The URL can be used to link to this page

TC 06-26-06 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Transportation Committee FROM: John A. Bishop, Transportation Planner �•S' RE: June 26, 2006 Transportation Committee Meeting DATE: June 19, 2006 The Frederick County Transportation Committee will be meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, June 26, 2006 in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. The agenda for this meeting is as follows: AGENDA 1.. Route 37 Stonewall Alignment 2. Update on Rural Transportation Program and the Eastern Road Plan 3. Information on MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan 4. Information on Enhancement Grants 5. Information Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund 6. Article Distribution 7. Other Business Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting. Attachments JAB/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 ITEM #1 Route 37 Stonewall Alignment Staff has been continuing to work on the alignment issues facing the completion of Route 37 and has just received the drawings for the segment that loops around the Stonewall Industrial Park. As you know, the existing alignment of Route 37 around the Stonewall Industrial Park traverses a significant amount of the industrially zoned property. This has become more of an issue in recent months as these properties start to be developed. As Route 37 moves toward becoming a reality, this development has the potential to greatly increase the right-of-way purchase costs. This has left Staff the task of looking for alignments that avoid the industrially zoned property by looking at the undeveloped Rural Area zoned property directly to the west without going too far west, where you begin to encounter more significant topography and residential development. These new potential alignments attempt to address the final issue of inadequate roadway geometry in terms of the curve radius on existing `C' where it links to existing Route 37. The potential new alignments meet VDOT's minimum curve radii for a 70 mph roadway. Attached please find a map set that summarizes the existing alignment as well as the three alternatives developed by the consultant working with Staff. The first map in the set shows all the draft alignments in addition to the existing alignment `C', shown in black. The following three maps each shows a potential new alignment along with existing `C' for reference. The current alignment of `C' is shown in black on all maps. These alignments have been sent to VDOT for review and comment. Staff is hopeful that we will have VDOT comment by the date of this meeting; however, if comment does not arrive, this will remain an information item. The committee will not be asked to act until VDOT comment is received. C—, 1 p303.t8R, ac1§in1° � j(t� �� „�• �P � 1 • �° a3 A a s o-' ry 127... 42 /efmu Vfretrt-W srL ♦ ��•'�r..�. 44 65 .2 I R J w m! �w 4 // r! „•'G...^'{��1"\�ft��/. _ Jt .. i !� 43 A 77 ,835 gq ♦ rr S !".. q ®rrq ♦ y.:-` 47.193ec. .1 •.... 4 �`�"�./� �� 43 A "� t%1w� tStd M1 • ,%� t ♦ CJr+43 A eQC j • 'a 42 A 262 f'ieldsi - f '` \.. ( d • �} y 11.69 ac P�f•r�. 43 A 67 • -7 rsr„j• �` + i,. U %� • 63.79 ac. , - /�• 0-0 �r 4i`_; t •k„Mt-�._/jjr�mt� ♦ �' I•� .i ��,�r,1i� e -0 �”' a .'i•��f"tt ' 'Fi. 484. ii. it -.� q u `l ;# , 4F gly, ~ m' - �f 43 4 � y � P�ac r ♦eGt ` • , f�+l'ih�� o. 'tea' � raw 9d 7-1 y r. A.� t 66 , 4 LN f AF 43 A too 43 A 79.1 'f j'"� y •'I 57.12 ac j( 39'28 ee. � � '�' �f ♦ y�� 43 A 140 /� •_i 1 �`V;t� �.� 4pF a`f /t' ��4jY 34.S ac. ✓' ate''•"--�j • .y � ..: �.`. j � b � .,.c 43 A 121% . y. w M 'v^r0 •. Qy 85.27 ac. t' wr7.r '1 ,.. 44 A 26 140 a � 37 - 37 a 43 A 158 '� '� f • 50.33 ac. 43 A zz0. r n r All v 43 A 154 • �: ^ �1 lf,� $e `\Rj1 36.27 ac. �._•. ; � �/`ter ♦�.' ;4f -•,.. ti �1 !_ —6 {.,Sp s. - yr 55 A 3 t '- 1 124 ac. 04 I t fi47 '1¢ a°• Pryk ' .J ' ` ryr' U ," I \ j • LF _ a b j 1 b ss A ^h d y ,7'•• • y a�;* sl t, J' 7 ` ; 123 ac. T� �. y `dry ir.,•:p ♦ J f" P �' �+ Rt37bypass-Adlust—nt0414G6 Streets Reute37NW21lpnments,dw0 Paiyllnr•.% j 4-�RLLAOAnryWM1 7•st N an�,�.ry Re.m ��pq.gvaanuo-nw .. II /�..'yP'•��. Fredermk County Oept of ,OV —..1 —d. R ,TPRRYROA0.N9 Rt 37 NW Alternative 0.'rxyE PlannmgBDerelopmen[ 107 N Mat St N war a rerG.ry Ro.0 R.cLRoauervs Winchester, VA 22601 vnncnddlm c ry Rwdz /y PRR.uRoaauwn Alignment www.'O.FREOERICKVA.US auYdinBr n< June 15, 2006 j Rt376yp+ s_AAtustm•nt041406 Strrats Rouw37NWallpnmonm."g Polyllm Tart ^r1 Pn.ry ".m. #4VP—waonuuw Freeepek County Dep W wa"° ��•�s-Ne°M Rt 37 NW Alternative wr: Plamm�g8Oevelapment N 11 M7 ri i.,o.e,�n.n. a ." 107 N Kent St �Yife��m Alignment # 1 .FRE ERICK.ter, VA 22601 eo.anp. xw.v.CO.FREDJune 1 .2006 June 15. 21706 43 A 4 IIfu 42 A 262 t Fie( +� ,. • "{I�� if 42.89 as � t h�ic•��l` .✓��'� � y{ 1 J� 43*� 34. �" ! ! • 6 a s lip • r ` , U r.,f � c m' to44 �- f w 4 A 77 g 3 g � • � ' 47.1 Sae c. ; 'Sdp, q ♦ t- ` �gy r 1 N, r•I � • J v�r tnet 43 A aQCy.♦ • ♦ !rI a f ft 43 A 67 7 63.79 ac. 1 de � c• '('� 43 0. 36 05 i1/fes{ I� p3 e� ♦ rr. X61 (`�ij I �'i• J• a...� • `� 43 A 63 , 76-a N. \4fli « "�..-- I % •-,n. v rm 4 ' � �^ , s .68 4- �, NN "+..., . Il& -t- �..7-•ct.._^�' ,1 d7 e. 1 i a3 A 100 r. 1 6 1.72 ac. 39.28 ac 9 ff f _ ` �3 A ,r 3}•0'16 Lp .,t11�� IV 4 1 85.27 ac - `H�•/-� T t n f a.••�►i ^'11 _ 44 A 26 Y70.c. It l e 'N}7 37 •�.4 `q' y f� 43 A 158 ..r��. 'F J J k / }f 4 •'� 50.33 ac. f . _.,` ,t r;- -�'�... Y432o ac 22 y �. -� C l `L• yJ`r�. Q 4 $� c ,. 1`a f .. 4 t �s. 5.7n y1c1� ~ "• .+V-`rLr Fj i''�. - 496. 71.5.4 y� �Y� / J1 v ry a• m t o. s tr l p .r4jjW +�' ; .Yi' , 403 6 f.�t .'�} i F /�: / ..✓' aPo 1-t 1 55 A 3 titi ,1�•.. - ...,� J vrf ,e^. ro5 q 1 124... yV rk s 4... t f ' ■Ir .t !r<..r lL. 72 g -��' � f e 4�`� r 7 r it f• nrt \ � ..r '`� �'`��••('�� r ! P pD _ f lQ• tam t► 4 03 �,. �• p1 i-'`aC,• �` �Fr� ^$r - in �4 1, lA55.. r Pry ti F �fa `h 9r y '1 �,- 1 $523 ae. ,e'a`�rr i •'p'Y� �`.� C, :,r�g��' 'Ui `� •1 f c,d�.:j, s� Y Rt876ypass Adjustmsnt047406 Stnists R.ute37KWa11gnmena.d g Peiyllne Text h%P—q R.— �L,,,FP—ROR6NNN �/ssm R�rr.r ^I:.mti..rc nDea, /V Rur ci uw�m.sa �,R.c�.Roan.rnw cm• R..m ema�a. ry>�•„r.ra-,ate=,��.��.�..rw� Rt 37 NW Alternative w of Fte4enck'D-1County Deptn Planning 8 De ent e N K.n 107 N Kent St Alignment #2 .FRiAnd'E ERICA22601 mvw-CO.FREDERI CK VA. U5 June 15,2006 427 V` 1•Wessn �� \•/ 44 �. ~— -"'i ♦ h ri f .-t5 m c / 65.2 303�ac. � I Ir f43 A 77 6 m ♦ ♦ 3 8 47.19�ac. Sac '9 5 3./ . ... ILMI 9. ♦ s� t as 42 A 262Vx+' i 4 ��.!✓.cam ✓ ♦ � y C! ' 11 69 a � 42.89 ac ? ��d 1 rr y� 43 A 67 ♦ �f / 63.79 ac. !'�. dG y•t -f; _..`11. '�',i+ f Ta i'; �� / I �.. �idiil bj@6 b• �, 43 a , • c1 71(, � • YY � 4 41 ac A � • r ir d". at • o° 4 -%.A y •• I t I K� • .! . NO.,, •:3 A100A . /l4 ti o 51.12 ac jA 43 m M 3-9.28A 7H. ac jjJ r `aa q 34.6ae40 '^`4 a ' 85.27 ac..10t / 44 A 26 .4.4, ry�,43 A 156 •. J [ ) 50.33 ac. X6320 ac 22 7`- n 1 4y{ _M f ��.'°• �.1�pp•�,''-4 ��= - w'i+.Hs„9�'4 Red6�d12j [ryCY 43 A 154 36.27 ac. \ f 1 t7 w . 1 N LU � � ho- ?��' P•a �!' <!, W. .r � ' 55 A 3 // •• 111 9 w _ 124 ac. � '�� l r n .aly4 :sten �•rrl� --' f m 4 $ D• p 4 f ¢ 55 A 123.. M1 I Rt37bypass tj.tmento41406 stilets Rptlte37NWalipnrnents.dwg Pelyllne Text /t,r moon auee. Frederick County Dept of Rt 37 NW Alternative &Developrnent tSt 10 N Ken N aura hu.ry nwo. ncLaal0.M/.s yNnchester? VA 22601 vn.rn.a.cm awe. Alignment lent # 3 w.vw.CO.FREDERICK,VA.l15 June 15, 2006 ITEM #2 Update on Rural Transportation Program Eastern Road Plan At the May 22, 2006 meeting of the Transportation Committee, Staff informed the Committee that the Rural Transportation Program would be delayed due to the lack of a state budget. Typically this is brought before the committee at the June meeting. Staff continues to work with VDOT on the preparation of the program which will include a reevaluation of all roadways on the hard surfacing list. Staff is also working on the Eastern Road Plan and expects to bring it for committee review at the July or August meetings. ITEM #3 Information on MPO Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility Plan As a member of the WinFred MPO, Frederick County is part of the Grant Funded Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility Plan. The purpose of the plan will be to update Frederick County, Winchester, and Stephen City's existing bicycle and pedestrian plans, look for linkages between the localities for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and set guidelines for types of facilities needed by type of area. Attached please find summary information on the effort including the scope of work, projected project schedule, and minutes from the kick off meeting. By the date of this meeting, Staff expects the MPO Policy Committee will have taken action on the creation of a Stakeholders Committee. If that committee is created, Staff expects it will include a member from the County Transportation Committee. More information on that topic will be available at the meeting, ATTACHMEN-1 B - PROJECT SCOPE TASK 1: PROJECT KICKOFF AND COORDINATION Effective coordination and communication between TDG and the WinFred MPO will be important to complete a successful project on time. Toole Design Group's project manager will serve as the primary point of contact. In addition to regular updates with the client's project manager, we envision the following activities in this task: Task 1.1 — Project Start Up Upon receipt of the Notice to Proceed, members of the TDG project team will convene to review any feedback received from the MPO during the proposal and contract stages. The TDG team will discuss the methodology, schedule, and staffing, and will prepare for the kick-off meeting. Data needs will be discussed and a request will be made to the client to begin gathering information from prior efforts. Task 1.2 —Steering Committee Formation A Steering Committee composed of WinFred MPO staff is an excellent way to encourage understanding, buy -in, and action by various departments, and is essential for the plan's successful implementation. It will be important to include on the committee key players who were involved in the development of other plans in and adjacent to the WinFred MPO. This will insure that all planned routes and corridors are integrated into this more comprehensive plan. The TDG team will provide any needed guidance to the MPO in assembling this committee. Over the course of the planning process, we propose six meetings — including the kick-off meeting — of the Steering Committee with TDG representatives to review progress, receive feedback on deliverables, and discuss potential strategies. Additional independent meetings of the Steering Committee may be recommended throughout the project if feedback is needed on consultant work. Task 1.3 — Project Kick -Off Meeting The client, the TDG team, and the Steering Committee will participate in the project kick-off meeting. The methodology and schedule will be reviewed, including due dates and project deliverables. Participants of the kick-off will be asked to collectively define project objectives and highlight areas of concern. The Steering Committee also will be asked to share information regarding city and county policies, existing plans and maps, previous studies, and other available datasets and resources. Task 1.4 — Formation of Stakeholder's Committee TDG will assist the client and the Steering Committee in identifying a group of citizens and stakeholders to be part of a Stakeholder's Committee. Critical participants of this group will include local bike club members who are familiar with biking conditions on roadways throughout the area. Other valuable participants may include representatives from populations with special needs such as elderly, children, and lower income households. The group may also include involved citizens such as those that represent "Class V bicyclists (i.e. parents with children), leaders in the business community, and environmental and community preservation advocates. The Stakeholder's Committee will provide the TDG team with ongoing input from a variety of constituencies and assist with outreach to their respective communities. Task 1 TDG Deiiverabies: Project schedule WinFred MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan ■ Data needs list ■ Agenda for kick-off meeting • Minutes from kick-off meeting Task 1 Client Deliverables: ■ Member selection and formation of Steering Committee ■ Member selection and formation of Stakeholder's Committee • Coordination with committees and logistics of kick-off meeting ■ Past planning efforts in the MPO jurisdiction, datasets requested by TDG ■ Existing maps of the jurisdiction and facilities from previous plans Task 1 Meetings: • Kick-off meeting with Steering Committee TASK 2: EXISTING AND PLANNED ROUTE ANALYSIS The focus of Task 2 is to identify strengths and weaknesses of the existing and planned system of bikeways and walkways with the goal of creating an interconnected network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that provides access to key destinations. In essence, this task will be a corridor level analysis of the feasibility and effectiveness of the planned system. A critical aspect of this task is identifying key destinations in the WinFred MPO for a diverse population. Task 2.1 — Examine existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian routes and corridors The WinFred MPO will gather all information from previous planning efforts in the area and will provide TDG with GIS maps of existing bicycling and walking facilities and conditions. TDG will review all available plans and maps of both current and future bicycle and pedestrian routes and corridors and will conduct fieldwork to gain an understanding of the quality of the system. The Client will supply the base GIS map layers in Arc View or Arc Map in a projection established jointly by the consultant and client. The Client will provide a map feature database, which will include the following layers in a uniform format for the City, Town and County in the MPO boundaries (in as much as this information is available in a usable format for this project): • street centerline • bicycle counts • existing and planned bike lane and bike route locations • sidewalk location • bus transit stations, bus routes and pertinent railway information • locations and names of: - Universities and colleges - elementary, middle and high schools - parks - trails and greenways - significant tourism destinations - significant shopping/employment destinations - any pertinent neighborhood boundaries (incl. neighborhood names) - other points of interest • locations of pedestrian and bike crashes • ADTs for arterial and collector roadways and percent heavy vehicles • speed limits The Client will also provide locations of proposed roadway reconstruction projects (5 -year horizon minimum), as well as locations of scheduled roadway resurfacing projects. The Client will be WinFred MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan responsible for contacting other sources of GIS data where needed, and obtaining permission for the use of the data for the purposes of this Plan. Task 2.2 — Preliminary bicycle analysis map TDG will enhance GIS mapping of existing conditions provided by the WinFred MPO to include all planned routes in the MPO area to create a preliminary bicycle analysis map. This will allow for a more thorough analysis of gaps in the system. Task 2.3 Steering Committee Meeting The TDG project team will meet with MPO staff and the Steering Committee on conference following the creation of the preliminary bicycle analysis map to discuss the suitability index and next steps. This meeting will also be used to strategize for the first public workshop. Task 2.4 — Suitability Analysis Different approaches will be used to examine proposed bicycle facility improvements for roadways in urban/suburban areas and in rural areas. Urban/suburban facility recommendations will be based on fieldwork (where possible). Spot measurements will be made to determine the potential for bicycle facility opportunities and general traffic behavior will be observed to identify potential benefits or shortcomings of the proposed bicycle facilities. Recommendations for rural bicycle