TRANSPORTATION POLICY BOARD MEETING Monday, February 13, 2017 Room 3.102, Joe C. Thompson Center, University of Texas Campus Red River and Dean Keeton Streets, Austin, Texas 6:00 p.m. AGENDA WATCH CAMPO LIVE: www.campotexas.org/livestream
1. Certification of Quorum – Quorum requirement is 11 members……….....……...Chairman Conley
2. Public Comments Comments are limited to topics not on the agenda but may directly or indirectly affect transportation in the CAMPO geographic area. Up to 10 individuals may sign up to speak – each of whom must contact the CAMPO office by 4:30 p.m., Monday, February 13, 2017.
3. Chair Announcements…………………………………..…………....…………...Chairman Conley
4. Report from the Technical Advisory Committee Chair…..….Mr. Todd Hemingson, Capital Metro Mr. Hemingson will provide an overview of Technical Advisory Committee discussion items and recommendations to the Transportation Policy Board (TPB).
ACTION: THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO COMMENT ON ITEMS 5 – 10 IN THE SECTION BELOW
5. Discussion and Approval of the January 9, 2016 Meeting Summary …………………………………………………………...…………Mr. Ashby Johnson, CAMPO Mr. Johnson will present the January 9, 2017 meeting summary and request TPB approval.
6. Discussion and Approval of the Walkability Action Plan……………..Mr. Kelly Porter, CAMPO Mr. Porter will present the Walkability Action Plan and request TPB approval.
7. Discussion and Approval of the Bastrop County Transportation Plan ………………………….…………………………………………..Mr. Ashby Johnson, CAMPO Mr. Johnson will present the Bastrop County Transportation Plan and request TPB acceptance.
8. Discussion and Approval of the Wirtz Dam Road Community Outreach Report ……………………………………………………………....………………….Ms. Doise Miers, CAMPO Ms. Miers will present the Wirtz Dam Road Community Outreach Report and request TPB acceptance.
9. Discussion and Approval of the Regional Incident Management Planning Contract ………………………….…………………………………………..Mr. Ashby Johnson, CAMPO Mr. Johnson will request Transportation Policy Board approval to negotiate a scope and fee with Kimley-Horn for an amount not to exceed $300,000.00. TPB Agenda – February 13, 2017 Page 2
10. Discussion and Approval of the Travis Count Interlocal Agreement for the FY 2015 and FY 2016 Local Match for the STP-MM Programs ………………...…..Mr. Ashby Johnson, CAMPO Mr. Johnson will present the Travis County Interlocal Agreement for the FY 2015 and FY 2016 Local Match for the STP-MM Programs and request TPB approval.
INFORMATION:
11. Presentation and Update on the Williams Drive Platinum Planning Study ………………………………………………………………………....Mr. Kelly Porter, CAMPO Mr. Porter will present an update on the Williams Drive Platinum Planning Study.
12. Presentation and Update on the 2045 Regional Active Transportation Plan ………………………………………………………………………....Mr. Kelly Porter, CAMPO Mr. Porter will present an update on the recent planning efforts for the 2045 Regional Active Transportation Plan.
13. Report on Transportation Planning Activities a. Upcoming Major Planning Activities for 2017 b. Progress on Draft Scope of Work for Study of the Entire Mokan Corridor
14. Announcements a. TAC Meeting – February 27, 2017 b. Next TPB Meeting – March 6, 2017
15. Adjournment
Presenters with audiovisual needs are requested to contact CAMPO at (512) 215-8225 at least two working days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Persons with disabilities who may need auxiliary aids or services, such as interpreters for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, readers of large print or Braille, or those who may need a translator for the Spanish language are requested to contact CAMPO staff at least two working days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.
Date: February 13, 2017 Continued From: N/A Action Requested: Certification
To: Transportation Policy Board From: Commissioner Will Conley, Chairman Agenda Item: 1 Subject: Certification of Quorum
RECOMMENDATION Certification of a quorum, whereas the Transportation Policy Board requirement is 11 members present.
PURPOSE AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A quorum is the minimum number of members who must be present at the Transportation Policy Board meeting for business to be legally transacted.
Date: February 13, 2017 Continued From: N/A Action Requested: Information
To: Transportation Policy Board From: CAMPO Staff Agenda Item: 2 Subject: Public Comments
RECOMMENDATION None. This item is for informational purposes only.
PURPOSE AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item is reserved for those members of the public wishing to address the Transportation Policy Board and provide official comment. Comments are limited to topics not on the agenda but may directly or indirectly affect transportation in the CAMPO geographic area. Up to 10 individuals may sign up to speak – each of whom must contact the CAMPO office by 4:30 p.m., Monday, February 13, 2017.
Date: February 13, 2017 Continued From: N/A Action Requested: Information.
To: Transportation Policy Board From: Commissioner Will Conley, Chairman Agenda Item: 3 Subject: Announcements
RECOMMENDATION None. This item is for informational purposes only.
PURPOSE AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This time is reserved for official announcements from the chairman of the Transportation Policy Board.
Date: February 13, 2017 Continued From: N/A Action Requested: Information
To: Transportation Policy Board From: Mr. Todd Hemingson, TAC Chairperson Agenda Item: 4 Subject: Report from the Technical Advisory Committee Chair
RECOMMENDATION None. This item is for informational purposes only.
PURPOSE AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The chairman of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will provide an overview of the discussion items and official recommendations from the TAC to the Transportation Policy Board.
Date: February 13, 2017 Continued From: N/A Action Requested: Approval
To: Transportation Policy Board From: Mr. Ashby Johnson, Executive Director Agenda Item: 5 Subject: Approval of the January 9, 2017 Meeting Summary
RECOMMENDATION CAMPO recommends that the Transportation Policy Board approve the January 9, 2017 Meeting Summary.
PURPOSE AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this action is to approve the summary of the previous meeting held by the Transportation Policy Board. This summary is the official record of actions having taking place during the meeting.
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Policy Board Meeting Summary January 9, 2017
1. Certification of Quorum – Quorum requirement is 11 members ………………………………..Chairman Conley
Member Alternate Member Representing Attending Attending 1 Will Conley, Chair Commissioner, Hays County Y Clara Beckett, Vice- 2 Commissioner, Bastrop County Y Chair 3 Steve Adler Mayor, City of Austin Y Travis County Representative; Mayor, City of 4 Joe Bain N Daugherty Lakeway 5 Victor Gonzales Mayor, City of Pflugerville Y
6 Gerald Daugherty Commissioner, Travis County Y
7 Sarah Eckhardt Judge, Travis County Y
8 Delia Garza City of Austin, District 2 Y
9 Sheri Gallo City of Austin, District 10 N
10 John Thomaides Mayor, City of San Marcos N
11 Ann Kitchen City of Austin, District 5 N
12 Cynthia Long Commissioner, Williamson County Y
13 Terry McCoy, P.E. TxDOT-Austin District Y
14 Terry Mitchell Capital Metro Board Member Y
15 Craig Morgan Council Member, City of Round Rock Y
16 Hoppy Haden Commissioner, Caldwell County Y
17 James Oakley Judge, Burnet County Y
18 Matt Powell Mayor, City of Cedar Park Y
19 Dale Ross Mayor, City of Georgetown Y
20 Brigid Shea Commissioner, Travis County Y
Video of this item can be viewed at http://austintx.swagit.com/play/01112017-778/4/
1 For agenda material and meeting video visit www.campotexas.org/meeting-agendas/
2. Public Comments
The Chair recognized Roger Baker who addressed the Board.
Video of this item can be viewed at http://austintx.swagit.com/play/01112017-778/5/
3. Chair Announcements………………………………………………………....…………...... Chairman Conley
The Chair made no announcements and welcomed Mayor Victor Gonzales to the board.
4. Report from the Technical Advisory Committee Chair…..………………….Mr. Todd Hemingson, Capital Metro
Mr. Hemingson made no announcements.
5. Discussion and Approval of the December 12, 2016 Meeting Summary……………..Mr. Ashby Johnson, CAMPO
The Chair recognized Mr. Johnson who presented the December 12, 2016 meeting summary.
Mr. Johnson recommended the Transportation Policy Board approve the meeting summary.
Morgan moved to approve the meeting summary.
Powell seconded the motion.
Ayes: Chair Conley; Vice-Chair Beckett; Adler; Bain (Proxy: Daugherty) ; Daugherty; Eckhardt; Garza; Gonzales; Haden; Kitchen; Long; McCoy; Mitchell; Morgan; Oakley; Powell; Ross; Shea.
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Kitchen, Thomaides, Gallo
Video of this item can be viewed at http://austintx.swagit.com/play/01112017-778/8/
6. Discussion and Approval of the CAMPO Procurement Policy…………….……...….Mr. Phillip Tindall, CAMPO
The Chair recognized Mr. Tindall who presented the CAMPO Procurement Policy.
Mr. Tindall recommended the Transportation Policy Board approve the CAMPO Procurement Policy.
Oakley moved to approve the procurement policy.
Daugherty seconded the motion.
Ayes: Chair Conley; Vice-Chair Beckett; Adler; Bain (Proxy: Daugherty) ; Daugherty; Eckhardt; Garza; Gonzales; Haden; Kitchen; Long; McCoy; Mitchell; Morgan; Oakley; Powell; Ross; Shea.
2 For agenda material and meeting video visit www.campotexas.org/meeting-agendas/ Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Kitchen, Thomaides, Gallo
Video of this item can be viewed at http://austintx.swagit.com/play/01112017-778/9/
7. Discussion and Approval of STP-MM Funding for Segment 2 of the Mokan Corridor (Round Rock) ...... Mr. Ashby Johnson, CAMPO
The Chair recognized Mr. Johnson who presented the funding request from the City of Round Rock for $2,000,000.00 in STP-MM funding for analysis of Segment 2 of the Mokan Corridor (FM 1431 to SH 45).
The Chair recognized Representative Celia Israel who addressed the board.
The Chair recognized Mr. Gary Hudder from the City of Round Rock who addressed the board.
Mr. Johnson recommended the Transportation Policy Board approve the requested STP-MM funds.
Adler moved to approve the requested $2,000,000.00 in STP-MM funding to the City of Round Rock.
Morgan seconded the motion.
Ayes: Chair Conley; Vice-Chair Beckett; Adler; Bain (Proxy: Daugherty) ; Daugherty; Eckhardt; Garza; Gonzales; Haden; Kitchen; Long; McCoy; Mitchell; Morgan; Oakley; Powell; Ross; Shea.
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Kitchen, Thomaides, Gallo
Video of this item can be viewed at http://austintx.swagit.com/play/01112017-778/10/
8. Discussion and Approval of the Memorandum of Agreement for the Park and Ride Study ……………………….…………………………………………………………….…….…..Mr. Ashby Johnson, CAMPO
The Chair recognized Mr. Johnson who presented the Memorandum of Agreement for the Park and Ride Initiative between the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority (CTRMA), Texas Department of Transportation-Austin District (TxDOT), Capital Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS) and Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Capital Metro).
The Chair recognized Mr. Bill Bunch of the Save Our Springs Alliance who addressed the board.
Mr. Johnson recommended the Transportation Policy Board approve the agreement.
Oakley moved to approve the agreement.
Powell seconded the motion.
3 For agenda material and meeting video visit www.campotexas.org/meeting-agendas/ Ayes: Chair Conley; Vice-Chair Beckett; Adler; Bain (Proxy: Daugherty) ; Daugherty; Eckhardt; Garza; Gonzales; Haden; Kitchen; Long; McCoy; Mitchell; Morgan; Oakley; Powell; Ross.
Nays: Shea
Abstain: None
Absent: Kitchen, Thomaides, Gallo
Video of this item can be viewed at http://austintx.swagit.com/play/01112017-778/11/
9. Presentation of the Wirtz Dam Road Community Outreach Report…………………….Ms. Doise Miers, CAMPO
The Chair recognized Ms. Miers who presented the results of the Wirtz Dam Road Community Outreach Report.
Video of this item can be viewed at http://austintx.swagit.com/play/01112017-778/12/
10. Presentation and Update on the 2045 Regional Active Transportation Plan ………...Mr. Kelly Porter, CAMPO
The Chair recognized Mr. Porter who presented an update on the 2045 Regional Active Transportation Plan.
Video of this item can be viewed at http://austintx.swagit.com/play/01112017-778/13/
11. Presentation of Bastrop County Transportation Plan…………Mr. Jim Harvey, Alliance Transportation Group
The Chair recognized Mr. Harvey who presented the Bastrop County Transportation Plan.
Video of this item can be viewed at http://austintx.swagit.com/play/01112017-778/14/
12. Report on Transportation Planning Activities
Video of this item can be viewed at http://austintx.swagit.com/play/01112017-778/15/
13. Announcements
Video of this item can be viewed at http://austintx.swagit.com/play/01112017-778/15/
14. Adjournment
The Transportation Policy Board adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Video of this item can be viewed at http://austintx.swagit.com/play/01112017-778/15/
4 For agenda material and meeting video visit www.campotexas.org/meeting-agendas/
Date: February 13, 2017 Continued From: May 26, 2016 Action Requested: Approval
To: Transportation Policy Board From: Kelly Porter, Regional Planning Manager Agenda Item: 6 Subject: Discussion and Approval of the Walkability Action Plan
RECOMMENDATION CAMPO staff and the Technical Advisory Committee recommend that the Transportation Policy Board approve the Walkability Action Plan.
