1.20% 204.08 24 1.00% 101.03 42 1.20% 101.05 756 11.80% Stafford(>3. 101.06 35 1.20% 77%=EJTract) 101.07 31 1.00% 101.08 124 2.20% 102.01 16 0.70% 102.02 259 4.40% 102.04 287 3.40% 102.05 189 2.90% 102.06 286 5.60% 102.07 1054 14.00%
102.10 618 8.70%
102.11 322 8.30%
102.12 163 3.90% 102.13 82 3.40% Stafford(cont.)( 102.14 84 2.20% >3.77%=EJTract) 103.01 25 0.60% 103.03 74 0.80% 103.04 532 9.90% 103.05 320 5.90% 104.03 74 2.60% 104.04 59 1.00% 104.05 86 1.40% 104.06 27 1.00% 105.02 54 1.30% 105.03 15 0.70% 105.04 27 1.80% *Dataderivedfrom 2015AmericanCommunitySurvey 5-YearEstimates.
Overall, the analysis shows that the distribution of projects in FAMPO’s 2045 Constrained Long Rang Plan is equitable. With the sole exception of Low Income populations, the percent of projects in EJ or Title VI areas greatly exceeds their percent of the overall population. However, there are several limitations with this analysis that should be noted. First, only location specific projects were analyzed. EJ and Title VI populations may be receiving benefits from programs funded under the TIP that are not mappable. Second, the Census tracts are quite large, especially in Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties. It is not known whether the relevant populations live near the identified transportation project. The last note is that proximity to a transportation project is not always a guarantee that the transportation project is beneficial to that population. There are several projects, such as widening of a highway, which may be more of a burden to the population present, through possible property or health impacts.
19
APPENDIX VI: SIGNED POLICY STATEMENT & ASSURANCES
73
74
75
George Washington Regional Commission/ Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization TITLE VI / NONDISCRIMINATION ASSURANCE (DOT Order No. 1050.2A)
The, George Washington Regional Commission and Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (herein referred to as the “Recipient”), HEREBY AGREES THAT, as a condition to receiving any Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), through the Federal Highway Administration, is subject to and will comply with the following: Statutory/Regulatory Authorities • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin); • 49 C.F.R. Part 21 (entitled Nondiscrimination In Federally-Assisted Programs Of The Department Of Transportation – Effectuation Of Title VI Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964); • 28 C.F.R. section 50.3 (U.S. Department of Justice Guidelines for Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964); The preceding statutory and regulatory cites hereinafter are referred to as the "Acts" and "Regulations," respectively. General Assurance In accordance with the Acts, the Regulations, and other pertinent directives, circulars, policy, memoranda, and/or guidance, the Recipient hereby gives assurance that it will promptly take any measures necessary to ensure that: "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity," for which the Recipient receives Federal financial assistance from DOT, including the Federal Highway Administration. The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 clarified the original intent of Congress, with respect to Title VI and other Nondiscrimination requirements (The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973), by restoring the broad, institutional-wide scope and coverage of these nondiscrimination statutes and requirements to include all programs and activities of the Recipient, so long as any portion of the program is Federally assisted. Specific Assurances
More specifically, and without limiting the above general Assurance, the Recipient agrees with and gives the following Assurances with respect to its federally assisted Highway Program: 1. The Recipient agrees that each "activity," "facility," or "program," as defined in §§ 21.23 (b) and 21.23 (e) of 49 C.F.R. § 21 will be (with regard to an "activity") facilitated, or will be (with regard to a "facility") operated, or will be (with regard to a "program") conducted in compliance with all requirements imposed by, or pursuant to the Acts and the Regulations. 2. The Recipient will insert the following notification in all solicitations for bids, Requests For Proposals for work, or material subject to the Acts and the Regulations made in connection with all Federal-Aid Highway Program and, in adapted form, in all proposals for negotiated agreements regardless of funding source: "The George Washington Regional Commission/Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization in accordance with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 252, 42 US.C.§§ 2000d to 2000d-4) and the Regulations, hereby notifies all bidders that it will affirmatively ensure that any contract entered into pursuant to this advertisement, disadvantaged business enterprises will be afforded full and fair opportunity to submit bids in response to this invitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in consideration for an award." 3. The Recipient will insert the clauses of Appendix A and E of this Assurance in every contract or agreement subject to the Acts and the Regulations. 4. The Recipient will insert the clauses of Appendix B of this Assurance, as a covenant running with the land, in any deed from the United States effecting or recording a transfer of real property, structures, use, or improvements thereon or interest therein to a Recipient. 5. That where the Recipient receives Federal financial assistance to construct a facility, or part of a facility, the Assurance will extend to the entire facility and facilities operated in connection therewith. 6. That where the Recipient receives Federal financial assistance in the form, or for the acquisition of real property or an interest in real property, the Assurance will extend to rights to space on, over, or under such property. 7. That the Recipient will include the clauses set forth in Appendix C and Appendix D of this Assurance, as a covenant running with the land, in any future deeds, leases, licenses, permits, or similar instruments entered into by the Recipient with other parties: a. for the subsequent transfer of real property acquired or improved under the applicable activity, project, or program; and b. for the construction or use of, or access to, space on, over, or under real property acquired or improved under the applicable activity, project, or program. 8. That this Assurance obligates the Recipient for the period during which Federal financial assistance is extended to the program, except where the Federal financial assistance is to provide, or is in the form of, personal property, or real property, or interest therein, or structures or improvements thereon, in which case the Assurance obligates the Recipient, or any transferee for the longer of the following periods: a. the period during which the property is used for a purpose for which the Federal financial assistance is extended, or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits; or b. the period during which the Recipient retains ownership or possession of the property. 9. The Recipient will provide for such methods of administration for the program as are found by the Secretary of Transportation or the official to whom he/she delegates specific authority to give reasonable guarantee that it, other recipients, sub-recipients, sub- grantees, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, transferees, successors in interest, and other participants of Federal financial assistance under such program will comply with all requirements imposed or pursuant to the Acts, the Regulations, and this Assurance. 10. The Recipient agrees that the United States has a right to seek judicial enforcement with regard to any matter arising under the Acts, the Regulations, and this Assurance.
By signing this ASSURANCE, the George Washington Regional Commission and Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization also agrees to comply (and require any sub-recipients, sub-grantees, contractors, successors, transferees, and/or assignees to comply) with all applicable provisions governing the USDOT access to records, accounts, documents, information, facilities, and staff. You also recognize that you must comply with any program or compliance reviews, and/or complaint investigations conducted by USDOT. You must keep records, reports, and submit the material for review upon request to USDOT, or its designee in a timely, complete, and accurate way. Additionally, you must comply with all other reporting, data collection, and evaluation requirements, as prescribed by law or detailed in program guidance. The George Washington Regional Commission and Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization gives this ASSURANCE in consideration of and for obtaining any Federal grants, loans, contracts, agreements, property, and/or discounts, or other Federal-aid and Federal financial assistance extended after the date hereof to the recipients by the U.S. Department of Transportation under the Federal-Aid Highway Program. This ASSURANCE is binding on the Commonwealth of Virginia, other recipients, sub-recipients, sub-grantees, contractors, subcontractors and their subcontractors, transferees, successors in interest, and any other participants in the Federal-Aid Highway Program.
George Washington Regional Commission/ Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
by
Dr. Linda Millsaps
DATED______APPENDIX A Contractor/ Consultant/Supplier Agreement: U.S. DOT 1050.2A -- Appendix A
During the performance of this contract, the contractor, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as the "contractor") agrees as follows:
1. Compliance with Regulations: The contractor (hereinafter includes consultants) will comply with the Acts and the Regulations relative to Nondiscrimination in Federally- assisted programs of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, as they may be amended from time to time, which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this contract.
2. Nondiscrimination: The contractor, with regard to the work performed by it during the contract, will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in the selection and retention of subcontractors, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment. The contractor will not participate directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by the Acts and the Regulations, including employment practices when the contract covers any activity, project, or program set forth in Appendix B of 49 CFR Part 21.
3. Solicitations for Subcontracts, Including Procurements of Materials and Equipment: In all solicitations, either by competitive bidding, or negotiation made by the contractor for work to be performed under a subcontract, including procurements of materials, or leases of equipment, each potential subcontractor or supplier will be notified by the contractor of the contractor's obligations under this contract and the Acts and the Regulations relative to Nondiscrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin.
4. Information and Reports: The contractor will provide all information and reports required by the Acts, the Regulations, and directives issued pursuant thereto and will permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as may be determined by the Recipient or the Federal Highway Administration to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such Acts, Regulations, and instructions. Where any information required of a contractor is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish the information, the contractor will so certify to the Recipient or the Federal Highway Administration, as appropriate, and will set forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information.
5. Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of a contractor's noncompliance with the Non• discrimination provisions of this contract, the Recipient will impose such contract sanctions as it or the Federal Highway Administration may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to: a. withholding payments to the contractor under the contract until the contractor complies; and/or b. cancelling, terminating, or suspending a contract, in whole or in part.
A 6. Incorporation of Provisions: The contractor will include the provisions of paragraphs one through six in every subcontract, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Acts, the Regulations and directives issued pursuant thereto. The contractor will take action with respect to any subcontract or procurement as the Recipient or the Federal Highway Administration may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for noncompliance. Provided, that if the contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with litigation by a subcontractor, or supplier because of such direction, the contractor may request the Recipient to enter into any litigation to protect the interests of the Recipient. In addition, the contractor may request the United States to enter into the litigation to protect the interests of the United States.
A APPENDIX B CLAUSES FOR DEEDS TRANSFERRING UNITED STATES PROPERTY
The following clauses will be included in deeds effecting or recording the transfer of real property, structures, or improvements thereon, or granting interest therein from the United States pursuant to the provisions of Assurance 4:
NOW, THEREFORE, the U.S. Department of Transportation as authorized by law and upon the condition that the George Washington Regional Commission and Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization will accept title to the lands and maintain the project constructed thereon in accordance with the Virginia General Assembly, the Regulations for the Administration of the Federal-Aid Highway Program and the policies and procedures prescribed by the Federal Highway Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation in accordance and in compliance with all requirements imposed by Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Nondiscrimination in Federally-assisted programs of the U.S Department of Transportation pertaining to and effectuating the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 252; 42 U.S.C. § 2000d to 2000d-4), does hereby remise, release, quitclaim and convey unto the George Washington Regional Commission and Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization all the right, title and interest of the U.S. Department of Transportation in and to said lands described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
(HABENDUM CLAUSE)
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said lands and interests therein unto the George Washington Regional Commission and Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization and its successors forever, subject, however, to the covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations herein contained as follows, which will remain in effect for the period during which the real property or structures are used for a purpose for which Federal financial assistance is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits and will be binding on the George Washington Regional Commission and Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, its successors and assigns.
The George Washington Regional Commission and Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization in consideration of the conveyance of said lands and interests in lands, does hereby covenant and agree as a covenant running with the land for itself, its successors and assigns, that (1) no person will on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination with regard to any facility located wholly or in part on, over, or under such lands hereby conveyed [,] [and]* (2) that the George Washington Regional Commission and Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization will use the lands and interests in lands and interests in lands so conveyed, in compliance with all requirements imposed by or pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Nondiscrimination in Federally-assisted programs of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and as said Regulations and Acts may be amended[, and (3) that in the event of breach of any of the above-mentioned non-discrimination conditions, the Department will have a right to enter or re- enter said lands and facilities on said land, and that above described land and facilities will thereon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of the U.S. Department of Transportation and its assigns as such interest existed prior to this instruction].*
B APPENDIX C CLAUSES FOR TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED OR IMPROVED UNDER THE ACTIVITY, FACILITY, OR PROGRAM
The following clauses will be included in deeds, licenses, leases, permits, or similar instruments entered into by the George Washington Regional Commission and Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization pursuant to the provisions of Assurance 7(a):
A. The (grantee, lessee, permittee, etc. as appropriate) for himself/herself, his/her heirs, personal representatives, successors in interest, and assigns, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree [in the case of deeds and leases add "as a covenant running with the land"] that:
1. In the event facilities are constructed, maintained, or otherwise operated on the property described in this (deed, license, lease, permit, etc.) for a purpose for which a U.S. Department of Transportation activity, facility, or program is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits, the (grantee, licensee, lessee, permittee, etc.) will maintain and operate such facilities and services in compliance with all requirements imposed by the Acts and Regulations (as may be amended) such that no person on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in the use of said facilities.
B. With respect to licenses, leases, permits, etc., in the event of breach of any of the above Nondiscrimination covenants, the George Washington Regional Commission and Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization will have the right to terminate the (lease, license, permit, etc.) and to enter, re-enter, and repossess said lands and facilities thereon, and hold the same as if the (lease, license, permit, etc.) had never been made or issued.*
C. With respect to a deed, in the event of breach of any of the above Nondiscrimination covenants, the George Washington Regional Commission and Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization will have the right to enter or re-enter the lands and facilities thereon, and the above described lands and facilities will there upon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of the George Washington Regional Commission and Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization and its assigns.*
(*Reverter clause and related language to be used only when it is determined that such a clause is necessary to make clear the purpose of Title VI.)
C APPENDIX D CLAUSES FOR CONSTRUCTION/USE/ACCESS TO REAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED UNDER THE ACTIVITY, FACILITY OR PROGRAM
The following clauses will be included in deeds, licenses, permits, or similar instruments/agreements entered into by the George Washington Regional Commission and Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization pursuant to the provisions of Assurance 7(b):
A. The (grantee, licensee, permittee, etc., as appropriate) for himself/herself, his/her heirs, personal representatives, successors in interest, and assigns, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree (in the case of deeds and leases add, "as a covenant running with the land") that (1) no person on the ground of race, color, or national origin, will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in the use of said facilities, (2) that in the construction of any improvements on, over, or under such land, and the furnishing of services thereon, no person on the ground of race, color, or national origin, will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination, (3) that the (grantee, licensee, lessee, permittee, etc.) will use the premises in compliance with all other requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Acts and Regulations, as amended, set forth in this Assurance.
B. With respect to (licenses, leases, permits, etc.), in the event of breach of any of the above Nondiscrimination covenants, the George Washington Regional Commission and Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization will have the right to terminate the (license, permit, etc., as appropriate) and to enter or re-enter and repossess said land and the facilities thereon, and hold the same as if said (license, permit, etc., as appropriate) had never been made or issued.*
C. With respect to deeds, in the event of breach of any of the above Non-discrimination covenants, the George Washington Regional Commission and Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization will there upon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of the George Washington Regional Commission and Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization and its assigns.*
(*Reverter clause and related language to be used only when it is determined that such a clause is necessary to make clear the purpose of Title VI.)
D APPENDIX E Contractor/ Consultant/Supplier Agreements: U.S. DOT 1050.2A -- Appendix E
During the performance of this contract, the contractor, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as the “contractor”) agrees to comply with the following non- discrimination statutes and authorities; including but not limited to:
Pertinent Nondiscrimination Authorities:
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin); and 49 CFR Part 21; • The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (42 U.S.C. § 4601), (prohibits unfair treatment of persons displaced or whose property has been acquired because of Federal or Federal-aid programs and projects); • Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, (23 U.S.C. § 324 et seq.), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex); • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.), as amended, (prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability); and 49 CFR Part 27; • The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, (42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq.), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of age); • Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, (49 USC § 471, Section 47123), as amended, (prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, color, national origin, or sex); • The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, (PL 100-209), (Broadened the scope, coverage and applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, by expanding the definition of the terms “programs or activities” to include all of the programs or activities of the Federal-aid recipients, sub-recipients and contractors, whether such programs or activities are Federally funded or not); • Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation systems, places of public accommodation, and certain testing entities (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 -- 12189) as implemented by Department of Transportation regulations at 49 C.F.R. parts 37 and 38; • The Federal Aviation Administration’s Non-discrimination statute (49 U.S.C. § 47123) (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and sex); • Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, which ensures non-discrimination against minority populations by discouraging programs, policies, and activities with disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations; • Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, and resulting agency guidance, national origin discrimination includes discrimination because of limited English proficiency (LEP). To ensure compliance with Title VI, you must take reasonable steps to ensure that LEP persons have meaningful access to your programs (70 Fed. Reg. at 74087 to 74100); • Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, which prohibits you from discriminating because of sex in education programs or activities (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq).
E
The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Standard Title VI/Non-Discrimination Assurances DOT Order No. 1050.2A
The George Washington Regional Commission/Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (herein referred to as the "Recipient"), HEREBY AGREES THAT, as a condition to receiving any Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), through the Federal Highway Administration, is subject to and will comply with the following:
Statutory/Regulatory Authorities
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin); • 49 C.F.R. Part 21 (entitled Non-discrimination In Federally-Assisted Programs Of The Department Of Transportation-Effectuation Of Title VI Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964); • 28 C.F.R. section 50.3 (U.S. Department of Justice Guidelines for Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964);
The preceding statutory and regulatory cites hereinafter are referred to as the "Acts" and "Regulations," respectively.
General Assurances
In accordance with the Acts, the Regulations, and other pertinent directives, circulars, policy, memoranda, and/or guidance, the Recipient hereby gives assurance that it will promptly take any measures necessary to ensure that:
"No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity, "for which the Recipient receives Federal financial assistance from DOT, including the Federal Highway Administration.
The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 clarified the original intent of Congress, with respect to Title VI and other Non-discrimination requirements (The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973), by restoring the broad, institutional-wide scope and coverage of these non• discrimination statutes and requirements to include all programs and activities of the Recipient, so long as any portion of the program is Federally assisted.
Specific Assurances
More specifically, and without limiting the above general Assurance, the Recipient agrees with and gives the following Assurances with respect to its Federally Federal-Aid Highway Program:
1. The Recipient agrees that each "activity," "facility," or "program," as defined in §§ 21.23(b) and 21.23(e) of 49 C.F.R. § 21 will be (with regard to an "activity") facilitated, or will be (with regard
1
to a "facility") operated, or will be (with regard to a "program") conducted in compliance with all requirements imposed by, or pursuant to the Acts and the Regulations.
2. The Recipient will insert the following notification in all solicitations for bids, Requests For Proposals for work, or material subject to the Acts and the Regulations made in connection with all Federal-Aid Highway Program and, in adapted form, in all proposals for negotiated agreements regardless of funding source:
"The George Washington Regional Commission/Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, in accordance with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-4) and the Regulations, hereby notifies all bidders that it will affirmatively ensure that any contract entered into pursuant to this advertisement, disadvantaged business enterprises will be afforded full and fair opportunity to submit bids in response to this invitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in consideration for an award."
3. The Recipient will insert the clauses of Appendix A and E of this Assurance in every contract or agreement subject to the Acts and the Regulations.
4. The Recipient will insert the clauses of Appendix B of this Assurance, as a covenant running with the land, in any deed from the United States effecting or recording a transfer of real property, structures, use, or improvements thereon or interest therein to a Recipient.
5. That where the Recipient receives Federal financial assistance to construct a facility, or part of a facility, the Assurance will extend to the entire facility and facilities operated in connection therewith.
6. That where the Recipient receives Federal financial assistance in the form, or for the acquisition of real property or an interest in real property, the Assurance will extend to rights to space on, over, or under such property.
7. That the Recipient will include the clauses set forth in Appendix C and Appendix D of this Assurance, as a covenant running with the land, in any future deeds, leases, licenses, permits, or similar instruments entered into by the Recipient with other parties:
a. for the subsequent transfer of real property acquired or improved under the applicable activity, project, or program; and b. for the construction or use of, or access to, space on, over, or under real property acquired or improved under the applicable activity, project, or program.
8. That this Assurance obligates the Recipient for the period during which Federal financial assistance is extended to the program, except where the Federal financial assistance is to provide, or is in the form of, personal property, or real property, or interest therein, or structures or improvements thereon, in which case the Assurance obligates the Recipient, or any transferee for the longer of the following periods:
2
a. the period during which the property is used for a purpose for which the Federal financial assistance is extended, or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits; or b. the period during which the Recipient retains ownership or possession of the property.
9. The Recipient will provide for such methods of administration for the program as are found by the Secretary of Transportation or the official to whom he/she delegates specific authority to give reasonable guarantee that it, other recipients, sub-recipients, sub-grantees, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, transferees, successors in interest, and other participants of Federal financial assistance under such program will comply with all requirements imposed or pursuant to the Acts, the Regulations, and this Assurance.
10. The Recipient agrees that the United States has a right to seek judicial enforcement with regard to any matter arising under the Acts, the Regulations, and this Assurance.
By signing this ASSURANCE, George Washington Regional Commission/Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization also agrees to comply (and require any sub-recipients, sub-grantees, contractors, successors, transferees, and/or assignees to comply) with all applicable provisions governing the Federal Highway Administration’s access to records, accounts, documents, information, facilities, and staff. You also recognize that you must comply with any program or compliance reviews, and/or complaint investigations conducted by the Federal Highway Administration. You must keep records, reports, and submit the material for review upon request to the Federal Highway Administration or its designee in a timely, complete, and accurate way. Additionally, you must comply with all other reporting, data collection, and evaluation requirements, as prescribed by law or detailed in program guidance.
George Washington Regional Commission/Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization] gives this ASSURANCE in consideration of and for obtaining any Federal grants, loans, contracts, agreements, property, and/or discounts, or other Federal-aid and Federal financial assistance extended after the date hereof to the recipients by the U.S. Department of Transportation under the Federal-Aid Highway Program. This ASSURANCE is binding on George Washington Regional Commission/Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, other recipients, sub-recipients, sub-grantees, contractors, subcontractors and their subcontractors', transferees, successors in interest, and any other participants in the Federal-Aid Highway Program. The person(s) signing below is authorized to sign this ASSURANCE on behalf of the Recipient.
George Washington Regional Commission/Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ______(Name of Recipient)
by ______(Signature of Authorized Official)
DATED______
3
APPENDIX A
During the performance of this contract, the contractor, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as the "contractor") agrees as follows:
1. Compliance with Regulations: The contractor (hereinafter includes consultants) will comply with the Acts and the Regulations relative to Non-discrimination in Federally-assisted programs of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal-Aid Highway Program, as they may be amended from time to time, which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this contract.
2. Non-discrimination: The contractor, with regard to the work performed by it during the contract, will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in the selection and retention of subcontractors, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment. The contractor will not participate directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by the Acts and the Regulations, including employment practices when the contract covers any activity, project, or program set forth in Appendix B of 49 CFR Part 21.
3. Solicitations for Subcontracts, Including Procurements of Materials and Equipment: In all solicitations, either by competitive bidding, or negotiation made by the contractor for work to be performed under a subcontract, including procurements of materials, or leases of equipment, each potential subcontractor or supplier will be notified by the contractor of the contractor's obligations under this contract and the Acts and the Regulations relative to Non- discrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin.
4. Information and Reports: The contractor will provide all information and reports required by the Acts, the Regulations, and directives issued pursuant thereto and will permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as may be determined by the Recipient or the Federal Highway Administration to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such Acts, Regulations, and instructions. Where any information required of a contractor is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish the information, the contractor will so certify to the Recipient or the Federal Highway Administration, as appropriate, and will set forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information.
5. Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of a contractor's noncompliance with the Non• discrimination provisions of this contract, the Recipient will impose such contract sanctions as it or the Federal Highway Administration may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to:
a. withholding payments to the contractor under the contract until the contractor complies; and/or b. cancelling, terminating, or suspending a contract, in whole or in part.
6. Incorporation of Provisions: The contractor will include the provisions of paragraphs one through six in every subcontract, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Acts, the Regulations and directives issued pursuant thereto. The
A
contractor will take action with respect to any subcontract or procurement as the Recipient or the Federal Highway Administration may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for noncompliance. Provided, that if the contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with litigation by a subcontractor, or supplier because of such direction, the contractor may request the Recipient to enter into any litigation to protect the interests of the Recipient. In addition, the contractor may request the United States to enter into the litigation to protect the interests of the United States.
A
APPENDIX B
CLAUSES FOR DEEDS TRANSFERRING UNITED STATES PROPERTY
The following clauses will be included in deeds effecting or recording the transfer of real property, structures, or improvements thereon, or granting interest therein from the United States pursuant to the provisions of Assurance 4:
NOW, THEREFORE, the U.S. Department of Transportation as authorized by law and upon the condition that the George Washington Regional Commission/ Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization will accept title to the lands and maintain the project constructed thereon in accordance with Title 23, United States Code, the Regulations for the Administration of Federal-Aid Highway Program, and the policies and procedures prescribed by the Federal Highway Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation in accordance and in compliance with all requirements imposed by Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Non-discrimination in Federally-assisted programs of the U.S Department of Transportation pertaining to and effectuating the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 252; 42 U.S.C. § 2000d to 2000d-4), does hereby remise, release, quitclaim and convey unto the George Washington Regional Commission/Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization all the right, title and interest of the U.S. Department of Transportation in and to said lands described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
(HABENDUM CLAUSE)
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said lands and interests therein unto the George Washington Regional Commission/Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization and its successors forever, subject, however, to the covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations herein contained as follows, which will remain in effect for the period during which the real property or structures are used for a purpose for which Federal financial assistance is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits and will be binding on the George Washington Regional Commission/Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, its successors and assigns.