improvements will be based on roadway classification, and will also identify potential ways of achieving improvements through road resurfacing projects, restriping, and other types of low -impact projects. Rural bicycle recommendations will rely heavily on input from stakeholders, as well as any existing data that has been generated for county roads in the past. During this process, TDG will also identify routes in the preliminary analysis network that require a corridor level analysis using a bicycle suitability index. The MPO can conduct a more focused evaluation of several representative corridors that are frequently mentioned as areas of concern during public outreach and through stakeholder input. We anticipate that this would include roadway segments that represent urban, suburban and rural conditions. The Bicycle Level of Service model is the index recommended for this evaluation; TDG has found this model to be effective, and it has been endorsed by the Virginia Department of Transportation. The Bicycle Level of Service model can be used to evaluate roadway conditions in the study area. This model is based on research documented in Transportation Research Record 1578 published by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences. The BLOS model uses the same measurable traffic and roadway factors that transportation professionals use for other travel modes, and reflects the "suitability" or "compatibility" of bicycling conditions based on characteristics such as roadway width and striping combinations, traffic volume, pavement surface conditions, motor vehicles speed and type, on -street parking, and other factors. The BLOS model can be used either on a system -wide basis or at a corridor level which is recommended for this plan. Task 2.5 — Identify Key Destinations TDG will work with the Steering Committee to identify a preliminary list of key destinations that should be prioritized for bicycle and pedestrian access. These may include schools, churches, Libraries, parks, community centers and employment and retail shopping areas. These destinations will be added to the digital map and will be used at the first work session to solicit additional destinations that need bicycle and pedestrian access. Task 2.6 - Identify locations for Pedestrian Retrofit TDG will work with the Steering Committee to begin to identify locations needing pedestrian improvements throughout the area, including critical gaps in the sidewalk network and crossing improvements that are needed in key locations that experience frequent pedestrian activity. This WinFred MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan 4 list of needed pedestrian improvements will be augmented during the first workshop and through fieldwork. Task 2.7 —Public Workshop #1 A workshop will be planned once complete maps of existing and planned bicycle routes and key destinations have been produced. Steering and stakeholder committees will be invited as well as the general public. The focus of the first part of the workshop will be examining the system and Locating gaps, and proposing linkages to create a more comprehensive bicycle network. The focus of the second part of the workshop will be identifying locations in need of pedestrian improvements. A short presentation will be given and then participants will be divided into groups and provided with large-scale maps for marking needed access routes and connections, key destinations, and difficult crossings. Task 2.8 - VIP Meeting Series A series of meetings will be held with targeted agencies and population groups. The WinFred MPO will help identify individuals from key agencies in the region, such as Parks and Recreation Department, and Directors of Planning from various jurisdictions. Underserved population groups should also be identified, such as elderly and minority communities. The consulting team will meet individually with these identified groups to hear about their initiatives, priorities and desires for the plan. (Task to be accomplished by Ursula Lemanski) Task 2 TDG Deliverables: ■ Bicycle Analysis Map - GIS map of existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian routes and key destinations • Preliminary inventory of locations in need of pedestrian improvements Summary memorandum of findings from the work session Task 2 Client Deliverables: • GIS maps of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities • Data, plans and available maps of planned facilities • Completion of suitability index on key corridors • Meeting publicity and logistics Task 2 Meetings: • Steering Committee Meeting #2 ■ Public workshop #1 ■ VIP Meeting series TASK 3: DEVELOPMENT OF ROUTE NETWORK AND PEDESTRIAN PRIORITIES Using the data collected in Task 2 and the information gleaned from the various meetings and the workshop, the TDG team will develop recommendations for enhancing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the WinFred MPO area. Task 3.1 — Enhance planned bicycle route network and create linkages Cities that are friendly to bicyclists and pedestrians have logical route systems that allow travelers to bike and walk between destinations and adjacent jurisdictions easily and safely. Toole Design Group will cnnriiirt fialriwork to examine proposed routes and need CoineCtion�.rhe goal wit, uC to develop a prioritized route network that creates vital linkages between key planned routes and creates new routes to key destinations. Special attention will be given to ensure that the bicycle WinFred MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan and pedestrian network serves functional transportation purposes. In particular, the network should provide access to key employers, schools and retail centers for low income and minority populations that cannot afford to purchase or maintain motor vehicles. Upon completion of the fieldwork and other analysis, TDG will present a Draft Route Network Map to the MPO and Steering Committee for review and comment. Task 3.2 — Enhance pedestrian facilities TDG will also provide assistance to the MPO in adding to the inventory of needed pedestrian improvements created in Task 2 by identifying top problem areas for crossings. if available, the WinFred MPO will provide crash data to TDG in a useful form (i.e. maps identifying crash locations and crash typology, and any other roadway characteristic data that would be relevant to studying pedestrian crashes). TDG will review high crash locations and confirm locations that should receive top priority for improvements. TDG will prepare a pedestrian priorities map and comprehensive inventory of key locations in need of retrofit. Task 3.3 Public Workshop #2 The purpose of this workshop is to present the proposed route network map and the pedestrian priorities map and receive feedback from members of the Steering and Stakeholder's Committees and the public. The feedback will be geared toward prioritizing the identified routes and projects. We may recommend an open house format where attendees are invited to review maps closely and discuss issues together and with the MPO and TDG staffs. Gaining input from the general public is important at this stage so they can have a direct effect on the route network and locations in need of pedestrian improvements. TDG will help MPO staff develop creative strategies to publicize the open house to target groups such as the elderly, college students, and lower income households. These may include flyers through channels such as schools and community centers, and PR efforts in local newspapers. Depending on the level of participation at the first public workshop, an alternative method of gaining public input at this stage may be an online questionnaire. TDG employed this strategy for the Central Shenandoah Valley Bicycle Plan because participation at public meetings in the winter was not anticipated to be high. Over 1,000 responses were received over a six week period providing valuable input into the public's priorities for bicycling in the region. Task 3 TDG Deliverables: ■ Draft Route Network Map in GIS ■ Map and comprehensive inventory of pedestrian priorities Task 3 Client Deliverable: Publicity and logistics for meeting Task 3 Meetings: ■ Public Workshop #2 TASK 4: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Task 4.1 Project prioritization Prioritizing proposed bike and pedestrian improvement projects is essential so that resources are used effectively and changes are made that will have the greatest impact and benefit for area residents and visitors. The TDG team will prioritize all network link improvements included in Task WinFred MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan 6 3. Bicycle improvements will be sorted into short, mid, and long term projects. A list of short-term pedestrian priorities will also be development. We will use a combination of criteria to prioritize projects, with heavy emphasis on input received during the public participation process. Criteria may include: ■ Poor conditions/high demand. Locations with poor conditions that exhibit a high level of demand for bicycling and/or walking. ■ Ease of implementation. Locations where opportunities exist to develop bicycle and pedestrian facilities at low cost, such as through roadway improvement projects that are already scheduled. ■ Key destinations. Projects that would create access to key destinations by bike or on foot. ■ Public support. Projects that have received a high level of public and political support. A major consideration for these proposed improvements wilt be if they can be undertaken when another project affecting the street right-of-way occurs. Issues of safety, convenience, and ease of implementation also will affect the priority list. Task 4.2 — Design Recommendations By wisely planning street improvements and having adopted standards for bicycle and pedestrian accommodation, streets in Winchester and Frederick County will be able to serve pedestrians and bicyclists as well as motorists. TDG will recommend facility types for proposed bicycle network links, and will provide a list of design treatments that are needed to improve pedestrian conditions in situations common in the MPO area. If budgetary constraints allow, TDG may provide design solutions for two key locations in need of pedestrian improvement. TDG will not prepare construction documents. Toole Design Group has recently prepared pedestrian and bicycle facility design guidelines for local and state agencies, therefore this task will benefit from previously prepared drawings and details that can be "tweaked" to meet the needs and standard practices in Virginia. The goal will be to have a set of effective bicycle and pedestrian facility design guidelines that Winchester and Frederick County can use as a standard for all roadway and development projects. The TDG team will offer general recommendations for a signage system for the Winchester - Frederick County area to make the route network and other bicycle and pedestrian facilities easy to find and use. A well-designed signage system will also increase the safety of riders and other users of the on and off road pathways. Other bicycle facilities may be investigated and recommended as needed to encourage cycling in the area. These may include bicycle parking, a maintenance schedule and a strategy for enhancing the bicycle -transit interface using amenities such as bike -on - bus. Task 4.3 — Ordinance Review For successful plan implementation, it is imperative that local policies and ordinances allow for, encourage, and where appropriate require bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The TDG team will conduct a general review of adopted local policies and codes that either support or hinder bicycling and walking in Winchester and Frederick County. During this task, TDG will conduct a meeting with key staff from the WinFred MPO and VDOT. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss current practices and decision-making processes with regards to bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and to discuss the types of changes that may be needed to existing policies. This conversation will also address how to incorporate the recommendations that will emerge at the end of the planning process in future transportation decisions. Task 4.4 —Steering Committee Meeting #3 WinFred MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan 7 The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss project prioritization and anticipated challenges regarding implementation. The results of this meeting will be integrated into the implementation schedule and action plan of the final draft report. This meeting can also be used to plan for a potential meeting with VDOT as described above. Task 4.5 Cost Analysis Costs for typical network links developed in Task 3 will be estimated. The project cost estimates will be integrated into the prioritization plan. Task 4 TDG Deliverables: ■ Project prioritization schedule including cost estimate and responsible agencies and stakeholders ■ Design recommendations and ordinance review will be incorporated into the draft plan report (see Task 5) Task 4 Client Deliverable: ■ All WinFred MPO bicycle and pedestrian -related policy, ordinance, code and standard documents Task 4 Meetings: ■ Steering Committee Meeting #3 (conference) ■ TDG and MPO staff meeting with VDOT (tentative) TASK 5: DRAFT REPORT The final report for the project will pull together all previous deliverables generated in Parts 1 through 4. This final report should take a different format and will not repeat information and background found in the other bicycle plans completed in the MPO area. This plan will be a handbook, a technical document that outlines critical information from this and previous planning efforts and most importantly sets forth future action. It will be concise, contain maps, tables and lists so that critical information can be gleaned quickly and easily. The document will include an Action Plan which will outline activities for each year for the first 3 years following the plan's adoption. It will identify, where possible the roles, and responsibilities of agencies and stakeholders in implementing the plan's recommendations. This action plan will provide the WinFred MPO with concrete steps to insure progress is made toward building a connected bicycle and pedestrian network. Task 5.1 — Draft Plan Development The Toole Design Group team will prepare two versions of the final plan: 1) a draft plan for comment and 2) a final plan. The draft plan will be presented to the client, Steering Committee, and Stakeholder's Committee several weeks prior to work session #3. Task 5.2 Steering and Stakeholder's Committees Meeting #4 The purpose of this last work session will be to receive feedback on the draft plan and discuss any additions or corrections. Task 5.3 — Public Meeting WinFred MPO staff will hold a public meeting to present the draft plan. Comments received during this meeting will be forwarded to TDG and included in the final plan. Task 5 TDG Deliverables: WinFred MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan ■ Draft Plan for comment (up to 10 copies, black and white) Task 5 Client Deliverables: Comments on draft plan ■ Logistics of Steering and Stakeholder's Committee Meeting ■ Public Meeting facilitation and summary of comments Task 5 Meetings: ■ Steering and Stakeholder's Committee Meeting #4 TASK 6: FINAL BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MOBILITY PLAN Task 6.1 — Revisions to the Draft Plan The draft plan will be revised based on comments by the client, both committees and the public to produce the final Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan. Task 6.2 — Final Plan The TDG team will present the final plan for approval to the WinFred MPO. The final report will be in color and bound in 8 ''/z" by 11 " format. Photographs and up to five 11 "x 17" maps will be included to illustrate text in the report. Five copies will be provided to the client, along with digital versions as PDF and Microsoft Word files. A large format (34" x 44") of the route network will be provided. Task 6 TDG Deliverables: • Final plan (15 printed copies in full color and one large format map; original and pdf print -ready digital files on cd) TASK 7: CASE STUDIES In consultation with the client, Toole Design Group will select a set of case studies in the WinFred MPO study area to conduct additional analysis. The case studies would represent different geographic areas and represent a range of project types and locations. Each case study will include a description of the location and an assessment of bicycle and pedestrian need. Recommendations will be made for design solutions to improve the bicycle and pedestrian facilities and preliminary cost estimates will be prepared. The form of the case studies will vary as necessary -- some may consist of written memorandums supplemented with photos and cross sections while others may consist of more detailed concept level layout plans. The precise scope, locations, nature, and level of complexity required are unknown at this time; therefore the budget for this item will be separated into task orders. Each task order will be negotiated separately. It is anticipated that 3-7 case studies may be completed under the budget. Some may begin at the time the project commences while others may begin later during the project. WinFred MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan Project Schedule for the WinFred MPO Bicycle tt Pedestrian Mobility Plan _ _ May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-D6 Task 1: Project Kickoff and Coordination Dec O6 Jan-( - ------ _ _ _ - --- 1.1 Project start up — 1.2 Steering Committee formation -- — ---- - -�- -- -- __ _ 1.3 Project Kick-off. Steering Committee Meeting #1 ---- -- j' j -- -- -- -- --- - - -- 1.4 Form Stakeholders Committee - -- - - - ---- --____ Task 2: Existing and planned route analysis - - - — - 2.1 Examine existing bicycle/pedestrian routes and corridors - - — -- -- - 2.2 Preliminary Bicycle Analysis Map - - ----- ----- -- -- --_-_ _- _ 2 3 Steering and Stakeholder's Committee Meeting #2 L -- - -- --- _ - 2.4 Suitability analysis - ---- — -- --- --- �_ -.