PURPOSE AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CAMPO was one of 10 MPO teams selected to attend the second annual Walkability Action Institute sponsored by the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (NACDD), through a grant from the Center for Disease Control. The purpose of the institute was to prepare interdisciplinary teams from MPO regions to pursue policy, systems, and environmental (PSE) supports to enhance public health through walking and walkability. The NACDD and the CDC were interested in applicant teams who could commit to and produce measurable PSE outcomes after attending the action institute and completing an action plan. The teams were represented by an MPO staff member, a public health professional, a transportation representative (affiliated with the MPO region), and an elected official. CAMPO’s team included:
Kelly Porter, Regional Planning Manager - CAMPO Leigh Ann Ganzar, MPH - Michael and Susan Dell Center for Health Living Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst - City of Georgetown Mike Heath, Councilmember - City of Pflugerville
FINANCIAL IMPACT None.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION A team action plan was one of a list of project deliverables to be completed as part of the program. Team action plans included short and long-term outcomes inclusive of at least one or more PSE outcomes targeting improved walkability through community design or transportation design strategies. Below is a description of CAMPO’s Team Action Plan goals:
1. CAMPO will develop the region’s first Regional Active Transportation Plan that directly considers health outcomes and serves as a component of the future 2045 Regional Transportation Plan. 2. CAMPO will work with at least one jurisdiction to develop a plan to improve multimodal access and comfort along a corridor that includes land use recommendations that can be included in the local development code (both zoning and subdivision), and considers health impacts.
3. CAMPO will develop an online project viewer and data warehouse that displays existing, planned, and proposed active transportation infrastructure locations and information from around the region.
4. CAMPO will develop or identify at least three performance measures that can be used to measure health outcomes as part of CAMPO Platinum Plans, Regional Planning efforts and by other local and state partners.
5. CAMPO will have at least one representative from public health on one of its standing technical committees.
The Action Plan provides very broad action steps on ways CAMPO can incorporate health outcomes into the transportation planning process. All items listed in the Action Plan are tied back either directly or as subtasks with in the currently adopted Unified Planning Work Program. All items outlined in the Action Plan are funded as part of work tasks currently being undertaken by CAMPO staff such as the 2045 Regional Active Transportation Plan, and the Platinum Planning Georgetown Williams Drive Study. In addition, although not required as part of program requirements, adoption of the Action Plan provides a clear gesture to the funders of the Walkability Action Institute (as well as other potential funders) that CAMPO is dedicated to considering public health outcomes as part of the transportation planning process and will be useful in future funding opportunities.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Attachment A – CAMPO’s Step It Up!: Walkability Action Institute - Action Plan
2
Step It Up!: Walkability Action Institute Action Plan
Name of Participant Team: Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization – Team CAMPO
Goal #1: By Summer of 2017, CAMPO will develop the region’s first Regional Active Transportation Plan that directly considers health outcomes and serves as a component of the future 2045 Regional Transportation Plan.
Estimated reach:The CAMPO region includes a population of 2 million residents, engaging all jurisdictions; both incorporated and unincorporated areas.
Action Steps (to include timeline): Responsible Party: Additional Comments:
Action Step 1.1: CAMPO By December 2016, CAMPO will have completed a Demographic Accessibility Assessment which will provide an understanding of how equitable the region’s active transportation network is to various populations around the region. Equity will be determined by a communities distance to highquality active transportation infrastructure. Action Step 1.2: CAMPO in partnership with
1 By February 2017, CAMPO will have a completed vision All member jurisdictions network for the region’s active transportation system. Texas Department of Transportation Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority Active Transportation Advisory Committee (ATAC) Action Step 1.3: CAMPO in partnership with, By March 2017, CAMPO will have a list of project and All member jurisdictions program priorities to implement the active Texas Department of transportation network and program. Transportation Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority Action Step 1.4: CAMPO The analysis will be used to refine By April 2017, CAMPO will have completed a Health the plan recommendations and Impact Analysis on the plan recommendations. implementation strategies as needed. It will also provide a more timely and less resource intensive assessment of health impacts over a traditional health impact assessment. Action Step 1.5: CAMPO The plan will serve as an appendix By May 2017, CAMPO will submit the 2045 Regional to the 2045 Regional Active Transportation Plan for adoption by the Transportation Plan. Transportation Policy Board.
2 Goal #2: By May 2017, CAMPO will work with at least one jurisdiction to develop a plan to improve multimodal access and comfort along a corridor that includes land use recommendations that can be included in the local development code (both zoning and subdivision), and considers health impacts.
Estimated reach: City of Georgetown, 60,000 but replicable to all home rule cities in the region.
Action Steps (to include timeline): Responsible Party: Additional Comments:
Action Step 2.1: CAMPO By June 2016, CAMPO and City of Georgetown will kickoff City of Georgetown the Williams Drive Platinum Planning Corridor and Centers Project Working Group Study. Action Step 2.2: CAMPO By February 2017, CAMPO and City of Georgetown will have City of Georgetown a review of the Unified Development Code for Georgetown that describes where the current code conflicts with promoting multimodalism and recommendations on specific language to improve the codes consistency with the study goals. Action Step 2.3: CAMPO By March 2017, CAMPO will have developed a City of Georgetown framework for, and completed a Health Impact Analysis on the plan recommendations.
Action Step 2.4 City of Georgetown In April 2017, City of Georgetown will submit the completed study to its City Council for adoption. Action Step 2.5 CAMPO
3 In May 2017, CAMPO will submit the completed study to its Transportation Policy Board for acceptance. Goal #3: By December 2016, CAMPO will develop an online project viewer and data warehouse that displays existing, planned, and proposed active transportation infrastructure locations and information from around the region.
Estimated reach: The CAMPO region includes a population of 2 million residents, engaging all jurisdictions; both incorporated and unincorporated areas.
Action Steps (to include timeline): Responsible Party: Additional Comments:
Action Step 3.1: CAMPO By May 2016, CAMPO will begin work with University of University of Texas Center Texas’s Center for Transportation Research on the for Transportation development of online project viewer and data warehouse. Research Action Step 3.2: CAMPO By October 2016, CAMPO will have gathered data from all University of Texas Center entities in the region that implement active transportation for Transportation infrastructure, specifically regarding any planned, proposed, Research or existing facilities, and other pertinent metadata. Action Step 3.3: CAMPO The viewer will eventually include By March 2017, CAMPO will launch the online project University of Texas Center information beyond active viewer that can be used by implementing entities and the for Transportation transportation projects, but also public for planning and information purposes. Research roadways, transit; and include overlays for demographics, health data, and other data used for technical and planning analysis.
4 Goal #4: By March 2017, develop or identify at least three performance measures that can be used to measure health outcomes as part of CAMPO Platinum Plans, Regional Planning efforts and by other local and state partners.
Estimated reach:The CAMPO region includes a population of 2 million residents, engaging all jurisdictions; both incorporated and unincorporated areas.
Action Steps (to include timeline): Responsible Party: Additional Comments:
Action Step 4.1: CAMPO By May 2017, CAMPO will develop and include at least City of Georgetown three performance measures regarding health impacts into the Georgetown Platinum Planning Williams Drive Study.
Action Step 4.2: CAMPO By June 2017, CAMPO will include at least three performance measures regarding health impacts into the 2045 Regional Active Transportation Plan.
Action Step 4.3: CAMPO By September 2017, CAMPO will assess performance measures developed as part of the Georgetown Williams Drive Platinum Planning Study, the 2045 Regional Active Transportation Plan, and House Bill 20 in order to incorporate them into project selection and prioritization criteria and 2045 Regional Transportation Plan criteria.
5 Goal #5: By July 2017, CAMPO will have at least one representative from public health on one of its standing technical committees. Estimated reach: The CAMPO region includes a population of 2 million residents. Action Steps (to include timeline): Responsible Party: Additional Comments:
Action Step 5.1: CAMPO The Active Transportation By June 2016, CAMPO will include at least one Advisory Committee will include representative from Public Health on the Active 15 representatives from varying Transportation Advisory Committee. sectors including small cities, large cities, counties, social services, education, TxDOT, Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority and public health. Action Step 5.2 CAMPO By June 2017, CAMPO will transition the Active Transportation Advisory Committee to a standing subcommittee of the Technical Advisory Committee and designate a seat for a representative from Public Health.
6
Date: February 13, 2017 Continued From: January 9, 2017 Action Requested: Acceptance
To: Transportation Policy Board From: Mr. Ashby Johnson, Executive Director Agenda Item: 7 Subject: Discussion and Approval of the Bastrop County Transportation Plan
RECOMMENDATION CAMPO staff and the Technical Advisory Committee recommend that the Transportation Policy Board accept the Bastrop County Transportation Plan.
PURPOSE AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Bastrop County Transportation Plan (BCTP) was recently completed. The study was carried out by the County with support from CAMPO. The BCTP planning process was designed to support local goals, but also closely track the CAMPO regional transportation planning process to better understand the County transportation system within the broader regional context and to ensure that the plan supports CAMPO regional goals.
FINANCIAL IMPACT The BCTP was funded through with $520,793 Surface Transportation Program-Metropolitan Mobility and $130,198 State Funds.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The Bastrop County Transportation was developed as a multimodal plan that balances preservation and wise use of existing assets with strategies for achieving the vision of growth, economic vitality and quality of place for current and future residents and business owners.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS None.
Date: February 13, 2017 Continued From: January 9, 2017 Action Requested: Acceptance
To: Transportation Policy Board From: Ms. Doise Miers, Community Outreach Manager Agenda Item: 8 Subject: Discussion and Approval of the Wirtz Dam Road Community Outreach Report
RECOMMENDATION CAMPO staff and the Technical Advisory Committee recommend the Transportation Policy Board accept the Wirtz Dam Road Community Outreach Program Report.
PURPOSE AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Burnet County and TxDOT approached CAMPO about conducting an outreach program in Burnet County to gauge the community’s thoughts on adding a Colorado River crossing at Wirtz Dam Road between Marble Falls and Horseshoe Bay. A four-month community outreach program surveyed and received input from the community about a potential new river crossing. The Wirtz Dam Road Community Outreach Program Report details the program activities, survey results, and public comments.
FINANCIAL IMPACT The Wirtz Dam Road Community Outreach Program was conducted by CAMPO staff and a community outreach firm, Concept Development and Planning (CD&P). The program’s associated activities, material, and staffing was funded with $50,000 in planning funds.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Wirtz Dam Road in Burnet County is currently a low water crossing at the Colorado River that is not currently in use or accessible by the general public. In 2005, TxDOT conducted a feasibility study on constructing a bridge over the river but the project didn’t move forward at that time. Because of numerous factors such as distance between river crossings and population and traffic growth, TxDOT and the County saw the importance of gaging the community’s thoughts on a potential new crossing. In a four-month period, this outreach program resulted in over 800 surveys and nearly 800 general comments. The program also included 18 community meetings and events, including local government briefings and two public meetings. Survey results show that the majority of respondents view an additional river crossing as beneficial. The Wirtz Dam Road Community Outreach Program Report will be given to Burnet County and TxDOT to work on next steps in the project development process. Because this program included significant outreach and built a substantial stakeholder database, this information can be used in future project development steps, including an environmental study. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Attachment A: Wirtz Dam Road Community Outreach Program Report (main body only). The full report can be downloaded here: https://campoadmin.exavault.com/share/view/f76h-5qm4h9dm
2 WIRTZ DAM ROAD PROGRAM SUMMARY Community Outreach Program
THE GOAL: to engage the community and gather input on an additional crossing of the Colorado River near Wirtz Dam Road. CAMPO worked closely with area partners including Burnet County, TxDOT, and LCRA to engage the community and better understand their needs. The Community Outreach Program began in August and was complete in December 2016 with a report of findings. All partners are appreciative of the input and will consider community needs and preferences as next steps are determined.
OUTREACH HIGHLIGHTS:
Community Public Meetings & Meeting 18 Events 97 Attendees 1,029 Click Throughs
Surveys General 848 Collected 812 Comments
WHAT WE HEARD: Top 5 zip codes represented in survey responses =Wirtz Dam How beneficial would a new river crossing Burnet County at Wirtz Dam Rd. be to you?
450 448 40 350 78611 29 250 58 150 78639 415 78654 118 50 94 267 15 71 Very Beneficial Beneficial Not at all Beneficial 78657 78669
What is the greatest transporation need in Burnet and Llano Counties?
Bridges and Other Public Safety River Crossings Roads (specified) Transportation Measures ?? 33% 30% 15% 9% 5% WIRTZ DAM ROAD Community Outreach Program
REPORT December 2016 Table of Contents
Background and Purpose ...... 2
Outreach Materials ...... 2
Outreach Efforts ...... 3
Meetings ...... 6
Public Meetings ...... 6
Community Meetings and Events ...... 7
Results ...... 8
Survey ...... 8
General Comments Summary ...... 32
Appendices
Appendix A: Community Outreach Plan ...... 34
Appendix B: Community Meeting Summaries ...... 40
Appendix C: Public Meeting Summaries ...... 46
Appendix D: Comments Log ...... 49
Appendix E: Materials ...... 82
Public Meeting Exhibits ...... 83
Public Meeting Presentation ...... 88
Fact Sheets ...... 99
Public Meeting Flyers ...... 103
Contact Cards ...... 105
Appendix F: Media ...... 107
Tear Sheets ...... 108
Advertisement ...... 129
1 Background and Purpose The Wirtz Dam Road Community Outreach Program is a public engagement process to gather community input on an additional river crossing near Wirtz Dam Road. The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) led this outreach program, working closely with other partners including Burnet County, TxDOT, and LCRA.
Area partners wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to plan ahead for the growing needs of the community by considering growth projections, growth in tourism and seasonal traffic, existing river crossings, and traffic flow in the area. US 281 is a major north-south thoroughfare that will be limited in supporting the expected growth. An additional river crossing near Wirtz Dam Road could provide an alternative for local traffic in the future.