The George Washington Regional Commission/Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, in consideration of the conveyance of said lands and interests in lands, does hereby covenant and agree as a covenant running with the land for itself, its successors and assigns, that (1) no person will on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination with regard to any facility located wholly or in part on, over, or under such lands hereby conveyed [,] [and]* (2) that the George Washington Regional Commission/Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization will use the lands and interests in lands and interests in lands so conveyed, in compliance with all requirements imposed by or pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Non•discrimination in Federally-assisted programs of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and as said Regulations and Acts may be amended [, and (3) that in the event of breach of any of the above-mentioned non- discrimination conditions, the Department will have a right to enter or re-enter said lands and facilities on said land, and that above described land and facilities will thereon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of the U.S. Department of Transportation and its assigns as such interest existed prior to this instruction].*
B
APPENDIX C
CLAUSES FOR TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED OR IMPROVED UNDER THE ACTIVITY, FACILITY, OR PROGRAM
The following clauses will be included in deeds, licenses, leases, permits, or similar instruments entered into by the George Washington Regional Commission/Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization pursuant to the provisions of Assurance 7(a):
A. The (grantee, lessee, permittee, etc. as appropriate) for himself/herself, his/her heirs, personal representatives, successors in interest, and assigns, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree [in the case of deeds and leases add "as a covenant running with the land"] that:
1. In the event facilities are constructed, maintained, or otherwise operated on the property described in this (deed, license, lease, permit, etc.) for a purpose for which a U.S. Department of Transportation activity, facility, or program is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits, the (grantee, licensee, lessee, permittee, etc.) will maintain and operate such facilities and services in compliance with all requirements imposed by the Acts and Regulations (as may be amended) such that no person on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in the use of said facilities.
B. With respect to licenses, leases, permits, etc., in the event of breach of any of the above Non- discrimination covenants, George Washington Regional Commission/Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization will have the right to terminate the (lease, license, permit, etc.) and to enter, re-enter, and repossess said lands and facilities thereon, and hold the same as if the (lease, license, permit, etc.) had never been made or issued.*
C. With respect to a deed, in the event of breach of any of the above Non-discrimination covenants, the George Washington Regional Commission/Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization will have the right to enter or re-enter the lands and facilities thereon, and the above described lands and facilities will there upon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of the George Washington Regional Commission/Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization and its assigns.*
(*Reverter clause and related language to be used only when it is determined that such a clause is necessary to make clear the purpose of Title VI.)
C
APPENDIX D
CLAUSES FOR CONSTRUCTION/USE/ACCESS TO REAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED UNDER THE ACTIVITY, FACILITY OR PROGRAM
The following clauses will be included in deeds, licenses, permits, or similar instruments/agreements entered into by George Washington Regional Commission/Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization pursuant to the provisions of Assurance 7(b):
A. The (grantee, licensee, permittee, etc., as appropriate) for himself/herself, his/her heirs, personal representatives, successors in interest, and assigns, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree (in the case of deeds and leases add, "as a covenant running with the land") that (1) no person on the ground of race, color, or national origin, will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in the use of said facilities, (2) that in the construction of any improvements on, over, or under such land, and the furnishing of services thereon, no person on the ground of race, color, or national origin, will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination, (3) that the (grantee, licensee, lessee, permittee, etc.) will use the premises in compliance with all other requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Acts and Regulations, as amended, set forth in this Assurance.
B. With respect to (licenses, leases, permits, etc.), in the event of breach of any of the above Non• discrimination covenants, George Washington Regional Commission/Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization will have the right to terminate the (license, permit, etc., as appropriate) and to enter or re-enter and repossess said land and the facilities thereon, and hold the same as if said (license, permit, etc., as appropriate) had never been made or issued.*
C. With respect to deeds, in the event of breach of any of the above Non-discrimination covenants, George Washington Regional Commission/Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization will there upon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of George Washington Regional Commission/Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization and its assigns.*
(*Reverter clause and related language to be used only when it is determined that such a clause is necessary to make clear the purpose of Title VI.)
D
APPENDIX E
During the performance of this contract, the contractor, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as the "contractor") agrees to comply with the following non- discrimination statutes and authorities; including but not limited to:
Pertinent Non-Discrimination Authorities:
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin); and 49 CFR Part 21. • The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (42 U.S.C. § 4601), (prohibits unfair treatment of persons displaced or whose property has been acquired because of Federal or Federal-aid programs and projects); • Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, (23 U.S.C. § 324 et seq.), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex); • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.), as amended, (prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability); and 49 CFR Part 27; • The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, (42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq.), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of age); • Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, (49 USC § 471, Section 47123), as amended, (prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, color, national origin, or sex); • The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, (PL 100-209), (Broadened the scope, coverage and applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, by expanding the definition of the terms "programs or activities" to include all of the programs or activities of the Federal-aid recipients, sub-recipients and contractors, whether such programs or activities are Federally funded or not); • Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation systems, places of public accommodation, and certain testing entities (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12189) as implemented by Department of Transportation regulations at 49 C.F.R. parts 37 and 38; • The Federal Aviation Administration's Non-discrimination statute (49 U.S.C. § 47123) (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and sex); • Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, which ensures Non-discrimination against minority populations by discouraging programs, policies, and activities with disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations; • Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, and resulting agency guidance, national origin discrimination includes discrimination because of Limited English proficiency (LEP). To ensure compliance with Title VI, you must take reasonable steps to ensure that LEP persons have meaningful access to your programs (70 Fed. Reg. at 74087 to 74100); • Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, which prohibits you from discriminating because of sex in education programs or activities (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq).
E
APPENDIX VII: SIGNED RESOLUTIONS
76
77
APPENDIX VIII – LEP POPULATION AGGREGATIONS MAP
78
APPENDIX IX – “I SPEAK CARDS”
79
APPENDIX X – DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY
80
81
APPENDIX XI – PUBLIC PARTICIPATION COMMENT PROCESS FOR KEY PLANNING DOCUMENTS
DRAFT DOCUMENT
The document is drafted and sent to all participating agencies for review and comment. The draft document is made available to the public for feedback through the following outlets:
• FAMPO Document Library • FAMPO Website • Regional Libraries • Central Rappahannock Regional Library • England Run Library • Salem Church Library • C. Melvin Snow Library • John Musante Porter Library • Caroline Library • Ladysmith Library • Port Royal Library • L. E. Smoot Library • Local Government Planning Offices • Public Meetings and Public Hearings
PUBLIC MEETINGS & PUBLIC HEARINGS
• Public Open Houses/Informational Meetings: A public open house or information meeting may be held to discuss the LRTP OR update prior to developing the draft for the public hearing. Open houses provide a forum for the LRTP development team to present information to the public and agencies and to receive feedback on particular issues as the draft is being developed. These open houses/meetings are conveniently located in the appropriate jurisdiction and are ADA accessible and convenient to transit, where applicable. These meetings are announced through print and internet advertisements in regional and local newspapers, FAMPO website, electronic mail, social media and RSS feed. Upon advance notice, services
82
are provided for individuals with special needs such as deaf interpreters, translators and Braille documents. • Public Hearings: A public hearing is held during the Policy Committee meeting once the public comment period has ended, the draft document is finalized and the document is ready for consideration for adoption. Upon advance notice, services are provided for individuals with special needs such as deaf interpreters, translators and Braille documents. • Public Meetings and Hearing Notices: The public is notified of public meetings and public hearings through print and internet advertisements in regional and local newspapers, FAMPO website, electronic mail, social media and RSS feed. Upon advance notice, services are provided for individuals with special needs such as deaf interpreters, translators and Braille documents. • Briefings/Small Group Meetings/Interviews: In order to reach special interest groups and target regional areas or groups, small group meetings and interviews may be utilized at the discretion of the FAMPO staff in updating transportation planning documents. These meeting types can foster more meaningful information flow between FAMPO and the public, particularly when there is a need for input on a very specific issue. • Comment Opportunities: Once the draft document is release for review and comment, the public and related agencies have the following allotted amount of time to submit questions and/or comments: • United Planning Work Program (UPWP) – 30 days • Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) – 30 days • Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) – 30 days • Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan – 30 days • Limited English Proficiency Plan (LEP) (included in PPP) – 30 days • LRTP, TIP, UPWP, Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan, and LEP Non-Technical Amendments – 15 to 30 days, as appropriate • Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan (BPP) (included in LRTP) – 30 days • Regional Transit Plan (included in LRTP) – 30 days • Public Participation Plan (PPP) & Non-Technical Amendments – 45 days
Comments are accepted in the following ways:
• Electronic Mail: [email protected] • Printed comment forms can be submitted via: • USPS: FAMPO, 406 Princess Anne street, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22554 • Fax: 540.899.4808
83
• Public meetings and public hearings • Online comment forms can be submitted electronically via: • FAMPO website: www.fampo.gwregion.org • FAMPO facebook page: www.facebook.com/FAMPO1VA • Call Voice Relay System for Hearing Assistance: #711 • In person: Attend FAMPO committee meetings, public meetings and/or public hearings
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
Written, verbal and electronic comments are collected and review by FAMPO staff. Substantive comments are summarized and included in the final planning document.
ADOPTED DOCUMENTS
The adopted documents are available on the FAMPO website and in the FAMPO Document Library.
84
APPENDIX XII – AGENCIES INVOLVED IN REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
The following is a list of federal, state and local agencies included in the coordination, collaboration and review of the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).
FEDERAL
• Bureau of Indian Affairs – Eastern Regional Office • Bureau of Land Management • Environmental Protection Agency – Region 3 (Mid-Atlantic) • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration – Region 3 • Federal Emergency Management Agency • Department of Homeland Security – Region 3 • National Parks Service • National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region • US Fish and Wildlife Service • US Army Corps of Engineers – Mid East District • US Department of Transportation • US Coast Guard • US Army Fort A.P. Hill • Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division • US Marine Base Quantico • US Geological Survey- Northeast Region
STATE
• Virginia Department of Transportation • Virginia Department of Rail & Public Transportation • Virginia Department for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing • Virginia Department for the Aging • Virginia Department of Aviation • Virginia Department for the Blind and Vision Impaired • Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation, Stormwater Management • Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation, Natural Heritage
85
• Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation, Land Conservation • Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation, Recreation Planning • Virginia Department of Emergency Management – Region 2 • Virginia Department of Environmental Quality • Virginia Department of Historic Resources • Virginia Department of Forestry • Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries • Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development • Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy • Virginia Department of Public Safety • Virginia Tourism Cooperation • Virginia Economic Development Partnership • Virginia Marine Resources Commission • Virginia Outdoors Foundation • Virginia Marine Resources Commission
REGIONAL & LOCAL
• Elected Officials • County Administrators/City Manager • Planning and Community Development Departments • Public Works Departments • Economic Development Agencies • Transit and Transportation Agencies • Emergency Services Departments • Health and Social Services Departments • Historical Agencies • Environmental Departments
86
APPENDIX XIII – PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT EVALUATION MEASURES
Successful evaluation of the effectiveness of the public participation plan requires tracking outreach activities and establishing initial baseline measurements. By continuously evaluating public participation activities, it is possible to discontinue activities that are ineffective and to improve or add new public participation activities to the program. The following describes the evaluation methods used in gauging the effectiveness of the Public Participation Plan:
NOTE: In each Public Participation Tool, the Performance Goal is to strive for an increase of the Evaluation Criteria statistics over the previous calendar year.
Public Participation Tool Evaluation Criteria No measure (PPP should reflect the policies Public Participation Plan and practices of the MPO) Master Contact Database Number of contacts listed Website Number of times site is visited Electronic Notifications Number of electronic notifications sent Newspaper & Website Public Required by law Notices/Advertisements Number of times translation tools were Translation Tools requested Virginia Relay Number of times Virginia Relay was utilized Planning Document Distribution Number of distribution sites Internet Advertisements Number of click-throughs Number of electronic mails received from Citizen Mailing Lists citizens who have requested to be on a mailing list Press Releases Number of media outlets reached Number of website links posted on other Other Website Links websites Facebook Number of fans Twitter Number of followers
87
Number of times staff was engaged in a radio Radio Interviews interview Number of times information was placed on the local government access channels Government Access Channels Number of times information in Spanish was placed on the local government access channels Number of informational brochures Informational Brochures distributed Member Orientation Manuals Number of orientation manuals distributed Public Meetings/Workshops/Hearings Number of citizens in attendance Number of surveys returned Surveys/Questionnaires Number of Spanish surveys returned Number of postcards and direct mailings sent Postcards/Direct Mailings Flyers Number of flyers distributed Number of Spanish flyers distributed Speakers Bureaus Number of speaker bureaus attended
88
APPENDIX XIV - GLOSSARY
FAMPO COMMITTEES:
Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee (BPC): The BPC is comprised of citizens, planners, biking and walking organizations and was established to provide guidance to the Policy Committee on issues related to the non-motorized modes of transportation. This committee also provides recommendations for the encouragement and education of the public regarding bicycle and pedestrian routes, safety and other issues.
Public Transit Advisory Board (PTAB): The PTAB is appointed and managed by the City of Fredericksburg. This committee provides FAMPO with citizen, private and public partnership input on the public transit needs of the City of Fredericksburg and the region. The PTAB evaluates the operational and financial performance of the region’s public transit system, and advises the Fredericksburg City Council on any public transit issues that the PTAB considers appropriate for City Council consideration. To learn more about the PTAB, visit the City of Fredericksburg website.
Policy Committee (PC): The PC is the policy decision-making board comprised of eleven elected and non-elected voting members. Caroline County, King George County and the Fredericksburg District Representative of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) serve as ex officio members. The PC acts as the authority on all regional transportation planning matters and ensures that all entities engaged in transportation related activities conform to statutory requirements. The PC works with the public, local governments, organizations, state and federal government agencies, elected and non-elected officials and community groups to develop regional transportation plans.
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): The TAC was established to advise and to provide technical engineering and planning expertise during the transportation planning process. The TAC consists primarily of engineers, planners, and other professionals who represent the region’s local governments and transportation/transit agencies and works with the FAMPO staff to develop planning and programming recommendations for the Policy Committee.
89
Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC): The CTAC is an advisory group to the Policy Committee and consists of citizens appointed by the Policy Committee, local governments and local organizations. The CTAC functions to encourage citizen participation during the transportation planning process and to advise the Policy Committee of the citizen’s perspective on transportation planning, programs and projects.
FAMPO PRODUCTS:
Air Quality Conformity Analysis (AQCA): All projects that are determined to add capacity (i.e., adding a travel lane) to the road network must undergo an air quality analysis as part of the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) processes. Capacity adding projects cannot exceed the amount of allowable emissions as stated in the Statewide Transportation Improvements Plan (SIP). The AQCA is updated along with and included as part of the LRTP and TIP.
Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan (BPP): The primary goals of the BPP are to preserve and enhance the bicycling and pedestrian network, to improve the safety, attractiveness and overall viability of cycling and walking as legitimate transportation alternatives to the transportation system. The BPP is reviewed and updated every four years in conjunction with the update of the LRTP.
Congestion Management Process (CMP): A CMP presents a systematic process for managing traffic congestion and enhancing the mobility of persons and goods. It includes alternative strategies for alleviating congestion and enhancing the mobility of persons and goods to levels that meet state and local needs. At the core, a CMP should include a data collection and monitoring system, a range of strategies for addressing congestion, performance measures or criteria for identifying when action is needed, and a system for prioritizing which congestion management strategies would be most effective.
Limited English Proficiency Plan (LEP): Individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English can be Limited English Proficient (LEP). These individuals are entitled to language assistance under Title VI or the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The LEP Plan outlines how to identify persons who may need language assistance, the ways in which assistance may be provided, staff training that may be required, and how to notify LEP individuals that assistance is available. The goal of the LEP plan is to ensure that all residents in the George Washington Region can, to the fullest extent practicable, participate in the transportation planning and decision-making process.
90
Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP): The LRTP is an evaluation of the current status and future needs of our regional transportation system. The LRTP includes anticipated improvements for all modes of travel over the next 20-30 years including streets and highways, public transportation/transit, railroads, aviation, and bicycle and pedestrian needs.
Public Participation Plan (PPP): The purpose of the PPP is to serve as a guide in the development of outreach methods that encourage the public’s involvement in the regional transportation planning process. The PPP outlines the strategies utilized to provide and receive information from the public on the transportation planning and programming process including projects, studies, plans and committee actions. The PPP takes into account Title VI populations and limited English proficiency populations. The PPP is updated every three years.
Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan: The Title VI Nondiscrimination Plan assures that no person shall on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (P.L. 100.259), be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any agency sponsored program or activity. Nor shall sex, age, or disability stand in the way of fair treatment of all individuals.
Regional Transit Policy Plan (RTPP): The RTPP was an integral part in the development of the Transit Needs Plan for the LRTP. It examined a large number of transit improvement scenarios, representing a range of choices, from relatively low levels of transit service to large expansion that could make transit a more integral component of the region’s transportation system.
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): The TIP is a financially constrained, four-year list of transportation projects programmed for the FAMPO study area. The TIP is updated annually and includes projects on the Interstate, Primary, Urban and Secondary Highway Systems. It also includes safety, transportation enhancement and public transportation projects. The TIP may also include funding for feasibility studies, preliminary engineering activities and environmental impact studies.
Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP): The UPWP serves as the annual work program for FAMPO. It provides details of transportation-related planning activities that FAMPO intends to accomplish during the program year utilizing federal, state and local resources. The UPWP further contains a compendium of related transportation planning known to be undertaken by other jurisdictions in the region. It also delineates responsibilities and procedures for carrying out the cooperative transportation planning process. Included in the UPWP is a
91
budget, which details how each funding source will be utilized. This permits the UPWP to act as a grant application for federal funds and also as a management tool for directing the staff activities throughout the year. The UPWP is reviewed and updated annually.
AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS:
Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO): A national nonprofit membership organization serving the interests of metropolitan planning organizations nationwide.
Department of Transportation (DOT): Agency responsible for transportation at the local, state, or federal level. For title 23 U.S.C. federal-aid highway actions, this would mean the Federal Highway Administration and for federal-aid transit actions under title 49 U.S.C, this would mean the Federal Transit Administration.
Virginia Department of Rail & Public Transportation (DRPT): A state agency that works closely with the Virginia Department of Transportation in order to accomplish its mission of improving the mobility of people and goods while expanding transportation choices in the Commonwealth. Its three primary areas of activity include rail transportation, public transportation and commuter services. Rail transportation involves the movement of people and goods on railways owned and operated by private railroad companies. Public transportation systems help manage traffic congestion and provide transportation choices while safely transporting people to destinations across the Commonwealth. Commuter services programs work to promote carpools, vanpools, and other alternative modes of transportation to Virginia’s commuters.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): A federal agency that works to protect human health and the environment. Since 1970, EPA has been working for a cleaner, healthier environment for the American people.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): The agency responsible for the safety of civil aviation. It issues and enforces regulations and minimum standards covering manufacturing, operating, and maintaining aircraft, manages air space and air traffic, builds or installs visual and electronic aids to air navigation, regulates and encourages the U.S. commercial space transportation industry, and does research in order to develop the systems and procedures needed for a safe and efficient system of air navigation and air traffic control.
Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO): The Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) is a federally-designated transportation planning agency for the City of Fredericksburg, and the counties of Spotsylvania and Stafford,
92
and serves as a regional partnership among the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), transit agencies, local elected leadership, local planning and public works directors, the business community and citizens in the planning area.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): Division of the U.S. Department of Transportation responsible for administrating federal highway transportation programs under title 23 U.S.C.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA): This federal department was created by the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. The purpose of FRA is to: promulgate and enforce rail safety regulations; administer railroad assistance programs; conduct research and development in support of improved railroad safety and national rail transportation policy; provide for the rehabilitation of Northeast Corridor rail passenger service; and consolidate government support of rail transportation activities. Today, the FRA is one of ten agencies within the U.S. Department of Transportation concerned with intermodal transportation
Federal Transit Administration (FTA): Federal entity responsible for transit planning and programs under title 49 U.S.C.
George Washington Regional Commission (GWRC): The planning district commission for the 320,000 residents of Planning District 16 which includes the City of Fredericksburg and the counties of Caroline, King George, Spotsylvania and Stafford. Formerly known as the Rappahannock Area Development Commission (RADCO), its principal functions include regional and environmental planning, energy-conservation, hazard mitigation and rural transportation planning programs; and operation of GWRideConnect, the region’s nationally-recognized rideshare brokerage that facilitates and promotes vanpooling and transit use.
Virginia Department of Aviation (VDA): A state transportation agency whose mission is to cultivate an advanced, market-driven aviation system that is safe, secure, and provides for economic development; promotes aviation awareness and education; and provides executive flight services for the Commonwealth leadership.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ): The VDEQ works to protect and enhance the environment of Virginia in order to promote the health and well-being of citizens of the Commonwealth. VDEQ administers state and federal laws and regulations for air quality, water quality, water supply and waste management, issues environmental
93
permits to businesses, local governments, and state and federal facilities and inspects and monitors these permitted facilities.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT): The agency responsible for building, maintaining and operating the state's roads, bridges and tunnels. It also provides funding for airports, seaports, rail and public transportation through the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
United States Department of Transportation (USDOT): A cabinet-level executive department of the United States government, whose mission is to develop and coordinate policies that will provide an efficient and economical national transportation system, with due regard for need, the environment, and the national defense. It is the primary agency in the federal government with the responsibility for shaping and administering policies and programs to protect and enhance the safety, adequacy, and efficiency of the transportation system and services.
FUNDING PROGRAMS
Transportation Alternative Program Funds: The TAP provides funding for programs and projects defined as transportation alternatives, including on- and off- road pedestrian and bicycle facilities, infrastructure projects for improving non-driver access to public transportation and enhanced mobility, community improvement activities, and environmental mitigation; recreational trail program projects; safe routes to school projects; and projects for planning, designing, or constructing boulevards and other roadways largely in the right-of-way of former Interstate System routes or other divided highways,.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ): A categorical funding program created under ISTEA, which directs funding to projects that contribute to meeting national air quality standards in non-attainment areas for ozone and carbon monoxide. FAMPO reviews these funds annually based on a formula which includes population and air quality.
Local Match: Funds required by recipients of SPR/PL and Section 5303 funds for matching federal and state grant funds. Section 5303 and PL funds require a 10% match, with VDOT/VDRPT providing 10% and the remaining 80% provided by the federal source. SPR funds require a 20% local match.
Planning Funds (PL): Available from FHWA for MPO program activities.
94
Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP): FAMPO receives these funds annually, based on population.
Section 5303: Planning funds available from the FTA for MPO program activities.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA): Federal law that requires public facilities (including transportation services) to be accessible to persons with disabilities, including those with mental disabilities, temporary disabilities, and the conditions related to substance abuse.
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA): 1990 amendments to the federal Clean Air Act that classify non-attainment areas and provide for rules dealing with air pollution in such areas; specifically brought transportation decisions into the context of air quality control.
Code of Federal Regulations Title 23, Part 450: Guides the development of statewide transportation plans and programs; requires early and continuous public involvement.
Code of Federal Regulations Title 49, Part 24: Ensures property owners and people displaced by federal-aid projects are treated fairly, consistently and equitably.
Environmental Justice (EJ): Derived from Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Environmental Justice describes the impact of transportation plans or projects, either positive or negative, on a particular community or population. Environmental Justice strives to ensure public involvement of low income and minority groups in decision making, to prevent disproportionately high and adverse impacts on low income and minority groups, and to assure that these groups receive equal benefits from transportation improvements.
Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice: Addresses avoidance of actions that can cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low income populations.
Executive Order 13166 on Limited English Proficiency: Improving access to services for people with limited English proficiency.
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA): Federal law which restructured transportation planning and funding by requiring consideration of multimodal solutions, emphasis on the movement of people and goods as opposed to traditional highway investments, flexibility in the use of transportation funds, a greater role of MPOs, and a greater emphasis on public participation.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA): Requires consideration of impacts on human environments.
95
Fixing America’s Sruface Transportation (FAST) ACT: Legislation enacted on December 4, 2015 , as Public Law. FAST Act is a $305 billion bill authorizes the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the 5-year period 2015-2020.
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21): Federal Legislation authorizing funds for all modes of transportation and guidelines on the use of those funds. Successor to ISTEA, this landmark legislation clarifies the role of the MPOs in the local priority setting process. TEA-21 emphasizes increased public involvement, simplicity, flexibility, fairness, and higher funding levels for transportation.
Title VI Civil Rights Act 1964: Ensures that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, or physical handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program receiving Federal assistance from the United States Department of Transportation.
United States Code (USC) Title 23, Sections 134: Participation by interested parties.
United States Code (USC) Title 23, Sections 135: Provides for reasonable access to comment on proposed plans.
United States Code (USC) Title 23, Section 128: Requires public hearings or the opportunity for public hearings for plans for federal-aid highway projects
OTHER GENERAL TERMS
"3 C" Process ("Continuing, Cooperative and Comprehensive"): Language from federal legislation establishing MPOs and used in reference to the regional transportation planning and programming process.