-- -- - _- -- - 2.5 Identify key destinations------------ 2.61 estinations---2.61 Identify locations for pedestrian retrofit 2.71Public Participation: Online Questionnaire - ---- { - -- -- -- 2.8 V1PMeetingSeries ----- - ---- -- - li _-_.._-a ------------- 3. Task 3: Development of Route Network and Pedestrian Priorities --- --- 1 Enhance planned network and create linkages .2 Enhance pedestrian facilities - -- -- 3.3 Public Meeting #f - ---- -- ---- - — - -- - 1- - - _._� Task 4: Implementation Plan --- - -- -- - --- -- - - - - - - — - _- - 4.1 Project Prioritization ---- 4.2 Design Recommendations - ------ -------- - -- -- 4.3 Ordinance Review------- 4.4 Steering Committee Meetin #3 con erence ---- '----- - 4.5 Cost Analysis -- ---- ------------- -- - - ---- ---- - -- - .ask 5: Draft Report - — - - - - 5.1 Draft plan development -------- 5.2 Steering and Stakeholder's Committees Meeting #4 5.3 Public Meeting #2 - -.-- --- - - - -- --- ---- - -- -- _ -I Task 6: Final Plan --- — — -- - -- --- ----- -- -- --- -- — -- - -- 6.1 Revisions to the draft plan------- 6.2 Final Plan -- -- ---------- --- -- -- Task 7: Case Studies -- -- --- --- -- -- -- -- - - -- - - - -- -- * indicates meeting Memo To: Steve Kerr From: Jennifer Hefferan CC: Meeting Attendees Date: May 9, 2006 Re: Kick-off meeting for the WinFred MPO Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility Plan A kickoff meeting was held in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room at the Frederick County Offices on May 8, 2006 for the WinFred MPO Bicycle ft Pedestrian Mobility Plan. Attendees: Jennifer Toole Toole Design Group Jennifer Hefferan Toole Design Group Bob Morris Frederick County Planning Commission Scott Alexander VDOT Edinburg Mike Ruddy Frederick County Planning Beth Costa James Wood High School Amanda Spore James Wood High School Hunter Loving James Wood High School Bethany Hott James Wood High School Ursula Lemanski NPS RTCA John Bishop Frederick County Planning Jim Lawrence Winchester Green Circle, Redbud Run Greenway Steve Kerr NSVRC Tim Youmans City of Winchester Planning 301-927-1900 itoole(c�tooledesign.com 301-927-1900 Lhefferan(q)_tooledesign.com 540-869-1435 rmorris(o)shentel.net 540-944-5605 scoff. alexanderQ_vdot. virgin ia. gov 540-665-5651 mruddv(a-)-co.frederick.va.us 540-877-9713 aegirl 23a_hotmail.com 540-877-1251 spore54(a-)hotmail.com 540-662-1715 huntr2006tc7i�gmail. com 540-327-7812 bethh87(c)_aol.com 703-431-7728 ursula.lemanski(cDnps.gov 540-665-5651 ibishop(cb-co.frederick.va.us 540-667-0761 •iml crosslink.net 540-636-8800 skerr(a)-shentel.net 540-667-1815 Noumans@ci.winchester.va.us Meeting Summary: Steve Kerr commenced the meeting and introductions were made. Jennifer Toole spoke briefly about the project and explained that the intent of the meeting was to go over the scope of work and project schedule, discuss data collection needs, and learn about relevant local issues and the politics behind what will be necessary to "sell" the final plan. John Bishop then introduced four students from the Service -Learning class at James Wood High School. The students described their work conducting pedestrian and bicycle surveys of students at local elementary, middle, and high schools and explained that they would be making their work available as background data for the project. Jennifer Hefferan provided an overview of the project scope and schedule and discussion ensued. Key points and decisions were made and these are summarized below: Plan Objectives • Present recommendations to meet a diverse cross section of interests, rather than cater to the needs of only one particular group Find ways to be inclusive, not polarizing rl. �a;J aE��:•i Y�4 s..su pFy•�; �., •` e� N"a,!'!r ��'lf V��ri�.k. .. � � � ,� • Provide opportunities for implementation • Find ways to tie the County and the City together • Develop a plan that has power—change policies and codes, don't just make recommendations Scope of Work • A community "drive -though" is desired to allow members of the community to point out existing routes, gaps in pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and other needs • Where possible, piggyback on other planned events and programs such as Safe Routes to School, Bicycle Rodeos, Neighborhood bicycle rides, and the Fall Fitness Fair • Design guidance is needed for developers so that they will provide well-designed street intersections, sidewalk networks, and bicycle facilities • Design recommendations should provide standardized treatments, for example, particular treatments for certain roadway classifications Project Schedule • A online questionnaire will be used in place of the first public workshop (Task 2.7) • The online questionnaire will go live in June and will stay online for a minimum of 6 weeks • A public workshop will be held in September (Task 3.3) • Organize a community "drive-through" to happen concurrent with the July meeting Project Coordination • It is recommended that monthly updates be sent to localities, the Board of Supervisors, TAC, Council, etc. • Plan recommendations will be shown to the localities before approval is sought from the Board of Supervisors Case Studies Integration between the City of Winchester and Frederick County • Treat case studies as learning examples • The Valley Avenue project is a potential case study • A City of Winchester school could run a Safe Routes to School Pilot program as a model for schools in Frederick County Other Relevant Projects • Frederick County's work with UDA, planning community centers • Shenandoah University • Green Circle Trail City of Winchester Issues • The City of Winchester has its own engineering standards for local streets and does not follow VDOT standards • The City of Winchester includes funding for maintenance in the general annual maintenance budget • Sidewalk maintenance in the City of Winchester is the responsibility of adjacent property owners Action Items and Responsible Parties • Ask for concurrence from the Policy Committee on the makeup of the steering and stakeholders committees (Steve Kerr) • Prepare draft vision statement (Jennifer Hefferan) • Submit comments on draft vision statement (All Meeting Attendees) • Revise project schedule, including timeframe for Stakeholders meetings (Jennifer Hefferan) • Prepare draft list of potential members of Stakeholders Committee (Jennifer Hefferan) • Add suggestions to draft stakeholders list (All Meeting Attendees) • Prepare organization chart for project (Jennifer Hefferan with help from Steve Kerr) 0 Page 2 • Prepare draft of online questionnaire (Jennifer Hefferan) • Prepare and distribute a flyer/brochure advertising the online survey (John Bishop) • Set date for the next meeting (Steve Kerr, Jennifer Hefferan) • Prepare and distribute monthly updates to localities, the Board of Supervisors, TAC, Council, etc. (Steve Kerr?) • Prepare and update a website to keep the public informed of Plan progress (Steve Kerr?) • Provide TDG with information on land proffered for trails, relevant developer commitments, etc (City and County staff) There being no further discussion the meeting was adjourned. 0 Page 3 ITEM #4 Information on Enhancement Grants Each year VDOT and the Commonwealth Transportation Board award a number of Transportation Enhancement Grants. These grants are targeted toward the implementation of bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the community. Attached please find information on the program. As we move closer to application time, Staff will be bringing more information on the program and potential projects. Interested non -profits may also apply, but are required to "partner" with a local government to sponsor their project and guide them through the project development process. The maximum request for federal assistance should not exceed $1 million per application. Prior to applying, the locality must hold a public hearing and pass a resolution in support of the project including the 20% local match requirement. Proposed projects in a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) area will also require an endorsement from the appropriate MPO. Please contact your local MPO to determine its involvement. A listing of these agencies is located on VDOT's Web site. Scoring and Selection Process Applications are scored and ranked based on criteria developed by VDOT and approved by the Commonwealth Transportation ` Board (CTB). Scoring criteria include: demonstrated need, benefit, support 4 facilities, educational and historic value, and resources available to the project. For projects that have already received federal Transportation Enhancement funds, the project is also evaluated I based on the progress it has made through the development and/or construction of prior phases. 'roject selections are made by the -ommonwealth Transportation Board ind approved in conjunction with the )epartment's Six -Year Improvement 'rogram. The maximum federal award or a project will not exceed $1 million ler application cycle. or Further Information For more information about the program or public workshop dates, please visit us at VirginiaDOT.org or write to us at: Virginia Department of Transportation Local Assistance Division 1401 E. Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219 To speak to someone regarding this program, please call our toll-free number at 1-800-444-7832 (TTY users only, call 711). 4 i IriNrriiiw TRANSPORTATION © 2006 Commonwealth of Virginia, 15m/April 2006/jobO6045 Front cover: Richmond Canal Walk Virginia"s Transportation Enhancement Program The federal Transportation Enhancement program was forst established by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) enacted by Congress in 1991. The legislation required each :state to set aside 10% of its Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds for enhancement activities. The legislation established 12 eligible activities meant to improve non -motorized transportation, enhance the public's traveling experience, revitalize communities and improve the quality of life. These federal funds cannot be used for roadway improvements or traditional highway projects. The Transportation Enhancement program is a reimbursement program administered by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). It requires adherence to all state and federal regulations including the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design standards and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines. The program provides reimbursement up to a maximum 80% of the eligible project costs and requires a minimum 20% local match. The match can be provided for in cash, land value, donations, and volunteer labor. Radford Pathways Trail Eligibility Requirements To qualify for federal Transportation Enhancement funds a project must have a relationship to surface transportation and must qualify under one or more of the 12 eligible Enhancement activities. u4ateOrsS6;ir, trr, Ciir;'ace .w Transportation The relationship to transportation may be one of function — when the proposed improvement actually functions as a transportation facility such as a sidewalk, trail, or transportation museum. Restoration of historic transportation facilities such as bridges, canals, lighthouses, train stations, and historic inns and taverns qualify by their past transportation use, even if a more contemporary use is planned for the future. A project may also establish a relationship to transportation by mitigating the impact of the existing transportation system — this might be development of a rain garden to mitigate the effects of highway run-off into a stream or river. Another example might be the recording and display of artifacts from archaeological sites impacted by the construction of a modern roadway. Although tougher to establish, a relationship may also be one of proximity — for example, the removal of non -conforming billboards from within the highway viewshed. Each application must clearly demonstrate a relationship to surface transportation in order to meet the basic federal eligibility require- ments. After establishing this relationship, the proposed improvements must then qualify as one of the following 12 eligible activities. Eligibie Enhancement Activities • Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities • Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Education • Acquisition of Scenic or Historic Easements and Sites, including Historic Battlefields • Scenic or Historic Highway Programs, including Tourist and Welcome Centers • Landscaping and Scenic Beautification • Historic Preservation • Rehabilitation and Operation of Historic Transportation Buildings, Structures, or Facilities • Preservation of Abandoned Railway Corridors and Conversion to Trails • Inventory, Control, and Removal of Outdoor Advertising • Archaeological Planning and Research • Environmental Mitigation of Runoff Pollution and Provision of Wildlife Connectivity • Establishment of Transportation Museums Application Process The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) takes applications for the federal Transportation Enhancement program annually. The program is available to all federal, state, and local government agencies. FY2007 Enhancement Application Scoring Shee# \ For applications submitted by Nov 1, 2006 NEW PROJECTS Application Number: Project Name: _A Demonstr ted Need Points Score 1 Evidence df other revitalization/improvement efforts underway or planned 3 2 Documentation or photos of existing deficiencies 1 3 Provided evidence of economic, safety, or transportation need 3 4 Current facilities are inadequate (lack of space, public facilities, lacks ADA, etc) 1 5 Safety improvement by separating various modes of transportation 5 6 Construction of new bicycle/pedestrian facilities 5 7 Evidence provided of scenic/historic preservation need 3 8 Mitigation of highway run-off and/or landscaping 1 B Proiect Usefulnes's/Benefit Points Score 1 Project will function as a regional visitor center or transportation museum 3 2 Community support well documented 1 3 Provides new connections to existing trails/sidewalks/transit and/or public facilities 5 4 Project will increase tourism by being a primary destination 0 - 5 5 Project will invite community usage with maximum public access 1 6 Project will