Community Outreach Goals
x Gather input on a potential new bridge crossing at Wirtz Dam x Create public awareness and participation x Provide relevant information to the public so that they may share meaningful input x Engage a broad range of stakeholders, including: nearby residents, property owners, business owners, community groups, lake users, organizations, agencies, and jurisdictions x Maintain an open and transparent community outreach and engagement process x Provide a variety of easily accessible and exciting opportunities for involvement x Relay the community’s needs, concerns, thoughts, and ideas to Burnet County and TxDOT for potential use in future project development
The Wirtz Dam Community Outreach Program was a unique approach to gathering public input prior to beginning the formal project development process. In 2005 TxDOT conducted a feasibility study, but a project never developed. CAMPO, Burnet County, and TxDOT knew at some point in the future an additional river crossing would need to be considered, but wanted to first engage the community and gather input to better understand needs and preferences. Area partners understand how valuable community input is and feel that this process was beneficial to guide potential future project development.
Outreach Materials Several outreach materials were developed as informational resources for community members. These materials were used to create awareness of the Community Outreach Program and inform the public about various ways to get involved. These materials included:
Contact Card – A contact card was developed to distribute at community meetings and events. The card included a brief summary of the program’s purpose as well as the program phone number, email address, and webpage address.
Fact Sheet – A program fact sheet was developed in both English and Spanish and included the history of Wirtz Dam, infographics demonstrating projected growth in the area, a map of the potential crossing location, and information about public meetings and various opportunities to share input. Contact information for the outreach team and an explanation of CAMPO’s role were also included in the program fact sheet.
2 Comment Cards – Comment cards were available at community meetings and events, as well as both public open houses. Comments submitted were analyzed and documented in this report.
Flyers – Flyers were developed in both English and Spanish advertising public meeting dates and locations, as well as the various additional ways to get involved with the public input process. This flyer was distributed to local businesses and community groups to promote awareness of the program and opportunities to share input.
Webpage – A program webpage was developed and made available on the CAMPO website featuring all program information, survey links, and public meeting information.
Exhibit Boards – Exhibit boards were created for use at public open houses to share program information. These boards include:
x Welcome Board – described the purpose of the open house x Program Goals – described the objectives of the Community Outreach Program x How to Get Involved – gave information about survey availability, comment submission, and opportunities for online participation x Program Progress and Schedule – gave information about outreach completed to date, including estimate of surveys and comments received, number community events and meetings attended, and an infographic of the outreach program timeline x Next Steps – provided important dates for the program, including open house dates, survey closing date, comment submission deadline, and the anticipated publication date of the final report Outreach Efforts The Community Outreach Program was a four-month program that included an array of outreach activities in an effort to reach a broad range of stakeholders. Outreach activities included:
Community Outreach Plan – The plan was created to document goals, strategies, and outreach activities.
Database – A database of contacts was developed early through research and outreach to initial stakeholders such as neighborhood associations, school districts, and other organizations in the area. As stakeholders were contacted, they were asked to help get the word out to community members about the outreach program. The database was consistently maintained as new contacts were identified and grew from an initial list of 85 email addresses to 465 emails in December.
Phone Outreach – Throughout the community outreach process, stakeholders were contacted through phone outreach to promote awareness of the program and ways to share their input. Community leaders were also contacted over the phone to coordinate attendance at community events and local groups were asked to share information on the program with others who might be interested in getting involved.
3 Emails – Emails were distributed to promote the outreach program, encourage community members to participate and take the survey, and provide meeting details.
Date Subject Recipients Sept. 27 Program Introduction 85 Oct. 7 Survey and Background 147 Oct. 24 Meeting Reminder 335 Nov. 22 Survey Reminder 465
Oct. 24 Email Update Spanish Outreach – To reach the Spanish-speaking community, the program fact sheet was translated into Spanish, and a separate Spanish survey was available online and in print at community events and meetings. Initial outreach was made through phone contact with area employers and other community leaders involved with the Spanish- speaking community. Through these outreach efforts, La Liga Adult Soccer was identified as a primarily Spanish-speaking stakeholder group. The program coordinated with league officials to attended a day of soccer games, where they visited with spectators and players to inform them about the outreach program and collect surveys.
In addition, Spanish Facebook messages were posted on the CAMPO page, receiving 272 views and 12 likes. Facebook advertisements were La Liga Soccer Event placed in Spanish to target the Spanish-speaking community, resulting in a potential reach of 6,139 with 451 direct click throughs.
Social Media – Facebook and Twitter were used to promote the program and encourage participation in the survey. When asked “How did you hear about the outreach program?” in the survey, most respondents selected social media.
Facebook posts were made on October 11, 25, and 27 with 188 likes, 78 shares, and 266 views of the video. Twitter posts were made on October 25 and 26 with 845 impressions, with one retweet.
Advertisements in English and Spanish were used on Facebook to promote posts with direct links to the survey. Ads were targeted to those 16 and older in the zip codes and communities identified in the survey.
Facebook Ad Campaign Results Results English Campaign Spanish Campaign Total Link Clicks 578 451
Reach 15,643 6,139 Impressions 31,966 18,463
4
Advertisements – Ads were also placed in local publications to promote the public meetings, survey, and program contact information.
x The Horseshoe Bay Beacon – October 13, October 16 x The Highlander – October 18, October 21, October 25, November 11 x Burnet Bulletin – October 19, October 26 x The Picayune – Print Ad October 19; Online Ad, Digital Banner Ad, and Email Campaigns running October 20 through November 3 (15,114 Impressions) x Llano News – October 19
Media Coverage – Information was provided to local media outlets to share program details, encourage media coverage, and generate interest and participation from the community. The Sample Advertisement first media release was distributed on October 4 to share details on an upcoming media event and promote the outreach program. A second release was distributed on October 24 as a reminder of public meetings and opportunities to complete the online survey.
A media event was held onsite at Wirtz Dam on October 14, Location of Media Event 2016. This provided an opportunity for the media to photograph the area and visit with CAMPO staff, Burnet County Judge James Oakley, Commissioner Joe Don Dockery, and LCRA staff.
Media coverage included the following articles:
x Burnet Bulletin o “County leadership considers Wirtz Dam bridge,” September 14, 2016 o “Officials gather public input for bridge at Wirtz Dam,” October 19, 2016 x The Highlander o “Wirtz Dam Bridge: CAMPO consults public,” September 13, 2016 o “Officials gather input for Wirtz Dam bridge,” Article by Burnet Bulletin October 18, 2016 o “Wirtz Dam bridge draws questions,” October 28, 2016 o “Economics, survey under question at second Wirtz Dam Bridge meeting,” November 15, 2016 x The River Cities Daily Tribune o “Officials discuss bridge below Wirtz Dam as solution to 281 traffic,” September 9, 2016 o “Two opportunities coming to offer input on Wirtz Dam bridge project,” October 5, 2016
5 Meetings Public Meetings Two public open house meetings were hosted to provide an opportunity for members of the community to view information about the outreach program, ask questions about the potential project, and provide input. The same information was shared at both meetings and the different locations were provided for convenience. Meetings were an open house format with a brief presentation at 6:00 p.m. followed by a question and answer session. Then attendees viewed program boards, visited with staff and team members, shared comments on a large aerial map, Public Meeting in Horseshoe Bay and took the survey.
Wednesday October 26, 2016 Thursday, November 3, 2016 4 – 7 p.m. 4 – 7 p.m. Quail Point Community Center Lakeside Pavilion 107 Twilight Lane, Horseshoe Bay, TX 78657 307 Buena Vista Drive, Marble Falls, TX 78654 57 attendees signed in at the meeting 38 attendees signed in at the meeting
Materials: x Program Fact Sheet x Comment Cards x Surveys x Copies of the 2005 TxDOT Feasibility Study x Aerial map of the area near Wirtz Dam Road x Exhibit Boards o Welcome Board o Program Goals o How to Get Involved o Program Progress and Schedule o Next Steps
6 Community Meetings and Events Rather than just host meetings and ask the public to attend, opportunities were identified for the outreach team to attend other meetings and events to share program information. The outreach team contacted different event organizers and groups, offered attendance in correspondence with the community, and worked with elected and other officials to brief councils. Community meetings were scheduled to conveniently engage community members where they already gathered, share program information, and distribute surveys. By attending different types of events and meetings and in different locations, input was collected from a diverse set of stakeholders. Below is a table of meetings and events attended.
Event Date Highlight Shared program information with 25 entities and gathered input Partner Kickoff Meeting Sep. 9 on promoting program Burnet Bluegrass Festival Sep. 17 Collected 21 surveys and visited with attendees Fiesta Jam on Lake Marble Falls Sep. 24 Collected 31 surveys Marble Falls Citywide Garage Oct. 1 Promoted program to attendees Sale Marble Falls National Night Out Oct. 4 Collected 17 surveys and 2 additional comments Marble Falls City Council Briefing Oct. 4 Presented information to council Meadowlakes POA Meeting Oct. 8 Shared information with 50+ attendees and distributed surveys Cottonwood Shores Volunteer Oct. 11 Shared information with over 25 attendees Fire Department Meeting Highland Haven POA Meeting Oct. 11 Shared information and distributed surveys Marble Falls Rotary Club Oct. 13 Shared information with over 50 attendees Meeting Media Event at Wirtz Dam Oct. 14 Distributed information to media sources to promote program Marble Falls Homecoming Game Oct. 14 Promoted program as attendees entered the game Llano Wild West Weekend Oct. 15 Visited with attendees about program and public meetings City of Sunrise Beach Village Oct. 20 Presented program information and distributed surveys Meeting La Liga Soccer Matches Oct. 22 Collected 33 Spanish and 7 English surveys Marble Falls EMS 40th Oct. 29 Shared information with over 30 attendees Anniversary Celebration Marble Falls Rotary Club Nov. 8 Shared information and distributed surveys Presented program overview to council and reminded all of Cottonwood Shores City Council Nov. 15 survey deadline
7 Results Survey A survey was developed in English and Spanish to collect input from the community about their travel in the area, how frequently they cross the Colorado River, whether an additional crossing of the river would be beneficial, and any additional comments. The survey was shared with the community through the website, social media, advertisements, email updates, at events and meetings, and through community partners and groups. The survey was developed online and anytime paper copies were distributed, they were manually entered.
Results The survey was open from September 9 through November 27, 2016. A total of 848 surveys were received (810 in English and 38 in Spanish). All results below include English and Spanish versions and input collected in the online and paper formats.