Community Impact Assessment (CIA): Community impact assessment is “a process to evaluate the effects of a transportation action on a community and its quality of life.” It is a way to incorporate community considerations into the planning and development of major transportation projects. From a policy perspective, it is a process for assessing the social and economic impacts of transportation projects as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The assessment may address a variety of important community issues such as land development, aesthetics, mobility, neighborhood cohesion, safety, relocation, and economic impacts.
96
Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB): Appointed by the governor, the 17-member Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) establishes the administrative policies for Virginia's transportation system.
Congestion Pricing: A type of tolling created to manage traffic congestion.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document that explains the purpose and need for a project, presents project alternatives, analyzes the likely impact of each, explains the choice of a preferred alternative, and finally details measures to be taken in order to mitigate the impacts of the preferred alternative.
Fiscal Constraint: A requirement, originally of ISTEA, that all plans be financially – constrained, balanced expenditures to reasonably expected sources of funding over the period of the TIP or Long-Range Transportation Plan.
Fiscal Year (FY): A federal fiscal or budget year; runs from October 1 through September 30 for the MPO and the federal government.
High Occupancy Lanes (HOT): HOT lanes are limited-access; normally barrier-separated highway lanes that provide free or reduced cost access to qualifying HOVs, and also provide access to other paying vehicles not meeting passenger occupancy requirements.
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV): Vehicles carrying 3 or more people receive this designation and may travel on freeways/interstates, expressways and other large volume roads in lanes designated for high occupancy vehicles.
Incident Management System (IMS): A systematic process required under SAFETE-LU to provide information on accidents and identify causes and improvements to the transportation system to increase safety of all users.
Intermodal Transportation: Refers to transport by two or more modes of transportation. For example, passenger stations which provide transfers between buses and trains are described as intermodal.
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS): Use of computer and communications technology to facilitate the flow of information between travelers and system operators to improve mobility and transportation productivity, enhance safety, maximize the use of existing transportation facilities, conserve energy resources and reduce adverse environmental effects; includes concepts such as “freeway management systems,” “automated fare collection” and “transit information kiosks.”
97
Intergovernmental Agreement: Legal instrument describing tasks to be accomplished and/or funds to be paid between government agencies.
Low-Income Populations: Those groups whose household income is at or below the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines and who will be affected by a proposed FAMPO program, policy, or activity. (Ref: DOT Order on Environmental Justice)
Minority Groups: Those persons who are African-American, Hispanic, Asian American, American Indian or Alaskan Native. These minority populations are those that are readily identifiable groups who live in geographic proximities who will be affected by a proposed FAMPO program, policy, or activity.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): The primary NAAQS are defined as the levels of air quality that the EPA judges necessary to protect the public health. EPA also establishes secondary NAAQS that protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects.
Public: Includes citizens, public agencies, advocacy groups and the private sectors that have an interest in or may be affected by MPO activities.
Right-of-Way (ROW): Real property that is used for transportation purposes; defines the extent of the corridor that can be used for the road and associated drainage.
Travel Demand Model: This is a tool for forecasting impacts of urban developments on travel patterns as well as testing various transportation alternative solutions to traffic patterns. The travel patterns are determined from US census results and in simple terms tell where residents live and where they go to work or school on a regional wide basis.
State Implementation Plan (SIP): State Implementation Plan (for attainment and maintenance of air quality standards)
Statewide Mobility Plan (SMP): VDOT’s 10 year plan for adding capacity to the transportation system using the Mobility Category Funds of Federal and State Transportation funding.
State Transportation and Improvement Program (STIP): The STIP is a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects on and off the State Highway System, funded with revenues from the State Highway Account and other funding sources.
Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): A statewide-coordinated safety plan that provides a comprehensive framework for reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries on all public
98
roads. The SHSP strategically establishes statewide goals, objectives, and key emphasis areas developed in consultation with Federal, State, local, and private sector safety stakeholders.
Surface Transportation Program (STP): This program provides flexible funding that may be used by States and localities for projects on any Federal-aid highway, including the National Highway System, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intercity and intercity bus terminals and facilities. A portion of funds reserved for rural areas may be spent on rural minor collectors.
Six Year Improvement Program (SYIP): The Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP) is a document that outlines planned spending for transportation projects proposed for construction development or study for the next six years.
Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ): Generally defined as areas of homogeneous activity served by one or two major highways. TAZs serve as the base unit for socioeconomic data characteristics used in various plans and studies.
Traffic Demand Management (TDM): Various traffic control strategies and measures used in managing highway demand.
Transportation Disadvantaged: People who are unable to transport themselves or to purchase transportation due to disability, income status or age.
Transportation Enhancements: Specific activities which can be funded with Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds; activities include pedestrian/bicycle facilities, acquisition of scenic easements and scenic historic sites, scenic or historic highway programs, scenic beautification, historic preservation, rehabilitation/operation of historic transportation structures, railway corridor preservation, control/removal of outdoor advertising, archeological planning/research and mitigation of highway runoff water pollution.
Transportation Management Area (TMA): An area designated by the U.S. Department of Transportation given to all urbanized areas with a population over 200,000 (or other area when requested by the Governor and MPO); these areas must comply with special transportation planning requirements regarding congestion management systems, project selection and certification; requirements identified in 23 CFR - 450.300-33.6.
Transportation Systems Management (TSM): Strategies to improve the efficiency of the transportation system through operational improvements such as the use of bus priority or reserved lanes, signalization, access management, turn restrictions, etc.
99
Urbanized Area: These areas generally contain population densities of at least 1,000 persons per square mile in a continuously built up area of at least 50,000 persons. Factors such as commercial and industrial development, and other types and forms of urban activity centers are also considered.
Virginia Surface Transportation Plan (VSTP): The VSTP is a coordinated effort between the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT_ and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation. The VSTP contains specific recommendations for highway, rail, transit and transportation demand management; representing the first time Virginia's surface transportation agencies have coordinated recommendations across various modes in a single plan.
100
APPENDIX XV – EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
101
102
103
104
a `
7. Discussion Items
b. Federal Certification Review - Mr. Paul Agnello FHWA/FTA Joint Planning Certification Reviews
Ivan Rucker January 28, 2019
Fredericksburg Metropolitan Planning Organization George Washington Regional Commission
U.S. Department of Transportation TMA Planning Certification Review Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration Certification
The Secretary shall ensure that the metropolitan planning process of a metropolitan planning organization serving a transportation management area is being carried out in accordance with applicable provisions of Federal law. [23 USC 134(k)(5)(A)(i) and 49 USC 5303(k)(5)(A)(i)]
U.S. Department of Transportation TMA Planning Certification Review Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration Definition, Purpose and Frequency of Review
❑What is it? In depth, documented review of planning process
❑What for? To ensure planning and program process consistent with federal law and regulations
❑How often? At least every 4 years
U.S. Department of Transportation TMA Planning Certification Review Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration Certification Review
The Certification is not just a review of the MPO or its staff; rather, it is a review of the planning process conducted by all agencies (State, MPO, and transit operators) charged with carrying out the process on a daily basis. This shared responsibility is specifically addressed in the regulations:
The MPO, State(s), and the providers of public transportation shall cooperatively determine their mutual responsibilities in carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning process. [23 CFR 450.314(a)]
U.S. Department of Transportation TMA Planning Certification Review Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration 4 Areas of Review (Traditional)
• Organization Structure (Bylaws, • Self Certification/Procurement Procedures Committees, etc.) • Congestion Management Process • Planning Boundaries • Transit • Agreements and Contracts • Consultation/Coordination Procedures • Regional Long Range Plan • Listing of Obligated Projects • Regional TIP • Bike/Ped Planning • Unified Planning Work Program • Freight Planning • Financial/Fiscal Constraint • Air quality/Conformity • Project Selection Process • Public Participation Plan • Travel Demand Model • Performance Based Planning • Title VI Civil Rights/Nondiscrimination Statutes
U.S. Department of Transportation TMA Planning Certification Review Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration 5 Areas of Review (Risk-Based)
• Risk-based review focuses on high-risk areas, both threats and opportunities, and does not attempt to cover every planning topic.
• Areas of Review (Example) • Agreements/Contracts (3-C, Performance, Planning (including PL Agreement/Contract and UPWP) • Project Selection Process (including CMP) • Performance Based Planning • Title VI Civil Rights/Nondiscrimination
U.S. Department of Transportation TMA Planning Certification Review Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration 6 Certification - Public Hearing
In making certification determinations under this paragraph, the Secretary shall provide for public involvement appropriate to the metropolitan area under review. [23 USC 134(k)(5)(D)]
In conducting a certification review, the FHWA and the FTA shall provide opportunities for public involvement within the metropolitan planning area under review. The FHWA and the FTA shall consider the public input received in arriving at a decision on a certification action. [23 CFR 450.336(b)(4)]
U.S. Department of Transportation TMA Planning Certification Review Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration Certification Finding Categories Thank You!
Ivan Rucker Federal Highway Administration [email protected] 804.775.3350
U.S. Department of Transportation TMA Planning Certification Review Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration a `
7c. Lafayette Boulevard, Phase 1 - Mr. Paul Agnello
▪
▪
▪
▪
2 ▪
▪
▪
3 4 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪
5 ▪ ▪ – » – »
– ▪ – ▪
6 Cost: $5.8 Million
Will significantly improve highway and bicycle/pedestrian safety and capacity
Will improve accessibility of Fredericksburg VRE/AMTRAK station
7 ▪ – Consultant scope and budget: $76K for FAMPO action
▪
▪
▪
8 9 a `
7ci. Adopted Resolution 19-24, Approving the Scope and Budget for Consultant Services for the Phase 1, Transit Component of the Lafayette Boulevard Multimodal Transportation Study
www.foursquareitp.com
LAFAYETTE BOULEVARD TRANSIT STUDY SCOPE OF WORK
51 Monroe Street, Suite 1103 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-774-4566 [email protected] Lafayette Boulevard Transit Study |
CONTENTS
1. Project Management and Coordination Meetings ...... 1 2. Existing Conditions Analysis ...... 2 2.1. Transit Inventory ...... 2 2.2. Planned Improvements ...... 2 2.3. Previous Studies ...... 2 2.4. Travel Demand Model Update ...... 3 3. Market Analysis ...... 3 3.1. Transit Propensity and Travel Flow Analysis ...... 3 3.2. VRE Rider Survey ...... 4 4. Transit Recommendations ...... 5 4.1. Development of Recommendations List ...... 5 4.2. Implementation Plan ...... 6 5. Final Report...... 6 6. Schedule ...... 8 7. Budget ...... 9
FIGURES
Figure 1: Foursquare ITP Transit Propensity Model Example for the FAMPO/GWRC Region ...... 4 Figure 2: Detailed Route Sheet from I-95 Transit/TDM Study ...... 6
TABLES
Table 1: Proposed Project Schedule ...... 8 Table 2: Proposed Project Budget ...... 9
ii
Lafayette Boulevard Transit Study |
PURPOSE AND NEED
Fredericksburg’s Lafayette Boulevard corridor is experiencing residential and commercial development and redevelopment because of its proximity to the downtown area and the AMTRAK/VRE station. Overall, the roadway is the lone remaining major corridor into the city that has not received an overhaul treatment. This study will help answer the question of which package of multimodal improvements will best meet future corridor needs.
At a minimum, there is at least the perception of a commuter parking shortage at the Fredericksburg VRE/AMTRAK station, with some decision-makers calling for a new parking deck with an estimated cost of at least $30 million. There is also some interest towards improving transit services and amenities, and bike and pedestrian facilities along the corridor. Fredericksburg Regional Transit’s (FRED) Route F3 currently provides hourly service between 7:30 am and 8:30 pm on weekdays along the corridor and connects to Lee’s Hill Center and the FRED terminal on US-1. Potential funding for improvements is available from the State, City, and FAMPO/GWRC; however, it is likely not enough to pay for all of the desired improvements. Therefore, this study will also help to prioritize potential investments.
Overall, this study will help to answer the following questions for the Lafayette Boulevard corridor:
1. Are local transit service improvements needed along Lafayette Boulevard? 2. Is additional FRED feeder bus service needed for Fredericksburg VRE/AMTRAK? 3. Is additional commuter parking needed for Fredericksburg VRE/AMTRAK? Or could some Transit/TDM improvements alleviate the need for this?
Foursquare ITP proposes the following scope of services to conduct this study.
1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION MEETINGS
In order to complete a successful project, Foursquare ITP proposes a combination of web meetings, working group meetings, and FAMPO board meetings. The project will begin with an in-person kick-off working group meeting with FAMPO staff and project stakeholders (to be identified by FAMPO staff). The aim of this meeting will be to review the project goals and objectives, tasks and deliverables, schedule, data requests, and to schedule future meetings. Following the kick-off meeting, we propose to schedule 12 web meetings with FAMPO staff to check in on study progress and review deliverables, as needed.
In addition to the project kick-off meeting and the web meetings with FAMPO staff, we will attend four in-person working group meetings. These meetings will include area stakeholders who will be identified by FAMPO staff. The first of these meetings will be to review Tasks 2 and 3 (Existing Conditions Analysis and Market Analysis), the second to review the initial recommendations developed through Task 4 (Transit Recommendations), a third to review the final recommendations for Task 4, and a fourth to review the Final Report created in Task 5.
Finally, in addition to the web meetings and the working group meetings we will also attend two in-person meetings to present findings to the FAMPO board. The first of these meetings will be to present the findings of Tasks 2 and 3, and the second to present the Final deliverable developed in Task 5 (Final Report). The second meeting will be held during the same trip as the final working group meeting.
1
Lafayette Boulevard Transit Study |
In this task we will also hold conference calls or web meetings as needed with the FAMPO project manager and submit monthly progress reports covering major items completed. Our project management approach will be centered on regular communication with FAMPO’s project manager to facilitate coordination and to keep the project on schedule.
Deliverables: ◼ 12 web meetings ◼ 5 in-person working group meetings ◼ 2 in-person FAMPO board meetings ◼ Monthly progress reports
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS
In this task we will inventory transit routes and infrastructure along the study corridor, review planned improvements on the corridor, and summarize previous studies related to transit on the corridor. The study corridor is defined as Lafayette Boulevard, between Caroline Street in Fredericksburg and Falcon Drive in Spotsylvania, Falcon Drive and Spotsylvania Avenue in Spotsylvania, and Market Street (to the proposed Lee’s Hill Center Transit Center) in Spotsylvania.
2.1. Transit Inventory We will begin this task by conducting a full transit inventory on the study corridor that includes the following:
◼ Bus routes: ─ Summarize FRED bus routes and daily ridership ◼ Bus stops: ─ Summarize FRED bus stops and daily ridership ─ Summarize passenger amenities and other infrastructure (such as pull-ins) ◼ Fredericksburg Train Station: ─ Obtain peak parking lot use (updated counts to be performed by FAMPO staff) ─ Summarize latest daily ridership and calculate station to station ridership
2.2. Planned Improvements We will also briefly summarize planned improvements on the corridor, including the following:
◼ Lafayette Boulevard/Charles Street/Kenmore Avenue intersection reconstruction into double roundabouts; ◼ Lee’s Hill Transit Center construction on Market Street in Spotsylvania; ◼ Bus pull-out construction on Lafayette Boulevard east of Charles Street (near the AMTRAK/VRE station); and ◼ Bus stop improvements, e.g., shelters, benches, and signage
2.3. Previous Studies Finally, we will identify and summarize relevant recommendations from previous studies related to the Lafayette Boulevard corridor. These will include, but will not be limited to:
◼ The 2017 FRED Transit Development Plan; ◼ The I-95 Transit/TDM Study; ◼ The King George County Transit Plan; ◼ The 2017 VRE Multimodal Accessibility to VRE Stations Study.
2
Lafayette Boulevard Transit Study |
◼ 2009 Lafayette Boulevard Corridor Study ◼ 2016 FAMPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Plan and 2018 Fredericksburg Pathways Plan ◼ 2016 Lafayette Boulevard Traffic Study
Overall, the existing conditions analysis in this task will establish context for Tasks 3 (Market Analysis) and 4 (Transit Recommendations) and form the baseline for recommended improvements in Task 4.
2.4. Travel Demand Model Update Using the new FAMPO Version 5.15 travel demand model, Michael Baker International (MBI) will develop data reflecting home-based and non home-based travel flow volumes internal to the FAMPO region and flows in and out of the region for years 2015, 2030 and 2050 using the FAMPO 2050 LRTP land use. The flow data will differentiate flows by time-of-day and mode of travel: AM and PM peak periods, as well as daily. The flow data will reflect only those projects currently programmed for any respective year. MBI will provide this information in comma separated value (csv) list format to Foursquare ITP and FAMPO.
MBI will review available documentation describing the FAMPO 5.15 model update and associated performance. The review will include an examination of currently available base and future year model sets reflecting the updates and will execute the model set(s), mechanically verifying the implementation of updates as described.
Deliverables: ◼ Technical Memo #1: Existing Conditions Analysis ◼ Travel flow volumes by time-of-day and mode of travel
3. MARKET ANALYSIS
For this task, we will conduct a transit market analysis based upon the most recently updated Census data and the latest FAMPO Travel Demand Model. We will also obtain and analyze VRE’s rider survey data, which includes home and final destination locations for riders from 2017.
3.1. Transit Propensity and Travel Flow Analysis The market analysis will begin with a full transit propensity analysis conducted using Foursquare ITP’s transit propensity model. This model creates four indexes of geographic transit need that are constructed using a web-based tool and visualized in GIS maps:
◼ Transit-Oriented Populations: to illustrate where high concentrations of likely transit-dependent people live; ◼ Commuters: to illustrate where high concentrations of traditional “9 to 5” commuters and choice riders live; ◼ Workplaces: to illustrate where high concentrations of jobs are located; and ◼ Services: to illustrate where high concentrations of services such as shopping, medical, and social services are located.
We will create these four indexes for the entire FAMPO region but focus the analysis on the Lafayette Boulevard corridor and its surrounding area. We will then link travel flows for the model base year, 2030, and 2050 by trip purpose from the latest FAMPO travel demand model to the four indexes in order to determine the desired travel patterns in each year.
3
Lafayette Boulevard Transit Study |
◼ The transit-oriented populations index and the services index will be combined with home-based non-work travel flows to provide an indication of what all-day transit services are needed. The maximum potential transit riders on each travel flow will be calculated using the index scores and transit trips from the model. ◼ The commuters index and the workplaces index will be combined with home-based work travel flows to provide an indication of what peak period services are needed. The maximum potential transit riders on each travel flow will be calculated using the index scores and transit trips from the model.
We will then compare these identified needs to the services that are currently provided along the corridor, which will help to identify any deficiencies or areas for improvement for each model year.
Figure 1: Foursquare ITP Transit Propensity Model Example for the FAMPO/GWRC Region
3.2. VRE Rider Survey While the analysis outlined in Task 3.1 will help identify transit service needs along the Lafayette Boulevard corridor, an additional analysis will be necessary to determine the market for connecting services to VRE, as most VRE rider destinations are outside of the FAMPO/GWRC region. For this analysis, we propose to summarize VRE’s 2017 rider survey data – specifically using the data regarding the home locations of passengers who use Fredericksburg Station. FAMPO staff will create a heatmap of these home locations and then we will evaluate whether the current FRED feeder routes to the station adequately meet demand.
We will also review the commuter lot capacity analysis conducted for the Fredericksburg Station in the I-95 Transit/TDM Study and make modifications to it using the updated FAMPO travel demand model and the latest VRE station ridership data. This will require the following steps and assumptions:
◼ Obtaining the most up-to-date VRE ridership by station and calculating station to station ridership (see Task 2.1); ◼ Calculating the growth rate for the station for each future year using the updated FAMPO travel demand model; and ◼ Calculating the future use of the station commuter lots using the updated future year ridership. This will assume a “worst-case scenario” with the following parameters: ─ The commuter buses recommended in the I-95 Transit/TDM Study are not implemented, and rather the “VRE Only” scenario is implemented; and ─ No new FRED feeder routes will serve the Fredericksburg Station.
4
Lafayette Boulevard Transit Study |
The end result will be an approximate maximum number of parking spaces needed for the Fredericksburg Station. If this number is in excess of the current supply (as it was during the I-95 Transit/TDM Study), strategies to address capacity will be developed in Task 4.
Overall, the market analysis will identify any areas for improvement that can be addressed in Task 4.
Deliverables: ◼ Technical Memo #2: Market Analysis
4. TRANSIT RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1. Development of Recommendations List Beginning with any areas for improvement identified in Task 3, Foursquare ITP will create recommendations to improve transit service and the passenger experience in the corridor and improve access and capacity at Fredericksburg Station. The improvements will consider planned improvements and recommendations from previous studies. They could include but are not limited to:
◼ Transit service modifications: ─ Modifications to FRED Route F3, including schedule changes and alignment changes to better match demand; ─ New transit service on the Lafayette Boulevard corridor; ─ Additional FRED feeder bus routes to Fredericksburg Station; and/or ─ New FRED circulator bus serving the various Fredericksburg Station commuter lots.
5
Lafayette Boulevard Transit Study |
◼ Transit amenities and infrastructure: Figure 2: Detailed Route Sheet from I-95 Transit/TDM Study ─ Bus stop improvements, including new locations for shelters and additional signage; ─ Bus pullouts or curb extensions along the corridor; ─ Improvements to Kiss and Ride facilities at Fredericksburg Station (or identification of a new location); and/or ─ Additional parking at Fredericksburg Station. ◼ Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures: ─ Marketing strategies to promote new services; ─ First mile/last mile connection strategies; and/or ─ Development of incentive programs for transit use.
For new or modified transit services, we will create detailed route change sheets that will outline the proposed changes, the justifications for these changes, and the associated operating and capital costs. Recommendations for transit amenities and infrastructure will be described in detail and related planning level cost estimates will be developed based on financial findings from similar projects. Additionally, we will create ridership estimates for all proposed transit service modifications, including new routes. The ridership estimates will be based on service level change elasticities for routes with no alignment changes and the transit propensity/travel flow analysis results for routes with alignment changes and new routes.
4.2. Implementation Plan In order to help prioritize the recommendations developed in Task 4.1, we will propose a prioritization methodology for service improvements and capital investments. This methodology will incorporate metrics such as impacts to riders, impacts to vulnerable populations, cost, year the recommendation is warranted, and efficiency. The prioritization will be used to make decisions on which timeframe each recommendation should be implemented within. Ultimately, a master list of recommendations will be created which will include the proposed implementation year and estimated costs inflated to the year of implementation.
Deliverables: ◼ Technical Memo #3: Recommendations and Implementation Plan (first draft) ◼ Technical Memo #3: Recommendations and Implementation Plan (final draft)
5. FINAL REPORT
In this task, we will compile the individual project deliverables into a final report and make any necessary edits to the report based on a round of feedback from FAMPO staff and the project working group. We will also work
6
Lafayette Boulevard Transit Study | with FAMPO staff to incorporate their additional analysis of bicycle and pedestrian conditions and mapping. A final quality review of the final report will also be made during this task. At this stage we will also hold the final working group meeting and attend the final FAMPO board meeting in a combined trip.