have positive economic impact on community 0 - 5 7 Project will provide an environmental air quality benefit by reducing motorized traffic 5 8 Application provides proof that project has/or will have extensive public use 0 -3 9 1 Rehabilitates or enhances existing bicycle/pedestrian facilities 5 C Amenities / Support Facilities Points Score 1 Support facilities (restrooms, parking, bike racks) available or included in the proposal 0 - 5 2 ADA access and/or improvements included 1 3 Multiple modes of access (road, bike trail, public transit, etc.) available or proposed 1 4 Safety considerations a part of the project (streetlights, pedestrian crosswalks, fencing, etc.) 3 D Educational/Historical Value Points Score 1 Interpretation and/or distribution of information planned (kiosk, brochures, maps, tours) 3 2 Historic significance of the site is adequately explained 1 3 Purchase of a scenic or historic site 1 4 Site has scenic/historic significance 0 - 5 5 Site is on or eligible for the National Register 1 6 Facility will serve as a transportation museum 1 7 Project is located within/or will enhance appearance of historic site/district 3 8 Benefit for school children 1 9 Restoration of historic transportation facility (including rail -to -trail conversions) 3 E I Project Resources Points Score 1 1 Financial support has been secured 0 - 5 2 Project cost estimate responsibly prepared 1 3 Conceptual drawings included in proposal; preliminary engineering begun or underway 0 - 3 4 Required property secured or existing RW 1 5 Evidence of strong community involvement (fund raisers, volunteers, etc.) 1 6 This request will fully fund phase / project 0 -5 Total FY2007 Enhancement Application Scoring Sheet For applications submitted by November 1, 2006 EXISTING PROJECTS Application Number: Project Name: _A Demonstrated Need IPoints Score 1 Construction of new bicycle/pedestrian facilities 15 2 Documented safety, ADA, or transportation need 1 0 - 5 3 Documented economic need 0 - 3 4 Existing funding is not adequate to complete the phase/project 3 5 Documented scenic/historic preservation need 3 6 Safety improvement by separating various modes of traffic 3 B JProject Usefullness/Benefit I I Points Score 1 1 Project will function as a regional visitor center or transportation museum 3 2 1 Provides new connections to existing trails/sidewalks/transit and/or public facilities 3 3 Project will have positive economic impact on community 0 - 5 4 Application provides proof that project has/or will have extensive public use 0 - 5 5 Project rehabilitates or enhances existing bicycle/pedestrian facilities 3 6 Project will increase tourism by being a primary destination 0 -5 7 Project will provide an environmental air quality benefit by reducing motorized traffic 3 Amenities / Support Facilities Points Support facilities (restrooms, parking, ADA) available or included in the proposal 0 - 5 Safety considerations a part of the project (streetlights, crosswalks, fencing) 0 - 3 D Educational/Historical ValueI Points Score 1 Interpretation and/or distribution of information planned (kiosk, maps, brochures, tours) I 1 2 Site has scenic/historic significance 1 0.5 3 Project is located within or will enhance appearance of historic site/district 3 4 Restoration of historic transportation facility (including rail -to -trail conversions) 3 E I Project Resources 1points I Score 1 1 Financial support has been secured 0-5 2 1 Project cost estimate responsibly prepared 3 3 1 Previous phase under construction or complete 5 4 JPreliminary engineering is underway/complete 0 - 5 5 Required property secured or existing RW 5 6 Evidence of strong community involvement (fund raisers, volunteers, etc.) 0 - 3 7 This request will fully fund phase / project 0 -5 Total �� ITEM #5 Information on the Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund Mr. Charles Massie of VDOT will be present to brief the Committee on the Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund and its uses. Attached please find the VDOT information booklet on this program. The Commonwealth of Virginia The Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund Guidelines and Criteria September 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction........................................................................................Page 1 TheAct...............................................................................................Page 1 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund Administration .......... Page 1 EligibleApplicants.............................................................................Page 2 Eligible Projects.................................................................................Page 2 ProjectOwnership..............................................................................Page 3 Application Process...........................................................................Page 3 Minimum Eligibility Requirements .......................................Page 3 Application Evaluation Criteria .........................................................Page 4 Transportation Evaluation Criteria ........................................Page 4 Economic Development Criteria............................................Page 4 Advisory Panel Notification..............................................................Page 5 Financing Commitment.....................................................................Page 5 Economic Development Transportation Projects ..............................Page 5 Loan Closing/Grant Award................................................................Page 6 Disbursement Process........................................................................Page 6 Loan Term/Repayment......................................................................Page 6 Recipient Reporting Requirements ....................................................Page 6 Appendix A: Chapter 847 of the 2005 Acts of Assembly Appendix B: Assistance Application Appendix C: Virginia Economic Development Partnership — Draft Performance Agreement Appendix D: The Governor's Opportunity Fund Guidelines i Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund Introduction Chapter 847 of the 2005 Acts of Assembly (the "Act") is the legal framework creating the Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund ("TPOF" or the "Fund"). The Fund is to be used by the Governor to encourage the development of transportation projects through the design -build provisions of § 33.1-12(2)(b) of the Code of Virginia (the "Code") and pursuant to the Public -Private Transportation Act of 1995 (§ 56-556 et seq. of the Code) (the "PPTA"). The Governor may also use the Fund to provide monies to address the transportation aspects of economic development opportunities. The Act The Act authorizes monies to be awarded from the Fund by the Governor as grants, revolving loans, or other financial tools and equity contributions to an agency or political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia or to a private entity or operator that has submitted a proposal or that has signed a comprehensive agreement to develop a transportation facility pursuant to applicable provisions of the Code. It is the intent of the Act to encourage the development of transportation projects through design -build and the PPTA and to provide funds to address the transportation aspects of economic development opportunities, including, but not limited to, the creation of jobs and to promote private investment for economic development projects that may result in the availability of the facilities in a more timely or less costly fashion. The following guidelines and criteria have been developed by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (the "CTB"), in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Commerce and Trade to guide the process of applying for and receiving financial assistance from the Fund. The complete text of the Act has been included as Appendix A to these guidelines. Although guidance is provided herein with regard to application of the Act, it will be incumbent upon all entities, both public and private, to read the Act in its entirety, and to comply with the provisions of the Act. Transportation Partnership Opportunitv Fund Administration Monies in the Fund will be awarded by the Governor in the form of grants, revolving loans or other financing tools and equity contributions. Loans from the Fund of up to $30 million will be interest-free. Loan terms will vary but shall not exceed seven years. The Act also authorizes the Governor to award grants of up to $5 million. Assistance or commitments from the Fund will be limited to the total value of money that is available in the Fund. The Fund has been created with an initial capitalization of $50 million. Repayments to the Fund of loans, any revocation of assistance provided to Guidelines and Criteria Page 1 September 2005 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund entities that fail to meet performance criteria, any interest and dividends earned on the Fund and any other appropriations may be used for additional loans or grants for other projects. After award by the Governor, the Fund will be administered by the CTB acting through the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT"), in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce and Trade and the Virginia Economic Development Partnership. VDOT will manage the overall administration of the TPOF, with the Secretary of Commerce and Trade and the Virginia Economic Development Partnership providing guidance with respect to the economic development features of the program. Eligible Applicants Financial assistance from the Fund may be awarded to any agency or political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia. In addition, a private entity or operator, as defined in § 56-556 et seq. of the Code, which has submitted a proposal or that has executed a comprehensive agreement to develop a transportation facility pursuant to the PPTA is eligible to apply for financial assistance. Eligible Proiects The financial assistance may be used for transportation capacity development, on and off site; road, rail, mass transit or other transportation access costs beyond the funding capability of existing programs; studies of transportation projects including but not limited to environmental analysis, geotechnical assessment, survey, design and engineering, advance right-of-way acquisition, traffic analysis, toll sensitivity studies, financial analysis, or any other transportation development activity permitted by law. Monies may be used for any mode of transportation project or any mode of transportation facility that may be developed pursuant to § 33.1-12(2)(b) of the Code, the PPTA, Title 33.1 of the Code or other applicable federal, state or local law. Transportation aspects of economic development projects that are also eligible for funding through the Revenue Sharing Program, the Industrial Road Access Program, the Industrial Rail Access Program, the Rail Preservation Program or the Rail Enhancement Program, may be eligible to receive financial assistance from the Fund. However, it must be demonstrated that such additional funding is necessary. Amounts received from these other funding sources, or used to leverage additional monies from the Fund, may not also be used for the required non -state match. Monies from the Fund are not to be used to supplant existing or programmed funds from other existing public sources, but are to be used to support projects and activities beyond the funding capability of existing programs. Guidelines and Criteria Page 2 September 2005 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund Monies from the Fund that are to be used for transportation aspects of an economic development project must meet the economic development criteria of the Governor's Opportunity Fund. Funds used to match the Governor's Opportunity Fund cannot be used to match the TPOF, although both sources of monies can be used for a project. Funds from the Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission may be allowed as matching funds for this purpose. Project Ownership Projects that are developed with monies from the Fund shall not become private property and shall be maintained by the appropriate entity pursuant to applicable agreements following completion. Any reports, studies, analysis, and other forms of intellectual property created or developed using monies from the Fund shall become property of the Commonwealth. Application Process VDOT, in cooperation with the Secretary of Commerce and Trade and the Virginia Economic Development Partnership, will accept applications from eligible applicants for consideration. Agencies and political subdivisions of the state may apply at any time. Private entities, on behalf of a specific transportation project may apply on or after the date a proposal is received pursuant to the PPTA process. A copy of the application is provided as Appendix B. All applications for assistance from the Fund shall be sent to VDOT's Chief Financial Officer (the "CFO") and addressed as follows: Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund Attn: Chief Financial Officer Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219-2000 All applications will be reviewed to determine that the minimum eligibility requirements have been satisfied. The minimum eligibility requirements are as follows: Minimum Eligibility Requirements The applicant is an agency or political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or a private entity applicant with (i) a PPTA proposal that has been submitted or (ii) a comprehensive agreement that has been signed under the PPTA. The project addresses the needs identified in the appropriate state, regional or local transportation plan. The project either meets the design -build and/or PPTA requirements, or meets the economic development criteria of the Governor's Opportunity Fund. Guidelines and Criteria Page 3 September 2005 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund Following an applicant's selection for evaluation, meetings may be conducted with the applicant. The purpose of the meetings will be to review and confirm the information contained in the application. Representatives of the applicant, VDOT staff and staff from the applicable modal oversight agency and the Virginia Economic Development Partnership staff, as appropriate, shall participate in the meetings. Application Evaluation Criteria Following receipt of the applications and a review by staff to assure the basic statutory requirements have been met, a TPOF Advisory Panel, consisting of VDOT's Chief Financial Officer, an Executive Officer of the applicable modal oversight agency, a Deputy Secretary of Transportation and a Deputy Secretary of Commerce and Trade, will evaluate those applications to ensure that the applicant(s) meets the transportation and economic development evaluation criteria. Applicants meeting the evaluation criteria become eligible to receive assistance, subject to the availability of funding. In circumstances where the total amount of assistance requested exceeds the total amount of funding available, eligible applications that include applicant matching funds or equity contributions and projects that are in an advanced state of readiness -to -proceed, will receive priority consideration for assistance. Transportation Evaluation Criteria • Financial feasibility of the project plan of finance, including the capacity to repay any loan and mitigate major risks. • The extent to which the project would encourage or include public-private partnerships and attract private debt, equity investment, and/or dedicated revenue sources such as tolls or special taxation revenue or funds from any other local, federal or private source. • Extent to which funding would advance the project's or facility's schedule to an earlier completion date. • The entity's experience implementing similar projects, including the use of new technologies. • Comparative benefits resulting from the development of the proposed transportation project or facility. Economic Development Evaluation Criteria • Project must meet minimum