1. In what zip code do you live? (848 answered, 0 skipped)
60% 415 (49%) 50% 40% 267 (31%) 30% 20% 126 (15%) 10% 40 (5%) 0% 78654 78657 78611 Other
Other Responses (126) Zip # Zip # Zip # 78639 58 76513 1 78645 1 78669 15 76550 1 78674 1 78643 11 76825 1 78705 1 78609 5 77868 1 78727 1 78605 5 78548 1 78734 1 78642 3 78607 1 786539 1 78070 2 78608 1 78654-8237 1 78653 2 78633 1 H Haven 1 78663 2 78636 1 Live 78750, work 78645, 1 own lot in 78657 I 2 78638 1 76402 1 78641 1
8 2. In what zip code do you 45% 358 (42%) work/attend school? 40% (843 answered, 5 skipped) 35% 272 (32%)
30%
25% 179 (21%) 20% 15% 10% 34 (4%) 5% 0% 78654 78657 78611 Other
Other Responses (272) Zip # Zip # Zip # retired, am retired 86 77092 1 78654 & Austin 1 78639 28 77868 1 78643, 78654, 78640 1 N/A, No Answer, None, 24 78548 1 78654, 78657, 78611, 76550 1 Not Applicable 78643 11 78605 1 78654, 78657, 78611, and Other 1 All, All above, All Three 8 78609 1 active volunteer 1 78654, 78657, and 7 78620 1 All, I work for MFEMS 1 78611 78626 5 78633 1 78209 1 78669 5 78641 1 At home; work from home 2 Don't work or attend 6 78644 1 Baylor Scott & White Hospital 1 school, Don’t do Either 78701 3 78653 1 I cover two states. My kids go to school in 78658 1 78723 3 78660 1 I work all of burnet county 1 78654 and 78657 3 78663 1 I work in all three zips plus 78639 1 78070 2 78681 1 Llano 1 78636 2 78705 1 Llano, North & South Austin, San Antonio 1 Make daily trips to Marble Falls own property in 78645 2 78721 1 1 Horseshoe Bay 78657 2 78727 1 Marble Falls, Kingsland, Burnet, Sunrise Beach 1 78704 2 78734 1 N/A Senior 1 78735 2 78736 1 residence 1 78745 2 78737 1 retired. shop, attend church in 78654. 1
9 78759 2 78738 1 Retired, Do not commute 1 78654 and 78611 2 78741 1 San Antonio 1 Austin 2 78746 1 San Antonio 78240 work 1 Travel to several plant locations in Burnet Homemaker 2 78748 1 1 County work in 76522, but kids and grandkids go to 7 1 78750 1 1 school in 78611 76121 1 78758 1 77008 1 76402 1 768643 1 78654, 78639, 78657, 78611 1 76513 1 78611, 78654 1 78654, 78657, 78606 1 as a home health care RN I work in all the zip codes in Burnet, Blanco, Llano counties and parts of 1 Travis and Williamson too, occasionally even Lampasas 78654- But we do NOT work/go to school, We are both retired 1
3. What area best represents where you live? (845 answered, 3 skipped)
Horseshoe Bay 212 (25%)
Marble Falls 150 (18%)
Granite Shoals 115 (14%)
Kingsland 65 (8%)
Highland Haven 55 (7%)
Cottonwood Shores 54 (6%)
Meadow Lakes 33 (4%)
Other 161 (19%)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
10 Other Responses (161) Area # Area # Area # Burnet 27 Timber Ridge 2 Bee Cave 1 Wilderness Cove 17 Castle Acres 1 Bertram/Burnet 1 Tobyville 15 Council Creek South 1 Belton 1 Spicewood 14 CR 120 1 Brady 1 Blue Lake 6 Deer Springs 1 Briggs 1 Smithwick 6 FM 1980 1 Burnet County 1 Sunrise Beach 6 Stephenville 1 Capstone Ranch 1 Bertram 5 Hill Country 1 Granite Shoals/Marble Falls 1 Inks Lake/Buchanan Dam 5 Hoover Valley 1 White Hall 1 Llano 5 Horseshoe Bay West 1 Wirtz Dam Road 1 Fairland 4 Johnson city 1 Wolf Creek Ranch 1 Austin 3 Killeen 1 Rural NW of Marble Falls 1 Lake Buchanan 3 Lampasas 1 retired 1 Georgetown 2 Leander 1 All - Marble Falls Area EMS 1 Lago Vista 2 Oak Ridge Estates 1 1980 - Past Strawberry Farm 1 Liberty Hill 2 Round Mountain 1 Round Rock 1 Sandy Harbor 2 Scobee 1 Rural NW of Marble Falls 1 Spring Branch 2
4. About how far is your home from your main place of work/school? (844 answered, 4 skipped)
Less than 1 mile 76 (9%)
About 1-5 miles 118 (14%)
About 6-10 miles 153 (18%)
About 10-20 miles 145 (17%)
More than 20 miles 114 (14%) 238 (28%) Not applicable
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
11
5. What is your primary mode of transportation to work/school? (842 answered, 6 skipped)
100% 90% 730 (87%) 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%
30%
20% 93 (11%) 10% 5(1%) 2(0%) 1(0%) 11 (1%) 0% Car or Bus Carpool Bicycle Walk Other motorcycle
Other Responses (93) Primary Type of Transportation # Primary Type of Transportation # Not applicable, none 32 Do not commute 1 Retired 23 Electric car (Chevy Volt) 1 Work from home 6 Foot/work at home 1 Truck 5 Home based business 1 Bus 5 Homemaker/home schooler 1 Don't work or go to school 4 Pickup 1 Work truck, trailers 3 Retired/Car 1 Boat 1 Bicycle 1 Crew-cab Chevy work truck 1 Coche o moto, autobus 2 Don't go to work or school, but use car for transportation 1 Car - But we are both retired - no work/school. We do volunteer in the area and we shop 1 throughout the area I use my car to travel to and from Spicewood area and MF for errands, entertainment, church 1
12 6. What is your secondary mode of transportation to work/school? (843 answered, 5 skipped)
60% 423 (50%) 50%
40% 308 (37%)
30%
20%
10% 37 (4%) 30 (4%) 25 (3%) 13 (2%) 7(1%) 0% Car or Walk Carpool Bicycle Bus Other Not motorcycle applicable
Other Responses (25) Secondary Mode of Transportation # Retired 9 No Answer, Non available, None 5 Work from home 3 300zx 1 Do not commute 1 Foot/work at home 1 Friend 1 Golf cart 1 Retired/pick up truck 1 There is no alternative since I can't walk 25 miles or carpool 1 in my job and I haven't seen any bus except for the disabled Viaje Compartido, coche o moto 1
13 7. In a normal week, how many roundtrips do you make between the north and south sides of the Colorado River for: work/school, recreation and social activities, and shopping/other personal business? Work school (731 answered, 117 skipped) Recreational and social activities (779 answered, 69 skipped) Shopping and personal (802 answered, 46 skipped)
Work School
35% 223 (31%) 30% 205 (28%) 25% 20% 110 (15%) 15% 98 (13%) 95 (13%)
10%
5% Recreation and Social Activities
0% 45% 303 (39%) 1-2 3-4 5-6 7 times or Never 40% times/wk times/wk times/wk more/wk 35% 30% 219 (28%) 25% 20% 110 (14%) 15% 81 (10%) 66 (8%) 10% 5% 0% 1-2 3-4 5-6 7 times or Never times/wk times/wk times/wk more/wk
Shopping and Other Personal Business 40% 304 (38%) 35%
30% 211 (26%) 25% 20% 125 (16%) 15% 94 (12%) 10% 67 (8%) 5% 0% 1-2 3-4 5-6 7 times or Never times/wk times/wk times/wk more/wk
14 8. When traveling between the north and south sides of the Colorado River, what crossing do you use most? (846 answered, 2 skipped)
Other 26 (3%) FM 2900/FM 1431 95 (11%)
US 281 725 (86%)
Other Responses (26) What Crossings Do You Use Most? # What Crossings Do You Use Most? # Both; US 281 Y FM 2900/FM 1431 5 By boat 1 2147 3 No PAC I-36 1 No answer 2 RR 307 1 1431 1 Slab road RM 3404 1 1431 into Marble Falls, 281 to 2147 1 US 281, RR 307 1 1980-1431-281 1 FM 620, Loop 360, Mopac, and US 281 1 2147 to 71 to Kingsland 1 Hwy 2900 / hwy 71 1 2900 Kingsland and US 281 1 Mopac, 620 1 2900 to 71 1 FM 2900/FM 1437, 71 1 All 1
15 9. What discourages you from traveling between the north and south sides of the Colorado River? (Check all that apply.) (809 answered, 1 skipped)
No need to cross the river 93 (7%) Other 88 (6%)
Heavy traffic 457 (32%)
Limited river crossings 278 (20%)
Distance to/from Distance to/from river other destinations crossings 221 (16%) 272 (19%)
Other Responses (88) Response # Not Specified, N/A, None, Nothing 33 Not Discouraged, Not Disouraged at All, Nothing Discourages Me; Nothing stops me 19 281-1431 intersection 1 Hate lack of traffic management or traffic planning in Marble falls 1 I cross on 281 and have NO problem with traffic 1 I don't feel traffic is an issue 1 I'm NOT discouraged from crossing the river. The new bridge is absolutely wonderful! 1 It doesn't "discourage" or stop me from going!!!!! 1 It's really my only option so I have to use the Hwy 281 bridge to get to MF for shopping, 1 recreation, church, etc. Just cross bridge 1 Low speed limits 1
16 Other Responses (88) Marble Falls Traffic 1 No problems crossing either way 1 No problems...into town whenever I want...... 1 Not a problem 1 Not discouraged/no worries, no heavy traffic, it's fine 1 nothing dicouages me from going into Marble Falls 1 Nothing discourages me. 281 has an awesome bridge. 1 Nothing discourages. Access is easy. 1 Nothing discurages me - bad question. 1 Nothing other then a hospital to go to south of the river. 1 Nothing when I need to get somewhere especially for work I just get there. But another 1 crossing at Wirtz Dam would definitely simply my life Nothing, 281 accommodates the need. 1 Nothing, it is a small distance and not a problem. 1 Nothing, not discouraged; it will still be shorter to take 281 1 Nothing, the 281 bridge is sufficient 1 Nothing, you do what you have to do 1 Nothing. I travel when needed. 1 Nothing. It's a wonderful bridge. 1 Now with two bridges it isn't a problem 1 Rarely discouraged 1 Stop lights 1 Stupid question 1 The slow speed limit on 2147 from Cottonwood to HSB sucks. 1 Time required 1 Unpredictability of combined factors. Afternoon hailstorms and flooding can quickly leave 1 you no quick way to cross 64 mile long Lake Travis. Unsynchronized stop lights 1 Working EMS we are required to cross the bridge 1
17
10.How beneficial would a new river crossing at Wirtz Dam be to you? (845 answered, 3 skipped)
60% 448 (53%)
50%
40%
30%
20% 118 (14%) 94 (11%) 10% 34 (4%) 39 (5%) 22 (3%) 18 (2%) 21 (2%) 27 (3%) 24 (3%) 0% Very beneficial Beneficial Not at all beneficial
11. Do you have additional comments on a potential new river crossing at Wirtz Dam? (Optional) (323 answered)
Responses to this question were open-ended. Full comments are included in Appendix D. Respondents generally shared whether they support or do not support a new river crossing. More responses in support were given. Responses referenced: x growth of the area x a bridge is long overdue x current congestion and the need for solutions x concern for impacts to other roads and nearby neighborhoods x the need for an alternative to US 281 x concern for the cost x consideration of other improvements that may be a priority for the area
18
12. What is the greatest transportation need in the Highland Lakes area in Burnet and Llano Counties? (847 answered, 1 skipped)
277 (33%) Bridges/river crossings
Roads 258 (30%)
Public transportation 79 (9%)
Safety measures 39 (5%)
Bike Lanes 25 (3%)
Sidewalks 18 (2%)
Multi-use paths 17 (2%)
Street/directional signage 5(1%)
Other 129 (15%)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Other Responses (129) Greatest Need # Roads and bridges/river crossings 5 Roads, public transportation, bridges/river crossings 4 Bike lanes and sidewalks 2 No answer 2 Public transportation and bridge/river crossings 2 Road and public transportation 2 Roads, bridges/river crossings, and safety measures 2 Bypass around Marble Falls get big trucks out of traffic 1 281 Bypass 1 5th lanes on our highways to help support the amount of traffic and development 1 A more efficient and prompt way to travel thru Marble Falls North to South. I will say though that traveling out of Marble Falls toward Granite Shoal during drive times is getting 1 more concerning in regards to congestion.
19 Other Responses (129) A Truck Route Loop around Marble Falls that relieves in town traffic on Hwy 281 1 All 1 Anything that reduces the congestion on US 281 through Marble Falls 1 Bike lanes and multi-use paths 1 Bike lanes, sidewalks, bridges/river crossings 1 Bridge/river crossings and a bypass for trucks and other big vehicles 1 Bridge/river crossings and safety measures 1 Bridge/river crossings, safety measures, turn lanes, passing lanes on 29, alternative bridge 1 (low water crossing) in Llano) Bridges or River Crossings, a loop or semi loop around Marble Falls 1 Bridges/river crossings, Center turn lanes on 281 to 71 1 Bypass 1 Bypass around Marble Falls 1 Bypasses around the cities 1 Central lanes on 281 for turning 1 Dedicated right turn lanes to expedite getting through traffic lights. This is a huge issue 1 and 281&1431 as well as 281&29 East side of Hwy 281 rather then West side of Hwy 281. 1 Enforce speed limits in Marble Falls - PLEASE !! 1 Faster and safer north-south traffic on US 281 1 Fine the way it is 1 Fixing the congestion on IH35 so people do not come throught Marble Falls to avoid that 1 Fixing what we already have that needs updating. 1 Greatly improved traffic light timing on 281 through Marble Falls. Lights are out of sync & are too long for smooth traffic flow. Lower speed limits on 281 south to 71 are way too 1 restrictive and clog traffic Heavy traffic on 281 Fridays 1 Heavy traffic on 281 thru Marble Falls 1 Hwy 281 Bypass around Marble Falls 1 I'd say a 281 bypass - around MF or both MF and Burnet 1 If the speedlimit is kept at its current level on Hwy 281 (between Marble Falls and Burnet), a center turnlane or a barrier needs to be provided between the northbound and 1 southbound traffic Improvement of roads with industrial traffic, i.e. County Road 120 1 Keeping the roads we have in good condition 1 Left Turn lane on Hwy 2147 in Horseshoe Bay from Ferguson Road to Hwy 71 1 Let's solve a real problem like all the meth use in our town 1 Light rail to Austin 1 Lighting 1
20 Other Responses (129) Lights that help not hinder. Makes me want to totally bypass Marble Falls and just go to 1 Austin Loop 1 Loop around east side of Burnet and MF 1 loop around marble falls that doesn't feed into crowded 1431 or hsb roads 1 Loop around Marble Falls. 1 Loop or half loop around marble falls 1 Many unpaved roads in this county 1 Marble Falls bypass 1 Marble falls needs an over pass 1 Meaningful relief for north/south traffic on Hwy 281 through MF 1 More bridge / river crossings are needed, but not one that is simply a second 281 bridge. 1 The next bridge should be somewhere between Marble Falls and Austin More lighting is needed 1 Multi-use paths and bridge/river crossings 1 N/A 1 Need a bridge over Colorado River near Hoover Valley 1 New River crossings and turn lanes on existing US and State highways. 1 No great needs 1 Perfectly happy.... 1 Public transportation and safety measures 1 Public transportation and sidewalks... look how many people try walk the ditches to try 1 avoid being run over Public transportation to Austin especially ABIA 1 Public transportation, bridges/river crossings, and safety measures 1 Raise speed limits on ALL 4 lane roads & some 2 lane 1 Redesign intersections, like Mission Hills and Morman Mill 1 Reduce traffic in M.F. Too many gravel/rock trucks & increased traffic at 281/1431! 1 Road below Wirtz Dam 1 Road conditions 1 Road improvement 1 Road improvements to facilitate travel & safety 1 Roads and bridges 1 Roads and center turn lanes on 281 from Burnet to HWY 71 1 Roads and sidewalks 1 Roads and street/directional signage 1 roads with less holes 1 Roads, bike lanes, multi-use paths, and bridges/river crossings 1 Roads, bike lanes, multi-use paths, and safety measures 1
21 Other Responses (129) Roads, street/directional signage, bridges/river crossings 1 Roads, street/directional signage, bridges/river crossings, and safety measures 1 Roundabout in Marble Falls 1 Safe travel - whether it be on 281, on foot, or by bicycle - must be a priority. In too many cases, I see pedestrians and bicyclists interacting with traffic directly, even along 281, but 1 especially along secondary and neighborhood streets. The choices listed above are too narrow; all must be considered in the name of safety. Safety measures, Slower traffic 1 See above- the emergency response is actually a no brainier. The new Scott and White facility solves a significant element. What is the actual number of cases that were a 1 response issue over the last 2-5 years? I would think this is relatively small. Sequence the traffic lights in Marble Falls, on Fridays it takes me 20min to go from 1 2147/281 to walmart Shoulders on roads would increase safety by bunches. Public transportation in the area 1 sucks Sidewalks will increase the active culture the counties surely strive for but in order to properly unfold such a project, we must redirect the vehicles to keep the flow. Without 1 the crossing at the dam, I'm not optimistic such a project will be welcomed and completed in a timely manner Sidewalks, multi-use paths, bridges/river crossings, safety measures 1 Sidewalks, multi-use paths, public transportation 1 Sidewalks, public transportation, bridges/river crossings 1 Smart traffic control in Marble Falls it has become terrible 1 Synchronize stoplighs and keep arterial roads moving 1 Synchronized lights- lights that don't turn red when there is NO ONE TURNING OR ON THE 1 OTHER SIDE!!! Synchronized street lights 1 Syncing the stoplights on 281 as well as 1431 in Marble Falls 1 Syncronize the lights in Marble Falls. They are worse than terrible 1 Taxi Service or services like uber and lyft 2 The county road system in these two counties is desperately in need of improvement. This 1 includes bridges and low water crossings. Timing traffic lights. There appears to be no effort anywhere on this 2 Traffic 1 Traffic reduction 1 Transporter 1 Turn lanes 1 TxDot continues to waste our money in constantly paving roads which were recently paved and are in no need of repair. Why would they pave 2147 and then decide to add 1 turn lanes AFTER the work was completed?? Where is is leadership and common sense in TxDot??????? Unknown 1
22 Other Responses (129) We also need to have a bridge constructed to cross the Colorado from 1431 to Spicewood, 1 TX We need a loop around Marble Falls for 281 traffic 1 We need all the major highways to have a center turn lane all the way, not jst for a couple 1 miles out Widen 281 in sections with little or no shoulders. Widen to 3 lanes each way in MF 1 Widen HWY 2147 from HWY 71 to HWY 281 1 Widening of 2147, HSB to MF 1 Carreteras Y transporte publico 1 Carreteras, Cruces de rio y puentes, and Medidas de seguridad 1
13. How confident are you with your ability to quickly reach and/or receive emergency services (by vehicle) on existing north-south routes? (844 answered, 4 skipped) Definitely not confident 38 (5%)
Very confident Not confident 226 (27%) 163 (19%)
Somewhat confident 417 (49%)
14. What do you envision for the future of the Highland Lakes area of Burnet and Llano Counties? (Optional) (320 answered)
Responses to this question were open-ended. Full comments are included in Appendix D.