Deliverables: ◼ Final Report (first draft) ◼ Final Report (final draft) ◼ GIS files of recommendations ◼ Cost spreadsheet of recommendations
7
Lafayette Boulevard Transit Study |
6. SCHEDULE
Table 1: Proposed Project Schedule
8
Lafayette Boulevard Transit Study |
7. BUDGET
Table 2: Proposed Project Budget
9
Lafayette Boulevard Transit Study |
10
PROJECT TOTALS Task 21 - Lafayette Transit Study
LABOR Work Task Percentage by No. Task Baker Foursquare Total Hours Baker Foursquare Total Cost Hours 1 Project Management & Coordination Meetings 8 72 80 $ 2,232 $ 7,853 $ 10,085 11.76% 2 Existing Conditions Analysis 84 88 172 $ 14,605 $ 8,160 $ 22,765 25.29% 3 Market Analysis 0 144 144 $ - $ 13,509 $ 13,509 21.18% 4 Transit Recommendations 0 240 240 $ - $ 22,672 $ 22,672 35.29% 5 Final Report 0 44 44 $ - $ 4,132 $ 4,132 6.47%
TOTALS 92 588 680 $ 16,838 $ 56,327 $ 73,165 100.00%
ODC's Baker Foursquare
Task
No. Task TOTAL
Reproduction Travel Reproduction Travel Communication/Postage 1-5 All Tasks $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,644.00 $0.00 $3,644.00
TOTALS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,644.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,644.00
GRAND TOTALS
Labor $73,165 ODC's $3,644 Total $76,809
1 a `
7cii. Notice-to-Proceed
a `
7d. SMART SCALE Round 3 Draft Results - Mr. Paul Agnello
i. Innovation and Technology Transportation Fund Proposed Projects
ii. Preliminary FY2020-2025 Commonwealth Transportation Fund (CTF) Six-Year Financial Plan Outlook
iii. I-95 Permanent Count Locations in the Fredericksburg Region
iv. SMART SCALE Round 3 Project Results Map
SMART SCALE Round 3
Nick Donohue Deputy Secretary of Transportation January 2019 SMART SCALE
Round 1 Round 2 % Change
Total # Submitted 321 436 36%
Requested Funding 7.2B 9.7B 38%
Available Funding 1.4B 1B -29%
Max # Apps from Locality 12 33 175%
Avg # Apps per Locality 2.2 2.8 27% Round 3 Summary
468 applications submitted • 24 applications screened out – $0.8 billion SMART SCALE request – $1.2 billion total cost • 11 applications withdrawn – $0.1 billion SMART SCALE request – $0.1 billion total cost • 433 applications scored – $7.4 billion SMART SCALE request – $12.3 billion total cost
3 Factor Areas Goals that guided measure development
● Safety – reduce the number and rate of fatalities and severe injuries ● Congestion – reduce person hours of delay and increase person throughput ● Accessibility – increase access to jobs and travel options ● Economic Development – support economic development and improve goods movement ● Environmental Quality – improve air quality and avoid impacts to the natural environment ● Land Use – support and improve non-work accessibility
Scoring focused on outcomes, not the size of the problem
4 Dividing by Cost
• Law requires that benefits produced by a project be analyzed on a basis of relative costs • Results are provided to CTB based on: • Benefits relative to $ request • Benefits relative to total costs Benefit Score • Official SMART SCALE Score is Requested $
5 Map of Smart Scale Categories
1 Smart Scale Categories for FAMPO and Rural GWRC
FAMPO
Rural GWRC
2 Congestion is the most critical scoring measure for Category A which includes FAMPO region
3 Results - Benefits
Top Projects for Congestion Mitigation
District Organization Name Project Title
Hampton Roads HRTPO Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Widening/I-64 Exp
Hampton Roads City of Chesapeake Battlefield Blvd/Volvo Parkway Int. Improvements
Hampton Roads City of Newport News Jefferson Ave & Oyster Point Rd Int. Improvements
NOVA City of Alexandria West End Transitway Corridor Investments Top Projects for Safety
District Organization Name Project Title Roundabout for Darvills Rd (VA-40) at Military Richmond Nottoway County Road Superstreet - Rte 60 at Woolridge Rd/Old Richmond Chesterfield County Buckingham Rd Culpeper Town of Culpeper Roundabout - Rte 3 and McDevitte Dr Int. Richmond Chesterfield County ITS Signal Upgrades
7 Results - Benefits
Top Projects for Environment
District Organization Name Project Title
NOVA City of Alexandria West End Transitway Corridor Investments Hampton Roads HRTPO Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Widening/I-64 Expansion NOVA Arlington Transit Crystal City Metro East Entrance NOVA Fairfax County Richmond Highway - Bus Rapid Transit Top Projects for Economic Development
District Organization Name Project Title
Lynchburg Danville MPO Southern VA Mega Site at Berry Hill Connector Road Bristol Wythe County Progress Park Connector Bristol Cumberland Plateau PDC Coalfields Expressway (Rte 121) - Doe Branch Bristol Cumberland Plateau PDC Coalfields Expressway Rte 121/460 Poplar Creek Phase B
8 Results - Benefits
Top Projects for Land Use
District Organization Name Project Title
NOVA Arlington Transit Crystal City Metro East Entrance NOVA Arlington Transit Crystal City Potomac Yard Transitway Southern Extension NOVA City of Alexandria West End Transitway Corridor Investments Safety & Capacity Enhancements at Duke/Taylor NOVA City of Alexandria Run/Telegraph Top Projects for Accessibility
District Organization Name Project Title
Hampton Roads HRTPO Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Widening/I-64 Expansion NOVA City of Alexandria West End Transitway Corridor Investments NOVA Fairfax County Braddock Rd Multimodal Improvements - Phase 1 NOVA Fairfax County Rte 286 Widening from Rte 29 to Rte 123
9 SMART SCALE Funding Distribution for Round 3 (in millions)
District Grant Programs $389.9
Bristol $22.1
Culpeper $21.7
Fredericksburg $28.9
Hampton Roads $84.7
Lynchburg $23.8
NOVA $88.5
Richmond $60.6
Salem $33.5
Staunton $26.1
High Priority Projects Program (Statewide) $389.9
Total $779.8
10 Staff Recommended Scenario
• Step 1: Fund District Grant projects first based on Benefit/SMART SCALE cost using District Grant funds
DG Only District Count Allocated Remaining Bristol 3 $20.1 M $2.1 M Culpeper 4 $20.8 M $0.9 M Fredericksburg 7 $28.2 M $0.7 M Hampton Roads 23 $83.6 M $1.0 M Lynchburg 7 $21.2 M $2.6 M NOVA 7 $88.2 M $0.3 M Richmond 12 $60.4 M $0.2 M Salem 6 $31.4 M $2.1 M Staunton 15 $25.3 M $0.8 M Total 84 $379.2 M $10.7 M
11 Staff Recommended Scenario
• Step 2: Fund projects that otherwise would have been funded based on rank, but did not receive funding because they were not eligible for the District Grant funds, using High Priority funds as long as their cost does not exceed the total amount of District Grant funds available
HP Only District Count HP Allocated HP Remaining Bristol 0 $0.0 M Culpeper 0 $0.0 M Fredericksburg 3 $11.6 M Hampton Roads 2 $1.5 M Lynchburg 0 $0.0 M NOVA 3 $61.6 M Richmond 2 $3.7 M Salem 0 $0.0 M Staunton 1 $3.2 M Total 11 $81.6 M $308.3 M
12 Staff Recommended Scenario
• Step 3: Fund projects with a Benefit/SMART SCALE cost greater than an established threshold based on the highest project benefit using High Priority funds until funds are insufficient to fully fund the next unfunded project with the highest project benefit
District Count HP Allocated HP Remaining Bristol 0 $0.0 M Culpeper 0 $0.0 M Fredericksburg 0 $0.0 M Hampton Roads 1 $200.0 M Lynchburg 1 $30.9 M NOVA 1 $50.0 M Richmond 0 $0.0 M Salem 0 $0.0 M Staunton 0 $0.0 M Total 3 $280.9 M $27.4 M
13 Staff Recommended Scenario - Fredericksburg
SMART Project Applicant Funding SCALE Score
Rte 301 University Dr/Market Ctr Double R-Cut King George County $3,500,000 10.48
FRED Transit Shelters & Benches Fredericksburg Regional Transit $218,500 9.17
Lafayette Blvd/Kenmore Ave/Charles St Roundabouts City of Fredericksburg $1,978,826 5.90
Rte 301 & Rte 3 Median U-Turn Intersection King George County $3,300,000 5.33
New Commuter Parking Lot on Rte 3 Fredericksburg Regional Transit $5,055,000 5.11
Bicycle/Pedestrian Imp. on Rte 17B - Main St Gloucester County $7,300,000 3.98
Dixon St/Lansdowne Rd Int. Improvements City of Fredericksburg $2,200,000 3.94 George Washington Regional Rte 3 Stars Study Improvements $6,374,139 2.70 Commission Rte 1/Fall Hill Ave Int. Improvements City of Fredericksburg $7,200,000 2.27
Stefaniga & Mt. View Rd Int. Improvements Stafford County $2,700,000 2.07
16 Policy Reminders: SMART SCALE Projects
• Projects must be initiated within one year of the first year of allocation • Changes to the SMART SCALE request may trigger a re- score • Changes to the scope may trigger a re-evaluation • Applicants cannot reapply for additional funds for the same project to cover cost increases or replace other committed funds • A new project meeting the same need in the same location as a previously selected project cannot be submitted for two rounds after construction completion Round 3 General Observations
• Limited amount of funding available this round compared to previous rounds • More projects competing for the limited funding • HRBT project ($3.7B) dampened scores for other projects throughout the state • 76 projects >= $25M in total cost 5 were recommended for funding – All 5 leveraged local and/or regional funds – Project costs totaling almost $4.4B – Only $391M (or 11%) funds requested
15 Round 4 Recommendations
• For larger improvements, must get points in as many factor areas as possible • Non-SOV users (transit, bike, ped, HOV) affect multiple measures – Contribute to A.1 (Throughput) score – Scale A.3 (Access to Multimodal Choices) and E.1 (Air Quality and Energy) - so zero non-SOV users means 0 points in these areas • Demand management strategies (transit, P&R capacity) as part of larger capacity improvements can be cost effective way to increase scores
16 Round 3 Timeline
29 Moving Forward
• February CTB meeting – Review of recommended projects • March to April – Board to develop potential revisions to staff recommended funding scenario • April to May – Public hearings on staff recommended scenario and any potential revisions • May CTB meeting – Revised funding scenario developed • June CTB meeting – Adoption of Six-Year Improvement Program
30 SMART SCALE Round 3 Project Results
SMART SCALE Label App Id Organization Name Project Title Total Project SMART SCALE Score Approval Request 1 3649 Stafford County Winding Creek Road Widening $ 15,700,000 $ 12,230,500 0.212 Not Approved Stefaniga and Mountain View 2 3651 Stafford County $ 3,700,000 $ 2,700,000 2.075 Approved Road Intersection Improvement Eskimo Hill Roadway 3 3650 Stafford County $ 17,500,000 $ 16,500,000 0.098 Not Approved Improvement George Washington Regional I-95 Exit 136, Centreport Pkwy, 4 4267 $ 22,015,000 $ 17,417,461 0.379 Not Approved Commission US 1 & Enon Rd Improvements 1. Stafford - Route 1/Enon Road 5 3648 Stafford County $ 10,600,000 $ 4,452,461 0.885 Not Approved Intersection and Roadway IMP
George Washington Regional US 17 Bus. STARS Study 6 3881 $ 21,835,000 $ 21,835,000 2.415 Not Approved Commission Improvements and New PNR Lot
U.S. Route 1/Fall Hill Avenue 7 3621 Fredericksburg City $ 7,200,000 $ 7,200,000 2.273 Approved Intersection Improvements FRED Transit-Shelters and 8 3685 Fredericksburg Regional Transit $ 256,000 $ 218,500 9.166 Approved Benches Lafayette Blvd/Kenmore 9 3620 Fredericksburg City $ 5,800,000 $ 1,978,826 5.896 Approved Ave/Charles St Roundabouts New Commuter Parking Lot on 10 4555 Fredericksburg Regional Transit $ 7,455,000 $ 5,055,000 5.105 Approved Route 3 Dixon Street/Lansdowne Road 11 3622 Fredericksburg City $ 2,200,000 $ 2,200,000 3.935 Approved Intersection Improvements George Washington Regional Rt 3 STARS Study and I-95 off- 12 3880 $ 11,500,000 $ 9,454,139 2.617 Not Approved Commission ramp imp. George Washington Regional Route 3 STARS Study 13 3878 $ 7,420,000 $ 6,374,139 2.704 Approved Commission Improvements 14 Gateway Blvd Extension Withdrawn Fredericksburg Area I-95 SB Widening: Exit 130 to Exit 15 3612 Metropolitan Planning $ 34,320,000 $ 34,320,000 0.695 Not Approved 126 Organization Fredericksburg Area I-95 NB Widening & Exit 126 16 3852 Metropolitan Planning $ 61,000,000 $ 61,000,000 0.762 Not Approved STARS Improvements Organization Fredericksburg Area I-95 SB Widening with Exit 126 SB 17 5013 Metropolitan Planning $ 35,820,000 $ 35,820,000 0.685 Not Approved Aux. Deceleration Lane Organization 18 3816 Spotsylvania County Harrison Rd & Salem Church $ 6,100,000 $ 6,100,000 1.706 Not Approved 19 3819 Spotsylvania County Rt 1 and Rt 208/Lafayette Blvd $ 10,300,000 $ 10,300,000 1.065 Not Approved Fredericksburg Area I-95 Exit 126 STARS Study 20 3851 Metropolitan Planning $ 28,320,000 $ 28,320,000 1.023 Not Approved Improvements Organization Germanna Point Dr & 21 3813 Spotsylvania County $ 33,100,000 $ 33,100,000 0.204 Not Approved Spotsylvania Avenue Rt 2 & 17 from Lansdowne Rd 22 3824 Spotsylvania County $ 19,500,000 $ 19,500,000 1.308 Not Approved past Shannon Airport 23 4080 Caroline County I-95/207Safety Improvements $ 9,900,000 $ 9,900,000 0.158 Not Approved Bowling Green Route 301 24 4081 Caroline County $ 9,900,000 $ 9,900,000 0.145 Not Approved Corridor Safety Improvements Route 301 and Route 3 Median U- 25 3486 King George County $ 3,300,000 $ 3,300,000 5.328 Approved Turn Intersection Route 206 and Route 218 Right 26 3489 King George County $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 1.759 Not Approved Turn Lane Route 301 and Route 206 Median 27 3709 King George County $ 6,800,000 $ 6,800,000 0.976 Not Approved U-Turn Intersection Route 301 University 28 3488 King George County $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000 10.477 Approved Drive/Market Ctr Double RCUT
Draft Smart Scale Round 3 Results for Fredericksburg District Projects
Crash Efficient Project Throughput Delay Crash Rate Access to Disadvantaged Access Multimodal Access Air Quality Enviro Impact Econ Dev Support Intermodal Travel Time Reliability Increase Efficient Score Divided by Total SMART SCALE SMART SCALE App Id Selected? Organization Name Project Title Frequency Land Use Benefit Total Project $ State Rank District Rank Score Score Score Jobs to Jobs Score Score Score Score Access Score Score Land Use Score Cost Request $ Score Score Score Score Yes, District Route 301 University Drive/Market Ctr 3488 King George County 0.02 0.09 11.04 2.29 0.184 0.298 0.036 0.096 8.838 5.219 0.928 0.398 3.667 $ 3,500,000 10.477 $ 3,500,000 10.477 32 1 Grant Double RCUT 3685 Yes Fredericksburg Regional Transit FRED Transit-Shelters and Benches 0.19 0.03 1.18 0.00 - - 0.964 0.381 0.527 - - 0.003 0.076 0.109 0.200 $ 256,000 7.823 $ 218,500 9.166 42 2 Yes, District Lafayette Blvd/Kenmore Ave/Charles St 3620 Fredericksburg City 0.11 0.00 2.55 1.66 0.053 0.074 0.566 1.119 2.208 2.062 0.040 - 3.501 4.511 1.167 $ 5,800,000 2.012 $ 1,978,826 5.896 78 3 Grant Roundabouts Yes, District Route 301 and Route 3 Median U-Turn 3486 King George County 0.04 0.00 5.33 3.85 0.000 0.000 0.068 0.179 4.408 0.030 1.957 0.057 1.758 $ 3,300,000 5.328 $ 3,300,000 5.328 86 4 Grant Intersection
4555 Yes Fredericksburg Regional Transit New Commuter Parking Lot on Route 3 0.23 0.78 3.68 0.00 0.781 1.222 1.143 28.457 5.067 - - - 1.674 1.956 2.581 $ 7,455,000 3.462 $ 5,055,000 5.105 91 5 Yes, District Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements on 3580 Gloucester County 0.06 - 9.48 0.61 0.936 0.075 0.190 - 6.987 3.814 - 2.112 2.906 $ 7,300,000 3.981 $ 7,300,000 3.981 118 6 Grant Rte 17B -Main St Yes, District Dixon Street/Lansdowne Road 3622 Fredericksburg City - 0.58 1.46 1.03 0.414 0.575 - - 1.684 - 0.494 0.037 2.500 2.989 0.866 $ 2,200,000 3.935 $ 2,200,000 3.935 119 7 Grant Intersection Improvements George Washington Regional 3878 Yes, but close Route 3 STARS Study Improvements - 0.07 29.70 1.98 0.142 0.172 - - 3.378 1.304 1.699 0.598 3.074 3.959 1.724 $ 7,420,000 2.323 $ 6,374,139 2.704 163 8 Commission George Washington Regional 3880 No, but close Rt 3 STARS Study and I-95 off-ramp imp. 0.04 0.14 12.89 0.01 0.149 0.151 0.208 25.129 1.786 1.307 1.844 3.568 2.993 3.815 2.474 $ 11,500,000 2.151 $ 9,454,139 2.617 167 9 Commission George Washington Regional US 17 Bus. STARS Study Improvements 3881 No, but close 0.55 2.73 48.28 0.02 2.354 2.990 2.766 33.589 11.722 0.008 0.585 - 2.902 4.440 5.274 $ 21,835,000 2.415 $ 21,835,000 2.415 174 10 Commission and New PNR Lot Yes, District U.S. Route 1/Fall Hill Avenue 3621 Fredericksburg City 0.05 1.17 7.44 2.14 0.345 0.406 0.276 0.327 3.194 - 0.359 0.693 3.348 4.684 1.636 $ 7,200,000 2.273 $ 7,200,000 2.273 185 11 Grant Intersection Improvements Yes, District Stefaniga and Mountain View Road 3651 Stafford County 0.03 0.07 5.74 10.80 0.037 0.011 0.049 0.128 1.392 - - 0.004 0.194 0.239 0.560 $ 3,700,000 1.514 $ 2,700,000 2.075 200 12 Grant Intersection Improvement Route 206 and Route 218 Right Turn 3489 No, but close King George County - - 0.82 1.24 - - - - 0.867 - - 0.006 0.352 $ 2,000,000 1.759 $ 2,000,000 1.759 227 13 Lane 3816 No, but close Spotsylvania County Harrison Rd & Salem Church 0.22 0.07 8.00 1.23 0.790 0.769 0.660 1.739 2.164 - 0.031 0.409 2.077 2.351 1.041 $ 6,100,000 1.706 $ 6,100,000 1.706 232 14 $ 2.89 4630 No, but close Lancaster County Kilmarnock Right Turn Lane - 0.00 0.39 0.53 0.000 0.000 - - 0.398 - 0.023 0.005 0.159 $ 1,100,000 1.449 $ 1,100,000 1.449 247 15 Rt 2 & 17 from Lansdowne Rd past 3824 No Spotsylvania County 0.78 1.10 36.45 3.18 2.124 2.970 0.643 1.271 4.910 - 2.262 0.624 2.366 2.796 2.550 $ 19,500,000 1.308 $ 19,500,000 1.308 260 16 Shannon Airport
3494 No Westmoreland County Expanded Turn Lane for Flat Iron Road - - 0.20 0.49 - - - - 0.288 - - 0.003 0.117 $ 1,000,000 1.170 $ 1,000,000 1.170 274 17 3819 No Spotsylvania County Rt 1 and Rt 208/Lafayette Blvd 0.32 0.05 4.76 0.88 0.145 0.123 0.486 1.282 2.388 - 0.069 1.070 2.893 4.006 1.097 $ 10,300,000 1.065 $ 10,300,000 1.065 284 18 Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan I-95 Exit 126 STARS Study 3851 No 0.19 0.72 27.24 0.76 0.110 0.120 0.964 19.392 7.177 2.154 8.268 8.744 1.699 2.479 2.896 $ 28,320,000 1.023 $ 28,320,000 1.023 293 19 Planning Organization Improvements Route 301 and Route 206 Median U- 3709 No King George County 0.09 - 3.05 0.62 - - 0.135 - 1.640 - - 0.309 0.664 $ 6,800,000 0.976 $ 6,800,000 0.976 295 20 Turn Intersection 1. Stafford - Route 1/Enon Road 3648 No Stafford County 0.19 0.08 0.43 0.12 0.347 0.525 0.224 0.310 0.988 3.274 0.100 0.212 0.395 0.731 0.394 $ 10,600,000 0.372 $ 4,452,461 0.885 303 21 Intersection and Roadway IMP Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan I-95 NB Widening & Exit 126 STARS 3852 No 0.58 1.27 51.94 0.49 1.130 1.226 0.964 18.552 11.051 0.981 45.087 25.165 2.446 3.313 4.648 $ 61,000,000 0.762 $ 61,000,000 0.762 316 22 Planning Organization Improvements SMART SCALE: Route 360/619 - 3927 No Richmond County - - 0.22 0.31 - - - - 0.229 - - 0.005 0.091 $ 1,300,000 0.701 $ 1,300,000 0.701 329 23 Richmond County Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan 3612 No I-95 SB Widening: Exit 130 to Exit 126 0.19 0.19 11.24 0.15 0.454 0.598 0.221 17.429 5.651 2.841 17.922 8.892 1.991 2.730 2.386 $ 34,320,000 0.695 $ 34,320,000 0.695 331 24 Planning Organization Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan I-95 SB Widening with Exit 126 SB Aux. 5013 No 0.19 0.19 7.03 0.09 0.454 0.598 0.295 17.429 5.815 1.939 21.210 9.228 2.710 3.628 2.454 $ 35,820,000 0.685 $ 35,820,000 0.685 333 25 Planning Organization Deceleration Lane George Washington Regional I-95 Exit 136, Centreport Pkwy, US 1 & 4267 No 0.04 0.02 8.20 1.49 0.357 0.480 0.224 0.310 1.610 3.984 0.411 1.052 0.471 0.886 0.660 $ 22,015,000 0.300 $ 17,417,461 0.379 370 26 Commission Enon Rd Improvements
3492 No Westmoreland County Passing Lanes on Route 3 near Lerty - - 2.29 0.54 0.000 0.000 - - 1.227 - - 0.042 0.489 $ 15,300,000 0.320 $ 15,300,000 0.320 378 27 3649 No Stafford County Winding Creek Road Widening 0.02 0.00 0.36 0.22 0.052 0.050 0.024 0.063 0.649 0.186 - 0.007 0.910 1.094 0.259 $ 15,700,000 0.165 $ 12,230,500 0.212 396 28 Germanna Point Dr & Spotsylvania 3813 No Spotsylvania County 0.13 0.19 1.75 0.02 1.133 0.856 0.076 0.150 1.637 - 0.085 - 1.464 2.217 0.674 $ 33,100,000 0.204 $ 33,100,000 0.204 397 29 Avenue 4080 No Caroline County I-95/207Safety Improvements - - 0.60 0.29 - - - - 0.390 - - 0.041 0.157 $ 9,900,000 0.158 $ 9,900,000 0.158 410 30 Bowling Green Route 301 Corridor 4081 No Caroline County - - 0.58 0.12 - - - - 0.329 0.080 - 0.072 0.143 $ 9,900,000 0.145 $ 9,900,000 0.145 411 31 Safety Improvements 3650 No Stafford County Eskimo Hill Roadway Improvement - 0.00 0.53 0.15 0.011 0.008 - 0.769 0.406 1.436 0.277 0.009 0.154 0.296 0.162 $ 17,500,000 0.093 $ 16,500,000 0.098 418 32
Green = Selected Yellow = Close to being selected Red or White = Not close to being selected
Dark Colors = Projects only eligible for Statewide High Priority Funding (HPP) Light Colors = Project eligible for District Grant Funding (DGP) SMART SCALE Round 3 DRAFT Staff Recommended Funding Scenario
District Percentage DGP HPP Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Total Remaining # Projects Amount DGP # Projects Amount HPP # Projects Amount HPP # Projects Funding DGP HPP Bristol 6.71% $22,133,329 3 $20,061,316 0 $0 0 $0 3 $20,061,316 $2,072,013 Culpeper 6.33% $21,690,287 4 $20,809,265 0 $0 0 $0 4 $20,809,265 $881,022 Fredericksburg 6.94% $28,881,094 7 $28,178,826 3 $11,647,639 0 $0 10 $39,826,465 $702,268 Hampton Roads 19.93% $84,691,901 23 $83,643,978 2 $1,455,000 1 $200,000,000 26 $285,098,978 $1,047,923 Lynchburg 7.07% $23,842,255 7 $21,204,905 0 $0 1 $30,931,704 8 $52,136,609 $2,637,350 Northern Virginia 21.17% $88,472,690 7 $88,204,371 3 $61,621,694 1 $50,000,000 11 $199,826,065 $268,319 Richmond 14.66% $60,605,741 12 $60,407,418 2 $3,669,000 0 14 $64,076,418 $198,323 Salem 9.42% $33,503,596 6 $31,376,924 0 $0 0 6 $31,376,924 $2,126,672 Staunton 7.78% $26,100,559 15 $25,335,299 1 $3,209,056 0 16 $28,544,355 $765,260 Total 100.00% $389,921,453 $389,921,453 84 $379,222,302 11 $81,602,389 3 $280,931,704 98 $741,756,395 $10,699,151 $27,387,360
Draft Funding Scenario Step 1 Fund top scoring projects within each district eligible for DGP funds using DGP funds until remaining funds are insufficient to fund the next highest scoring project. Step 2 Fund top scoring projects within each district that would have otherwise been funded with available DGP funds, but were not because they are only eligible for HPP funds, using HPP funds, as long as their SMART SCALE cost does not exceed the total amount of DGP funds available to be programmed based on their rank. Step 3 Fund projects with a benefit relative to SMART SCALE score greater than an established threshold based on the highest project benefit using HPP funds until funds are insufficient to fund the next unfunded project with the highest project benefit.