criteria established in the Governor's Opportunity Fund Guidelines. Guidelines and Criteria Page 4 September 2005 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund Advisory Panel Notification Following evaluation by the TPOF Advisory Panel, the VDOT Chief Financial Officer shall provide findings and recommendations of the Panel to the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Commerce and Trade and the applicable modal oversight board and agencies. Financing Commitment Following notification by the TPOF Advisory Panel, the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Commerce and Trade will submit to the Governor a recommendation of funding for the successful applicants. Once assistance from the Fund is approved and awarded by the Governor, a written commitment (the "Financing Commitment") will be provided to the potential recipient. The commitment will outline the type of assistance to be provided and in the case of a loan, the required security provisions, the loan term and payment provisions, the amount of assistance to be provided and any conditions that must be met by the applicant prior to loan closing or grant award. The commitment must be accepted and signed by the potential recipient and returned to VDOT within thirty (30) days of the commitment date to preserve the funding. The Financing Commitment, once executed, establishes a legal obligation for the funding subject to appropriation and the terms and conditions of the Financing Commitment, as well as the recipient' s legal obligation to perform. Economic Development Transportation Projects For transportation projects associated with economic development opportunities, a performance agreement shall be executed between the Secretary of Commerce and Trade and the appropriate local government, state agency, political subdivision, or public body corporate and politic and the private entity that receives the principal benefit of financing from the Fund before disbursement of any monies. The performance agreement will include a statement that the recipient will reach the specified job creation and capital investment levels within 30 months after disbursement of funds and maintain those levels at least throughout the 30 -month period or until the Commonwealth reaches its "break even" point as established by the return on investment as prepared by the Virginia Economic Development Partnership, whichever is later. If those performance criteria are not met, the private entity shall repay to the Fund, an amount as required by the terms and conditions of the performance agreement. The CTB may, however, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Commerce and Trade, grant a partial or total waiver to the repayment or extend the performance period if it can be demonstrated that the transportation improvements developed with monies from the Fund had other economic benefits to a locality of the Commonwealth beyond that directly attributable to the private entity which was the basis for an application for monies from the Fund. Guidelines and Criteria Page 5 September 2005 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund Loan Closing/Grant Award/Financing Agreement Any conditions or prerequisites to receiving the assistance that are outlined in the Financing Commitment must be met prior to execution of the Financing Agreement. VDOT and the applicant will enter into a financing agreement for the funds. The Financing Agreement will include the security provisions for the assistance, repayment terms along with the amortization schedule, representations and warranties, finance plan requirements, borrower covenants, disbursement requirements, monitoring and reporting requirements and will specify any other terms and conditions for the financial assistance. Disbursement Process Disbursement of the financial assistance can begin following execution of a Financing Agreement. Assistance from the Fund may be paid to the recipient based on costs incurred for the project. In some instances, disbursement may be allowed on a lump sum basis, subject to sufficient justification, where a portion, up to the maximum amount of assistance approved, could be disbursed at a single time. Recipients will submit a disbursement request to VDOT. VDOT will review the request for completeness and if acceptable approve the request for disbursement. VDOT will notify the recipient within 30 -days of any deficiencies in any disbursement request. Upon receipt of an approved disbursement request, VDOT will then forward the request to the Virginia Department of the Treasury (the "Treasury") for payment. Loan Term/Repayment Loans from the Fund will have their term set by the Governor. Terms and repayment provisions will vary depending on the type of project and the availability of revenues or other funds. All loans must be repaid within 7 years of the date of loan closing. The frequency of payments of principal will vary according to the recipient and will be established as a part of the loan closing process. Loan recipients will make their payments to the Treasury. VDOT will be responsible for monitoring and ensuring repayment of the loans. Recipient Reporting Requirements Recipients of TPOF assistance will be required to provide VDOT and the Secretary of Commerce and Trade with various reports, certificates and documents during the project development phase as well as throughout the life of any loan. Submittals of annual audited and interim, unaudited financial statements, approved budgets and use of funds reporting will be required as a condition of accepting assistance from the Fund. In addition, the recipient shall provide disclosure of any material events that could affect its Guidelines and Criteria Page 6 September 2005 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund ability to complete and, if applicable, operate the project. Other special reporting requirements may be required on a case-by-case basis. All reporting requirements will be included in the financing agreement. Recipient reports will be due April 1 and October 1 during the term of any outstanding loan or, for grant recipients, until completion of the assisted project. VDOT shall seek to minimize reporting requirements for smaller grants and loans. Guidelines and Criteria Page 7 September 2005 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund Appendix A Chapter 847 of the 2005 Acts of Assembly CHAPTER 847 An Act to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 33.1-221.1:8, relating to the Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund. [H 2793] Approved March 26, 2005 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: 1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 33.1-221.1:8 as follows: § 33.1-221.1:8. Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund. A. There is created the Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund (the Fund) to be used by the Governor to encourage the development of transportation projects through design -build pursuant to § 33.1-12 (2)(b), the Public -Private Transportation Act (§ 56- 556 et seq.) and to provide funds to address the transportation aspects of economic development opportunities. The Fund shall consist of any funds appropriated to it by the general appropriation act and revenue from any other source, public or private. The Fund shall be established on the books of the Comptroller, and any funds remaining in the Fund at the end of a biennium shall not revert to the general fund but shall remain in the Fund. All interest and dividends that are earned on the Fund shall be credited to the Fund. The Governor shall report to the chairmen of the House Committees on Appropriations, Finance, and Transportation and the Senate Committees on Finance and Transportation as funds are awarded in accordance with this section. B. The Fund shall be a component of the Commonwealth Transportation Fund but not a component or subcomponent of the Transportation Trust Fund or the Highway Maintenance and Operating Fund. Provisions of this title and Title 58.1 relating to the allocations or disbursals of proceeds of the Commonwealth Transportation Fund, the Transportation Trust Fund, or the Highway Maintenance and Operating Fund shall not apply to the Fund. C. Funds shall be awarded from the Fund by the Governor as grants, revolving loans, or other financing tools and equity contributions to (i) an agency or political subdivision of the Commonwealth or (ii) a private entity or operator which has submitted a proposal or signed a comprehensive agreement to develop a transportation facility pursuant to § 56- 556 et seq. Loans shall be approved by the Governor and made in accordance with procedures established by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and approved by the Comptroller. Loans shall be interest free and shall be repaid to the Fund. The Governor may establish the duration of any loan, but such term shall not exceed seven years. The Guidelines and Criteria September 2005 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund Virginia Department of Transportation shall be responsible for monitoring repayment of such loans and reporting the receivables to the Comptroller as required. D. Grants or revolving loans may be used for transportation capacity development on and offsite; road, rail, mass transit, or other transportation access costs beyond the funding capability of existing programs; studies of transportation projects including but not limited to environmental analysis, geotechnical assessment, survey, design and engineering, advance right-of-way acquisition, traffic analysis, toll sensitivity studies, financial analysis, or anything else permitted by law. Funds may be used for any transportation project or any transportation facility. Any transportation infrastructure completed with moneys from the Fund shall not become private property, and the results of any studies or analysis completed as a result of a grant or loan from the Fund shall be property of the Commonwealth. E. The Commonwealth Transportation Board, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Commerce and Trade, shall develop guidelines and criteria that shall be used in awarding grants or making loans from the Fund; however, no grant shall exceed $5 million and no loan shall exceed $30 million. No grant or loan shall be awarded until the Governor has provided copies of the guidelines and criteria to the chairmen of the House Committees on Appropriations, Finance, and Transportation and the Senate Committees on Finance and Transportation. The guidelines and criteria shall include provisions including, but not limited to, the number of jobs and amounts of investment that must be committed in the event moneys are being used for an economic development project, a statement of how the studies and analysis to be completed using moneys from the Fund will advance the development of a transportation facility, a process for the application for and review of grant and loan requests, a timeframe for completion of any work, the comparative benefit resulting from the development of a transportation project, assessment of the ability of the recipient to repay any loan funds, and other criteria as necessary to support the timely development of transportation projects. The criteria shall also include incentives to encourage matching funds from any other local, federal, or private source. F. Within 30 days of each six-month period ending June 30 and December 31, the Governor shall provide a report to the chairmen of the House Committees on Appropriations, Finance and Transportation and the Senate Committees on Finance and Transportation which shall include, but is not limited to, the following information: the location (county, city, or town) of the project; the amount of the grant or loan made or committed from the Fund and the purpose for which it will be used; the number of jobs created or projected to be created and the amount of a company's investment in the Commonwealth if the project is part of an economic development opportunity. G. The Governor shall provide grants and commitments from the Fund in an amount not to exceed the total value of the moneys contained in the Fund. If the Governor commits funds for years beyond the fiscal years covered under the existing appropriation act, the State Treasurer shall set aside and reserve the funds the Governor has committed, and the finds set as.de and VOVOYnd Shall re.isaiic in the 1 Hied jVi" those fGtilure flsLUl years. lvv Guidelines and Criteria September 2005 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund grant or loan shall be payable in the years beyond the existing appropriation act unless the funds are currently available in the Fund. 2. That it is the intent of the General Assembly that the Governor and the chairs of the Transportation Committees of the Senate and House of Delegates, or their respective designees, will facilitate the development of model guidelines to assist in the implementation of this act, that public entities and private sector businesses will be consulted in the development of such guidelines, and that such model guidelines will be completed and made available to public entities covered by this act not later than September 30, 2005. Guidelines and Criteria September 2005 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund Appendix B The Commonwealth of Virginia The Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund Assistance Application September 2005 Guidelines and Criteria September 2005 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA All applicants must complete Sections 1 and 2. Private entities may reference the location of material contained in their detailed proposals for the same information requested in Sections 3, 4 and 5. SECTION 1— Contact Information Applicant's Legal Name: Other Names Under Which Applicant Does Business: Federal Tax Identification Number: Business Address: Mailing Address (If different from above): Contact Person Name: Contact Person Title: Contact Person Mailing Address (If different from above): Telephone Number: Fax Number: ( ) E-mail Address: SECTION 2 — Assistance Requested Type of Assistance Requested: ( ) Loan ( ) Grant ( ) Other: Amount of Assistance Requested: 01 Guidelines and Criteria September 2005 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund SECTION 3 — Project Information This section requires narrative information and an exhibit. The list below must be included in the application package with responses attached and numbered to correspond to the respective item. 1. Project Name. Assign a short name to the project for identification purposes. 2. Location. Describe the location of the project, including major intersecting highway and rail routes. Attach a map as Exhibit 1. Include the county or counties that the project will serve. 3. Project Development Process. Is this project developed pursuant to design -build or the Public Private Transportation Act or is it to address the transportation aspects of an economic development opportunity? Provide a reference to the PPTA or design - build project and the project's status under the applicable process. 4. Purpose of TPOF Assistance. Describe what aspect of the project for which the assistance will be used. Provide a breakdown of the proposed use of the assistance. 5. Project Description. Describe the need for the project, its basic design features and what the project is intended to accomplish. Include an assessment of the current condition of all transportation facilities relating to the project. For a construction project, describe the difference in the current project scope as compared to any approved environmental documents or study alternatives. If no environmental assessments or reviews have been completed on the project, provide an explanation and a schedule outlining the steps to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. Describe how the funds provided will enhance the transportation aspects of economic development opportunities for the local area and the State in general. The description should include, but not be limited to, the number of jobs created as a result of the project and the amounts of investment that will be committed in the event that the funds are being used for an economic development project. Include a statement as to how the studies and analyses to be completed using moneys from the TPOF will advance the development of a transportation facility or project. 