The most frequently given response for this question was growth, the expectation varying from moderate to explosive, and coming largely from Austin. Additional comments noted an improved transportation system, better connected communities, housing and business boom, and a loop or bypass around Marble Falls.
23 15. How did you hear about the Wirtz Dam Road Community Outreach Program? (845 answered, 3 skipped)
Social media 229 (27%)
Media 165 (20%)
Community meeting or event 131 (16%)
Print/online advertisement 94 (11%)
Email 82 (10%)
Friend 76 (9%)
Phone 4(0%)
Other 64 (8%)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Other Responses (64) Type # Newspaper 7 Highlander Newspaper 4 Facebook, facebook sponsored post 3 Print/online ad and media 2 Rotary meeting 2 By newspaper when Bill Orr decided it wasnt what the people wanted(when weve been neesing it 1 for years) Campo 1 Chamber of Commerce 1 Chief of Police 1 Community meeting and social media 1 Dailytrib.com 1 Dude asked 1 Email and media 1 Email from the City of Horseshoe Bay 1 Email, Community meeting or event 1 Email, Social Media 1 Email, social media, media, and friends 1
24 Email, social media, print/online ad, community meeting 1 ESD Board Meeting 1 Football game 1 friend AND community meeting/event 1 Hear say 1 HOA 1 HOA, Picayune on-line, Highlander 1 I live right there. We've been talking about it for years. 1 I work in construction industry 1 I've been involved in this project proposal since 2003! 1 James Oakley 1 Judge James Oakley Speech 1 Judge talked to club 1 Kiwanis Meeting Speaker 1 Media, Community meeting or event 1 media, friend 1 Multiple 1 No answer 2 Outreach effort at local high school football game. 1 Print/online ad and social media 1 Print/online adv ertisement, media, friend, community meeting or event 1 print/online advertisement, media 1 Radio 1 [email protected] 1 Saw the original preliminary plans several years ago 1 Social media, print/online advertisement, friend 1 survey 1 The Tribune 1 TV News 1 Various ways 1 While I was on EDC 1 medios de comunicacion Y un amigo 1 Telefono, Los medios de comunicacion 1
25
16.Would you like to receive email updates about the program? Only periodic emails about the program Yes will be sent. No 371 (44%) 468 (56%) (839 answered, 9 skipped)
17.How satisfied are you with the outreach efforts for this program? (843 answered, 5 skipped)
Not at all satisfied 42 (5%)
Very satisfied 224 (27%) Somewhat satisfied 156 (19%)
Satisfied 421 (50%)
26 18. Please share any additional comments on the Wirtz Dam Road Community Outreach Program. (Optional) (723 answered)
Responses to this question were open-ended. Full comments are included in Appendix D.
Respondents shared comments on the outreach program as well as general comments on a river crossing which were consistent with answers to question 11. Of those who commented on the outreach program, there were comments that praised the program and some that criticized. There were comments that specifically critiqued the outreach messaging and survey as being biased for adding the river crossing. Responses also included specific suggestions of where and how to reach out to the community.
19. What gender do you identify with? (Optional) (798 answered, 50 skipped)
Female 318 (40%) Male 480 (60%)
27 20. What is your race/ethnicity? (Optional) (776 answered, 72 skipped)
White 688, 89%
Hispanic 61, 8%
Other 18, 2%
African American 6, 1%
Native American 2, 0%
Asian 1, 0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Other Responses (18) Race/Ethnicity # American 3 2 races 1 Answer to 19-I do not "identify" as a male, God Almighty with an 1 assist from my parents made me that way Finnish 1 German/Native American/Scottish/other 1 Human 1 I dont know why this question matters. Im "white" 1 Italian 1 Native Texan 1 No answer 1 Racial designation is less a science than a tool of bigotry. 1 USA 1 What difference does it make...... we are all citizens of the USA 1 What the hell difference does that make? That's RACIST! 1 White/asian 1 Your gender identity question phrasing is ridiculous 1
28 21. What is your age? (Optional) (answered 790, skipped 58) 18-25 Under 18 20 3(0%) (3%) 26-35 83 (11%) 66 and up 237 (30%) 36-45 98 (12%)
46-55 142 (18%) 56-65 207 (26%)
22. What is your highest level of education? (Optional) (answered 792, skipped 56)
Graduate degree 140 (18%)
Bachelor's degree 275 (35%)
Associate's degree/trade/vocational school 99 (13%)
Some college 175 (22%)
High school/GED 94 (12%)
Less than high school 9(1%)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
29 23.What is your annual income? (Optional (answered 623, skipped 225)
Less than $25,000/yr 46 (7%)
$25,001 to $50,000/yr 157 (25%)
$50,001 to $100,000/yr 216 (35%)
$100,001 to $150,000/yr 104 (17%)
$150,001/yr or more 100 (16%)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
24. How many cars are in your household? (Optional) (784 answered, 64 skipped)
4 or more 1 93 (12%) 94 (12%)
3 163 (21%)
2 434 (55%)
30 25. Do you have children in your household? (Optional) (782 answered, 66 skipped)
Yes 234 (30%)
No
548 (70%)
Do you have children? # Yes - 1 87 Yes - 2 79 Yes - 3 29 Yes - 4 21 Not specified 7 Yes - 5 2 Yes - 6 1 Yes - 7 1 1- he is 22 1 2 dogs 1 College now 1 Grandson 1 Would like them 1 One grandson age 25 1 Empty Nester's but children and 1 grandchildren living in Marble Falls.
31 General Comments Summary Several opportunities were provided for the community to share general comments including through emails sent to the program email address, online survey open-ended questions, comment cards collected at meetings, and in a mapping exercise.
812 Total Comments Received:
x 6 emailed x 6 written x 17 mapped x 783 through the survey
All written comments received provided valuable information ranging from preferences, to concerns, and considerations. As comments were reviewed, frequently occurring themes and topics were identified. Generally, the most common noted topics included:
x Support for the new river crossing x Congestion relief x Improved emergency response times x Decrease in travel times x Benefits to local economy and businesses x Would accommodate growth x An alternative to 281 is needed x Oppose the new river crossing x Additional crossing not needed x Crossing would only benefit a small part of the community x Concern for cost x Environmental impacts x Would cause increase in traffic on connecting roads and in neighborhoods x A new crossing should not be prioritized over other local road improvements x Concerns for truck traffic in Marble Falls x Concerns for the environment x Noting bald eagles and pelicans x Impacts on the nature preserve x Preserving the quietness of the area near Wirtz Dam x Comments on cost x Not a good use of taxpayer funds x Cost is underestimated/unknown x Not worth the cost x Comments on growth of the area x Concern for current congestion and future congestion x Community should be proactive to get ahead of growth x Safety x Concern for safety of existing traffic conditions x Concern for safety of connecting roadways if more traffic uses those roads
32 x Additional considerations x Consider what improvements will be needed to connecting roadways (FM 2147, FM 1431, etc.) x A connection south to SH 71 is needed x Consider adding loop or bypass around Marble Falls
33
Date: February 13, 2017 Continued From: N/A Action Requested: Approval
To: Transportation Policy Board From: Mr. Ashby Johnson, Executive Director Agenda Item: 9 Subject: Discussion and Approval of the Regional Incident Management Study Contract
RECOMMENDATION CAMPO staff recommends that the Transportation Policy Board approve the CAMPO Executive Director to negotiate with Kimley-Horn for a scope and fee to conduct a regional incident management analysis of the six-county region.
PURPOSE AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The TPB approved $300,000 in funding for a Regional Incident Management Study in Amendment One of the FY 2016-2017 Unified Planning Work Program on November 16, 2015. This item is an implementation follow up to that approval. A Request for Qualifications was issued by CAMPO in December 2016 with a submittal deadline of December 22, 2016 by 3:00 pm central standard time. Kimley-Horn and Associates submitted a response to the request. CAMPO assembled a team of reviewers from the following agencies: • City of Austin – Transportation Department • TxDOT – Austin District • City of Round Rock – Transportation Department • CAMPO • Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority
The consensus of the review team is that Kimley-Horn meets the qualifications to perform the analysis. If the TPB approves this item, the next step will be for CAMPO to execute an Advance Funding Agreement (AFA) with TxDOT which is required because Surface Transportation Program – Metropolitan Mobility (STP-MM) funds will be used to pay for the analysis. A Notice to Proceed would be issued to Kimley-Horn after the AFA has been executed and an FPAA has been issued from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
FINANCIAL IMPACT The funding for this analysis will come from the $4 million in STP-MM that the TPB awarded to CAMPO in June of 2014 for planning purposes. CAMPO staff is not asking for new funding.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Non-recurring congestion caused by crashes contribute as much as 30+ percent to daily commute times in large metropolitan areas. A systematic and coordinated program of activities that responds to crashes quickly and effectively can be a very cost-effective method to get more out of the existing transportation system for a relatively small amount of money while improving safety and mobility. The region could benefit greatly from an analysis of the existing programs to determine if they are adequate to meet current and future needs. The region currently has several ongoing programs related to incident management but the programs are not coordinated. The current programs include a towing program administered by the City of Austin, the HERO Program run by the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority (CTRMA), and some newly formed programs run by the TxDOT – Austin District for sections of IH 35.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Attachment A – Request for Qualifications (RFQ), Solicitation No: AJ--001 Attachment B – Addendum 1 & 2
2 CAPITAL AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ)
SOLICITATION NO: AJ--001 SERVICE DESCRIPTION: Transportation Planning: Development of a Regional Incident Management DATE ISSUED: November 22, 2016 Strategic Plan and Performance Assessment PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE TIME AND DATE: 1:30 P.M. (CST), Friday, December 9, 2016,
LOCATION: 3300 N Interstate 35 Frontage Road, Suite 630, Austin, Texas 78705
A call-in number has been established for those potential proposers that cannot attend the Pre- Proposal meeting:
Call-in Number: (415) 655-0001 Access Code: 199 494 915
FOR CONTRACTUAL AND TECHNICAL ISSUES PROPOSAL DUE PRIOR TO: 3:00 P.M. (CST), Thursday, CONTACT: Theresa Hernandez, Financial Manager December 22, 2016, CAMPO ATTENTION: Theresa Hernandez LOCATION: 3300 N Interstate 35 Frontage Road, Suite 630, Austin, Texas 78705 Phone: (512) 215-8225 TENTATIVE INTERVIEW DATES: TBD Email: [email protected] (subject to change)
NOTE: Offers must be received and time stamped in the CAMPO office prior to the Due Date and Time. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure that their Offer arrives at the receptionist’s desk in the CAMPO office prior to the time and date indicated. All updates regarding this solicitation can be found on the CAMPO procurement web page (http://www.campotexas.org/about/requests-for-proposal-and- qualifications/). It is the responsibility of the Offeror to view the procurement web page for all updates including addenda associated with this solicitation.
RFQ – AJ-001 RFQ SUBMITTAL
Each respondent of this RFQ is requested to present a proposal discussing the scope of work as described in Section III. CAMPO reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or portions of proposals, if it is deemed to be in the best interest of CAMPO. This RFQ document is organized as follows:
I. Proposal Contents and Specifications
This section contains the specific and general description of the information to be provided within the proposal. Federal requirements and specifications are noted. Due to the nature of this contract, all the contents and specifications may not apply to his contract.
II. Evaluation of Proposals
This section describes the methodology by which the proposals will be evaluated and firms/individuals selected for proposal interviews.