1/24/2019 Innovation and Technology Transportation Fund
Catherine C. McGhee, P.E. Director of Research and Innovation Innovation and Technology Transportation Fund • The ITTF provides funding specifically for the purposes of funding pilot programs and fully developed initiatives pertaining to high-tech infrastructure improvements with a focus on: • Reducing congestion • Improving mobility • Improving safety • Providing up-to-date travel data • Improving emergency response Proposed Projects
• Thirteen projects are proposed that provide a mix of: • Interstate vs. arterial • Multimodal approaches • Demonstrations of proven technology and piloting of experimental approaches
• All projects will be evaluated to enable deployment in other regions I-95 Operational Improvements
Sept./Oct. Weekdays
Sept./Oct. Sundays
11 I-95 Operational Improvements
• Differences in geometry, travel patterns (commute vs. non- commute), and congestion intensity will require a range of solutions • Ramp metering – previous ITTF project has identified 7 ramp locations where metering would be beneficial • Active traffic management – experience internationally has shown VSL/speed harmonization to be effective in reducing congestion • Other strategies to include improved incident response, traveler information, etc. • Total cost: $ 30 million
12 Parking Demand Management System
• Provide real-time parking information for 8 park & ride lots on I-95 that support VRE • Sensors at entry and exit • Real-time information display and publication to portal for further dissemination
• Total Cost: $1,950,000
15 Parking Demand Management System
16 I-81 Operational Improvements
• The I-81 Corridor Improvement Study identified a number of operational strategies targeted at the non-recurring congestion that is common throughout the corridor • Signal enhancements to facilitate detours when incidents occur is a key element of the operational improvement plan • Real-time signal timing modifications to address diverting traffic patterns • Real-time monitoring of conditions for operational improvement and traveler information • Total cost: $10 million
23 Preliminary FY 2020 – 2025 Commonwealth Transportation Fund (CTF) Six-Year Financial Plan Outlook
John W. Lawson January 15, 2019 Chief Financial Officer Commonwealth Transportation Fund Revenue Updates (In millions) STATEWIDE FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 TOTAL Impact by Fund December 2018 HMOF $ (17.4) $ (15.5) $ (24.6) $ (10.3) $ 1.7 $ 2.5 $ (63.6) TTF (26.0) (0.9) 7.5 6.0 13.3 16.5 16.4 Revenue Forecast Total $ (43.4) $ (16.4) $ (17.1) $ (4.3) $ 15.0 $ 19.0 $ (47.2)
- $47.2 million TTF Breakdown Modal Distribution net reduction Highway Construction (9.6) (1.6) (0.5) 5.0 10.3 12.2 15.8 statewide Transit (1.8) (0.3) (0.1) 0.9 1.9 2.3 3.0 Ports (0.5) (0.1) (0.0) 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 - Regional Airports (0.3) (0.0) (0.0) 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Mass Transit (0.5) 1.4 2.0 2.2 2.6 2.8 10.5 Revenues IPROC (0.2) 0.8 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.8 6.7 positive WMATA Capital Fund (0.1) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 Recordation Tax (4.7) (4.7) (4.7) (4.7) (4.7) (4.7) (28.2) 3.7% to Mass Transit Fund (Fuel Tax) (0.2) - (0.1) (0.3) (0.6) (0.9) (2.1) PTF (8.2) 3.6 9.6 1.0 1.3 1.9 9.2 $ (26.0) $ (0.9) $ 7.5 $ 6.0 $ 13.3 $ 16.5 $ 16.4
Regional Revenues Northern Virginia (2.2) 1.4 3.4 4.2 5.1 5.8 $ 17.7 Hampton Roads 7.2 7.7 8.8 9.3 9.3 9.2 $ 51.5
2 Transportation Revenue Estimate Updates
State Revenue Updates during FY 2019 – FY 2024 period . Sales Tax on Fuel decreased $56.6 million . $45.7 million for the HMOF . $10.9 million for the TTF . Retail Sales and Use Tax collections forecast increased by $185 million; $93.7 for HMOF and $91.8 million for TTF . Expectations for Motor Vehicle Sales and Use Tax were reduced by $175 million over the period . Updates of other miscellaneous and dedicated revenues impact total available funding
3 CTF Revenue Forecast (in millions)
Revenue FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 Total Motor Fuel Taxes $ 916.9 $ 920.6 $ 921.2 $ 919.3 $ 916.5 $ 920.2 $ 5,514.7 Priority Transportation Fund (PTF) 188.0 199.4 199.8 209.0 218.0 218.0 1,232.2 Motor Vehicle Sales and Use Tax 964.8 970.8 993.5 1,006.1 1,022.8 1,044.8 6,002.8 State Sales and Use Tax 1,115.5 1,149.4 1,176.1 1,203.0 1,229.6 1,254.2 7,127.8 Motor Vehicle License Fees 261.3 261.5 261.5 261.5 261.5 261.7 1,569.0 International Registration Plan 65.0 65.7 66.1 66.0 66.3 66.5 395.6 Recordation Tax 43.6 43.6 43.6 43.6 43.6 43.6 261.6 Interest Earnings 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 24.0 Misc. Taxes, Fees and Revenues 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 107.4
Total State Taxes and Fees $ 3,577.0 $ 3,632.9 $ 3,683.7 $ 3,730.4 $ 3,780.2 $ 3,830.9 $ 22,235.1
Motor Fuel Taxes includes Road Tax and Aviation Fuels Tax Motor Vehicle Sales and Use Tax includes Rental Tax December 18, 2018 Forecast
4 Major CTF Transportation Revenues (In millions)
The top four sources of state State Sales and Use Tax transportation revenues represent over 90 percent of total forecasted CTF Motor Vehicle Sales and Use Tax revenues
These four sources are Motor Fuel Taxes estimated to provide $20 billion over the upcoming six years Motor Vehicle License Fees
$- $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 FY 2025 FY 2024 FY 2023 FY 2022 FY 2021 FY 2020
5 Motor Fuel Tax Revenue and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Motor Fuel Tax Revenue and Vehicle Miles Traveled
$950.0 86.0 $916.9 $920.6 $921.2 $919.3 $916.5 $920.2 $905.5 Millions $900.0 85.0 Billions $860.8 $872.2 $857.2 84.0 $850.0 $821.8 83.0 $800.0 82.0 $750.0 $722.5 81.0 $700.0 $660.3 80.0 $650.0 79.0
$600.0 78.0
$550.0 77.0
$500.0 76.0 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 Motor Fuels Taxes VMT Source: CTF Revenue Reporting by DOA; VDOT VMT Report 2200 - DVMT by Maintenance Jurisdiction All Roads, annualized total (VMT reflects calendar year reporting)
6 Assumptions for Highway Construction Programs Smart Scale – Allocation for Distribution Estimated Smart Scale Round 3 based on revenue
(in millions) Difference from previous assumptions 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL High Priority Projects Program $ (33.6) $ (10.1) $ (2.4) $ 0.3 $ 215.9 $ 219.9 $ 389.9 District Grant Program (33.6) (10.1) (2.4) 0.3 215.9 219.9 389.9 Total $ (67.3) $ (20.1) $ (4.9) $ 0.6 $ 431.8 $ 439.7 $ 779.8
Funding includes $259 million of GARVEE proceeds; 33 percent of total
15 Preliminary Construction Funding Available
2,000
1,800 Millions
1,600 $258.7 $724.8 1,400
1,200 $752.1
1,000 $722.7 $755.5 $762.6 $1,140.8 800
600 $1,091.3
400 $776.8 $619.0 $584.2 $553.8 200 $271.9
- 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 State of Good Repair/High Priority/District Grant Programs Specialized State and Federal Programs Legacy Construction Formula Programs
16 1 I-95 Permanent Count Locations 2 Stafford in the Fredericksburg Region Top 100 Volume Counts 3
Volume increases greatly on ¤£17 Location #1 Location #2
Weekends South of Exit 133 - US 17 4 20% 3300% Label ID Location Name ¤£1 5 1 95 S; MP 140.63 to 144.16 7700% Fredericksburg King George 80% 95-N; MP 140.44 to 143.34 3 2 1. «¬ 95 S ; MP 136.52 to 140.63 6 3 Location #3 Location #4 «¬3 4 95 S ; MP 133.94 to 135.26 35% 38% 95 N ; MP 130.15 to 132.44 5 Spotsylvania 95 ¨¦§ 62% 6 95 S ; MP 126.21 to 129.31 65% 8 7 95 N ; MP 118.48 to 123.09 «¬2 7 95 S ; MP 119.14 to 123.09 Location #5 Location #6 8 ¤£1 Caroline 9% 4% 9 95 S ; MP 101.33 to 105 ¤£301 Weekday
Weekend
91% 96%
Direction Location #7 Location #8 Location #9 4% 3% 5% Northbound Southbound
GWRC Jurisdictions 96% 97% 95%
9 0 3 6 12 18 24 Miles
SMART SCALE Round 3 Project Results
SMART SCALE SMART SCALE Label App Id Organization Name Project Title Total Project Approval Request Score Winding Creek Road 1 3649 Stafford County $ 15,700,000 $ 12,230,500 0.212 Not Approved Widening Stefaniga and Mountain View Road 2 3651 Stafford County $ 3,700,000 $ 2,700,000 2.075 Approved Intersection Improvement Eskimo Hill Roadway 3 3650 Stafford County $ 17,500,000 $ 16,500,000 0.098 Not Approved Improvement I-95 Exit 136, George Washington Centreport Pkwy, US 1 4 4267 $ 22,015,000 $ 17,417,461 0.379 Not Approved Regional Commission & Enon Rd Improvements Route 1/Enon Road 5 3648 Stafford County Intersection and $ 10,600,000 $ 4,452,461 0.885 Not Approved Roadway IMP US 17 Bus. STARS Study George Washington 6 3881 Improvements and New $ 21,835,000 $ 21,835,000 2.415 Not Approved Regional Commission PNR Lot U.S. Route 1/Fall Hill 7 3621 Fredericksburg City Avenue Intersection $ 7,200,000 $ 7,200,000 2.273 Approved Improvements Fredericksburg Regional FRED Transit-Shelters 8 3685 $ 256,000 $ 218,500 9.166 Approved Transit and Benches
Lafayette Blvd/Kenmore 9 3620 Fredericksburg City Ave/Charles St $ 5,800,000 $ 1,978,826 5.896 Approved Roundabouts
Fredericksburg Regional New Commuter Parking 10 4555 $ 7,455,000 $ 5,055,000 5.105 Approved Transit Lot on Route 3 Dixon Street/Lansdowne Road 11 3622 Fredericksburg City $ 2,200,000 $ 2,200,000 3.935 Approved Intersection Improvements George Washington Rt 3 STARS Study and I- 12 3880 $ 11,500,000 $ 9,454,139 2.617 Not Approved Regional Commission 95 off-ramp imp. George Washington Route 3 STARS Study 13 3878 $ 7,420,000 $ 6,374,139 2.704 Approved Regional Commission Improvements 14 N/A N/A Gateway Blvd Extension N/A N/A N/A Withdrawn Fredericksburg Area I-95 SB Widening: Exit 15 3612 Metropolitan Planning $ 34,320,000 $ 34,320,000 0.695 Not Approved 130 to Exit 126 Organization Fredericksburg Area I-95 NB Widening & Exit 16 3852 Metropolitan Planning 126 STARS $ 61,000,000 $ 61,000,000 0.762 Not Approved Organization Improvements Fredericksburg Area I-95 SB Widening with 17 5013 Metropolitan Planning Exit 126 SB Aux. $ 35,820,000 $ 35,820,000 0.685 Not Approved Organization Deceleration Lane Harrison Rd & Salem 18 3816 Spotsylvania County $ 6,100,000 $ 6,100,000 1.706 Not Approved Church Rt 1 and Rt 19 3819 Spotsylvania County $ 10,300,000 $ 10,300,000 1.065 Not Approved 208/Lafayette Blvd Fredericksburg Area I-95 Exit 126 STARS 20 3851 Metropolitan Planning $ 28,320,000 $ 28,320,000 1.023 Not Approved Study Improvements Organization Germanna Point Dr & 21 3813 Spotsylvania County $ 33,100,000 $ 33,100,000 0.204 Not Approved Spotsylvania Avenue Rt 2 & 17 from 22 3824 Spotsylvania County Lansdowne Rd past $ 19,500,000 $ 19,500,000 1.308 Not Approved Shannon Airport I-95/207Safety 23 4080 Caroline County $ 9,900,000 $ 9,900,000 0.158 Not Approved Improvements Bowling Green Route 24 4081 Caroline County 301 Corridor Safety $ 9,900,000 $ 9,900,000 0.145 Not Approved Improvements Route 301 and Route 3 25 3486 King George County Median U-Turn $ 3,300,000 $ 3,300,000 5.328 Approved Intersection Route 206 and Route 26 3489 King George County $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 1.759 Not Approved 218 Right Turn Lane Route 301 and Route 27 3709 King George County 206 Median U-Turn $ 6,800,000 $ 6,800,000 0.976 Not Approved Intersection Route 301 University 28 3488 King George County Drive/Market Ctr $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000 10.477 Approved Double RCUT a `
7e. FY2020-2026 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)/Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP)/Highway Improvement Program (HIP) Call for Projects - Mr. Paul Agnello
1) FAMPO leveraged $13.6 million in CMAQ/RSTP funding for 5 SMART SCALE candidate projects: • Scored and Successful: 3 ($6.1 M) • Scored and Still to be Determined: 1 (Enon Rd - $4.5 M) • Scored and Unsuccessful: 0 • Screened Out or Withdrawn from scoring: 1 (Gateway Blvd - $3 M)
2) 3 Successes using $6.1 million in leveraged funding helped obtain $13.5 million in SMART SCALE funding • Rte 3 STARS Study improvements ~ $6.4 M • Rte 3 East PNR Lot ~ $5.0 M • Lafayette Blvd Roundabout Improvements ~ $2.1 M
2 3) About 2/3 of Draft SMART SCALE funding for GWRC was for CMAQ/RSTP projects • Similar to Round 2 results • Underscores the importance of leveraged funding in SMART SCALE
4) State release of Fiscal Year 2020-2025 CMAQ/RSTP Budgets • Expected by Mid-March • Estimated Yearly allocation ~ $4.1 Million ➢ CMAQ ~ $2.4 Million ➢ RSTP ~ $1.7 Million
3 5) VDOT request to begin allocation process • To allocate existing funding
6) Need to allocate FY2020-2025 CMAQ/RSTP funding by late April • Request for FAMPO approval on April 15th
4 1. Each FAMPO Voting Member can submit up to 3 new projects • Stafford • City of Fredericksburg • Spotsylvania • Transit (PRTC) • State (VDOT)
2. Deadline for Project Submission – 2/26/19 at 5 PM • Submit projects to Briana Hairfield: [email protected]
5 3. FAMPO staff will rescore existing CMAQ/RSTP projects that are not fully funded or on track to be fully funded • Fully funded projects in FY 19-24 VDOT or DRPT SYIP will not be rescored • Successful Smart Scale Round 3 projects will not be rescored • Fully funded projects in other State programs will not be rescored, e.g., I-95 NB Rappahannock River Crossing
4. Limited funding available ~ $10 M • No guarantee of funding for new projects • Some existing projects with partial funding could be defunded • Allocations for FY-20 to FY-26, but most funding for out years: FY-24 to FY-26
6 5. Results to be presented at March FAMPO meetings – Submit Candidate projects to FAMPO Staff by February 26th
– Applicants will need to work with FAMPO Staff and the State to develop necessary information for project applications
7 8 FAMPO CMAQ/RSTP PROJECT INFORMATION FORM VDOT – Fredericksburg District, Revised July 2007 Reference ID: Existing Project New Project
Project Name: Project Sponsor: Project Location Jurisdiction: VDOT Residency: Route Number: Functional Class: Street Name: Project Termini o From: o To: Other Information:
Project Description Type of Improvement: Lane Widening Roadway Expansion Intersection Realignment New Roadway Interchange – Ramp Shoulder PE Only Interchange - Modification Pedestrian Traffic Control Safety Bicycle Turn Lane Study: Transit Commuter Lot Other: Brief Description:
Project Background Problem Description: Plan Status, included in: Local Comp Plan Regional Plan CLRP Rural Statewide Plan None Prior Study Document: Project Origin: Project Purpose:
Project Finance Preliminary Cost Estimate Total Cost: By Phase PE: RW: CONST: Source of Estimate: Funding Sources / Amounts / Fiscal Year: Year 1: Year 2: Year 3: Year 4: Year 5: Year 6: Programmed Project: Yes No Programmed In: Primary SYIP Secondary SYIP Locality CIP MPO TIP Other: Follow Federal Process: Yes No
1 of 2 Anticipated Project Administration VDOT VDRPT MPO Locality: Project Manager: E-Mail: Phone: Contacts Locality Contact: Locality: E-Mail: Phone: Regional Contact: Organization: E-Mail: Phone: Agency Contact: Agency: E-Mail: Phone: Anticipated Project Schedule Anticipated Start Date of Study: Anticipated Start Date of Preliminary Engineering: Anticipated Start Date of Right of Way Acquisition: Anticipated Advertisement Date for Construction: Anticipated Completion Date: Anticipated Project Complexity Natural Environmental Constraints Considerable Moderate Marginal Unknown Built Environmental Constraints Considerable Moderate Marginal Unknown Cultural Resource Constraints Considerable Moderate Marginal Unknown Right of Way Constraints Considerable Moderate Marginal Unknown Utility Constraints Considerable Moderate Marginal Unknown Maintenance of Traffic Constraints Considerable Moderate Marginal Unknown Constructability Constraints Considerable Moderate Marginal Unknown Public Support Considerable Moderate Marginal Unknown Other Information
Form Completed By: Date: Programming Information VDOT UPC: Temporary: Permanent: MPO TIP Amendment Number: STIP Amendment Number:
2 of 2
CMAQ/RSTP FUNDING PROJECT APPLICATION, SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY
Adopted May 18, 2009 Amended February 22, 2010 Amended February 28, 2011 Amended June 20, 2011 Amended July 18, 2011 Amended October 21, 2013 Amended November 16, 2015 Amended January 22, 2018
INTRODUCTION
This document describes the process the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) will undertake to identify and select transportation projects for inclusion in FAMPO’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and VDOT’s Six Year Improvement Program (SYIP). The selection process outlined in this document will be used for all proposed projects using Federal Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program funding.
FAMPO’s CMAQ and RSTP project selection is a cooperative process between the Fredericksburg MPO, VDOT, DRPT and Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). CMAQ and RSTP project recommendations are selected and prioritized by the Fredericksburg MPO, and submitted to the CTB for final approval.
The procedure for selecting and prioritizing includes the development of a candidate project list by the FAMPO Technical Committee (FTC). A numeric scoring procedure is used to score each candidate project, and the results of the scores and project recommendations are reported to the FAMPO Policy Committee for consideration. The results of the project scores, according to established criteria, are the basis of FTC recommendations. The FAMPO Policy Committee considers the recommendations from the FTC and selects the final recommended list of CMAQ and RSTP projects in coordination with the district CTB member for annual submittal to the CTB for approval as part of the SYIP. Amendments to 23 USC funded projects, particularly CMAQ and RSTP funded projects, must be approved by the CTB. This project selection process, as outlined above, is consistent with 23 U.S.C. section 134(j)(3)(5)a and 23 CFR 450.330(b).
CMAQ/RSTP Funding Project Application, Selection and Prioritization Methodology 2
OBLIGATION AND EXPENDITURE OF CMAQ AND RSTP FUNDS
On July 1, 2010 the Commonwealth of Virginia’s FY2011 Budget Bill with Transportation Policy Goals became law. This bill contained provisions related to the obligation and expenditure of federal Regional Surface Transportation (RSTP) funds and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds and their local matching funds (which are provided by the Commonwealth).
The provisions for CMAQ funds state that projects funded by CMAQ funds (whole or part) shall be federally obligated within 24 months of their allocation by the board and expended within 48 months of the obligation (total six years). If the defined timeframes are not met, the CTB may use the funds for any other project eligible under 23 USC 149.
The provisions for RSTP funds state that funds from FY11 and thereafter shall be federally obligated within 12 months of their allocation by the board and expended within 36 months of obligation (total four years), or “board shall rescind state match”. Fiscal Year 2010 and any preceding funds shall be federally obligated within 12 months of July 1, 2010 and expended within 36 months their obligation (total four years), or “board shall rescind state match”. If these funds are not obligated and expended within the defined timeframes the CTB has the power to rescind the Commonwealth provided 20% in matching funds that the Federal funds require.
CMAQ/RSTP Funding Project Application, Selection and Prioritization Methodology 3
The following table illustrates the obligation and expenditure deadlines for CMAQ and RSTP funds through Fiscal Year 2025.
Obligation Expenditure Funding Source/ Year Deadline Deadline RSTP 2014 July 1, 2015 July 1, 2018 RSTP 2015 July 1, 2016 July 1, 2019 RSTP 2016 July 1, 2017 July 1, 2020 RSTP 2017 July 1, 2018 July 1, 2021 RSTP 2018 July 1, 2019 July 1, 2022 RSTP 2019 July 1, 2020 July 1, 2023 RSTP 2020 July 1, 2021 July 1, 2024 RSTP 2021 July 1, 2022 July 1, 2025 RSTP 2022 July 1, 2023 July 1, 2026 RSTP 2023 July 1, 2024 July 1, 2027 RSTP 2024 July 1, 2025 July 1, 2028 RSTP 2025 July 1, 2026 July 1, 2029 CMAQ 2014 July 1, 2016 July 1, 2019 CMAQ 2015 July 1, 2017 July 1, 2020 CMAQ 2016 July 1, 2018 July 1, 2021 CMAQ 2017 July 1, 2019 July 1, 2022 CMAQ 2018 July 1, 2020 July 1, 2023 CMAQ 2019 July 1, 2021 July 1, 2024 CMAQ 2020 July 1, 2022 July 1, 2025 CMAQ 2021 July 1, 2023 July 1, 2026 CMAQ 2022 July 1, 2024 July 1, 2027 CMAQ 2023 July 1, 2025 July 1, 2028 CMAQ 2024 July 1, 2026 July 1, 2029 CMAQ 2025 July 1, 2027 July 1, 2030
UNUSED FUNDING
Any excess CMAQ or RSTP funds will revert to their respective FAMPO Reserve Balance for competitive re-allocation at the regional level.
CMAQ/RSTP Funding Project Application, Selection and Prioritization Methodology 4
PROJECT SELECTION
CMAQ and RSTP funds should be allocated and implemented in a manner consistent with the current Federal guidelines for their use (federal guidelines are available from FAMPO upon request).
Ranking Factors include:
• Safety; • Congestion Management; • Cost Effectiveness; • Project Readiness/ Additional Committed Funding for Project; • Ability to Get Project to the Next Phase; • Natural and Built Environment; • Efficient Future Land Use; • System Continuity; • Mobility/Accessibility; and • A demonstration that the project improves air quality (CMAQ funding only).
APPLICATION PROCESS AND PRELIMINARY SCREENING
Project funding application forms will be in an electronic format (either .doc or .pdf) and will posted on the FAMPO website, available for download. Once the applications are received, the projects will go through an initial screening process that will check for:
• The proposed project meets all applicable criteria under federal RSTP/CMAQ guidelines regulations of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) and the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act; • The project must be consistent with FAMPO’s current Long Range Transportation Plan (2045 LRTP); • The project must be consistent with FAMPO’s current Congestion Management Process (CMP), additional consideration given to projects in identified CMP Corridors; • A detailed project description with supporting technical data; • Cost estimates for proposed projects that have been vetted through VDOT Fredericksburg District staff; • Project must be screened for impacts to identified Environmental Justice communities (see FAMPO EJ Mapping on website for locations of communities); • A defined project implementation schedule; • A demonstration that the project is ready for the proposed phase (PE, ROW or CN); and • An identified project management team to oversee the project
PROJECT EVALUATION AND PROGRAMMING
After the initial screening process has been completed, projects will be placed into one of six categories
CMAQ/RSTP Funding Project Application, Selection and Prioritization Methodology 5
(listed below) and scored. Projects in each category will then be compared to one another. FAMPO Staff will evaluate all projects according to the criteria for each project category. Staff will then prepare a list of candidate projects that have been scored and ranked in each category. The projects will be listed in descending order, from highest to lowest score, in each category.
The six project categories are:
1. Roadway Capacity/Paving Projects • Widening, new facilities, interchanges/intersection improvements • Roadway paving projects 2. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and Operational Improvements • Corridor operational improvements (i.e. signal synchronization/ optimization, and incident management) 3. Intermodal Transportation Projects 4. Transit Projects • Vehicle replacement/purchases • Other projects/programs/equipment/signage • Commuter Parking Lot Expansions • Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 5. Planning/PE Studies 6. Non-Motorized Projects • Bicycle projects • Pedestrian projects
If the list of projects exceeds the amount of total funding available, FAMPO staff (in consultation with VDOT Fredericksburg District staff) will recommend priority projects to receive funding. Per VDOT Policy, funding will be programmed for all six years of the SYIP. The following principles will be used to program all projects:
• Project phases will be fully funded according to current schedules and estimates • Funds will be allocated consistent with CTB and Regional priorities • Existing projects will be reviewed prior to adding new projects. Reviews include: 1. Cover deficits and move/transfer surpluses 2. Adjust funding for schedule and estimate changes 3. Review and reallocate funds with development, timeline and inactive issues 4. Fund next phase of projects before adding new projects • Address existing inactive projects
The project priority list will be presented to the Technical Committee for review, adjustment, and endorsement. Then the list will be presented for approval by the FAMPO Policy Committee and forwarded to VDOT and the Fredericksburg District CTB representative for consideration in the Six Year Improvement Program (SYIP).