6. Project Schedule. Provide a timeline that shows the estimated start and completion dates for each major phase or milestone of the project development, construction and/or acquisition. Indicate the applicant's current status with respect to the timeline. Indicate the extent to which TPOF assistance will expedite the schedule or aid in meeting the schedule. List any other critical path issues. 7. Permits and Approvals. List all major permits and approvals necessary for construction of the project and the date, or projected date of the applicant's receipt of such permits and approvals. The list should include permits and approvals required under local, regional, state and federal laws and regulations. Indicate when outstanding approvals by the governing entities are expected. Describe the status of Guidelines and Criteria September 2005 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund the environmental review documents. Copies of major permits and approvals will be required upon execution of a financing agreement. 8. Project Management and Compliance Monitoring Plan. Include a comprehensive project management and monitoring plan that will assure the project sponsor's ability to deliver the project as planned, fulfill all project commitments and ensure compliance with all terms of the financing agreement, including all applicable regulations and provisions of law. 9. Maintenance and Operations. Include a description of the maintenance and operations plan for the project. Include projections of maintenance and operations expenses and the source of payment for these expenses. Guidelines and Criteria September 2005 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund SECTION 4 — Plan of Finance The following section pertains to the plan of finance for the project. This section also requests narrative information and exhibits. Estimated Project Cost (Uses of Funds). Provide a detailed budget for the project. The budget should include all applicable and anticipated expenses and cost for administrative services, feasibility studies, preliminary engineering and environmental assessments, right-of-way acquisition, vehicle acquisition, construction, construction administration, project management and inspection and other engineering or technical services, contingencies and any other cost categories as may be necessary. All cost estimates should be shown on a year -of -expenditure, cash basis that include any necessary explanations as to assumptions used to determine estimates. 2. Sources of Funds. Provide a table that reflects the amount of funding from each source of funds for the project, including the TPOF funding. Include, as applicable, federal grants and/or loans, state grants and/or loans, local grants and/or loans, private investment and/or equity contributions, bond proceeds, other borrowings and any other sources of funding that will be used for the project. In addition, provide in narrative form the following information for each source of funding. Supplement the narrative with a chart showing the flow of funds. Description of TPOF Funding: • The entity requesting the grant or loan. • If a grant is being requested, discuss when the funding is expected or needed. • If a loan is being requested, discuss the following: ■ Provide documentation evidencing authorization to commit to loan repayment; ■ The source of repayment for the TPOF loan; ■ If project revenues are the source of repayment, the priority of repayment of the loan with respect to project revenues; ■ If non -project revenues are the source of repayment (e.g. general revenues, appropriations, etc.), the priority of repayment of the loan with respect to borrowing entity's other liabilities; ■ The security features for the loan, including any pledged revenues and collateral; ■ Debt service coverage on the loan. ■ Whether the source of repayment is contingent on the project's completion; ■ Whether the source of repayment is subject to future allocations, appropriation and/or governing body approval; and ■ Proposed payment schedule. Guidelines and Criteria September 2005 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund Description of other governmental grants: • The specific governmental entity providing the grant. • The timing for receipt of the grant, including the key steps that must occur in order to receive the grant, such as environmental permits, receipt of other funding, resolutions adopted by the entity, budget appropriations, etc. Provide relevant documentation for those steps that have occurred. Any known level of commitment associated with the grant. • Requirements that will be imposed by the entity on the use of the grant monies or the project. Description of other loans, debt or other borrowing: • The lender and legal entity borrowing the money. • The source of repayment for all other debt and the priority of payment relative to other project borrowing. • Security features for all other debt, including any pledged revenues and collateral • Covenants related to the financial or operational performance of the project, such as coverage levels, and the incurrence of additional debt. • Structure, including the term, amortization and whether the loan will be fixed or variable rate and expected fixed rate or expected spread to specified index for variable rate debt. • Anticipated credit ratings if funds are to be borrowed through a public debt offering. • Any credit enhancement or other guarantees. • The timing for the borrowing or issuance of debt, including the key steps that must occur. Provide relevant documentation for those steps that have occurred. Description of equity and private investment: • The entity, or entities, providing the equity or private investment. • The mechanism(s) for how the investor(s) will be repaid, for example from excess cash flow, periodic scheduled payments, lump -sum payment from additional debt incurred in the future, etc. • The expected rate of return and justification for the rate of return. • Any anticipated revenue sharing with any entity. • The timing for receipt of the investment, including the key steps that must occur in order to receive the funds. Provide relevant documentation for those steps that have occurred. • Any major conditions or requirements that will be imposed by the investor(s) on the project. Pro Forma Cash Flow. Provide pro forma cash flows, reflecting the flow of funds and showing _revenues, all debt repayment, including any loans under the TPOF, Guidelines and Criteria September 2005 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund maintenance and operations expenses and any payments to equity/private investors. Provide a detailed description of assumptions and justification of the assumptions. 4. Risks and Mitigation. Identify the risks to the project completion and the sufficiency of revenues to repay the loan. Samples of these types of risk could include cost escalation, timing of approvals and permits, litigation, and availability of other funding. Identify the mitigation strategies for any acknowledged risks, including any payment and performance guarantees. S. Provide year-end audited financial statements for the past three years for each project team member and the parent entities. Guidelines and Criteria September 2005 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund SECTION 5 — Applicant Organization Information This section requests narrative information and exhibits. The list below should be included in the application package with responses attached and numbered to correspond to the applicable item. Describe the applicant's legal framework including past history and ownership structure. Include a copy of the statutory authority under which the entity was created. 2. Describe the legal authority of the applicant to carry out the proposed project activities. This description should include discussion of the applicant's ability to levy taxes, issue debt, charge tolls or other fees and/or receive assistance from the Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund. Provide documentation in the form of an exhibit as applicable. 3. Identify whether governmental entities, other than the applicant, must approve the submission of the application package, the funding of activities or the carrying out of activities described in the application. Provide documentation in the form of an exhibit as applicable. 4. Describe the applicant's organizational structure and the applicant's relationship to any subsidiaries or affiliates. Include the legal names of key principals and staff and any recent or proposed changes to the organization structure. If applicant is part of a joint venture, identify all partners and each partner's relationship to any subsidiaries or affiliates. 5. Provide an organization chart, in the form of an exhibit, to include the major parties involved in any aspect of the project. Include the major service contractors that have been, or will be, retained for the project. 6. Describe the applicant's prior experience as it relates to carrying out projects similar to that being proposed. Include prior experience in relation to the implementation of any new technology and the success of the use of such technology. 7. Describe any current, threatened, or pending litigation involving the applicant related to permitting, public involvement, environmental irregularities, construction defects, securities fraud, conflict of interest, failure to perform under a state or federal contract, or other charges which may reflect on the applicant's financial position or ability to complete the project. Guidelines and Criteria September 2005 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund Appendix C Virginia Economic Development Partnership Draft Performance Agreement This Performance Agreement made and entered this day of , 200 , by and between the COUNTY OF , VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "COUNTY" and a corporation, hereinafter called "COMPANY." WITNESSETH: That whereas COUNTY has received a grant of and expects to receive the sum of $100,000.00 from the Governor's Opportunity Fund through the Virginia Economic Development Partnership for the purpose of inducing Company to locate in the COUNTY OF , VIRGINIA, build a facility, and employ a significant number of persons, and Whereas the COUNTY is willing to provide the funds to Company provided Company meets certain criteria relating to employment projections and capital investment, and Whereas the COUNTY is required to return all or a portion of the funds so received to the Commonwealth of Virginia if the performance criteria of Company are not met, Now the parties hereto, in consideration of the foregoing, and the disbursement of funds, hereafter provided, agree as follows: 1. COUNTY will disburse the entire amount of funds provided to it from the Governor's Opportunity Fund, expected to be the sum of $100,000.00, to Company to be used by Company in the preparation of the site upon which Company shall construct and operate a facility in the COUNTY OF , VIRGINIA. 2. Company will construct and operate a facility on the site in the COUNTY OF , VIRGINIA, with an investment of at least $10,000,000.00 in improvements, machinery, and equipment, and will create and maintain 400 jobs at said facility, all over a 30 -month time period measured from the date the funds from the Governor's Opportunity Fund are received by Company. For purposes of this Performance Agreement, "maintain" means that the jobs created pursuant to the Grant will continue without interruption from the date of creation through at least the end date of the thirty - month period or until the Commonwealth reaches its "break-even point" as established by the return on investment (ROI) prepared by VEDP, whichever is later. For this purpose, the break-even point is _ months. Guidelines and Criteria September 2005 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund 3. If Company does not meet 90 percent of its capital investment and new jobs commitment set forth in paragraph 2 above, Company shall repay to COUNTY that part of the Governor's Opportunity Fund grant that is proportional to the shortfall, as provided by the following example: The grant of $100,000.00 is considered to be $50,000.00 for the capital investment commitment by Company and $50,000.00 for the employment commitment. If, after 30 months the capital investment of Company is at least $9,000,000.00 and the number of new jobs created by Company is at least 360, no refund is required. If, after 30 months the capital investment is only $5,000,000.00, and the new jobs created is 264, the Company shall refund to the COUNTY 50 percent of the fund related to capital investment; i.e., the sum of $25,000.00 and 33 percent of the fund related to job creation- -i.e., the sum of $16,500.00. Any refunds by Company to COUNTY hereunder shall be repaid by COUNTY to the Governor's Opportunity Fund. 4. If Company has met 90 percent of the investment and employment goals set forth in paragraph 3 hereof within the 30 -month period, then and thereafter Company is no longer obligated to repay any portion of the grant provided to it hereunder. 5. The Company agrees to provide the COUNTY and the Commonwealth whatever documentation may be required to verify the investment and employment figures Witness the following signatures and seals the day and year first above written. THE COUNTY OF , VIRGINIA LM Commonwealth of Virginia, at large (Seal) County Administrator The day , County Administrator of the County of , Virginia, appeared before me, a notary public for the State of Virginia, at large, and did acknowledge his signature above fixed all in my state aforesaid. My commission expires Given under my hand this day of , 200. (Seal) N Intnry Pnlhlio Guidelines and Criteria September 2005 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund (Seal) Company Title This day , of , appeared before me, a notary public for the State of Virginia, at large, and did acknowledge his signature above fixed all in my state aforesaid. My commission expires Given under my hand this day of 9200. _ (Seal) Notary Public Guidelines and Criteria September 2005 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund Appendix D Governor's Opportunity Fund Guidelines Purpose - The Governor's Opportunity Fund provides either grants or loans to localities to assist in the creation of new jobs and investment in accordance with criteria established by legislation. Project Eligibility - A minimum private investment of $10 million, creating at least 100 jobs, is required. In localities with a population of 50,000 to 100,000, however, a minimum private investment of $5 million, creating at least 50 jobs, is required. For localities of less than 50,000 population, a minimum private investment of $2.5 million creating 25 jobs is required. Central cities or urban cores will be treated for eligibility purposes the same as communities of 50,000 to 100,000 population. The intent of this lower threshold is to reduce the stringency of the requirements for cities with blighted cores. Each locality's identification of its central city/urban core will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Criteria such as vacancy and unemployment rates in the immediate area of the proposed site will be considered in the review. In those cases where the project involves job preservation, "jobs saved" will be used to help determine the amount of the grant; however, the project still must meet the minimum job creation listed above. For projects where the average wage of the new jobs is at least twice the prevailing wage, excluding benefits, for that locality or region, the required job creation figures above for that locality may be halved, at the Governor's discretion. Use - Monies may be used for such things as public and private utility extension or capacity development on and off site; road, rail, or other transportation access costs beyond the funding capability of existing programs; site acquisition; grading, drainage, paving, and