III. Contract Objectives and Scope of Work
This section describes the work to be performed in the study and tasks to be executed.
RFQ PROCESS INFORMATION
This RFQ will be sent to all consultants in CAMPO’s consultant database, which satisfies the search criteria of: firms with experience in regional and transportation planning. All requests for this RFQ packet will be welcomed. This RFQ will be available on CAMPO’s website at http://www.campotexas.org/about/requests-for-proposal-and-qualifications/).
After the proposals are received, CAMPO’s evaluation committee will score the submissions then select the top ranked firm(s). Following approval by the Transportation Policy Board, CAMPO staff will begin negotiations with the top ranked provider.
CAMPO retains the right to select from the firms responding to this RFQ. Any or all submissions may be rejected, if they do not meet the Evaluation Committee's criteria or fail to comply with RFQ specifications. CAMPO also retains the right to withdraw this RFQ at any time.
CAMPO is responsible for this contracted project. Further inquiries should be directed to Theresa Hernandez, Financial Manager at 512-215-8225.
RFQ – AJ-001 SECTION I SUBMISSION CONTENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Submissions should include the following:
A. Executive Summary
The executive summary of three (3) pages or less should include a summary of important points/sections of the proposal, project objectives, brief description of each section of attached proposal, and any special considerations. The letter must include the primary contact name, telephone number, and email address for the responding agency.
B. Project Work Program
The consultant should detail their approach to undertaking the tasks listed in this RFQ. A recommended methodology for performance of each task identified in the RFQ should be included, along with demonstration of ability to meet specified deadlines from CAMPO management as assigned. This contract should be completed within nine (9) months of contract execution, although CAMPO may extend the contract due to extenuating circumstances.
C. Responsibility and Qualifications
The project manager and other key staff members must be specified and a clear indication given as to their involvement in the project, the amount of time they will be on-site and the percent of their time dedicated to this project. Brief resumes of staff members should be included. The successful respondent to this RFQ must understand they are expected to provide qualified personnel to accomplish each portion of the work in the scope outlined. Substitutions for essential personnel involved in the tasks will not be allowed without CAMPO’s prior approval and resulting delays will be the responsibility of the consultant. CAMPO retains the right to request the removal of any personnel found, in CAMPO’s opinion, to be unqualified to perform the work.
D. Prior Experience
Describe only relevant corporate experience and individual experience for personnel who will be actively engages in the project. Do not include experience prior to 2006. Supply the project title, year, and reference name, title, present address, and phone number of principal person for whom prior projects were accomplished.
E. References
The consultant should provide three references from Governmental agencies that have solicited similar assistance in providing both general and technical planning services.
RFQ – AJ-001 F. Budget
CAMPO has established a cost ceiling for the requested services not to exceed $300,000. An estimated product budget should be included.
G. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Goal
In connection with receiving grants from the U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT), CAMPO has established a goal of 25% Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) participation in its total annual third party consulting opportunities. Each respondent is encouraged to take affirmative action and make every effort possible to use DBE firms in the performance of work under this contract. Nothing in this provision shall be construed to require the utilization of any DBE firm, which is either unqualified or unavailable.
H. Title VI Requirements
Successful consultants will be required to comply with all requirements imposed by Title VI of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 (49 U.S.C. Section 2000d), the Regulations of DOT issued there-under (49 C.F.R. part 21), and the assurances by CAMPO thereto.
I. Conflict of Interests/Debarment
Proposals should state whether there is a potential conflict of interest and be cognizant of the requirement for executing a debarment certification stating that they have not been barred from doing work involving federal funds. A signed Debarment Certification will be required of successful respondent for each of the consultant team members.
While the above items provide a general description of what sections and information are expected in the proposal, they are not meant to limit or exclude other information from being included. For example, Sections 2 and 3 in this RFQ contain requirements for information that may not be specifically mentioned in this section. Responders should include such information in their proposal.
Also, the Texas House Bill 914, codified as Chapter 176 of the Local Government Code, requires vendors and consultants contracting or seeking to do business with CAMPO to file a conflict of interest questionnaire (CIQ). The required questionnaire is located at the Texas Ethics Commission website http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/.
The CIQ must be completed and filed with the bid/proposal response. Vendors and consultants that do not include the form with the response, and fail to timely provide it, may be disqualified from consideration by CAMPO.
RFQ – AJ-001 SECTION II EVALUATION OF SUBMISSIONS
Procedures have been established for the evaluation and selection of Consultant(s) that provide for a consistent approach to carry out CAMPO projects. In order to accomplish this objective, the CAMPO Consultant Evaluation committee will review each submission based on the following criteria:
• Previous Experience - Submissions will be assessed on prior experience of the firm in the subject areas covered in Section III of this RFQ. (30 points);
• Understanding of Project Scope – The responding consultant team must present their team’s approach through further clarification and understanding of all tasks involved in this study and the project. Any work on similar type projects may be listed to validate this understanding. (30 points);
• Experience/Availability of Consultant – This project involves many simultaneous tasks; the consultant team must demonstrate its ability to meet the project schedule. The consultant team should indicate other significant projects being worked on by the principals, % of involvement, and probable completion dates. (20 points);
• Past Performance – The Consultant must have a demonstrated track record of timely performance, quality, and integrity, as evidenced by a list of client references (10points);
• Additional Services, Ideas, or Products - Any additional services, innovative ideas, cost-saving measures, safety-measures, products, DBE/WBE/MBE/HUB usage, etc. will be considered for their usefulness to CAMPO or their contribution to the project (10 points).
The Evaluation Committee will evaluate all submissions according to the criteria described. It will necessarily not happen, but may be a short-list or all the respondents may be invited to make an oral presentation to the Evaluation Committee before the final ranked firm is proposed. Following approval by the Transportation Policy Board, CAMPO staff will begin negotiations with the top ranked consulting firm. If a contract cannot be negotiated with the top ranked firm, CAMPO may choose to proceed to negotiate with the next ranked firm, and so on, until a contract has been successfully negotiated.
CAMPO retains the right to select from the firms responding to this RFQ. Any or all submissions may be rejected, if they do not meet the Evaluation Committee's criteria or fail to comply with RFQ specifications. CAMPO also retains the right to withdraw this RFQ at any time.
RFQ – AJ-001 SECTION III Scope of Work SOLICITATION NO. AJ-001
Description: Development of a Regional Incident Management Strategic Plan and Performance Assessment
1. PURPOSE The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, hereinafter referred to as CAMPO, seeks offers in response to this RFQ to compile a list of qualified firms to conduct an assessment of the Austin region’s incident management efforts, identify the benefits of these efforts in reducing congestion and crashes, and develop a strategic plan for increasing the coverage of incident management efforts on critical facilities throughout the region. Respondents are requested to discuss their expertise in the areas listed below. The consultant will be required to have knowledge and expertise in many areas. Therefore, recommended criteria for the consultants on this project have been outlined.
2. BACKGROUND The greater Austin area has been experiencing significant growth over the past two decades. Between 1990 and 2010, the six-county Transportation Management Area, consisting of Bastrop, Burnet, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson Counties, grew by over 1 million residents to nearly 1.9 million people. An additional two million people are anticipated to reside in the region within the next 25 years. This additional growth has and will continue to result in millions of additional vehicle miles traveled in the region daily.
Due to this growth, the region has already seen its major highways stressed in terms of capacity and performance. The construction of new facilities is not always the most immediate answer to addressing the congestion problem. Funds for building new facilities continue to decrease, placing more pressure on regions to operate their existing facilities more efficiently. In addition, a traffic incident on a newly-constructed freeway can render the facility unusable unless a system is operational to clear the incident. Finally, freeway traffic incidents, be they stalls or crashes, can also result in causing secondary incidents to occur as unsuspecting travelers happen upon stopped traffic on a freeway while traveling at 60 plus miles per hour. Reducing the amount of time such incidents affect a freeway reduces the opportunity of these secondary incidents from happening.
Currently, the Austin area has the HERO Program operated by the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority. The HERO Program is a service designed to remove any obstacle that interferes with the continuous flow of traffic to maximize use of available roadway capacity for the traveling public along sections of select roadways throughout the core of Travis County. In doing so, this free roadside service provides aid to stranded motorists, safe passage around incidents and removes debris from mainlane traffic in an effort to minimize traffic delays, and improves highway safety along a 55- mile section of I-35 from the City of Kyle (Yarrington Road) to the City of Georgetown
RFQ – AJ-001 (SH 130 North) and a 12-mile stretch of US 183 between I-35 and Lakeline Boulevard from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Friday. The City of Austin also has a program that pre-positions contract tow operators at a number of areas where there has been a high crash experience.
3. INCIDENT MANAGMENT STUDY AREA
The study area for this study will be the six county Transportation Management Area (TMA), which consists of Bastrop, Burnet, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson Counties. The primary focus of the study involves freeway incident management within these counties, which include IH-35, 183A, US 183S, US 183N, MoPac, US 290, SH 71, SH 360, RM 620, SH 130 and SH 45. In some cases, these roadways are supported by parallel facilities (e.g., frontage roads, arterial streets) that together form a corridor that operates as one system. These parallel facilities should also be considered part of the study area when developing strategies to manage incidents on the primary roadways.
4. SCOPE OF WORK
The Scope of Services to be provided by the Consultant involves the development of a strategic plan and corresponding quantitative evaluation model that would assess the costs and benefits of current and proposed incident management practices, propose operational efficiencies and approaches to expanding incident management efforts in the greater Austin region, identify funding mechanisms to support the operation and expansion of the incident management strategies, and effective communication materials to market the program for public and political acceptance. In order to develop this plan, the Consultant will be expected to work with CAMPO, as well as those involved in incident management efforts, such as agency personnel, law enforcement, emergency service providers, traffic engineers, the towing industry, and the medical community, to determine the best approaches for improving and growing incident management in the greater Austin region.
In developing this Strategic Plan, the Consultant will be expected to address the following issues as identified through the Incident Management Workshop:
Task 1: Program Administration/Management This task shall include management of all project activities and work. This task will involve continuous project coordination and administration; CAMPO staff administration of the contract, preparation of monthly progress reports, invoices and billings; meetings and coordination activities; preparation of meeting minutes; Quality Assurance/Quality Control; and other project management activities specified by CAMPO. • Project Management Plan – A Project Management Plan outlining project team organization, roles and responsibilities; program schedule; coordination and communication procedures; document and graphics
RFQ – AJ-001 formatting protocols; QA/QC plan; filing protocols; contract close-out procedures, and other important operational information. • Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan – A QA/QC Plan to document the quality control program to be implemented by the consultant team. It will outline review processes for all work to assure that the work is conducted and completed in accordance with CAMPO requirements and applicable standards. • Management of Work Activities – Management of all project activities and work to assure they are conducted and completed in accordance with applicable CAMPO requirements and applicable Federal and State statutes, regulations, rules and guidelines. • Program Schedule – Schedules will be developed, maintained and actively monitored for each major work program or effort. Progress will be reviewed during coordination meetings. • Invoice Preparation and Submittal – Monthly invoices prepared in accordance with current CAMPO invoicing procedures. • Progress Report Preparation and Submittal – Unless otherwise directed in the work authorization, progress reports shall be submitted no later than the tenth day of the month following the month to which they apply. Each invoice shall include a copy of the progress report or reports for the period covered by the invoice. Each progress report shall specify, for each type of work that has been assigned under a work authorization, any deliverables that were completed during that month or other backup documentation as requested, physical and financial percent complete for that work, the precise nature of work that was done that did not result in a deliverable, whether the work is on schedule or not, any issues that may delay the work in the future, any actions by CAMPO or other remedial actions that are required, and for the following month, the anticipated work to be performed and the deliverables that will be submitted. • Kick-off and Coordination Meetings – A kick-off meeting to be held immediately after each work authorization. Coordination meetings to be held at regular intervals – established in work authorizations. • Action Tracking Log – The Consultant shall develop and maintain a log of action items. The log shall identify the action item, its status, responsible party, date assigned, and date completed. The log shall be a tool for managing assignments and shall be reviewed with CAMPO staff during coordination meetings. • Document Control – The Consultant shall develop, implement and maintain an electronic document control and filing system that shall govern the distribution and file copies of all program-related correspondence, reports, plans and technical data. • Project Files – Project files (electronic and hard copy) shall be assembled, maintained and delivered to CAMPO with a complete index at project closeout or as directed by CAMPO. • Information Technology – Establishment and/or maintenance of a web based electronic management tool (EMT) for internal and external transfer
RFQ – AJ-001 of program and planning data, document management, scheduling and coordination.
Deliverable(s): • Draft Project Management Plan • Final Project Management Plan • Draft QA/QC Plan • Final QA/QC Plan • Program Schedule – updated at least monthly • Monthly Invoices • Monthly Progress Reports • Draft Kick-Off Meeting Summary • Final Kick-Off Meeting Summary • Draft Coordination Meetings Summaries • Final Coordination Meetings Summaries • Action Tracking Log – updated weekly
Task 2: Cost-Benefit Assessment of Current Incident Management Efforts The Consultant will be expected to review current freeway incident management efforts and perform a cost-benefit analysis of providing these services. As part of the cost-benefit analysis, the Consultant will also be required to review data collected on freeways, including travel times and speeds, incident data from TxDOT’s Regional Incident Management System (RIMS), crash data from TxDOT’s Crash Record Information Systems (CRIS), and any additional pertinent information to assess how incidents affect travel flow (such as INRIX) and how incident management programs affect travel flow after incidents occur. The consultant shall develop a quantitative method or evaluation model that compiles the data collected in this task and estimates the benefits of various incident management strategies based on regionally adjusted values for vehicle hours of delay, fuel consumption, emissions, and other appropriate criteria to be determined by the Consultant in conjunction with CAMPO and the other stakeholders.