CMAQ/RSTP Funding Project Application, Selection and Prioritization Methodology 6
Once the allocations for the SYIP are approved, and the SYIP takes effect, FAMPO staff will develop a comprehensive TIP amendment to include the allocations into the current TIP. This typically takes place at the July FAMPO meeting.
1. Roadway Projects
Roadway Capacity Projects (Road Widening)
The FAMPO highway project prioritization methodology, adopted by the FAMPO Policy Committee, will be employed for ranking all candidate highway projects (i.e. roadway widening or new roadway alignments)
Intersection Improvement Projects
This project type refers to improvements at individual intersections that are not part of a coordinated signal system. The projects may include improvements in the geometric design of the intersection by adding turn lanes, restriping, major reconfigurations, grade separation, etc. The change in emissions for a project is based on the change in delay (in hours per day) at the intersection as a result of the project.
Scoring Factors for Intersection Improvement Projects:
Criteria Points Scoring Instructions Greatest positive change to LOS = 15 Reduction of 0-20 Lowest positive change to LOS = 0 (2-point sliding scale) Congestion Is project located in CMP Corridor? (yes = 5, no = 0) Reduces NOx = 15 Air Quality 0-30 Reduces VOC = 15 20 points to the project with the highest current crash rate/number of Safety 0-20 crashes (2-point sliding scale) Projects with detailed design and cost estimates that are ready to undertaken = 10 points Project Readiness 0-20 Projects with additional funding committed = 10 points (2-point sliding
scale)
Will the project provide access to areas of walkable, transit friendly mixed-
use development (either existing or proposed)? (yes = 5, no = 0) Land Use/ 0-10 Connectivity Will the improvement promote improved inter-connectivity between
adjacent developments? (yes = 5, no = 0)
CMAQ/RSTP Funding Project Application, Selection and Prioritization Methodology 7
2. Intelligent Transportation Systems and Operational Improvements
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) use technology improve the safety, efficiency and security of the roadway system. ITS does not refer to one specific program or initiative, it can be a combination of technologies working together to improve the system, such as integrated corridor management. Some examples of ITS technologies include: real-time traveler and weather information, adaptive signal control, travel demand management (TDM), variable tolling/congestion pricing, automatic vehicle location (AVL) systems for transit vehicles and emergency transportation operations (ETO) strategies.
A wide array of highway and transit projects are classified as ITS/operational projects, including: • Traffic signal timing; • Upgrades to traffic signal systems; • Advanced traffic management systems; • Variable message signs; • Communications improvements; • Video surveillance infrastructure; • Automatic vehicle location and passenger counting for transit purposes; and • Vehicle detection systems.
Criteria Points Will the project improve traffic flow during peak congestion periods and special circumstances? 0-20 Is project located in a CMP Corridor? 0-10 Will the project directly reduce the number and severity of roadway incidents? 0-20 Does the project address the mobility or accessibility needs of the region? 0-10 Does the project increase the linkage and communications among various operating agencies to 0-20 provide better traffic information to users? Is the project/project concept part of the Regional ITS Strategic Plan? 0-10 Does project have additional committed funding? (2-point sliding scale based on the percentage 0-10 of total project cost committed)
CMAQ/RSTP Funding Project Application, Selection and Prioritization Methodology 8
3. Intermodal Freight Transportation Projects
Intermodal transportation is aimed at moving freight efficiently between transportation modes, such as train to truck or vice versa. These improvements could range from roadway capacity or operational improvements to truck parking to improvements that provide access to port or intermodal terminals.
Criteria Points Will the project establish opportunities for linkages or connections between transportation 0-40 modes or existing corridors and industrial, employment and population centers? Will the project improve the operations to better accommodate intermodal movements? 0-20 Will the project improve rail or vehicular access to freight distribution facilities, ports, major 0-20 industrial clients, or employment and population centers? Project readiness: projects with detailed design and cost estimates that are ready to begin/continue a phase = 10 points Projects with additional committed funding = 10 ( 2 point 0-20 sliding scale based on the percentage of total project cost committed)
CMAQ/RSTP Funding Project Application, Selection and Prioritization Methodology 11
4. Transit Projects
Vehicle Replacements/ New Vehicle Acquisitions
New or replacement transit vehicles include buses, rail or vans. Transit agencies are encouraged to purchase vehicles that are the most cost effective in reducing emissions. Routine preventive maintenance for vehicles is not eligible.
With respect to vehicle replacements, the evaluators should assign a score from 0-100 based on “consideration” of the following factors:
Evaluation Criteria Points Scoring Instructions/ Supporting Data Vehicles to be replaced have reached List of buses to be replaced with existing/projected 0-20 end of usefulness (defined by FTA) mileage and age Estimated cost per vehicle 0-20 Estimated price per fully equipped vehicle System ridership for past full year/ additional projected Number of passenger trips effected 0-20 ridership Pollution reduction and energy Are new vehicles more energy efficient and promote 0-20 efficiency enhancements green technologies? Other potential funding sources: likelihood of funding, 0-20 Other available funding sources local match requirement, grant cycle.
Evaluators should consider these factors when scoring the application and enter brief comments about each of them on the evaluation sheet.
Transit Operating Assistance
Operating assistance to introduce new transit service or expand existing service is eligible for CMAQ funding. It may be a new type of service, service to a new geographic area, or an expansion of existing service providing additional hours of service or reduced headways. For a service expansion, only the operating costs of the new increment of service are eligible. Eligible operating costs include labor, fuel, maintenance, and related expenses. Operating assistance may be CMAQ-funded for a maximum of three years. The intent is to support the demonstration of new services that may prove successful enough to sustain with other funding sources, and to free up CMAQ funds to generate new air quality benefits.
CMAQ/RSTP Funding Project Application, Selection and Prioritization Methodology 12
With respect to new or expanded transit services, the evaluators should assign a score from 0-100 based on “consideration” of the following factors:
Evaluation Criteria Points Scoring Instructions/ Supporting Data Preliminary service routing, population Population within service area and prospective estimate within service area, (based on 2015 ridership within area (within ¾ mile of transit 0-20 FAMPO TAZ data) & estimate of perspective route) ridership Cost per hour of service, revenue hours of Estimated service cost 0-20 service, cost of buses utilized in service Will proposed service operate in an area with 0-20 Highway LOS of D or below significant traffic congestion Yes = 10 Will proposed service operate in a CMP corridor? 0-10 No = 0 Data by census tract: • Median household income, Will the service attract “choice” or single • Percentage of population below poverty level, occupant vehicle (SOV) riders and/or transit 0-10• Percentage of households with no vehicle and dependent populations only one vehicle, and • Average household size for owner and renter occupied households Other potential funding sources: likelihood of Other funding sources 0-10 funding, local match requirement, grant cycle. Will the jurisdiction commit to continuing the service if the route meets defined ridership 0-10 Letter of Commitment from jurisdiction objectives
Evaluators should consider these factors when scoring the application and enter brief comments about each of them on the evaluation sheet.
CMAQ/RSTP Funding Project Application, Selection and Prioritization Methodology 13
New Commuter Parking/Commuter Parking Expansion Projects
FAMPO’s 2045 Constrained Long Range Transportation Plan calls for about 9,000 additional commuter parking spaces in the Region by 2045. This includes both VRE parking expansions as well as commuter parking lots. The following scoring mechanism will be used to prioritize the parking expansion projects. The scoring criteria includes cost-per-space analysis, demand at existing commuter lots, proximity to Interstate 95, and rail and accessibility to existing transit routes/facilities as well as accessibility to primary roadways.
Evaluation Criteria Points Scoring Instructions/Supporting Data P&R lot presently at/over capacity will receive 20 points. Existing parking demand at proposed 0-25 A relative scale will be used for lots not presently at location capacity. (for new lots; survey closest existing lot) Carpool/Vanpool = 5 Commuter Bus = 5 Commuter type served at lot 0-20 Commuter Rail = 5 Local Bus = 5 Less than 2 miles = 20 points Proximity to I-95, principal arterial 2-4 miles = 15 points roadways and/or commuter rail 0-20 4.1-6 miles = 10 points stations Over 6 miles = 5 points Is proposed lot located in a CMP Yes = 5 points 0-5 corridor? No = 0 points Is the lot part of a mixed-use Yes = 10 points development, or does it promote 0-10 No = 0 points walkable, transit-friendly land use? Is the lot bike/ped accessible? 0-5 Yes = 5 points No = 0 points Will the lot have bicycle parking? 0-5 Yes = 5 points No = 0 points Projects with the lowest cost per space (total project Cost per space 0-10 cost of all phases) will receive the highest score. A 2- point sliding scale will be used for all
CMAQ/RSTP Funding Project Application, Selection and Prioritization Methodology 14
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) – GWRideConnect
GWRideConnect is the regional transportation demand management (TDM) agency that serves the residents of Planning District 16. GWRideConnect promotes and facilitates ridesharing and TDM initiatives to assist persons seeking transportation options to their workplaces and other destinations. The overarching policy of the GWRideConnect Program is to promote, plan and establish transportation alternatives to the use of the single occupant vehicle, thereby improving air quality, reducing congestion and improving the overall quality of life for the citizens of the region.
The activities and programs of a TDM agency are all CMAQ eligible, are regional in scope and provide air quality and congestion mitigation benefits across the entire FAMPO service area. A base amount of $125,000 of the yearly CMAQ allocation will be set aside for GWRideConnect subject to available funding and required need for that Fiscal year. The funding will be reviewed annually, and funding will be derived from an off the top designation of the region’s annual allocation of CMAQ funds. If GWRideConnect requires funds in excess of the base allocation; normal CMAQ procedures will be followed.
CMAQ/RSTP Funding Project Application, Selection and Prioritization Methodology 15
5. Planning/PE Studies
This category refers to surface transportation planning initiatives including (but not limited to):
• Long/Short-Range Planning; • Corridor Studies; • PE Studies; • NEPA Studies; • Conceptual Design; and • Project specific planning (i.e. IJR/IMR, Alternative Analysis).
Note: CMAQ funding is only eligible for planning studies that will lead to a CMAQ eligible project (e.g., feasibility studies, conceptual design studies, etc.)
Criteria Points Yes/No Is the study necessary to further a project, recommendation, policy goal, or to 0-10 enhance/update the Long-Range Transportation Plan? Is the study necessary to address a safety issue? 0-20 Is the study concerned with encouraging multimodal transportation? 0-15 Does the study address the region’s mobility or accessibility needs? 0-20 Do the study’s goals and/or show support for economic vitality, quality of life and 0-15 walkable, transit friendly, mixed use development patterns? (5 points each)? Do the goals and/or objectives foster environmental preservation/protection? 0-10 Projects with additional committed funding (2-point sliding scale based on the 0-10 percentage of total study cost already committed)
CMAQ/RSTP Funding Project Application, Selection and Prioritization Methodology 16
6. Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects
Eligible bicycle and pedestrian facilities include: • Construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities such as shared-use paths, bike lanes, shoulders, sidewalks, and sidewalk modifications; • Support facilities such as bike racks, signage, signals and trail amenities; and • Non-construction outreach related to safe bicycle use (all Transportation Alternatives Program projects are eligible to receive RSTP funds).
Number of people the project will benefit (0-20 points)
These projects will be evaluated based on estimated users within a logical distance from the project. A three-mile radius will be used for bicycle projects and a one-mile radius for pedestrian projects. FAMPO 2015 Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) geography will be used to determine the base and horizon year (2045) population and employment. The highest user base will receive 20 points and the lowest user base will receive 0 points (based on a 2-point sliding scale).
Projects will address existing needs (0-40 points)
Criteria Points Scoring Instructions Completion of a missing link as part of phased construction or 0-10 extend/link existing facilities Provides access to transit, commercial/employment centers, Need for Improvements 0-10 recreational facilities from residential areas 0-10 Eliminates a barrier to major destinations 0-10 Improves bicycle/pedestrian safety
Transportation Function (0-20 points)
Criteria Points Scoring Instructions Transportation 0-10 Serves trips to work/school Function 0-10 Serves other trips (personal business, shopping, recreation, etc.)
Additional Committed Funds (0-10 points)
Projects with additional committed funding (e.g., an approved budget, resolution, proffer, impact fee, etc.) will be listed on a 2-point sliding scale (based on the percentage of total project cost already committed) with the project pledging the most additional money receiving 10 points and the least receiving 0 points.
Project Readiness (0-10 points)
Projects with detailed design and cost estimates that are ready to begin or continue a project phase will receive 10 points.
CMAQ/RSTP Funding Project Application, Selection and Prioritization Methodology 17
OTHER PROJECTS
The other project category includes those projects that do not fit perfectly into any other project groupings. Analysis methods for these projects are typically project specific and may be qualitative or quantitative depending on the type of project and the availability of input data. These projects will be addressed on a case by case basis by FAMPO staff and the FAMPO Technical Committee.
CMAQ/RSTP Funding Project Application, Selection and Prioritization Methodology 18 a `
7f. STARS Study: Route 1 Corridor Improvement Study - Mr. John Bentley ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY –FROM PORT AQUIA DRIVE TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY Kick-Off Meeting January 29, 2019 AGENDA § STARS Program § Innovative Intersections § Route 1 Corridor Improvement Study § Study Work Group § Project Background § Project Scope of Work Overview § Communication Protocols § Project Information Sharing § Overall Schedule and Major Milestones § Next Steps
ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY – FROM PORT AQUIA DR TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 2 STARS PROGRAM
Route 1 (Jefferson Davis Highway – from Port Aquia Dr to Coal Landing Rd) Corridor Improvement Study 3 STARS PROGRAM GOALS § Develop comprehensive, innovative transportation alternatives to relieve congestion bottlenecks and solve critical safety challenges § Involve planners, traffic engineers, safety engineers, roadway designers, and local stakeholders
ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY – FROM PORT AQUIA DR TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 4 WHAT IS THE STARS PROGRAM? Program to develop solutions to reduce crashes and congestion bottlenecks using a data-driven approach
Crash hotspots Use this information together to identify Speed data corridors with safety and AADT data congestion challenges
Overall goal of STARS is to develop solutions that can be programmed in the VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP)
ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY – FROM PORT AQUIA DR TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 4 THE STARS TEAM VDOT Districts and Residencies § Coordinate with localities, MPOs, and PDCs § Submit STARS applications § Lead STARS projects § Coordinate with consultant team VDOT Central Office § Provides program oversight, data analysis, and application review Consultants § Provide project support
ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY – FROM PORT AQUIA DR TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 6 IMPORTANCE OF CORRIDOR IDENTIFICATION
Route 1 (Jefferson Davis Highway – from Port Aquia Dr to Coal Landing Rd) Corridor Improvement Study 7 SAMPLE STARS DELIVERABLES
US 60 (MIDLOTHIAN TURNPIKE) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 8 SAMPLE STARS DELIVERABLES
US 60 (MIDLOTHIAN TURNPIKE) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 9 SAMPLE STARS DELIVERABLES
US 60 (MIDLOTHIAN TURNPIKE) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 10 ROUTE 1 CORRIDOR: PORT AQUIA DRIVE TO COAL LANDING ROAD § Four intersections with District PSI Rankings: 26, 41, 80, 232 § Seven PSI Ranking segments
PSI District Rankings
ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY – FROM PORT AQUIA DR TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 6 Duration of CONGESTION DATA V/C - 2035 Congestion (Hours) § Projected 2035 V/C ratio along the Route 1 corridor – 1.16 (Garrisonville Road to Port Aquia Drive) § Duration of congestion – over 1.5 hours (Coal Landing Rd to Washington Dr) and over 2.25 hours (Washington Dr to Port Aquia Dr)
ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY – FROM PORT AQUIA DR TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 12 HIGH CRASH LOCATIONS
§ Potential for Safety Improvement (PSI) § Estimates how much the long term crash frequency could be reduced at an intersection or segment § Intersection Rankings § Ranked by total PSI within Fredericksburg District § 26 – Derrick Lane § 41 – Washington Drive § 80 – Town Center Drive § 232 – US 1 N/S
ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY – FROM PORT AQUIA DR TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 13 INNOVATIVE INTERSECTIONS
Route 1 (Jefferson Davis Highway – from Port Aquia Dr to Coal Landing Rd) Corridor Improvement Study 14 INNOVATIVE INTERSECTIONS
§ What are innovative intersections? § Designs where traffic movements are modified to improve safety, reduce delay, increase efficiency § Can reduce delays and crashes as much as 50%
ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY – FROM PORT AQUIA DR TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 15 INNOVATIVE INTERSECTIONS
§ Re-route Left-Turn Movements - More efficiently serves through traffic
§ Reduce Signal Phases - Reduces delay
§ Remove and Separate Conflicts - Improves safety
Route 1 (Jefferson Davis Highway – from Port Aquia Dr to Coal Landing Rd) Corridor Improvement Study 16 INNOVATIVE INTERSECTIONS
§ Why is VDOT promoting innovative intersections? § Enhance mobility § Improve safety § Preserve capacity § What information has VDOT released? § VDOT Junction Screening Tool (VJuST) § Microsoft Excel tool to screen innovative intersections/interchanges § Informational brochures § Continuous Green-T § Restricted Crossing U-Turn § Displaced Left Turn § Roundabout § Quadrant Roadway § Median U-Turn http://www.virginiadot.org/innovativeintersections/
ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY – FROM PORT AQUIA DR TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 17 INNOVATIVE INTERSECTIONS
ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY – FROM PORT AQUIA DR TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 18 ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY –FROM PORT AQUIA DR TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY
Route 1 (Jefferson Davis Highway – from Port Aquia Dr to Coal Landing Rd) Corridor Improvement Study 19 STUDY WORK GROUP MEMBERS § VDOT District § FAMPO § Linda LaSut § Paul Agnello § Stephen Haynes § Kari Barber § Peter Hedrich § John Bentley § Jacob Herrman § Briana Hairfield § Lynne Keenan § FHWA § Michelle Shropshire § Ivan Rucker § Cathie Coffey § David Beale § WSP Team § § John Hendrickson VDOT Central Office § Chris Gay § Terrell Hughes § Sachin Katkar § Robert Williams § Stafford County § Kathy Baker § Joey Hess § Jason Towery § Jeff Harvey
Route 1 (Jefferson Davis Highway – from Port Aquia Dr to Coal Landing Rd) Corridor Improvement Study 20 STUDY WORK GROUP ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES § Attend meetings and/or workshops § Anticipated two in-person meetings and/or workshops § Technical webinars § Provide input in your focus area § Traffic engineering and traffic signal operations § Transportation planning § Preliminary design and cost estimating § Local familiarity with Stafford County § Review interim and final deliverables § Technical Committee § Provide guidance and review of detailed analyses: District, TMPD, County, FAMPO
ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY – FROM PORT AQUIA DR TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 21 PROJECT STUDY AREA
§ Route 1 (Jefferson Davis Hwy) in 16,000 veh/day Stafford County, VA § 4-Lane undivided roadway § Other Principal Arterial § ADT = 16,000 veh/day (2017 Counts) § Posted Speeds – 35 mph (northern half), 45 mph (southern half)
§ 2.2-Mile Study Corridor: From Port 16,000 veh/day Aquia Dr to Coal Landing Rd (with potential extension to Austin Run Blvd) § 13 Study Area Intersections § Important incident management alternate route for I-95
ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY – FROM PORT AQUIA DR TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 22 PROJECT STUDY AREA
Int# Description Control 1 US 1 at Port Aquia Drive Signalized 2 US 1 at Coachman Circle Unsignalized 3 US 1 at NB I-95 on-ramp Signalized 4 US 1 at Garrisonville Road/Washington Drive Signalized 5 US 1 at NB I-95 off-ramp/Aquia Towne Ctr Drive Signalized 6 US 1 at Aquia Towne Ctr Commercial Entrance Unsignalized 7 US 1 at Derrick Lane Unsignalized 8 US 1 at Aquia Park Signalized 9 US 1 at Aquia Commerce Ctr/Colonial Baptist Church Unsignalized 10 US 1 at Helping Hands Daycare Center Entrance Unsignalized 11 US 1 at Foreston Woods Drive Signalized 12 US 1 at Coal Landing Road/Bells Hill Road Signalized 13 US 1 at Austin Run Boulevard Unsignalized § Corridor includes two-way left-turn lanes (TWLTL) (primary) as well as raised median (one intersection)
ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY – FROM PORT AQUIA DR TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 23 STUDY PURPOSE AND NEED
§ Improve Traffic Operations § Optimize Signals § Recommendations for weekend and incident management § Improve Safety § Options for TWLTL Vs. raised median § Access Management: Multiple locations § Multimodal Accommodations § Develop potential projects to improve safety and operations in the study area § Identify improvements that can be advanced to funding § To be programmed into the VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP)
ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY – FROM PORT AQUIA DR TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 24 SCOPING OVERVIEW § Data Collection and Field Review § Crash Analysis § Existing Conditions Operational Analysis § Traffic Forecasting § Future No-Build Conditions Operational Analysis § Development and Screening of Improvement Alternatives § Future Build Conditions Operational Analysis § Cost and Schedule Estimates § STARS Improvement Summary Sheets § Reporting
ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY – FROM PORT AQUIA DR TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 25 PROPOSED DATA COLLECTION OVERVIEW § Traffic Volume Data § 13 13-hour turning movement counts: Weekday AM, PM Peaks § Includes U-turns, heavy vehicles, and pedestrians § 5 48-hour classification counts: US 1 Corridor, I-95 ramps § Weekend peak counts? § Network-wide peak hour will be determined based on counts § Field Observations § Observe traffic operations and safety condition during AM and PM peak periods § AM peak: 6:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. § PM peak: 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. § Weekend peak? § Travel time runs § Peak hour queues
ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY – FROM PORT AQUIA DR TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 26 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS § Analysis Tools and Measures of Effectiveness § Synchro 10 § Control delay (seconds per vehicle) § 95th percentile queue length (feet) § SimTraffic 10 § Microsimulation delay (seconds per vehicle) § Maximum queue length (feet) § Analysis Periods § Weekday AM and PM peak hours § Weekend peak hour? § Existing Conditions – 2019 § Future Conditions – 2040
ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY – FROM PORT AQUIA DR TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 27 SAFETY ANALYSIS
§ Crash Analysis § Collision Diagrams § Crash Heat Map § Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) § Conflict Point Analysis
ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY – FROM PORT AQUIA DR TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 28 DATA COLLECTION
§ Request Synchro files and signal timing plans § Crash data – will obtain last 5 years from VDOT § Planned improvements, proffers § Other studies, existing data (R-O-W/Survey) § Forecasting § SPS data § Regional travel demand model? § Other?
ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY – FROM PORT AQUIA DR TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 29 COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS § VDOT Fredericksburg District § Linda LaSut– [email protected] § VDOT Central Office § Terrell Hughes – [email protected] § Stafford County § Kathy Baker – [email protected] § FAMPO § Paul Agnello - [email protected] § WSP Team § John Hendrickson – [email protected] (757) 466-9655 § Chris Gay – [email protected] (703) 742-5748
ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY – FROM PORT AQUIA DR TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 30 PROJECT INFORMATION SHARING § Website: https://ww2.projectsolve2.com § You will receive an invitation to join
ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY – FROM PORT AQUIA DR TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 31 OVERALL SCHEDULE AND MAJOR MILESTONES R Y G R N L P B N A A P U E E U U A J F M A M J J A S Kickoff Meeting Project Scoping Data Collection Existing Conditions Analysis Traffic Forecasting Future No-Build Analysis Concept Development/Screening Future Build Analysis Cost & Schedule Estimates Reporting
ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY – FROM PORT AQUIA DR TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY 32 ROUTE 1 (JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY –FROM PORT AQUIA DRIVE TO COAL LANDING RD) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY Thank you!! January 29, 2019 a `
7g. FAMPO Fiscal Year 2019 Committee Meetings Calendar - Mr. Paul Agnello 2019 FAMPO Committee Meetings Calendar Deadline for VDOT/DRPT to submit final versions of TIP amendment/adjustment requests Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Policy Committee (PC) Holiday PC Meeting Snow Date Federal Certification Review JANUARY 2019 FEBRUARY 2019 MARCH 2019 APRIL 2019 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 31
MAY 2019 JUNE 2019 JULY 2019 AUGUST 2019 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 30
SEPTEMBER 2019 OCTOBER 2019 NOVEMBER 2019 DECEMBER 2019 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28 30 1 2 3 4 5 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31 a `
8. Correspondence
Commonwealth Transportation Board Shannon Valentine 1401 East Broad Street (804) 786-2701 Chairperson Richmond, Virginia 23219 Fax: (804) 786-2940
Agenda item # New Business
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD
January 16, 2019
MOTION
Made By: Mr. Whitworth Seconded By: Mr. Williams
Action: Motion Carried, Unanimously
Title: Resolution Recognizing Henry “Hap” Connors
WHEREAS Henry L. “Hap” Connors, Jr. served on the Commonwealth Transportation Board (Board) from 2014 to 2018, having been appointed to serve on the Board by Governor Terry McAuliffe, and subsequently reappointed by Governor Ralph Northam, and having served as a member representing the Fredericksburg Construction District; and,
WHEREAS, Mr. Connors’ service on the Board was distinguished by his commitment to advancing the use of technology in all facets of transportation in the Commonwealth; and his focus on providing access to data and information that would enhance safe and seamless navigation of state highways and rail systems;
WHEREAS, prior to his Board service, Mr. Connors served on the Spotsylvania County Board of Supervisors from 2003 to 2011, during which time he also represented the county as a member of the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Committee, and served as the committee’s chairman; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Connors frequently sought input from community members and business and civic groups in the Fredericksburg area, Northern Neck and Middle Peninsula to understand their unique transportation needs and perspectives, and attended numerous public hearings and meetings on projects in his district; and
Resolution of the Board Henry “Hap” Connors January 16, 2019 Page Two
WHEREAS, Mr. Connors served as an advocate for unlocking gridlock in the Interstate 95 corridor, and worked to advance more than $1 billion in Interstate 95 highway and rail corridor improvements that will keep people and commerce moving to drive our state economy forward;
WHEREAS, Mr. Connors brought to the Board an extensive background in marketing and communications, including his work as vice president for government and public affairs for the Center for Innovative Technology, as well as his work in communications for the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the U.S. General Services Administration.