any other activity required to prepare a site for construction; construction or build -out of publicly -owned buildings; grants or loans to an Industrial Development Authority, Housing and Redevelopment Authority, or other political subdivision pursuant to its duties or powers; training; or anything else permitted by law. If funds are made available for site development and a party other than the industry creating the employment also benefits from the grant, the locality must demonstrate how that financial benefit will be passed along to the industry. Grant Requests - Applications should be sent to the Executive Director of the Virginia Economic Development Partnership, using the following format, by the chief appointed official of any county, city, town, or any other political subdivision and include the following information: • Description of the project - company name - type of operation (i.e., manufacturing, distribution, etc.) • Location of project - community Guidelines and Criteria September 2005 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund population unemployment rate (current) • Private investment, including but not limited to the market value of capital leases (within 30 months of a locality receiving a grant payment), or other private investments of capital that add to the local tax revenues. [Opportunity Fund award, other governmental grants, and working capital cannot be included in the investment figure.] • Jobs created (within 30 months of a locality receiving a grant payment) • Amount requested • Use of grant • Local financial participation - specific new monies to be allocated to project and how those funds will be used • Average salary level or total yearly payroll of jobs created • Average prevailing wage for locality or region, as applicable • Employment impact on current operations in Virginia • Other public funds that have been or will be expended for the project. (Examples would be training or past public expenditures for road, utility, or site development) • Affirmation that other sources of funds are unavailable on a timely basis to accomplish the planned use of the Opportunity Fund grant • Summary statement presenting the importance of the project to the community and why support from the Opportunity Fund is being sought • If the project for which Opportunity Funds are being requested involves a relocation of a business from one Virginia locality to another, the community applying for the Opportunity Fund grant must officially notify the community from which the business is moving. For such projects, a statement must be included in the Governor's Opportunity Fund application that this notification has taken place. Any other current or background information pertinent to the project, that might assist the Governor in making an informed decision based on complete knowledge. Communities are obliged to disclose any information that could reflect negatively on the project. Guidelines and Criteria September 2005 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund Documentation Required by Company (on Company letterhead) Documentation from the business that without support from the Opportunity Fund there is a possibility that the project could be located outside of Virginia and that only one site in Virginia is under consideration for the project Documentation from the business indicating the number of jobs to be created, payroll/salary level, and the amount to be invested within 30 months of receipt of the grant The General Assembly has stated its intention that state funds not be used to help a company relocate or expand its operations in one or more Virginia communities when the same company is simultaneously closing facilities in other Virginia communities. Therefore, affirmation that the company is not currently considering being a party to a merger or acquisition which would alter the nature of its corporate entity, as well as affirmation that the proposed project will not result in a closing, loss of jobs, consolidation, or change to any existing operations in Virginia for the next 12 months is required. If a company applying for a Governor's Opportunity Fund grant has existing operations/facilities in Virginia and has closed, downsized, consolidated, or laid off employees within the past 30 months, the community's application may not be approved, or the company may be requested to provide additional assurances regarding the new facilities and jobs. The Executive Director of the Virginia Economic Development Partnership may request company financial information for the past three years. Additionally, financial information and evidence of a company's financial stability may be requested before a grant or loan is approved. Guiding Principles Grants are made at the discretion of the Governor with the expectation that grants awarded to a locality will result in a favorable decision for Virginia. Grants will only be awarded for basic projects, i.e., projects that would bring additional income into the Commonwealth. Grants will not be made for projects which have been publicly announced prior to the Governor's approval and public announcement of a locality's Governor's Opportunity Fund request. Localities may now receive more than one GOF grant during a fiscal year. Grants are considered made in the fiscal year in which the Governor approved them and not in the year in which the grant is paid. In order for a locality to receive more than two (2) GOF grants during a fiscal year, it must demonstrate either unemployment rates, poverty levels, or other acceptable indicia of fiscal stress or need significantly higher than the state averages. Guidelines and Criteria September 2005 Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund A locality may, however, demonstrate exceptional need for or benefit from a third GOF grant using other acceptable factors besides traditional fiscal stress. As a minimum, localities are required to match with local funds on at least a dollar - for -dollar basis the amount requested from the Governor's Opportunity Fund. Previously invested local funds, grants or loans from other government sources, and contributions from private interests which benefit from the project's location may not be counted as local match. Local matches may not be spread out over more than five years to be considered. Local enterprise zone incentives may be counted towards the local match where the locality makes actual expenditures within the first five years after the project is announced to benefit the specific project. Grants to the locality from the Tobacco Region Opportunity Fund may be used as up to one-half of the matching funds by localities experiencing fiscal stress, as determined by the Governor in his discretion. For localities experiencing extraordinary fiscal stress, as demonstrated by unemployment rates at least twice the statewide average for six or more consecutive months, the requirement of matching funds can be reduced by up to 50%, or delayed, in the discretion of the Governor. In determining grant amounts, the following will be considered: employment, investment, area unemployment, community fiscal stress, community commitment, and industry or company growth potential. In no case shall the grant exceed ten percent of the Governor's Opportunity Fund appropriation, except that for projects with an unusually high benefit for the Commonwealth and/or the locality, the Governor may waive this limit on a transactional basis, by increasing it to a maximum of $3 million per grant. Grants may only be made from current appropriations and may not be committed from anticipated future appropriations. Upon approval of a Governor's Opportunity Fund grant or loan, neither the locality nor the company shall announce or confirm the proposed project without coordination with the Virginia Economic Development Partnership. It is important to note that both the employment and investment figures used in the application commit the company to reaching these figures within 30 months of receiving a grant. In addition, these figures will be used in the press release when the public announcement is made. If the committed numbers are not used for the public announcement of the project, the grant award is subject to being reduced or withdrawn. Since the grant is made to the community, the community is required to enter into a performance agreement with the company before receipt of the grant to ensure that the job and investment levels as stated in their application and as agreed to by the company are met. The community will be held responsible for returning the grant monies to the Commonwealth if the performance agreement criteria are not met. Any questions regarding the preparation of an application should be directed to: John B. Sternlicht, General Counsel and Director of Legislation and Planning, Virginia Economic Development Partnership, P.O. Box 798, Richmond, Virginia 23218-0798. Guidelines and Criteria Yeplember 2005 ITEM #6 Article Distribution Attached please find the Anthony Downs article that was requested to be distributed. Traffic: Why It's Getting Worse, What Goverment Can Do -- Anthony Downs -r Anthony Downs Page 1 of 5 �'. ack [P(nter4dendly format) Traffic- Why It's Getting Worse, What Government Can Do Policy Brief # 12$ =T 2004 by Anthony Dawns ABSTRACT: llising traffic congestion is an inescapable condition in large and growing metropolitan areas across the world, from Los Angeles to Tokyo, from Cairo to Sao Paolo. Peak -hour traffic congestion is an inherent result of the way morn societies operate. It stems from the widespread desires of people to pursue certain goals that inevitably overload existing roc and transit systems every day. But everyone hates traffic congestion, and it keeps getting worse, in spite of attempted remedies Commuters are often frustrated by policymakers' inability to do anything about the problem, which poses a signIficantpublic policy challenge. Although governments may never be able to eliminate road congestion, there are several ways cities and starter can move to curly it. The Real Problem Traffic congestion is not primarily a problem, but rather the solution to our basic mobility problem, which is that too many people want to move at the same tunes each day. Why? Because efficient operation of both the economy and school systems requires that people work, go to school, and even run errands during about the same hours so they can interact with each other, That basic requirement Gannet be altered without crippling our economy and society. The same problem exists in every major metropolitan area in the world. In the United Mates, the vast majority of people seeking to move during rush fours use private automotive vehicles, for two reasons. One is that most Americans reside in low-density areas that public transit cannot efficiently serve. The second is that privately owned vehicles are more comfortable, faster, more private, more convenient in trip timing, and more flexible for doing multiple tasks on one trip than almost any foam of public transit, As household incomes rise around the world, more and more people shift from slower, less expensive modes of movement to privately owned cars and trucks. With 87.9 percent of America's daily commuters using private vehicles, and millions wanting to move at the same times of day, America's basic problem is that its road system does not have the capacity to handle peak -hour loads without forcing many people to wait in line for that limited road space. Waiting in line is the definition of congestion, and the some condition is found in all growing major metropolitan regions, In fact, traffic congestion is worse in most other countries because American roads arc so much better. Coping With the Mobility Problem Thera are four ways any region can try to cope with the mobility challenge. But three of them are politically impractical or physically and financially impossible in the United Mates. Charging peak -hour tolls. Governments can charge people money to cater all the lanes on major commuting roads during pear hours. If tolls were set high enough and collected electronically with "smart cards," the number of vehicles on each major road during peak hours could be reduced enough so that vehicles could wove at high speeds. That would allow more people to travel per lane per hour than under current, heavily congested conditions. Transportation economists have long been proponents of this tactic, but most Americans reject this solution politically for two reasons. Tolls would favor wealthier or subsidized drivers and harm poor ones, so most Americans would resent them, partly because they believe they would be at a disadvantage. The second drawback is that people think these tolls would be just another tax, forcing them to pay for something they have already paid for through gasoline taxes. For both these reasons, few politicians irr our democracy—arid so far, anywhere: else in the world—advocate this tactic. Limited road -pricing schemes that have been adopted in Singapore, Norway, and London only affect congestion in crowded http://www.brookings.cdu/printme,wbs?page7/comm/policybdefs/pb l28,htm 3/1/2006 I i 401U�l VV 11Y Zr s k-101-uns W U1 be, VV nit VOVOMDAlt k - /. 01 J .�411 V0 --,PAJUJ0tJY VQWtJ$ A VO V 0 _rat$c I ,itilOny. WA downtowns, which h is not the Wad of congestion on major arteries that most Americans experience, Owatly expanding road capacity. The second approach would be to build enough road capacity to handle all drivers who want to travel in peak hours at the same time without delays, But this "cure" is totally impractical and prohibitively expensive, Governments would have to widen all major commuting roads by de-moJishting millions ofbuildings, cutting down trees, and tu=g most of every metropolitan region into a giant concrete stab. Those roads would then be grossly undcruti lized during non -peak hours, There are many occasions when adding_ more road capacity is a good idea, but no large, region can afford to build enough to completely eliminate peak -hour- congestion,, Greatly expanding public transit capacity, The third approach would be to expand public transit capacity enough to shift so many people from cars to transit that there would be no more excess demand for roads duringR peak hours, But in the United States i 2000, only 4,7 percent of all commuters traveled by public transit, (Outside of New York City, only 3,S percent use transit and $93 percent use private vehicles.) A major reason is that most transit commuting is concentrated in a few Jorge, densely settled regions with extensive fixed rail transit systems. The nine U, S. metropolitan areas with the most daily transit commuters, when taken together, account for 61 percon t of all UX transit commuting, though they contain only 17 powent of the total population, With those regions, transit commuters are 17 percent of all commuters, but elsewhere, transit carries only 2A percent of all commuters, and less than one percent in many low-density regions, Even if America's existing transit capacity were tripled and fully utilised, morning peak -hour transit travel would rim to 11.0 percent of all morning trips, But that would reduce all morning private vehicle, trips by only 8,0 percent—certainly progress, but hardly enough to end congestion—and tripling public transit capacity would be extremely costly. Them are many good reasons to expand the, nation's public transit systems to aid mobility, but doing so will not notably reduce either existing or future peak -hour traffic congestion, Living with congestion, This is the sole viable option. The only feasible way to accommodate excess demand for roads during peak periods is to have people wait in line. That means traffic congestion, which is an absolutely essential mechanism for American regions—and most other metropolitan regions throughout the world—to cope with excess demands for road space during peak hours each day, Although congestion can seem intolerable, the, alternatives would be even worse, Peak -hour congestion is the balancing mechanism that makes it possible for Americans to pursue other goals they value, including working or sending their children to school at the same time as their peen, living