Deliverable(s): Documentation and cost-benefit analysis of existing incident management efforts.
Task 3: Analysis of Existing Incident Management Initiatives in the CAMPO Region The Consultant will be expected to assess the operations of the HERO and City of Austin Tow Program and propose how the two initiatives might be combined and their services streamlined to be more efficient and effective. If combining these two programs proves desirable, the combined program will serve as a template to expand to other corridors in the region.
Deliverable(s): Technical memorandum addressing operational efficiencies for combining HERO and City of Austin Tow Program.
Task 4: Expansion of Incident Management Programs into Remainder of the Region
RFQ – AJ-001 The Consultant will be expected to develop a plan for taking the combined program template and expanded services to the rest of the region. The Consultant will be expected to recommend improvements to the existing incident management strategies (after analysis and consulting with regional stakeholders). Initial efforts will focus on expanding the program to cover the most urbanized areas of Hays, Travis, and Williamson Counties, followed by expansion into adjacent counties in the region as may be merited over time. Work will involve connecting with impacted jurisdictions to support and participate in the incident management program. The Consultant shall utilize the cost-benefit method or evaluation model developed under Task A to assess the benefits of the proposed regional incident management program.
Deliverable(s): Technical memorandum on program expansion and technical memorandum on cost-benefit analysis of the proposed incident management program.
Task 5: Identification of Funding Sources for Current and Future Efforts: The Consultant will be expected to identify additional and alternative approaches to funding not just an expansion of the incident management program but its current operations. Currently, incident management programs in the CAMPO region are funded through allocations of Surface Transportation Program – Metropolitan Mobility funds allocated by the Transportation Policy Board. However, other viable funding options exist in other parts of the country. Additional and alternative options to consider should include the preparation of draft legislative concepts or examples of existing legislation in other regions concerning funding for similar programs, as well as the use of eligible state and federal funding sources, considerations for the possible use of toll revenues for services that would operate in the tolled corridors, the leveraging of existing private motorist assistance programs such those funded by State Farm and AAA, among others, and the solicitation of funding from other private sector interests such as auto insurance companies and privately operated toll roads.
Deliverable(s): Technical memorandum on funding alternatives for incident management programs
Task 6: Establishment of Performance Goals The Consultant will be expected to work with the Study Steering Committee to develop a set of performance goals and measures to allow for the evaluation of the region’s incident management programs from both the operating agencies’ and the traveler’s perspectives. Measures for consideration may include, but not be limited to, the number of vehicles assisted/debris removed, response times, clearance times, incident duration times, accident avoidance or safety measures (before and after analysis), and cost savings. The Consultant shall also identify practical sources for collecting the operational and performance data that will enable on-going measurement as well as an analytical framework and technical approach to performance monitoring and reporting. This task may be expanded to include the development of system requirements for an automated data collection and reporting system.
RFQ – AJ-001
Deliverable(s): Technical memorandum on proposed performance goals and measures and a data collection and reporting plan
Task 7: Development of Marketing Strategy The Consultant will be expected to develop a marketing strategy to promote incident management not just to policymakers, but to the general public and the business community as well to stress the benefits of the program in terms of reducing time stuck in traffic and the traffic safety benefits. Currently, these programs are somewhat viewed as “AAA for those who don’t have AAA.” The benefits to the entire traveling public go far beyond a free tow for those who stall on the freeway, and those benefits need to be relayed accordingly. Deliverable(s): The Consultant will be expected to develop: (1) a two-page fact sheet on the incident management strategies and expected benefits; (2) a legislative briefing packet that identifies the benefits of incident management programs and proposed funding mechanisms; and (3) a draft brochure that explains the services to be provided by the proposed successor to the HERO program.
Task 8: Analysis of Existing Regional Agreements on Incident Management and Necessary Training The Consultant will be expected to research and document any existing agreements among local governments, first responders, and TxDOT that govern the implementation of incident management. The Consultant will be expected to use that analysis to recommend agreements that may be necessary to better facilitate incident management and to draft agreements that may be used by regional stakeholders to operate a well-functioning incident management program. The consultant will also be expected to review available incident management training and offer recommendations on training courses that incident management professionals and first responders should take to enhance the incident management experience in the greater Austin region.
Deliverable(s): Technical memorandum on incident management agreements and recommended training.
Documentation and Reporting
1. Draft Deliverables: Consultant shall provide three (3) copies of the required deliverables for each task on CDs for CAMPO’s review and comments. The Consultant’s schedule should allow 21 days for review and comments from CAMPO staff regarding the adequacy of the materials received.
2. Final Deliverables: Once the sufficiency and accuracy of all the deliverables have been determined, the Consultant shall submit 20 copies of the complete documentation set that shall consist of the technical memoranda, evaluation and prediction model and results, marketing materials, and analysis data on CDs. The consultant will also provide ten (10) printed copies.
RFQ – AJ-001
Date: February 13, 2017 Continued From: N/A Action Requested: Approval
To: Transportation Policy Board From: Mr. Ashby Johnson, Executive Director Agenda Item: 10 Subject: Discussion and Approval of the Travis County Interlocal Agreement for the FY 2015 and FY 2016 Local Match for the STP-MM Programs.
RECOMMENDATION CAMPO staff recommends that the Transportation Policy Board approve the Travis County Interlocal Agreement for the FY 2015 and FY 2016 Local Match for the STP-MM Programs and the accompanying resolution.
PURPOSE AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this action is to receive non-federal match funding for STP-MM programs administered by CAMPO.
FINANCIAL IMPACT The local contribution fund would increase by the amount of $17,560.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Each fiscal year, CAMPO staff sends letters to jurisdictions and transportation providers requesting local match funding for STP-MM programs. The funding is used to conduct regional transportation planning activities on behalf of the member governments of CAMPO.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Attachment A – Resolution Regarding Proposed Interlocal Agreement Attachment B – Travis County Interlocal Agreement
Resolution (2017-2-10)
Acknowledging the Transportation Policy Board’s Approval of the Travis County Interlocal Agreement for Local Match Funding for the STP-MM Programs for FY 2015 and FY 2016
WHEREAS, pursuant to federal law, the Governor of the State of Texas designated the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Austin region in 1973; and
WHEREAS, CAMPO’s Transportation Policy Board is the regional forum for cooperative decision- making regarding transportation issues in Bastrop, Burnet, Caldwell, Hays, Travis and Williamson Counties in Central Texas; and
WHEREAS, the mission of a Metropolitan Planning Organization is to conduct a coordinated, comprehensive and continuous metropolitan transportation planning process; and
WHEREAS, 23 U.S.C. 134 and Section 5303 of the Federal Transit Act, require that the Metropolitan Planning Organizations, in the cooperation with the State, develop transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas of the state; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Policy Board approved the use of Surface Transportation Program Metropolitan Mobility (STP-MM) funds for CAMPO programs; and
WHEREAS, CAMPO seeks financial participation by its regional partners to provide the required non- federal match for federal funds; and
WHEREAS, CAMPO has requested a non-federal match of $8,780.00 for FY 2015 and $8,780.00 for FY 2016 from Travis County; and
WHEREAS, the Travis County Commissioners Court voted to approve these amounts to CAMPO; and
WHEREAS, Travis County has requested an Interlocal Agreement with CAMPO for receipt of these funds; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the CAMPO Transportation Policy Board hereby votes to authorize the CAMPO Executive Director to execute an Interlocal Agreement with Travis County for local match funding as reflected in this Resolution; and
Hereby orders the recording of this resolution in the minutes of the Transportation Policy Board; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board delegates the signing of necessary documents to the Board Chair.
The above resolution being read, a motion to approve the Interlocal Agreement as reflected was made on February 13, 2017 by ______duly seconded by ______.
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent and Not Voting:
SIGNED this 13th day of February 2017.
Chair, CAMPO Board
Attest:
Executive Director, CAMPO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CAPITAL AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION AND TRAVIS COUNTY FOR LOCAL MATCH FUNDING FY 2015 and 2016 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM—METROPOLITAN MOBILITY (“STP-MM”) PROGRAMS
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made by and between the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (“CAMPO”) and Travis County (the “County”), together, the “Parties.”
RECITALS
1. The Governor of the State of Texas has designated CAMPO, acting through its Transportation Policy Board, to be the metropolitan planning organization for the Austin urbanized areas. 2. Each year, CAMPO, as the regional agency charged with coordinating transportation infrastructure in the six-county Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos Metropolitan Statistical Area in Central Texas (the “Central Texas Region”), depends on financial participation from local governments and transportation providers to augment the federal funds it receives. 3. CAMPO’s numerous programs and projects, implementing the Central Texas region’s long-range transportation plan, help the Central Texas Region comply with federal and state requirements for receiving federal transportation and air quality funds and help maintain the economic vitality and competitiveness of the region; 4. CAMPO and the County are authorized to enter into this Agreement pursuant to the provisions of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Texas Government Code Section 791.001 et seq. 5. In 2009, the CAMPO Transportation Policy Board commissioned a study by the Texas Transportation Institute (“TTI”) to investigate how other metropolitan planning organizations (“MPOs”) were funded and what methods those MPOs used to solicit local contributions. 6. TTI’s findings were that the majority of the MPOs used population as the basis for their requests. 7. On August 14, 2014, CAMPO requested from the County $8,780 for FY 2015, based on the number of residents in the unincorporated area of the County. 8. On March 1, 2016, CAMPO requested from the County $8,780 for FY 2016, based on the number of residents in the unincorporated area of the County. 9. The Travis County Commissioners Court approved the County’s fiscal year 2017 budget, and the budget includes local match funding for CAMPO for fiscal years 2015 and 2016. CAMPO and the County agree as follows: 1
Interlocal agreement for FY2015 and FY2016 local match funding for STP-MM Programs 440350v2
SECTION 1. OBLIGATIONS OF CAMPO
A. Within 30 days after the effective date of this Agreement, CAMPO must provide following information, both in hard copy and in an electronic format acceptable to the County: (1) Information regarding the current status of the local match funds contributed by its member jurisdictions for FY 2015 and FY 2016; (2) A copy of the most current Long Range Transportation Plan with associated amendments; (3) A copy of the most current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with associated amendments; and (4) A copy of the most current Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) with associated amendments B. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, this Section 1 will survive the termination of this Agreement. CAMPO must provide the County any requested supporting documentation relating to the reports listed in Section 1.A. within five business days after receiving a request from the County. C. CAMPO agrees to indemnify the County for any amounts to which the County may become liable because of the action or omission of CAMPO employees or its consultants arising out of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, this provision will survive the termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 2. OBLIGATIONS OF THE COUNTY
A. The County will provide CAMPO an amount not to exceed $17,560 (the “County’s Contribution”) by check or warrant within 30 days after CAMPO: (1) Has provided the County each of the deliverables listed in Section 1.A. to the satisfaction of the County; and (2) Submits a correct and complete invoice to the following address: Travis County Transportation and Natural Resources Department P. O. Box 1748 Austin, Texas 78767 B. In order to be considered “correct and complete,” an invoice must include at least the following information: (1) Name, address, and telephone number of CAMPO and similar information in the event payment is to be made to a different address, 2
Interlocal agreement for FY2015 and FY2016 local match funding for STP-MM Programs 440350v2 (2) The name of this Agreement, (3) Identification of items or services as outlined in the Agreement, and (4) Any additional payment information which may be called for by this Agreement.
SECTION 3. TERMS AND TERMINATION
A. This Agreement becomes effective from and after the date of execution by all parties and will expire May 1, 2017 unless previously terminated pursuant to Section 3.B. to this Agreement. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, the County Executive of the Travis County Transportation and Natural Resources Department may unilaterally extend the term of this Agreement by sending a written notice to CAMPO in accordance with Section 7.F. of this Agreement. B. If either party defaults in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, the defaulting party will have 30 days after receipt of written notice of such default within which to cure such default. If such default is not cured within such period of time, then the offended party will have the right without further notice to terminate this Agreement.
SECTION 4. RESTRICTION ON LOBBYING
In accordance with 31 U.S.C. Section 1352, CAMPO hereby certifies that no Federal appropriated funds have been or will be paid by or on behalf of CAMPO to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, and officer or employee of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant or loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment or modification of Federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress in connection with this federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, CAMPO must complete and submit standard form- LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. CAMPO must require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all sub-awards at all tiers and that all subcontractors must certify and disclose accordingly. CAMPO and its subcontractors must require that the language of this certification be included in any subcontract exceeding $100,000 by any tier in that any such subcontractor must certify and disclose accordingly.
SECTION 5. INSPECTION OF WORK AND RETENTION OF DOCUMENTS
3
Interlocal agreement for FY2015 and FY2016 local match funding for STP-MM Programs 440350v2 A. When federal funds are involved, the Parties must grant the U. S. Department of Transportation, the Texas Department of Transportation, and any authorized representative thereof, the right at all reasonable times to inspect or otherwise evaluate the work performed or being performed hereunder and the premises in which it is being performed. B. All records or materials required by or produced under this Agreement, including records produced by any subcontractor to CAMPO, must be maintained for at least three years after CAMPO completes performance under this Agreement or the termination or expiration of this Agreement.
SECTION 6. PROCUREMENT
In accordance with the Interlocal Cooperation Act, the Parties agree to conduct all procurements and award all contracts necessary to this Agreement in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations, including any applicable Federal Transit Administration Circulars 4220.1D, if federal funds are used to execute procurement and award of services.