WHEREAS, Mr. Connors, in fulfilling his duties with this Board, and as chair of the Innovation and Technology Subcommittee, has demonstrated leadership, dedication, a clear vision for innovation in transportation, forthrightness and commitment, earning the respect and admiration of his colleagues and the staff at the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Department of Rail and Public Transportation; and
WHEREAS, the Board wishes to express its appreciation to Mr. Connors for his years of service to the Commonwealth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the members of the current Board extend to Mr. Connors their highest commendation and appreciation for his years of outstanding service on behalf of the citizens of the Commonwealth as a member of the Board and express their best wishes to him.
####
Transportation Conformity Determination Report for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
[Insert MPO name]
[Optional – insert name of applicable Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program on which conformity is being demonstrated]
[insert date]
1 Note to template users: This document is an optional template for “orphan” areas completing a metropolitan long range transportation plan (MTP) and transportation improvement program (TIP) conformity determination for the 1997 ozone standard. It assumes the area is in attainment for all other transportation-related national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Users who opt to follow the template should engage interagency consultation to discuss its appropriateness and necessary modifications to apply to the local area. This template is not a requirement, does not substitute for any requirements, and may not be appropriate in all circumstances. It is intended as a resource only.
For areas that are required to demonstrate conformity for other pollutants, or areas that are listed as “partial orphan” areas, this template may not cover all the conformity requirements for those areas. However, the “Executive Summary” section and Section 5 may help document conformity determinations on the Plan and TIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
2
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3
1.0 BACKGROUND ...... 4
2.0 [insert year/name] METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) ...... 7
3.0 [insert years] TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) ...... 9
4.0 TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION: GENERAL PROCESS ...... 11
5.0 REQUIREMENTS...... 16
CONCLUSION ...... 20
APPENDIX
3
Acknowledgements [optional]
This Transportation Conformity Report for the [insert year/name] Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and [insert years] Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) was prepared by [insert MPO name or preparer]. Individuals from the following agencies contributed their efforts towards the completion of the Transportation Conformity Determination Report. They include:
• [Insert list of participating agencies (usually interagency consultation partners)]
4
Executive Summary
As part of its transportation planning process, [insert MPO/agency name] completed the transportation conformity process for the [insert year/name] MTP and [insert years] TIP. This report documents that the [insert year/name] MTP and [insert years] TIP meet the federal transportation conformity requirements in 40 CFR Part 93.
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) requires that federally funded or approved highway and transit activities are consistent with (“conform to”) the purpose of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause or contribute to new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant NAAQS or any interim milestones. 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1). EPA’s transportation conformity rules establish the criteria and procedures for determining whether metropolitan transportation plans, transportation improvement programs (TIPs), and federally supported highway and transit projects conform to the SIP. 40 CFR Parts 51.390 and 93.
On February 16, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. District v. EPA (“South Coast II,” 882 F.3d 1138) held that transportation conformity determinations must be made in areas that were either nonattainment or maintenance for the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) and attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS when the 1997 ozone NAAQS was revoked. These conformity determinations are required in these areas after February 16, 2019. The [insert name of 1997 ozone NAAQS area] was [insert “nonattainment” or “maintenance” as applicable to the area] at the time of the 1997 ozone NAAQS revocation on April 6, 2015 and was also designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on May 21, 2012. Therefore, per the South Coast II decision, this conformity determination is being made for the 1997 ozone NAAQS on the MTP and TIP.
This conformity determination was completed consistent with CAA requirements, existing associated regulations at 40 CFR Parts 51.390 and 93, and the South Coast II decision, according to EPA’s Transportation Conformity Guidance for the South Coast II Court Decision issued on November 29, 2018.
5 ◼ 1.0 Background [optional – may be shortened as desired]
1.1 Transportation Conformity Process
The concept of transportation conformity was introduced in the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1977, which included a provision to ensure that transportation investments conform to a State implementation plan (SIP) for meeting the Federal air quality standards. Conformity requirements were made substantially more rigorous in the CAA Amendments of 1990. The transportation conformity regulations that detail implementation of the CAA requirements were first issued in November 1993, and have been amended several times. The regulations establish the criteria and procedures for transportation agencies to demonstrate that air pollutant emissions from metropolitan transportation plans, transportation improvement programs and projects are consistent with (“conform to”) the State’s air quality goals in the SIP. This document has been prepared for State and local officials who are involved in decision making on transportation investments.
Transportation conformity is required under CAA Section 176(c) to ensure that Federally-supported transportation activities are consistent with (“conform to”) the purpose of a State’s SIP. Transportation conformity establishes the framework for improving air quality to protect public health and the environment. Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding and approvals are given to highway and transit activities that will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing air quality violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant air quality standard, or any interim milestone.
[Insert a description of the 1997 ozone area, when it was designated, and if applicable when the area was re-designated maintenance. Also include the attainment status of the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS]
6 ◼ 2.0 [insert year or name] Metropolitan Transportation Plan
[add a short discussion of the Plan, similar to the TIP discussion in section 3.0; describe whether this action is for a new plan (Plan update) or amendment or neither.]
◼ 3.0 [insert years] Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
[insert short discussion of TIP development process, including any local factors. Below is SAMPLE language of the type of information that may be included in this section. We do not suggest this language be used verbatim. Background information found in the TIP document would likely be appropriate in this section. Indicate whether this action is for a new TIP (TIP update) or a TIP amendment, if any.]
[SAMPLE ONLY: The [year-year] TIP is one part of the MPO’s transportation planning process. The planning process includes the development of a Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). The MPO adopts the long-range transportation plan. As projects in these long-range plans advance to implementation, they are programmed in the TIP for study, design, and construction, provided they attain environmental permits and other necessary clearances.
The purpose of the TIP is to set forth the MPO’s short-term program for transportation projects. The TIP is prepared according to the MPO’s procedures. An MPO Committee works with the State DOT and the appropriate transit operators in soliciting project proposals from the public and cities and towns, and in developing a draft TIP. Following public and agency review, the draft TIP is approved by the MPO, forwarded to the State DOT, then on to federal funding agencies—the Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration.]
4.0 Transportation Conformity Determination: General Process
Per the court’s decision in South Coast II, beginning February 16, 2019, a transportation conformity determination for the 1997 ozone NAAQS will be needed in 1997 ozone NAAQS nonattainment and maintenance areas identified by EPA1 for certain transportation activities, including updated or amended metropolitan MTPs and TIPs. Once US DOT makes its 1997 ozone NAAQS conformity determination for the [insert year/name] MTP and [insert years] TIP, conformity will be required no less frequently than every four years. This conformity determination report will address transportation conformity for the [insert year/name] MTP and [insert years] TIP.
1 The areas identified can be found in EPA’s “Transportation Conformity Guidance for the South Coast II Court Decision, EPA-420-B-18-050, available on the web at: www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/policy-and- technical-guidance-state-and-local-transportation . 7 ◼ 5.0 Transportation Conformity Requirements
5.1 Overview
On November 29, 2018, EPA issued Transportation Conformity Guidance for the South Coast II Court Decision2 (EPA-420-B-18-050, November 2018) that addresses how transportation conformity determinations can be made in areas that were nonattainment or maintenance for the 1997 ozone NAAQS when the 1997 ozone NAAQS was revoked, but were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in EPA’s original designations for this NAAQS (May 21, 2012).
The transportation conformity regulation at 40 CFR 93.109 sets forth the criteria and procedures for determining conformity. The conformity criteria for MTPs and TIPs include: latest planning assumptions (93.110), latest emissions model (93.111), consultation (93.112), transportation control measures (93.113(b) and (c), and emissions budget and/or interim emissions (93.118 and/or 93.119). For the 1997 ozone NAAQS areas, transportation conformity for MTPs and TIPs for the 1997 ozone NAAQS can be demonstrated without a regional emissions analysis, per 40 CFR 93.109(c). This provision states that the regional emissions analysis requirement applies one year after the effective date of EPA’s nonattainment designation for a NAAQS and until the effective date of revocation of such NAAQS for an area. The 1997 ozone NAAQS revocation was effective on April 6, 2015, and the South Coast II court upheld the revocation. As no regional emission analysis is required for this conformity determination, there is no requirement to use the latest emissions model, or budget or interim emissions tests.
Therefore, transportation conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for [insert MTP, TIP, MPO] can be demonstrated by showing the remaining requirements in Table 1 in 40 CFR 93.109 have been met. These requirements, which are laid out in Section 2.4 of EPA’s guidance and addressed below, include: • Latest planning assumptions (93.110) • Consultation (93.112) • Transportation Control Measures (93.113) • Fiscal constraint (93.108)
2 Available from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11/documents/420b18050.pdf 8 5.2 Latest Planning Assumptions
The use of latest planning assumptions in 40 CFR 93.110 of the conformity rule generally apply to regional emissions analysis. In the 1997 ozone NAAQS areas, the use of latest planning assumptions requirement applies to assumptions about transportation control measures (TCMs) in an approved SIP.
[Note: You must determine whether or not there are TCMs in an approved SIP in the area. This should be an agenda item for interagency consultation on this conformity determination.]
[If there are no TCMs in any SIP in the area:]
The [insert state] SIP does not include any TCMs, see also Section 5.4.
[If there are TCMs in an approved SIP in the area, this section would need to note it and discuss the latest planning assumptions with respect to this TCM.]
5.3 Consultation Requirements
The consultation requirements in 40 CFR 93.112 were addressed both for interagency consultation and public consultation. Interagency consultation was conducted with [insert names of participating interagency partners], FHWA, FTA, and EPA. [Add details/description of interagency activities and process]. Interagency consultation was conducted consistent with the [insert state] Conformity SIP [if no Conformity SIP, insert name of MOU or other agreements related to interagency consultation for transportation conformity determinations, and if there are none, refer to the conformity regulation’s requirements at 40 CFR 93.105]. Public consultation was conducted consistent with planning rule requirements in 23 CFR 450. [Add details/description of specific public involvement activities.] [If including copies of any meeting minutes or public involvement notices, etc. as Appendices, add reference to those here.]
5.4 Timely Implementation of TCMs
[Note: You must determine whether or not there are TCMs in an approved SIP in the area. This should be an agenda item for interagency consultation on this conformity determination.]
[If there are no TCMs in any SIP in the area:]
The [insert state] SIP does not include any TCMs. 9 [If there are TCMs in an approved SIP in the area, add a discussion to document timely implementation per 40 CFR 93.113.]
5.5 Fiscal Constraint
Transportation conformity requirements in 40 CFR 93.108 state that transportation plans and TIPs must be fiscally constrained consistent with DOT’s metropolitan planning regulations at 23 CFR part 450. The [insert year/name] MTP and [insert years] TIP are fiscally constrained, as demonstrated in [add reference to section of MTP and TIP where fiscal constraint is discussed].
10
Conclusion
The conformity determination process completed for the [insert year/name] MTP and [insert years] TIP demonstrates that these planning documents meet the Clean Air Act and Transportation Conformity rule requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
11
APPENDIX
[insert Title]: [add Public Involvement or Interagency Consultation Documents]
[insert Title]: [add MPO Resolution or other documentation as desired]
Transportation Conformity Guidance for the South Coast II Court Decision
United States ._.,.,~ EA~ Environmental Protection "' Agency Transportation Conformity Guidance for the South Coast II Court Decision
Transportation and Climate Division Offce of Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ft EA~United States EPA-420-B-18-050 .....~ Environmental Protection ,., Agency November 2018 Transportation Conformity Guidance for the South Coast II Court Decision
1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of Guidance
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing guidance to assist in implementation of the February 16, 2018, decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. District v. EPA (“South Coast II,” 882 F.3d 1138). This guidance addresses how transportation conformity determinations can be made in areas that were either nonattainment or maintenance for the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) when that NAAQS was revoked, depending on their designations for subsequent ozone NAAQS.
This guidance is organized as follows: • Section 1, Introduction • Section 2, Orphan Areas • Section 3, 2008 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas and 2015 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Areas • Section 4, Examples
EPA has coordinated with the Department of Transportation (DOT) during the development of this guidance.
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) requires that federally funded or approved highway and transit activities are consistent with (“conform to”) the purpose of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause or contribute to new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant NAAQS or any interim milestones. 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1). EPA’s transportation conformity rules establish the criteria and procedures for determining whether metropolitan transportation plans, transportation improvement programs (TIPs), and federally supported highway and transit projects conform to the SIP. 40 CFR Parts 51.390 and 93.
1
1.2 Background on Court Decision
On February 16, 2018, the court issued its decision, South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA. This case involved a challenge to EPA’s final rule for implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS, referred to as the 2008 ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule. The court vacated portions of EPA’s 2008 ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule, but upheld EPA’s revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.1
The court decision referred to the 1997 ozone NAAQS nonattainment or maintenance areas that were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as “orphan areas.” 2,3 The court decision stated that transportation conformity applies for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS in these orphan areas. For areas that were nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS at the time it was revoked, the court stated that transportation conformity applies as an anti-backsliding measure. South Coast, 882 F.3d at 1149. For areas that were maintenance for the 1997 ozone NAAQS at the time it was revoked, the court stated that transportation conformity applies based on the court’s interpretation of Clean Air Act section 176(c)(5)(B). Id. at 1155.
On April 23, 2018, the Department of Justice filed a petition with the court on EPA’s behalf seeking rehearing of certain aspects of the decision by the three-judge panel that issued the decision, including portions of the decision that address transportation conformity requirements in the orphan areas. On September 14, 2018, the court agreed to stay its vacatur of the portion of EPA’s rule “that exempts orphan areas from transportation conformity” until February 16, 2019, and denied the other aspects of EPA’s rehearing request.4 As a result of the court’s September 2018 order, transportation conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS will again apply in orphan areas as of February 16, 2019. See Section 2.3 for more details on timing.
Based on our review of the court decision, EPA has concluded that the decision does not affect transportation conformity requirements for areas originally designated nonattainment for the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS (77 FR 30160, May 21, 2012), or areas designated nonattainment for the more stringent 2015 ozone NAAQS (83 FR 25776, June 4, 2018). These areas are discussed in more detail in Section 3 below.
1.3 Who can I contact for more information?
For questions concerning a particular ozone area, please contact the transportation conformity staff person responsible for this area at the appropriate EPA Regional Office, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) division office or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regional office:
1 882 F.3d 1138 2 EPA’s designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS were made on May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30160). 3 EPA is using the terms “orphan nonattainment area” and “orphan maintenance area” in this guidance because they were used in the court decision. These are not terms used in the Clean Air Act. 4 USCA Case No. 15-1115, Document #1750759, Filed September 14, 2018.
2
• A listing of the EPA Regions, the states they cover, and contact information for conformity staff can be found at the following website: www.epa.gov/state-and-local- transportation/epa-regional-contacts-regarding-state-and-local-transportation; • Contact information for FHWA division offices can be found at: www.fhwa.dot.gov/about/field.cfm; and • Contact information for FTA regional offices can be found at: www.transit.dot.gov/about/regional-offices/regional-offices.
General questions about this guidance can be directed to EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality: Laura Berry, [email protected]; or Astrid Terry, [email protected].
Additional information regarding the transportation conformity rule and associated guidance can be found on EPA’s website at: www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation.
1.4 Does this guidance create any new requirements?
No, this guidance is based on CAA requirements, existing associated regulations, and aspects of the court decision and order, and does not create any new requirements. The CAA and EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR Parts 51.390 and 93 contain legally binding requirements. This document is not a substitute for those provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it does not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, the DOT, states, or the regulated community, and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. EPA retains the discretion to consider and adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that may differ from this guidance but still comply with the statute and applicable regulations. This guidance may be revised periodically without public notice.
3
2 Court Decision Guidance for Orphan Areas
2.1 Which areas are “orphan” areas?5
The court discussed transportation conformity-related aspects of its decision for “orphan” nonattainment and maintenance areas for the 1997 ozone NAAQS as follows:
• Orphan maintenance areas were defined in the court decision as areas that were maintenance areas for the 1997 ozone NAAQS at the time of its revocation (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015) and were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in EPA’s original designations for this NAAQS (77 FR 30160, May 21, 2012). Table 2-1 lists the 63 complete orphan maintenance areas.
• Orphan nonattainment areas were defined in the court decision as areas that were designated as nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS at the time of its revocation (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015) and were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in EPA’s original designations rule for this NAAQS (77 FR 30160, May 21, 2012). Table 2-2 lists the 9 complete orphan nonattainment areas.6
Note, area names that appear in italics in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 are areas that were designated nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS either in part or in entirety; agencies in these areas should also refer to Section 3.3. Areas that are covered by multiple states are counted as one area in these tables.
5 For simplicity, in this guidance “2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment and maintenance areas” and “1997 ozone NAAQS nonattainment and maintenance areas” are referred to as “2008 ozone NAAQS areas” and “1997 ozone NAAQS areas,” respectively. 6 Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 are based on information that is publicly available on EPA’s “Green Book” webpage (www.epa.gov/green-book).
4
Table 2-1: Orphan Maintenance Areas7 1997 Ozone NAAQS Area Name State Allegan County MI Altoona PA Beaumont-Port Arthur TX Benton Harbor MI Benzie County MI Birmingham AL Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE) NH Canton-Massillon OH Cass County MI Charleston WV Clarksville-Hopkinsville TN, KY Clearfield and Indiana Counties PA Dayton-Springfield OH Detroit-Ann Arbor MI Door County WI Erie PA Evansville IN Flint MI Fort Wayne IN Franklin County PA Fredericksburg VA Grand Rapids MI Greene County IN Greene County PA Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Counties ME Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle PA Haywood and Swain Counties (Great Smoky National Park) NC Huntington-Ashland WV, KY Huron County MI Indianapolis IN Jackson County IN Johnstown PA Kalamazoo-Battle Creek MI Kent and Queen Anne's Counties MD Kewaunee County WI La Porte County IN
7 Area names that appear in italics in Table 2-1 are areas that were designated nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS either in part or in entirety; agencies in these areas should also refer to Section 3.2.
5
1997 Ozone NAAQS Area Name State Lansing-East Lansing MI Las Vegas NV Lima OH Louisville KY, IN Macon GA Madison and Page Counties (Shenandoah National Park) VA Manitowoc County WI Mason County MI Muncie IN Murray County (Chattahoochee National Forest) GA Muskegon MI Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News (Hampton Roads) VA Parkersburg-Marietta WV, OH Portland ME Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill NC Richmond-Petersburg VA Rocky Mount NC Scranton-Wilkes-Barre PA South Bend-Elkhart IN State College PA Steubenville-Weirton OH, WV Terre Haute IN Tioga County PA Toledo OH Wheeling WV, OH York PA Youngstown-Warren-Sharon OH, PA
6
Table 2-2: Orphan Nonattainment Areas8
1997 Ozone NAAQS Area Name State Albany-Schenectady-Troy NY Buffalo-Niagara Falls NY Essex County (Whiteface Mountain) NY Jefferson County NY Poughkeepsie NY Providence (all of Rhode Island) RI Rochester NY Springfield (Western Massachusetts) MA Sutter County (Sutter Buttes) CA
2.2 Which areas are partial “orphan” areas?
EPA reviewed the geographic boundaries of areas that were designated nonattainment or maintenance for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS.9 In addition to identifying orphan nonattainment and maintenance areas listed in Section 2.1, EPA identified ten areas that were nonattainment or maintenance areas for the 1997 ozone NAAQS at the time it was revoked that have a smaller boundary for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In these cases, the entire 1997 ozone NAAQS area is not an orphan area because some part of it is nonattainment or maintenance for the 2008 ozone NAAQS; it is a partial orphan area because a portion of the area was not included within the boundary of the 2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment or maintenance area. Figure 2-1 contrasts an orphan area (left side of the figure), with a partial orphan area (right side of the figure).
8 Area names that appear in italics in Table 2-2 are areas that were designated nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS either in part or in entirety; agencies in these areas should also refer to Section 3.2. 9 This information is available on EPA’s “Greenbook” web page, at www.epa.gov/green-book.
7
Figure 2-1: An Orphan Area and a Partial Orphan Area
O1phan Area: A Partial O1phan Area: 1997 ozone N!AAQS nonattainment or 1997 nonattainment or maintenance area where maintenance area that was designated the 2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment or attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS ,------maintenance are-a is smaller ~ I 1 I I r- 1 I- -, I --- .a
■ = 2008 ozone NAAQS area = 1997 ozone NAAQS area bounda1y 1/~~h = orphan area/partial orphan area
The six areas that were maintenance for the 1997 ozone NAAQS at the time of revocation that are partial orphan areas are shown in Table 2-3. The four areas that were nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS at the time of revocation that are partial orphan areas are shown in Table 2-4. These tables provide the 1997 ozone NAAQS area names and list the counties in the orphan portion, i.e., the counties not covered by the 2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment or maintenance area boundary. Note, area names that appear in italics in Table 2-3 and Table 2-4 are orphan areas that were designated nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS either in part or in entirety; agencies in these areas should also refer to Section 3.3. Areas that are covered by multiple states are counted as one area in these tables. Counties listed in the “Orphan Portion of the Area” column of these tables are whole counties, unless otherwise noted in the table.
8
Table 2-3: Partial Orphan Maintenance Areas
1997 Ozone NAAQS Area State Orphan Portion of the Area Name Barrow, Carroll, Hall, Spalding and Walton Atlanta GA Counties Parts of Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Rowan and Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill NC, SC Union Counties in NC and part of York County, SC Parts of Boone, Campbell and Kenton Cincinnati-Hamilton OH, KY, IN Counties in KY Jefferson, Loudon and Sevier Counties, part of Knoxville TN Anderson County and part of Cocke County Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Washington, and Waukesha Counties, and part of Kenosha Milwaukee-Racine WI County (i.e., the entire area, except for the eastern part of Kenosha County) St. Louis MO, IL Jersey County, IL
Table 2-4: Partial Orphan Nonattainment Areas
1997 Ozone NAAQS Area State Orphan Portion of the Area Name Amador and Calaveras Counties (Central Mountain CA Amador County Counties) Barnstable, Bristol, Essex, Middlesex, Boston-Lawrence-Worcester Nantucket, Norfolk, Plymouth, Suffolk, MA (Eastern Mass) Worcester Counties (i.e., the entire area except for Dukes County) Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties (Southern Mountain CA Tuolumne County Counties) Philadelphia-Wilmington- PA, NJ, Kent County, DE Atlantic City MD, DE
In the remainder of this guidance, EPA uses the term “orphan areas” to include complete orphan areas as well as partial orphan areas.
9
2.3 When are transportation conformity determinations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS required in orphan areas?
On September 14, 2018, the court agreed to stay its vacatur of the transportation conformity portion of EPA’s rule until February 16, 2019. As a result of the court’s September 2018 order, transportation conformity is not required in orphan areas until February 16, 2019. Metropolitan transportation plans, TIPs, and projects in these areas can be updated and/or amended or approved without a conformity determination for the 1997 ozone NAAQS through February 15, 2019. Transportation conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS will again apply in orphan areas as of February 16, 2019. Beginning February 16, 2019, a transportation conformity determination for the 1997 ozone NAAQS will be needed in orphan areas for the following transportation activities:
• a new or amended metropolitan transportation plan or TIP (per 40 CFR 93.104(b) and (c)); 10 • a new non-exempt Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit Administration (FHWA/FTA) project (per 40 CFR 93.104(d)); 11 • a non-exempt FHWA/FTA project where conformity needs to be redetermined as described in 40 CFR 93.104(d), e.g., as a result of a significant change in the project’s design concept and scope. When the stay of the vacatur has ended (February 16, 2019), orphan areas with an MPO must meet the transportation conformity regulation’s frequency requirements at 40 CFR 93.104, which describe when transportation conformity must be determined for metropolitan transportation plans, TIPs, and projects. A new conformity determination is required at least every four years for a new transportation plan and TIP starting on the date DOT makes a 1997 ozone NAAQS conformity determination (per 40 CFR 93.104(b)(3) and (c)(3)). For example, if DOT makes its 1997 ozone NAAQS conformity determination for an orphan area’s transportation plan and TIP on December 1, 2018, the four-year requirement begins on that date. EPA and DOT will provide technical assistance as needed to areas for conformity determinations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Please see Section 1.3 for contact information.