in low-density settlements, and having a wide choice of places to live and work. The Principle of Triple Convergence The least understood aspect of peak -hour traffic congestion is the principle of triple convergence, which I discussed in the original version of Stuck in Traffic (13rookings/Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1992). This phenomenon occurs because traffic flows in any region's overall transportation networks form almost automatically self-adjusting relationships among different routes, times, and modes. For example, a major commuting expressway might be so heavily congested each morning that traffic crawls for at least thirty minutes. If that expressway's capacity were doubled overnight, the next day's traffic would flow rapidly because the same number of drivers would have twice as much road space. But soon word would spread that this particular highway was no longer congested, Diriven who had once used that road before and after the peak hour to avoid congestion would shift back into the peak period. Other drivers who had been using alternative routes would shift onto this more convenient expressway. Even some commuters who had been using the subway or trains would start driving on this road during peak periods. Within a short time, this triple convergence onto the expanded road during peak hours would make the road as congested as it was before its expansion. Experience shows that if a road is part of a larger transportation network within a region, peak -hour congestion cannot be eliminated for long an a congested road by expanding that road's capacity. The triple convergence principle does not mean that expanding a congested road's capacity has no benefits. After expansion, the road can carry more vehicles per hour than before, no matter how congested it is, so more people can travel on it during those more desirable periods. Also, the periods of maximum congestion may be shortfT, and congestion an alternative routes may be lower. Those are all benefits, but that road will still experience some period of maximum congestion daily, Triple Convergence and Other Proposals Triple convergence affects the practicality of other suggested rem(xhos to traffic congestion, An example, is staggered work hours. In theory, if it certain number of workers are able to commute during less crowded parts of the day, that will free up space on formerly congested roads. But once traffic moves fastcr on those foods during peak hours, that will our"lother drivom from Aff routes, QOICT times, and other modes where conditions have not changed to shift onto the improved roads, Soon the removal of the staggered -working - hour drivers will be, fully offset by convergence. The same thing will happen if more workers become telecommuta and work at home, or if public transit capacity is expanded on off-road routes that parallel a congodedexprossway. This is why building ' fight rail systems or even subways . hwilys rarely reduces peak -hour traffic http://www.brookings,edu/ptintmo.wbs?pagcF----n/comm/Policybfiefs/P-b 128.htrn 3/1/2006 Traffic: Why it's Getting Worse, What Govori°imcnl Can Do Tr Anthony Downs rr Arithony Downs Page 3 of 5 congestion. In Portland, where the light rail system doubled in size in the 1990s, and in Dallas, where a now light rail system opened, congestion did not decline for long_ after these systems were up andrunning, Only road pricing or higher gasoline taxes are, exempt from the principle of triple convc rgencc, Jow Population Growth than Swamp Transportation Capacity A ground transportation sysi 's equilibria can also be affected by big charges in the region's population or economic activity. If a region's population is growing rapidly, as in Southern California or Florida, any expansions of major expressway capacity may soon be swamped by more vehicles generated by the added population, This result is strengthened because America's vehicle population has been increasing even faster than its burnan population. From 1980 to 2000, 1.2 more automotive vehicles were added to the vehicle population of the United- States for every 1,0 person added to the human population. (though this ratio declined to I to 1 in the 1990s). The nation's human population is expected to grow by around 60 million by 2020=—paasibly adding another 60 million vehicles to our national stock, That is why prospects for reducing peak -hour traffic congestion in the future are dire indeed. Shifts in economic activity also affect regional congestion_. During the internet and telecormmumcations boom of the late 19908, congestion in the San Francisco Bay Area intensified immensely. After the economic "bubble" burst in 2000, congestion fall markedly without any major change in papulation.. Thus, severe congestion can be a sign of strong regional prosperity, just as reduced congestion can signal an cconomic downturn.. The most obvious mason traffic congestion has increased everywhere is population growth. In a wealthy emotion, more people moans more vehicles. But total vehicle mileage traveled has grown much faster than population, From 1980 to 2000, the total population of the United States rose 24 percemi, but total vehicle miles traveled. grow 80 percent because of more intensive use of each vehicle. The number of vehicles per 1,000 persons rose 14 percent and the number of mules driven per vehicle rose 24 percent, Even without any population gain in those two decades, miles driven would have risen 47 percent. One reason people drove their vehicles farther is that a combination of declining real gas prices (corrected for inflation) and more miles per gallon caused the real cost of each mile driven to fall 54 pint from 1980 to 2000, That helped raise the fraction of U.S. households owning cars from 86 percent in 1983 to 92 percent in 1995, Furthermore, American road building lagged far behind increases in vehicle travel. Urban lane -miles rose by 37 peA=t versus an 80 percent increase in miles traveled. As a result, the amount of daily traffic that was congested in the 75 areas analyzed in studies by the Texas Transportation Institute went from if percent in 1982 to 34 percent in 2001. Another factor in road congestion is accidents and incidents, which some experts believe cause half of all traffic congestion. From 1980 to 2000, the absolute numb" of accidents each year has :remained amazingly constant, and the annual number of traffic deaths in the United States fell 18 percent, in spite of the great rise in vehicle smiles traveled, So accidents could only have caused more congestion because roads were more crowded, and each accident may now cause longer back-ups than before, Incidents are cion -accident causes of delay, such as stalled cars, road repairs, overturned vehicles, and bad weather. No one .knows how many incidents occur, but it is o much greater number than accidents, And the number of incidents probably rises along with total driving, So that could have added to greater congestion, and will in the future. Low -Density Settlements Another crucial factor contributing to traffic congestion is the desire of most Americans to live in low-density settlements. In 1999, the. National Association of Homebuilders asked 2,000 randomly-sclocted households whether they would rather buy a $1$0,000 townhouse in. an urban setting that was close to public transportntion, work, amd shopping or a larger, detached single-family home in an outlying suburban area, where distances to work, public transportation, and shopping were longer, Eighty-three percent of respondents chose the larger, farther -out suburban home, At the same time, new workplaces have been spreading out in low-density areas in most metropolitan regions, Past studies, including one published in 1977 by Boris S, pushkamv and Joffory M, Zupan, have shown that public transit works best where gross residential densities are above 4,200 persons per square mile; relatively dense housing is cluster -ed close to transit stations or stops; and large numbers of jobs are concentrated in relatively compact business diatnots, But in 2000, at least two thirds of all residents of U.S, urbanized area lived in settlements with densities of w0or 4,000 persons per square resile. Those densities are top low for public transit to be effective. Hence their residents are com, to rely ori private vehicles for almost all of their travel, including trips during peak hours. Recognizing this situation, mangy opponents of "sprawl" cal1. for strong urban growth boundaries to constrain future growth into more bnp://www,brook-ings.edu/pnnt-me,wbs?pagc----/co-M nttme,wbs?pagc----/coM ri/po1irybfief3/pb128,httn 3/l/2006 Traffic., Why It's Getting Wore, What Government Can Do nn Anthony Downs w Anthony Downs Page 4 of 5 compact, higher -density patterns, including groattr- minvostrrment and increased densities in existing neighborhoods. But most residents of those n6ghborhoods vehemently oppose raising densities, and most American regions already have densities far trio low to support rnu-h public transit, So this strategy would not reduce future traffic congestion rrruch. Possib le l r provetn�ents While it's practically impossible to eliminato congestion, there are several ways to slow its future rate of increase; Create l-ligb Occupancy 'poll (HOT) lanes, Peak -hour road pricing would not be politically feasible if policymakers put tolls on all major commuter lanes, but HOT lanes can increase traveler choices by adding now toll lanes to existing expressways, or converting underused high-mcupauay vehicle (HHV) lanes to HOT lanes, and leaving present conventional lanes without tolls, True, HOT lanes do not eliminate congestion. But they allow anyone who needs to move fast on any given day to do so without forcing 411 low-income drivers off those same roads during peak ponods, In some regions, whole networks of HOT lanes could both add to overall capacity and mare high-speed choices always available to thousands of people in a hurry. Respond more rapidly to trafflic-blocking accidents and incidc- nts. Removing accidents and incidents from in or roads faster by using roving service vehicles run by goverment -run Traffic Management Center equipped with television and electronic surveillance of road conditions is an excellent tactic for reducing congestion delays, Build room roads in growing areas. Opponents of building more roads claim that we cannot build our way out of congestion because more highway capacity will simply attract more travolom, Due to triple convergence, drat criticism is true for established roads that are already overcrowded. But the large projected growth of the U,B, population surely moans that we will meed a lot more road and lame mileage in peripheral areas, Install ramp -metering. This moons letting vehicles enter expressways only gradually. It has improved freeway speed during peak hours in both Seattle and the Twin Cities, and could be much more widely used. Use Irntelligernt Transportation System devices to speed traffic flows, These devices include electronic coordination of signal lights on local streets, Jorge variable signs informing drivers of traffic conditions ahead, Ano -way street patterns, Olobal Positioning System equipment in cars and trucks, and radio broadcasts of current road conditions. These technologies exist now and can be effective on local streets and arteries and informative on expressways. Create more HOV (high Occupancy Vehicle) lanes, HOV lanes have proven successful in many areas such as Houston, More regions could use HOV lanes effectively if there wore amore lanes built for that purpose, rather than trying to convert existing ones, Merely converting existing lanes would reduce overall road capacity, Adopt "parking cash -out" programs, Demonstration programs have shown that if firms offer to pay persons now receiving free employee parking a stipend for shifting to carpooling or transit, significant percentages will do so. That could reduce the number of cars on the road, However, this tactic does not prevent the offsetting consequences of triple convergence. Restrict very low-density peripheral development, Urban growth: boundaries that severely constrain all far-out suburban development will not reduce future congestion much, especially in fag -growing regions. And such boundaries may drive up peripheral housing prices. But requiring at least moderate residential densities—say, 3,500 persons per square mile (4,38 units per act acre)—in new growth areas could greatly reduce peripheral driving, compared to permitting very low densities there, which tend to push growth out over farther. In 2000. thirty-six urbanized areas had fringe area densities of 3,500 or mom, Those thirty-six urbaniZod areas contained 18..2 percent of all persons living in all 476 U, 8, urbanized areas. Cluster high-density housing around transit stops. Sudo Transit Oriented Developments (TODs) would permit more residents to commute by walking to transit, thereby decreasing the number of private vehicles on the roads, however, the potential of this tactic is limited, In carder to shift a significant percentage of auto commuters to transit, the number of such "transit circles" within each region would have to be very large, the density within each circle would have to be much ;greater than the average central city density in America's fifty largest urbanized areas, and the percentage of workers living in the TODs who commuted by transit would have to greatly exceed the 10, 5 percent average for central cities in 2400, Even so, developing many of these high-density clusters might make public transit service -more feasible to many more parts of large regions. Give regional transportation authorities more power and resources. Congress has created Metropolitan Planning Organizations to coordinate ground transportationn1 nni�v nye all mode in ewn�h Kirin Tf f#�eva cv� ei�r n r ;ore #aA* ►„F raeai t� rs and T��wer, more rational systems could be created. Without much more regionally focused planning overland arses as well as transportation, few anti -congestion tactics will work effectively, http://www.brookings,edu/printme.wbs?page-==`/oo /p4iicybriefs/ph 128,htm- 3/1/2006 Traffic: Why It's betting Wore, What 01 fan leo Anthony Downs � nihony town of al a gasoline taxes. Raising gas taxes would notably slow the rate of increase of all automotive travel, not just pear -hour com- muting, lout Congress has refused to consider it because it is politically unpopular- and fought by industry lobbyists, .despite Armor cans' vocal complaints about congestion, they do not want to pay much to combat it. Conclusion Peak -hour traffic congestion in a -most all large and growing metropolitan regions around the world is here to stay, in fact, it is almost certain to get worse during at least the next f6w decades, mainly because of rising populations and wealth, This will be trite no matter what public and private policies are adopted to combat congestion, But this outcome should not be regarded as a mark of social failure or misguided policies, in festa traffic congestion often results frotrt economic prosperity and other types of success, Although traffic congestion is inevitable, there are ways to slow the rate at which it intensifies. Several tactics could do that effectively, especially if used in concert, but nothing can eliminate peak -hour traffic congestion from large metmpolttan regions here and around the world. Only serious economic recessions—which are hardly desirable– can even forestall an increase. For the time being, the only relief for traffic -plagued commuters is a comfortable, air-conditioned vehicle with a well-equipped stem systema, a hands-free telephone, and a daily commuW with someone they life, Congestion has become part of comntaters' daily leisure time, and it promises to stay that way. V Copyright 2004, The Brookings Institution Note: The vim exprossed in this pim arc those of tits authors nd shotttd not he attribuW to tho staff Pffkers or trudoes of the Bmoi€kip lothtwn, The Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington DO 20033 Telephone: (202) 797.13004 E -null: Brookings Info or Comments on This Site http://www.brookings,edu/pnntmo,wbs?pagee=/coo /policybriefs/pkv 12$.htm 3/1/2006