SECTION 7. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, void, or invalid, the validity of the remaining portions of the Agreement will not be affected thereby. It is the intent of the parties signing this Agreement that no portion of it, or provision or regulation contained in it will become inoperative or fail by phrase, provision, or regulation of this Agreement. B. Law and Venue. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of Texas. The obligations under this Agreement are performable in Travis County, Texas. Venue for any dispute arising out of this Agreement will lie in the appropriate court of Travis County, Texas. C. Indemnity. To the fullest extent allowable by law, CAMPO indemnifies and hold harmless the County from and against all claims, losses, and damages caused by action or liability of any kind for injuries or death of any person or damage to any property, arising out of or in connection with work done by CAMPO, its officers, agents, or employees under this Agreement. D. Alteration, Amendment, or Modification. This Agreement may not be altered, amended, or modified except in writing approved by both parties. IT IS EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT NO OFFICIAL, EMPLOYEE, AGENT, OR REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COUNTY HAS ANY AUTHORITY, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO AMEND THIS AGREEMENT EXCEPT PURSUANT TO SUCH EXPRESS AUTHORITY AS MAY BE GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT. 4
Interlocal agreement for FY2015 and FY2016 local match funding for STP-MM Programs 440350v2 E. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the County and CAMPO. No other agreement, statement or promise relating to the subject matter of this Agreement which is not contained in this Agreement is valid or binding. F. Notice. Notices to either party must be in writing, and may be either hand delivered or sent by certified or registered mail, postage paid, return receipt requested. If sent to the parties at the addresses designated herein, notice will be deemed effective upon receipt in the case of hand delivery and three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. Mail in the case of mailing. The address of the County for all purposes is:
The Honorable Sarah Eckhardt (or successor) County Judge Travis County P.O. Box 1748 Austin, Texas 78767
With a copy to: Mr. Steven M. Manilla, P.E. (or successor) County Executive Transportation and Natural Resources Department P.O. Box 1748 Austin, Texas 78767
And to: Ms. Cyd Grimes, C.P.M., CPPO (or successor) Travis County Purchasing Agent P.O. Box 1748 Austin, Texas 78767
The address for CAMPO for all notices hereunder is:
Mr. Ashby Johnson, Executive Director (or successor) CAMPO 3300 IH 35, Suite 630 Austin, Texas 78705
G. Maintenance and Right of Access to Records. (1) CAMPO must maintain appropriate fiscal records and supporting documentation for all expenditures of funds accounting records of costs, expenses, and payrolls of employees working on the Project, together with documentation of evaluations and study results for a period of five years after final payment for completed services and all other pending matters concerning this Agreement have been closed. 5
Interlocal agreement for FY2015 and FY2016 local match funding for STP-MM Programs 440350v2 (2) CAMPO agrees that the COUNTY and its duly authorized representatives are entitled to have access to any and all books, documents, papers, and records of CAMPO that are directly pertinent to the services to be performed under this Agreement for the purposes of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcriptions. (3) All records or materials required by or produced under this Agreement, including records produced by any subcontractor to CAMPO and/or the County, must be maintained for at least three years after CAMPO and/or the County complete payment and performance under this Agreement or the termination or expiration of this Agreement, whichever date is later. H. Taxpayer Identification. CAMPO must provide the COUNTY with an Internal Revenue Form W-9 Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification that is completed in compliance with the Internal Revenue Code and its rules and regulations and a statement of entity status in a form satisfactory to the County Auditor before any funds are payable under this Agreement. I. Mediation. When mediation is acceptable to both parties in resolving a dispute arising under this Agreement, the parties agree to use a mutually agreed upon mediator, or a person appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction, for mediation as described in Section 154.023 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Unless both parties are satisfied with the result of the mediation, the mediation will not constitute a final and binding resolution of the dispute. All communications within the scope of the mediation are to remain confidential as described in Section 154.073 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, unless both parties agree, in writing, to waive the confidentiality. J. Third Party Rights Not Created. This Agreement is not intended to and must not be construed to create any rights or remedies in any person or legal entity that is not a party to it. K. No Waiver of Immunity. It is expressly understood and agreed by the Parties that neither the execution of this Agreement nor any conduct of any representative of CAMPO or County relating to this Agreement will be considered to waive, nor will it be deemed to have waived, any immunity or defense that would otherwise be available to that entity against claims arising in the exercise of its governmental powers and functions, nor will it be considered a waiver of sovereign immunity to suit. L. “FY” refers to fiscal year. The County’s fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30 of the following year. M. Each of the signatories to this Agreement represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized to sign this in the capacity indicated. N. Current Funds. As required by the Interlocal Cooperation Act, the party or parties paying for the performance of governmental functions or services shall make payments therefor from current revenues available to the paying party.
6
Interlocal agreement for FY2015 and FY2016 local match funding for STP-MM Programs 440350v2 O. Interpretation. In the event of any dispute over its meaning or application, this Agreement will be interpreted fairly and reasonably and neither more strongly for or against either party.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Interlocal Agreement is executed to be effective the date of the last party to sign.
TRAVIS COUNTY
______Date: ______Sarah Eckhardt County Judge
CAPITAL AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
______Date: ______Ashby Johnson CAMPO Executive Director
7
Interlocal agreement for FY2015 and FY2016 local match funding for STP-MM Programs 440350v2 Date: February 13, 2017 Continued From: N/A Action Requested: Information
To: Transportation Policy Board From: Mr. Kelly Porter, Regional Planning Manager Agenda Item: 11 Subject: Presentation and Update on the Williams Drive Study
RECOMMENDATION None. This item is for informational purposes only.
PURPOSE AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CAMPO and the City of Georgetown have partnered to study the Williams Drive Corridor. The study area consists of a ¼ mile buffer around Williams Drive and extends from Austin Avenue (to the south) up to the Georgetown city limits (to the north). The Williams Drive study aims to both further the goals of CAMPO’s Platinum Planning Plan as well as the City of Georgetown’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, by addressing the immediate and future mobility issues that stem from population growth and development pressures. In Fall 2016, the study team held public open houses and a charrette to gather input on needs along the corridor.
Community outreach meetings are scheduled for spring 2017 to gather input on the work done thus far, and allow the public to comment on the draft and final plan.
FINANCIAL IMPACT None.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The purpose of the Williams Drive study is to evaluate the immediate and future mobility issues that stem from population growth and development pressures along the corridor. The study is broken up into two parts: a corridor plan and a centers plan. The corridor plan focus area covers Williams Drive from Lakeway Drive to the south, to the Georgetown city limits on the north. The centers plan focus area extends from the San Gabriel River on the south and east, Rivery Boulevard, Oak Lane and Mequite Lane on the West, and San Gabriel Park, Apple Creek Drive, Northwest Boulevard, and Lakeway Drive to the north. Nelson\Nygaard has been hired as the consultant for the study.
The Williams Drive study is the first study of CAMPO’s Platinum Planning initiative, and seeks to ensure that all proposed concepts will address transportation needs, as well as quality of life and economic development. The key issues facing the corridor and related area are traffic congestion, safety concerns, access management, pedestrian infrastructure and bicycle routes, and land use that is supportive to alternative modes of transportation. Potential catalytic projects include redevelopment of a former Georgetown ISD site as well as several mixed-use projects. The study kicked off in August 2016, with public meetings and design charrettes in fall 2016. The public meeting presented the existing conditions report, and was attended by over 100 citizens. A follow-up charrette was held from November 12 – 16, 2016. The consultant team has completed a review of existing conditions including a land use assessment and an economic market and financial analysis, and is currently refining the concept plan and integrating public comments. The next round of meetings is scheduled for spring 2017.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS None.
2
Date: February 13, 2017 Continued From: N/A Action Requested: Information
To: Transportation Policy Board From: Mr. Kelly Porter, Regional Planning Manager Agenda Item: 12 Subject: Presentation and Update on the 2045 Regional Active Transportation Plan
RECOMMENDATION None. This item is for informational purposes only.
PURPOSE AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2045 Regional Active Transportation Plan (RATP) seeks to provide a shared vision for the development of a functional, useful, and safe network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities for the CAMPO region. In Fall 2016, CAMPO staff held local government outreach meetings throughout the region to gather input on bicycle and pedestrian facility needs, verify the existing networks, and identify dangerous intersections and crossings.
In December 2016, a Wikimap was released to provide an interactive mapping tool for the public to provide input on facility needs, and CAMPO staff is currently administering a survey through mid- February 2017. This survey will generate an in-depth profile of current and potential bicycle and pedestrian facility users and provide an understanding of bicycle and pedestrian needs. Over 1,000 survey and over 300 Wikimap responses have been received to date. CAMPO just completed a second round of Government and the first round public open houses in January and early February 2017, with over 250 public attendees.
FINANCIAL IMPACT None.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The purpose of the 2045 RATP is to provide a shared vision for the development of a functional, useful, and safe network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and amenities for the CAMPO Region. The plan will elaborate on concepts in the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan and inform development of the 2045 Regional Transportation Plan. Once completed, the RATP will include an inventory bicycle facilities and sidewalks; current data on safety and related policies; a 2045 vision network; guidance and recommendations on facility design and policy; and an implementation plan with project and policy priorities for the next 25 years.
The consultant team has completed a comprehensive review of existing studies, plans, and reports. They are currently working with CAMPO staff to gather information on bicycle and pedestrian needs through an online Wikimap, surveys, government meetings and public open houses. This information will be used to develop the draft active transportation vision network and best practices guide. A sub-component of the RATP is the Near Northwest Corridor case study, an analysis of pedestrian and bicycle connections along a ½ mile radius of the 183 Corridor stretching from MoPac in the south to Destination Bell Boulevard in the north. The plan incorporates input from stakeholder outreach, public meetings, and focus groups, and is steered by a subcommittee of the Active Transportation Advisory Committee.
Next steps include completion of an existing conditions report, the case study report, and development of a vision network. These components will help inform identification of best practices for a pattern book and an implementation plan. The final report will be completed by Summer 2017.
Completed 2017 Outreach Meeting Dates:
January 23 – Lakeside Pavilion, Marble Falls January 24 – Cedar Park Library, Cedar Park January 25 – Fleming Community Center, Elgin January 25 – Eugene Clark Library, Lockhart January 26 – Texas State University LBJ Student Center, San Marcos January 30 – ACC Highland Business Center Board Room, Austin January 31 – Taylor Public Library, Taylor February 1 – Wimberley Community Center, Wimberley February 2 – Travis County Fire & Rescue Station, Del Valle February 3 – Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Austin
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Attachment A – Regional Active Transpiration Plan Flyer Attachment B – Survey Zip Code Response Map
2 Let’s make a more walk Ready? and bike friendly region! About Why plan for walking The Regional Active Transportation Plan (RATP) will develop a blueprint and biking in the region? for a safe and easy-to-use active transportation network of trails, sidewalks, bike lanes, and streets for the six-county CAMPO Region. Bicycling and walking is… Plan Vision • Healthy The CAMPO region’s world-class, regionally-coordinated, • Low cost and well-maintained Active Transportation network will • Non-polluting provide safe, efficient, convenient, and comfortable • Enjoyable walking and bicycling access to local and regional destinations for all residents and visitors. • An alternative to driving Get Involved This plan will make biking and walking safer, One of the most important components of this plan is more comfortable, public input. We want to hear from you on existing bike and more convenient. and pedestrian facilities, safety considerations, and future priorities. Please share your input and tell a friend!
TAKE THE SURVEY. Complete the survey to tell us about your walking and biking habits. http://sgiz.mobi/s3/bikewalksurvey
SHARE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS. If you would like to receive updates about the plan and upcoming activities, please share your email address with us.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? Reach out to us. We are happy to address questions and comments on the plan throughout this process.
TELL A FRIEND. Spread the word about the plan on Facebook and Twitter using #2045activetransportation.
Upcoming Events Public open houses are scheduled for January 23 - February 3, so mark your calendar! Please contact us for more information. Contact Information Kelly Porter, AICP • [email protected] www.campotexas.org • (512) 215-8225 project information
Adam Coppola Photography Website: http://bit.ly/2dsKSpx Wikimap: http://bit.ly/2crXfUG
The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) is the agency that coordinates regional planning efforts and approves the use of federal transportation funds in CAMPO’s six-county region. CAMPO is responsible for coordinating with regional agencies and local governments to develop a 20+ year long-range plan and a four-year program of projects. VISION AND GOALS
Goal 1: Safety Increase the safety of walking and bicycling in the region. Goal 2: Accessibility VISION Create a complete, cohesive Active Transportation network that connects the region for people of all ages and abilities. The CAMPO region’s Goal 3: Functionality world-class, regionally- Establish an Active Transportation system that is logical, comfortable, versatile, accommodating, and useful for completing everyday trips year-round for all users. coordinated, and well- maintained Active Goal 4: Equity Transportation network Ensure that the Active Transportation system is safe and well-designed for the use of all residents in the region regardless of geography, age, income, physical ability, or skill level. provides safe, efficient, Goal 5: Everyday Use convenient, and Make walking and bicycling an easy and appealing everyday choice for the region. comfortable walking and bicycling access Goal 6: Quality of Life to local and regional Improve the economy, public health, sense of place in the region and increase transportation choices through the development of a high-quality Active Transportation destinations for all system. residents and visitors. Goal 7: Regional Coordination and Connectivity Create a seamless regional Active Transportation network through coordinated governance. 76527
76537
78611
78633 76530 78642
78626 78639 78628
78654 76574 78641 78634 78665 76578 78681 78657 78613 78664 78717
78729 78728 78615 78645 78660 78750 78669 78726 78727 78947 78759 78758 78753 78732 78734 78731 78757 78754 78653 78621 78752 78710 78733 78756 78751 78723 78738 78746 7870378705 78724 78650 78722 78701 78721 78735 78702 78736 78704 78725 78741 78620 78749 78745
78739 78744 78737 78748 78617 78602 78652 78747 78719 78619 78612 78610
78957 78676
78640 78662
78666 78644 78953
78655
78670
78648 Responses by ZIP Code 1 - 10 11 - 25 26 - 50 51 - 75 76 - 100