10 Requirements for orphan areas that are not associated with a metropolitan planning organization are found in 40 CFR 93.109(g), “Isolated rural nonattainment and maintenance areas.” Isolated rural areas are discussed in this guidance in Section 2.7. 11 “FHWA/FTA project” is defined in the conformity regulation at 40 CFR 93.101: “FHWA/FTA project, for the purpose of this subpart, is any highway or transit project which is proposed to received funding assistance and approval through the Federal Air Highway program or the Federal mass transit program, or requires Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) approval for some aspect of the project, such as connection to an interstate highway or deviation from applicable design standards on the interstate system.”
10
2.4 What is required to demonstrate conformity of the metropolitan transportation plan and TIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in orphan areas?
The transportation conformity regulation at 40 CFR 93.109 sets forth the criteria and procedures for determining conformity. Table 1 in 40 CFR 93.109 lists the conformity criteria by transportation action. For the transportation plan and TIP, Table 1 includes the following criteria: Table 1 – Conformity Criteria All Actions at all times: §93.110 Latest planning assumptions §93.111 Latest emissions model §93.112 Consultation Transportation Plan: §93.113(b) TCMs §93.118 and/or Emissions budget and/or Interim emissions §93.119 TIP: §93.113(c) TCMs §93.118 and/or Emissions budget and/or Interim emissions §93.119
In orphan areas that have one or more MPOs,12 transportation conformity for transportation plans and TIPs for the 1997 ozone NAAQS can be demonstrated without a regional emissions analysis pursuant to 40 CFR 93.109(c), “Regional conformity test requirements for all nonattainment and maintenance areas.” Paragraph (c) states: This provision applies one year after the effective date of EPA’s nonattainment designation for a NAAQS in accordance with §93.102(d) and until the effective date of revocation of such NAAQS for an area. The South Coast II court decision upheld EPA’s revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which was effective on April 6, 2015. EPA’s current transportation conformity regulation requires a regional emissions analysis only during the time period beginning one year after a nonattainment designation for a particular NAAQS until the effective date of revocation of that NAAQS (40 CFR 93.109(c)). Therefore, pursuant to this regulation, a regional emissions analysis is not required for conformity determinations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS because that NAAQS has been revoked (80 FR 12264).
12 Areas with an MPO include nonattainment and maintenance areas that contain or are part of a metropolitan planning area, and donut areas, which are defined in 40 CFR 93.101 as those areas outside a metropolitan planning area boundary but inside the boundary of the nonattainment or maintenance area. For more information, see EPA’s “Guidance for Transportation Conformity Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas,” EPA-420-B-12-046, July 2012, available on EPA’s web page at: www.epa.gov/state-and-local- transportation/policy-and-technical-guidance-state-and-local-transportation#requirements
11
As no regional emissions analysis is required in orphan areas, there is no requirement to use the latest emissions model (40 CFR 93.111), or use either the emissions budget test or interim emissions test (40 CFR 93.118 and 93.119). Therefore, transportation conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS can be demonstrated by an MPO and DOT for transportation plans and TIPs by showing that the remaining criteria from Table 1 in 40 CFR 93.109, and 40 CFR 93.108, have been met:
• Use of the latest planning assumptions, per 40 CFR 93.110. These criteria generally apply to regional emissions analyses. In orphan areas, ensuring the latest planning assumptions are used applies to information about TCMs in an approved SIP (40 CFR 93.113); • Consultation requirements, according to 40 CFR 93.112; • Timely implementation of any approved SIP transportation control measures (TCMs), according to the requirements in 40 CFR 93.113; and • Fiscal constraint, according to 40 CFR 93.108, which states that transportation plans and TIPs must be fiscally constrained consistent with DOT’s metropolitan planning regulations at 23 CFR part 450. Conformity determinations that have been made since the court decision for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in orphan areas that do include a regional emissions analysis are still valid, and do not have to be redone. Even though no regional emissions analysis is required after the effective date of the 1997 NAAQS revocation, such determinations met all applicable regulatory requirements.
EPA Regional Offices, in consultation with EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality, are available to provide additional technical assistance to the orphan areas based on their specific circumstances. See contact information in Section 1.3 of this guidance.
2.5 What options are there for determining conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in a partial orphan area?
As described in Section 2.2, there are ten areas that have a smaller boundary for the 2008 ozone NAAQS than they had for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and thus are partial orphan areas.
In these areas, conformity can be determined either for just the orphan portion, i.e., the county or counties that make up the orphan portion, or for the entire former 1997 ozone NAAQS area. Either approach would address the South Coast II court decision that conformity applies for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in orphan areas, as well as the geographic applicability requirement in the conformity regulation at 40 CFR 93.102(b).
Please refer to Section 3 of this guidance for a discussion of determining conformity for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
12
2.6 In orphan areas with an MPO, what is required to demonstrate conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for a non-exempt project?
Transportation conformity applies to non-exempt FHWA/FTA projects. Such projects need a project-level conformity determination before they are adopted, accepted, approved, or funded, per 40 CFR 93.104(d). Beginning February 16, 2019, a non-exempt FHWA/FTA project (including a project phase) must be found to conform with the 1997 ozone NAAQS before it can be adopted, accepted, approved, or funded. For example, if a new phase of a non-exempt FHWA/FTA project needs FHWA/FTA approval after February 15, 2019, a project-level conformity determination is required before the new phase is approved, per CAA 176(c)(1) and 40 CFR 93.102(a)(1)(iii). Table 1 in 40 CFR 93.109(b) lists the conformity criteria by transportation action. For a non- exempt FHWA-FTA project in an area with an MPO or a donut area, Table 1 includes the following criteria: Table 1 – Conformity Criteria All Actions at all times: §93.110 Latest planning assumptions §93.111 Latest emissions model §93.112 Consultation Project (From a Conforming Plan and TIP): §93.114 Currently conforming plan and TIP §93.115 Project from a conforming plan and TIP §93.116 CO, PM10, and PM2.5 hot-spots §93.117 PM10, and PM2.5 control measures
The latest planning assumptions in 40 CFR 93.110 and latest emissions model in 40 CFR 93.111 apply to project-level conformity determinations where an analysis is required. As discussed in Section 2.4 above, a regional emissions analysis is not required for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in orphan areas. Furthermore, there is no hot-spot analysis requirement (40 CFR 93.116) for ozone NAAQS. The provision requiring compliance with PM10 and PM2.5 control measures in an applicable SIP (40 CFR 93.117) applies only for PM NAAQS. In sum, for determining conformity of projects to the 1997 ozone NAAQS in orphan areas, the requirements at §§93.110, 93.111, 93.116, and 93.117 from Table 1 in 40 CFR 93.109 do not apply. Transportation conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS can be demonstrated for a non-exempt FHWA/FTA project in a metropolitan or donut orphan area by showing that the remaining criteria from Table 1 in 40 CFR 93.109(b) have been met:
• Consultation requirements (40 CFR 93.112); • There is a currently conforming transportation plan and TIP in place (40 CFR 93.114); and • The project is from that transportation plan and TIP (40 CFR 93.115).
13
If a non-exempt FHWA/FTA project in a metropolitan or donut orphan area needs a new federal approval on or after February 16, 2019, (e.g., a National Environmental Policy Act approval), a conformity determination for the 1997 ozone NAAQS will be needed. If conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS of the metropolitan transportation plan and TIP that includes the project has not yet been determined, it would need to be determined (as described in Section 2.4) before the project could be found to conform. EPA Regional Offices, in consultation with EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality, are available to provide additional technical assistance to the orphan areas based on their specific circumstances. See contact information in Section 1.3 of this guidance.
2.7 What is required to demonstrate conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in orphan areas that are isolated rural areas?
Isolated rural areas are those areas that do not have an MPO and whose projects are not part of the emissions analysis of any MPO’s metropolitan transportation plan or TIP.13 There are 14 isolated rural orphan maintenance areas and one isolated rural orphan nonattainment area, listed in Table 2-5. Note that these areas are a subset of the areas found in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2. The 1997 ozone NAAQS areas consist of entire counties unless otherwise noted in the table. Table 2-5: Isolated Rural Orphan Areas
Status 1997 Ozone NAAQS Area Name State Benzie County MI Door County WI Greene County IN Hancock, Knox, Lincoln, and Waldo Counties – all are ME partial counties Haywood and Swain Counties (Great Smoky National NC Park) – both are partial counties Huron County MI Jackson County IN Maintenance Kent and Queen Anne’s Counties MD Kewaunee County WI Madison and Page Counties (Shenandoah National Park) – VA both are partial counties Manitowoc County WI Mason County MI Murray County (Chattahoochee National Forest) – partial GA county Tioga County PA Nonattainment Essex County (Whiteface Mountain) – partial county NY
13 The transportation conformity regulation at 40 CFR 93.101 provides a definition for isolated rural area.
14
There are also two areas with orphan portions that are isolated rural areas, listed in Table 2-6. Note that these areas are a subset of the areas in Table 2-4. All counties listed in Table 2-6 are made up of entire counties.
Table 2-6: Orphan Portions of Areas that Are Isolated Rural Areas
1997 Ozone NAAQS Area Name State Orphan Portion of the Area Amador and Calaveras Counties CA Amador County (Central Mountain Counties) Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties CA Tuolumne County (Southern Mountain Counties)
The transportation conformity regulation at 40 CFR 93.109(g) governs transportation conformity in isolated rural areas. Because these areas do not have metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs, conformity is done in isolated rural areas only when a non-exempt FHWA/FTA project in such an area needs funding or approval. Table 1 in 40 CFR 93.109(b) lists the conformity criteria by transportation action. For a non-exempt FHWA-FTA project in an isolated rural area, Table 1 includes the following criteria: Table 1 – Conformity Criteria All Actions at all times: §93.110 Latest planning assumptions §93.111 Latest emissions model §93.112 Consultation Project (Not From a Conforming Plan and TIP): §93.113(d) TCMs §93.114 Currently conforming plan and TIP §93.116 CO, PM10, and PM2.5 hot-spots §93.117 PM10, and PM2.5 control measures §93.118 and/or Emissions budget and/or Interim emissions §93.119
For the reasons described in Sections 2.4 and 2.6 above, the requirements at §§ 93.111, 93.116, 93.117, 93.118, and 93.119 from Table 1 in 40 CFR 93.109(b) do not apply for determining conformity of projects to the 1997 ozone NAAQS in isolated rural orphan areas. If a non-exempt FHWA/FTA project needs approval in an orphan isolated rural area, transportation conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS can be demonstrated by showing that the remaining criteria have been met:
• Use of the latest planning assumptions, per 40 CFR 93.110. These criteria generally apply to regional emissions analyses. In orphan areas, ensuring the latest planning assumptions are used applies to information about TCMs in an approved SIP (40 CFR 93.113); • Consultation requirements, according to 40 CFR 93.112; and
15
• Timely implementation of any approved SIP transportation control measures (TCMs), according to the requirements in 40 CFR 93.113.
2.8 How is conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS determined in multi-state areas that include an orphan area?
There are several multi-state 1997 ozone NAAQS nonattainment or maintenance areas where only one state contains an orphan portion, while the other states in the multi-state area do not (e.g., the St. Louis 1997 ozone NAAQS area has an orphan portion in Illinois but not in Missouri). In multi-state areas, when a state has a 1997 ozone NAAQS SIP for its portion of the nonattainment or maintenance area and EPA has either found the budgets in the SIP adequate, or has approved the SIP, conformity can be determined in that state independently of the other states.14 This continues to be the case for multi-state areas with an orphan portion for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, even though the emissions budget test is not necessary for determining conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (see Section 2.4). In the 1997 ozone NAAQS multi-state areas in Section 2.2, there are states whose portion of the area is covered in full by the 2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment or maintenance area and therefore do not contain any orphan counties. In these states, ozone conformity requirements can be satisfied for the state’s portion of the area by demonstrating conformity for only the 2008 ozone NAAQS (see Section 3.1), and only the state that contains the orphan portion would need to demonstrate conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the orphan portion.
14 States can operate independently for conformity because the CAA refers to conformity to a SIP. This is further explained in EPA’s Guidance for Transportation in Multi-Jurisdictional Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas, EPA-420-B-12-046, found on EPA’s web page at www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/policy-and-technical- guidance-state-and-local-transportation.
16
3 2008 Ozone NAAQS and 2015 Ozone NAAQS Areas
3.1 What are the 2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment or maintenance areas that were nonattainment or maintenance for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and how is conformity demonstrated in these areas?
The court decision does not affect transportation conformity requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. There are 42 2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment and maintenance areas that were former 1997 ozone NAAQS nonattainment or maintenance areas. Of these areas, 32 have boundaries that are the same as or larger than the corresponding 1997 ozone NAAQS area. These 32 areas are listed in Table 3-1. Areas that are covered by multiple states are counted as one area in the table.
The remaining ten 2008 ozone NAAQS areas are smaller than the corresponding 1997 ozone NAAQS area. These ten areas are discussed in Section 3.2 and are adjacent to the partial orphan areas discussed in Section 2.2.
Figure 3-1 illustrates the two cases for 2008 ozone NAAQS areas: on the left side of the figure, the 2008 ozone NAAQS area boundary is identical to the 1997 ozone NAAQS boundary; on the right side, the boundary is smaller, creating a partial orphan area.
Figure 3-1: 2008 Ozone NAAQS Areas
Area that is Not an O1phan: Area with a Partial Omhan Area: 2008 ozone NAAQS area 2008 ozone NAAQS area bounda1y is identical to is smaller than the 1997 ozoner NAAQS-- area--: bounda1y 1997r- ozone-- NAAQS--: area
L. l__ J I""'"'~' L _,,_ .. L.l _.._ ..
= 2008 ozone NAAQS area • = 1997 ozone NAAQS area bow1da1y 1/~~h = pa1tial 01phan area
17
Table 3-1: 2008 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas that Were 1997 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment or Maintenance Areas
2008 Ozone NAAQS Area Name State Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton PA Baltimore MD Baton Rouge LA Chico (Butte County) CA Cleveland-Akron-Lorain OH Columbus OH Dallas-Fort Worth TX Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland CO Greater Connecticut CT Houston-Galveston-Brazoria TX Imperial County CA Jamestown NY Kern County (Eastern Kern) CA Lancaster PA Los Angeles-San Bernardino Counties (West Mojave CA Desert) Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin CA Memphis TN, MS, AR Morongo Band of Mission Indians CA Nevada County (Western part) CA New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island NY, NJ, CT Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the CA Pechanga Reservation Phoenix-Mesa AZ Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PA Reading PA Riverside County (Coachella Valley) CA Sacramento Metro CA San Diego County CA San Francisco Bay Area CA San Joaquin Valley CA Seaford DE Sheboygan County WI Ventura County CA Washington DC, MD, VA
18
The 2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment and maintenance areas listed in Table 3-1 must continue to fulfill transportation conformity requirements for ozone by demonstrating conformity for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the geographic area covered by that NAAQS. Transportation conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS does not need to be demonstrated in the geographic area covered by the 2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment or maintenance area boundary, as these are not orphan nonattainment or maintenance areas.
Therefore, 2008 ozone NAAQS areas can continue to make conformity determinations for transportation plans, TIPs, and projects for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as usual, i.e., as they have been doing, according to the requirements of the transportation conformity regulations at 40 CFR Part 93.
3.2 Which 2008 ozone NAAQS areas are adjacent to the partial orphan areas, and how is conformity determined in these areas?
As stated above, ten of the 2008 ozone NAAQS areas are smaller than the 1997 ozone NAAQS area, and these ten areas are listed in Table 3-2. These areas are adjacent to the partial orphan areas discussed in Section 2.2 and listed in Table 2-3 and Table 2-4. Areas that are covered by multiple states are counted as one area in Table 3-2.
As discussed in Section 3.1, the court decision does not affect transportation conformity requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The 2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment and maintenance areas listed in Table 3-2 must continue to fulfill transportation conformity requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, for the geographic area covered by that NAAQS.15
The agencies that address transportation conformity for these ten 2008 ozone NAAQS areas will also need to address transportation conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the partial orphan area, as described in Section 2 of this document. Please refer to Section 2 for guidance about determining conformity in orphan areas, and particularly Section 2.5 for options related to partial orphan areas.
15 If applicable, these areas already have the option to demonstrate conformity for the 2008 ozone NAAQS using the 1997 ozone NAAQS SIP motor vehicle emissions budgets for the geographic area covered by those budgets, per 40 CFR 93.109(c)(2)(ii)(B). In such a case, the 2008 ozone NAAQS conformity determination would satisfy the area’s ozone conformity requirements.
19
Table 3-2: 2008 Ozone NAAQS Areas Adjacent to a Partial Orphan Area
2008 Ozone NAAQS Area 1997 Ozone NAAQS Partial Orphan Area Name/State Name/State Barrow, Carroll, Hall, Spalding Atlanta, GA (same) and Walton Counties Amador and Calaveras Calaveras County, CA Counties (Central Mountain Amador County Counties), CA Parts of Cabarrus, Gaston, Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Lincoln, Rowan and Union Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC Hill, NC-SC Counties in NC and part of York County, SC Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN- Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, WI (the portion of Kenosha Washington, and Waukesha County, WI in this area had Counties, and part of Kenosha Milwaukee-Racine, WI been included in the 1997 County (i.e., the entire area ozone NAAQS area except the eastern part of “Milwaukee-Racine, WI”) Kenosha County) Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH- Parts of Boone, Campbell and Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN KY-IN Kenton Counties in KY Barnstable, Bristol, Essex, Middlesex, Nantucket, Boston-Lawrence-Worcester Norfolk, Plymouth, Suffolk, Dukes County, MA (Eastern Mass), MA Worcester Counties (i.e., the entire area except Dukes County) Jefferson, Loudon and Sevier Counties, part of Anderson Knoxville, TN (same) County and part of Cocke County Mariposa and Tuolumne Mariposa County, CA Counties (Southern Tuolumne County Mountain), CA Philadelphia-Wilmington- Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD- (same) Kent County, DE DE St. Louis – St. Charles – St. Louis, MO-IL Jersey County, IL Farmington, MO-IL
20
3.3 What is required to demonstrate conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the orphan areas that were designated nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS?
EPA made nonattainment designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS on June 4, 2018, for most areas (83 FR 25776) and July 25, 2018, for the San Antonio area.16 These designations occurred after the court decision of February 16, 2018. As such, these areas were not before the court in the South Coast II case. EPA’s nonattainment area designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS were effective August 3, 2018 for most areas and September 25, 2018 for the San Antonio area, and transportation conformity for the 2015 ozone NAAQS applies one year after the effective date of these designations, on August 3 and September 25, 2019, respectively. Some of the nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS include areas that were considered orphan areas in the South Coast II case. These areas are listed below in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3: 2015 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Areas that Include an Orphan Area
2015 Ozone NAAQS Area State Allegan County MI Amador County CA Berrien County MI Detroit MI Door County WI Las Vegas NV Louisville KY, IN Manitowoc County WI Muskegon MI Northern Milwaukee/Ozaukee Shoreline WI Sutter Buttes CA Tuolumne County CA
Once DOT’s conformity determination is made for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in these orphan areas, that determination will also demonstrate conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the area designated nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, since the 1997 ozone NAAQS is less stringent than the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA believes that this approach is consistent with the court’s analysis supporting its decision that transportation conformity applies for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in orphan areas. Therefore, once an area is determining conformity for the more stringent 2015 ozone NAAQS, no demonstration for the less stringent 1997 ozone NAAQS is necessary.
Transportation conformity for the 2015 ozone NAAQS applies for most areas beginning August 3, 2019. As of that date, 2015 ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas with an MPO must have a transportation plan and TIP in place that has been demonstrated to conform for the 2015 ozone
16 EPA designated Bexar County, TX as nonattainment and the remaining 7 counties in the San Antonio area as attainment on July 25, 2018 (83 FR 35136), with an effective date of September 24, 2018.
21
NAAQS. Note that both the MPO and DOT would need to act on the conformity determination to fulfill the requirement, as described further in EPA’s transportation conformity guidance for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.17 However, 2015 ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas that include 1997 ozone NAAQS orphan areas may choose to demonstrate conformity of their transportation plans and TIP for the 2015 ozone NAAQS before August 3, 2019, in lieu of demonstrating conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As always, DOT’s conformity determination is the final action.
In cases where the 2015 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area boundary is smaller than the 1997 ozone NAAQS area boundary, areas should refer to Section 2.8 of this guidance for additional information on fulfilling transportation conformity requirements in those portions of a multi-state area not covered by the 2015 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area.
EPA Regional Offices, in consultation with EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality, are available to provide additional technical assistance to the orphan areas based on their specific circumstances. See contact information in Section 1.3 of this guidance.
17 Transportation Conformity Guidance for 2015 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Areas, EPA-420-B-18-023, June 2018, available on EPA’s webpage at: www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/policy-and-technical-guidance- state-and-local-transportation#requirements.
22
4 Examples
This section provides examples of where and when conformity applies for more than one ozone NAAQS due to the court decision.
4.1 Example 1: 2008 ozone NAAQS area that has the same boundary as the 1997 ozone NAAQS area Example l : 2008 ozone NAAQS area bounda1y is identical to 1997 ozone,------NAAQS area boundruy I 1 I I r- ·- - 1 I- -· ---~ --- ~
= 2008 ozone NAAQS area - - • = 1997 ozone NAAQS area boundary
• Where does conformity apply? o Conformity applies in the 2008 ozone NAAQS area • When does conformity apply? o Conformity applies for the 2008 ozone NAAQS now (requirement began on July 20, 2013 – see Section 3.1). o Conformity does not apply for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in these areas (see Section 3.1).
23
4.2 Example 2: 2008 ozone NAAQS area that is smaller than the 1997 ozone NAAQS area 2: 2008 ozone NAAQS area is smaller than the 1997 ozone NAAQS area bounda1y
I I r- 1 I- -· -- -~
= 2008 ozone NAAQS area - - • = 1997 ozone NAAQS area boundaiy 0'/4,1/~ = orphan aJ'ea
• Where does conformity apply? o Conformity for the 2008 ozone NAAQS applies in the 2008 ozone NAAQS area (solid shaded area) o Conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS applies in the orphan area (striped area), or conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS can be demonstrated for the entire 1997 area (area within dashed border) • When does conformity apply? o Conformity applies for the 2008 ozone NAAQS now (requirement began on July 20, 2013) - see Section 3.1). o Conformity applies for the 1997 ozone NAAQS on February 16, 2019 (see Section 2.3).
24
4.3 Example 3: A multi-state area
3: A multi-state area "vith an 01phan area
, -- -:- - - : I State B I State A . I : ., - r- State C 1 I- -. I --- ~
= 2008 ozone NAAQS area = 1997 ozone NAAQS area bounda,y
= 01phanarea
= state boundaries
In this example, States A, B, and C each have their own approved SIP or adequate budgets from a submitted SIP that addresses either the 1997 or 2008 ozone NAAQS.
• Where does conformity apply? o Conformity for the 2008 ozone NAAQS applies in the 2008 ozone NAAQS area (solid shaded area), in States A and B. o Conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS applies in the orphan area (striped area), in State C. • When does conformity apply? o Conformity applies for the 2008 ozone NAAQS now (requirement began on July 20, 2013 - see Section 3.1). o Conformity applies for the 1997 ozone NAAQS on February 16, 2019 (see Section 2.3).
25
4.4 Example 4: An area designated nonattainment for the 2015, 2008, and 1997 ozone NAAQS 4: An Area Designated for All Three OzoneNAAQS ,. ------I I
.. • m I . -...... ~
ttij = 2015 ozoneNAAQS area • = 2008 ozone NAAQS area - - - = 1997 ozone NAAQS area bounda1y ~/2~~ = orphan area
• Where does conformity apply? o Conformity for the 2015 ozone NAAQS applies in the 2015 ozone NAAQS area (gridded area) o Conformity for the 2008 ozone NAAQS applies in the 2008 ozone NAAQS area (gray shaded area, which includes the 2015 ozone NAAQS area) o Conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS applies in the orphan area (striped area), or conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS can be demonstrated for the entire 1997 ozone NAAQS area (area within dashed border). • When does conformity apply? o Conformity applies for the 2015 ozone NAAQS beginning on August 3, 2019 (see Section 3.3). o Conformity applies for the 2008 ozone NAAQS now (the requirement began on July 20, 2013 – see Section 3.1). o Conformity applies for the 1997 ozone NAAQS on February 16, 2019 (see Section 2.3).
26